Question

A living thing is understood as a being whose parts work together for one goal, which is the sustainment of the whole organism. In this sense, the parts comprise truly one being, as this principle that unites the parts is intrinsic to the organism.

However, a machine is not a one being as much as a heap of sand is not a one being, as its goal, function is imparted from the outside. Its principle of unity is extrinsic, its unity is in the perceiver's mind, not in-itself.

Therefore, we can say that a machine is only a metaphor, something that resembles life but not quite. Machine or a system is built to mimic life.

If this is the case, isn't defining life by something that mimics life problematic?

Answer 1

Living beings or organisms possess an intrinsic principle of unity that is absent in machines, which have an extrinsic unity. Organisms are self-sustaining systems that perform life processes internally, while machines operate based on external inputs. Using machines as sole models to define life is problematic, as it fails to capture the essence of what constitutes a living organism.

Step-by-step explanation:

The student's question explores the differentiation between living organisms and machines, emphasizing the intrinsic principle of unity in living beings, as opposed to the extrinsic unity of machines. Indeed, living beings, or organisms, are metabolic flow systems that self-construct and evolve, possessing an intrinsic unity that machines lack. However, machines mimic certain aspects of life, without embodying life itself. The sustainment of an organism is driven by its internal mechanisms, which operate together to maintain life. These mechanisms include metabolism, growth, adaptation, and the ability to reproduce. This stands in contrast to machines, whose functioning is dependent on external inputs and lacks the self-directed processes inherent in organisms. It is critical to understand that while machines may exhibit certain characteristics of living things, such as movement or responsiveness, they do not meet the holistic criteria that define a living organism. Therefore, relying solely on the comparison to machines is indeed problematic when attempting to define the complexity and nuanced nature of life.