Remember that it is only a belief of yours' that the soul is at the heart of life. What if an entirely inorganic machine was one day created that could:
1. Maintain its internal state (homeostasis).
2. Harvest and utilize energy (metabolism). Very recently robots have been created that can digest organic matter and convert it to usable energy.
3. Manufacture add-ons for itself (growth).
4. Sense its environment and change behavior accordingly (response to stimuli).
5. Manufacture smaller versions of itself by harvesting and creating the needed materials and assembling them (reproduction).
6. Contain a code that can be modified and that governs its behavior, so that imperfect code can be weeded out or changed to improve (adaptation).
And this machine would be completely autonomous. It wouldn't even need much intelligence since all it essentially does is maintain itself, respond in pre-programmed ways to the environment, and create more of itself. How is this different from life other than it doesn't use life's materials? Would it have a soul?
Science always has to be concrete and repeatable (as you well know). You already make my head ache, really badly...
Please remember: science can reach only that far, it has real limits, which nobody is able to extend, and which we all need to respect.
P.S: The principle of any life in Nature is called it's soul, which is invisible, and which only lasts as long as the life persists. So, every plant has its (simple) soul, and science until now has no clue whatsoever what even the simplest form of these souls are consisting of -- as they are, in fact, outside of our physical universe...
Oh, as for your soul principle, do you have any concrete evidence, any proof?
Are you actually saying that science has limits because it doesn't conform to your belief system?
Come on, that's ridiculous.
(Like the evolution theory, which is completely ridiculous, as it says that a less intelligent being can "auto-evovle" into something more intelligent...)
At this point, any discussion is pointless, as we already completely substitute reality with fiction.
hardly seem to read my comments
completely misinterpret what you do read
respond by calling everything fiction or ridiculous
and throw around equally baseless claims of your own.
Yes, this is discussion is over.
My position: science will never ever be able to even come close to Nature (a simple example? Look at the most simple form of live possible: current (so heavily applauded) science has no idea, whatsoever, what even the principle of every live-form is consisting of -- it's called the "soul", BTW).
WWW -- Who Will Win?
;)