What is an appropriate definition of 'machine,' and does it apply to all, some, or no living forms across the tree of life?

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

• What is an appropriate definition of machine, and does it apply to all, some, or no living forms?question0.941
  Central interrogative driving the paper's entire argumentative structure.
• The life vs. machine distinction is relevant only to the lowest class of machines available in prior decades and is not fundamental.claim0.807
  Claim that the organism–machine dichotomy is outdated.
• Can machines think? This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms machine and think.quote0.794
  Foundational epigraph setting the paper's methodological stance on conceptual clarity.
• Living things are not 20th-century machines, but may be 21st-century machines.claim0.790
  Core thesis: the machine metaphor requires updating, not abandoning, in light of modern machine behavior.
• "It is certainly very hard, and perhaps impossible, for mere humans to anticipate and rule out in advance all the disastrous ways the machine could choose to achieve a specified objective."quote0.789
  Russell's statement opening Section 2 articulating the core motivation for the Contemplative AI approach
• Progress in theory and practice requires a novel conception of 'machines as they could be,' based on the profound lessons of biology at all scales.claim0.787
  The paper's overarching constructive goal, paralleling Langton's 'life as it could be'
• Machines can now make machines.claim0.785
  Evolutionary algorithms and self-organizing systems blur distinction between evolved and designed.
• 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.claim0.784
  Core ontological claim: composition and origin story are contingent, not essential, classifiers