Thoughts from 9/24

About sentient beings having life, but not all living things having sentience... Professor Johnson brought up the idea of some super computer possibly being able to acquire life. Is a blade of grass considered alive? If not, what can a computer have than a blade of grass cannot to say it is alive? If yes, what does the grass have that the computer does not to say it has life? I guess I am curious to see if there is something that a non-human made (natural?) thing has something that no human-made thing can have.

On another note, Taylor suggests that living things can have interests without being interested or having consciousness, and also be harmed or benefited without the awareness of this. If a tree is "harmed", it is us, humans, who decide it is harmed and have the knowledge of it, not the tree. It is only we who know it is harmed, the outcome of the harm is of no matter to the tree, and we therefore designate the tree or anything else for that matter to have a "good" as Taylor puts it. This "good" does not seem to me to be inherent, but only comes when we put it there. The harm is not so much the harm of the tree, but more to us who recognize the interconnectedness of the earth's biotic communities, as the destruction of forests lead to the destruction of other living things, including humans. I don't think a non-conscious living thing can have an interest in developing into its full biological powers. The interest is a human interest (if we choose it to be) who recognize the living thing's potential to benefit the community as a whole. If this is the case, the idea of organisms all being unique, irreplaceable individuals is disputed. I think many organisms are replaceable, especially non-conscious ones, and if not irreplaceable, at least easily forgotten in its original form, even though the energy must go some where. I think many organisms are not any more beneficial to the universe in a "living" state than in a new one, whatever that is, dead or something else.