claim

active

claim:the-material-implementation-and-back-story-of-a-given-system-are-not-sufficient-information-to-reliably-place-it-into-a-category-of-machine-vs-living-being

The material implementation and back-story of a given system are not sufficient information to reliably place it into a category of machine vs. living being.

Core ontological claim: composition and origin story are contingent, not essential, classifiers

Source paper

extracted_from

Living Things Are Not (20th Century) Machines: Updating Mechanism Metaphors in Light of the Modern Science of Machine Behavior

(2021) · Joshua Bongard · Michael Levin

Neighborhood — ranked by edge-count

Claims (1)

claim

Progress in machine behavior science and biohybrid engineering breaks down the simplistic dualism of life vs. machine, revealing a continuum of emergence, rational control, and agency.
supports
Second central claim: life and machine form a continuous multidimensional space, not discrete bins

Related by similarity (8)

cosine ≥ 0.65 · no typed edge

Entities in the same semantic neighborhood but without a typed relation to this one — candidates for new edges or unrecognized duplicates.

The issue is not whether the process will produce living structure if done faithfully — it will — but whether the maker has the stamina and will to keep rejecting versions that lack life.claim0.801
Alexander's claim that the limiting factor in creating living structure is not method but the maker's persistence.
The notion of 'machine' used to claim living things are not machines refers to an outdated definition that no longer fits.claim0.798
First central claim of the paper: the machine concept used in organicist critiques is historically contingent, not essential
We hypothesize that general computational machines with sufficient resources possess the necessary and sufficient means to implement consciousness, and that successful implementation can be established via analysis or testing.hypothesis0.795
The central hypothesis of the paper
I believe such a system of living processes can be described precisely, can be made practical, and can be implemented.claim0.790
Alexander's optimistic programmatic statement for a worldwide generative system.
The life vs. machine distinction is relevant only to the lowest class of machines available in prior decades and is not fundamental.claim0.787
Claim that the organism–machine dichotomy is outdated.
General computational machines with sufficient resources possess the necessary and sufficient means to implement consciousnesshypothesis0.786
CIMC's central testable hypothesis grounding the entire research program
What is an appropriate definition of machine, and does it apply to all, some, or no living forms?question0.786
Central interrogative driving the paper's entire argumentative structure.
Living structure is enormously susceptible to minor changes, and accuracy of detail is necessary for success.claim0.784
Warning that the recursion of centers requires extreme precision.