Reply #178: Nice, but wrong.

[kiahzero]

Your idea weigh HEAVILY on current science and the assumption that it has reached the peak of it's path in this area. Virtually every time that assumption has been made in the past the scientist has been wrong (and I'm not speaking as some Poli-Sci major who fancies himself a scientist). History is full of examples of people who assumed everything that could be discovered already had been.

While my argument does in fact rest on current scientific knowledge, I never claimed it was the end all be all, and that it would never change. I belief I specifically said that should the axiom I worked off ever change, the rest of the logical argument may have to change, or it may even become unworkable. However, that doesn't discredit it.

If you really do have a background in logic (and not just a "Intro to Logic" course at the community college) then you know that such courses fall into the "Philosophy" department and philosophy would make pretty clear that "this is/is not life" is not really a decision for a doctor.

Seeing as I'm not merely some Poli-Sci major who "fancies himself a scientist", but a Poli-Sci / Comp-Sci major with a firm backing in logic (far more than one "Intro to Logic" class at a community college), I am aware that the question of what is / is not life falls into philosophy. I'm also pretty sure I made that point before.

However, your statement that doctors do not determine what is / is not life is flat out false. Doctors are legally responsible for determining if a patient has died.

Just as importantly. You equations assume that the barrier from life to death MUST necessarily be the same as the barrier from non-life to life. There is no reason (other than convenience) to assume so.

This assumption is logical - if someone transitions from life to non-life due to the lack of a presence of a quality (or trait, to avoid confusion), that trait is therefore a necessary condition for life.