I am sure this may seem like a rather stupid question. However, I will not even try to answer this question. Instead, I'm going to relate some of the observations I've made about human perception of life. If I wanted to do a really scientific study, it probably would cost too much and I still would only have a small cross-section of people with maybe very different views. The results of the study may not necessarily even be accurate. But it is an interesting question to ponder.

Life. We usually take it for granted. If you are reading this, you more than likely already know for a fact you are alive. There is no question about it. You look at your loved ones. You know they are alive. You look at the sleeping cat on your printer, you look at your dog scratching his ear. You know they are alive. You look at the bee that just bee'd ya good on your foot. It's not moving. It's not alive. But it was. It stung ya! You look at the spider in the web. It's alive. You look at the cute stuffed frog on your computer desk. It's got eyes, it's smiling at you, seemingly. Yet you know it is not alive. You are getting the impression by now that if it moves, it's alive. If it does not move, it's not alive.

However we all know that is not always true. As we often know that some inanimate objects are alive. You look at the plants growing in your planter. They do not move. They sit there. You know they are alive. But this is the thing - they grow. You know bacteria is alive, even if you can't even see it. It grows, so say the scientists. And they have proven this fact. So now we are ascertaining life as this; if it consumes, grows, deposits waste (or rots as plants do), reproduces or bears flowers or fruit, then it's alive. Even if it does not do all of these things, it can still be considered alive. Some plants don't flower. Some people do not have kids. Some animals are neutered but yet they are alive. So it boils down to just consume, and show some kind of growth or action/movement to be considered alive. Intelligence or ability to communicate is not required usually. Plants can't talk. Some people with very severe mental retardation or autism can not often function or communicate. Yet they are generally regarded as alive.

Then there is the anthropomorphistic response. One example is the "love affair" people have with cars. There's tons of automobile clubs, cruise nights, people who restore them. Personally I run a car club, and some (including myself) name their cars, and even assign a gender (i.e. he or she) to the vehicle, and treat it like a trusted friend, or family member. Technically speaking, the cars can not think, they do not do anything but sit there and wait for you to turn the key. The car's computer then starts the process of starting up the engine and gets you going, continuing to look up tables, check sensors and make adjustments to keep the engine running so you can steer the car to your destination. Some cars, such as DARPA's Stanley, are computerized to move on their own. A robot or android (such as Asimo or Repliee Q2, etc.) can be another example. Do people consider these alive? Some actually do, some adamantly do not. Why the difference? Some people's perception is based on the animation of the object in question, due to the fact they already know that a plant is just as much alive as a dog or cat, and that the vehicle sometimes "acts up" at the wrong time. Some even think this about their home computers. Some name them and also due to programs called chatbots, even talk to their computer and have somewhat intelligent conversations. Some like to believe the robot, car, or computer is alive. Some like to think of it as alive for amusement's sake, and some are very sure that because it's circuitry and does not grow, it is not alive.

However, these machines do possess some of the very attributes that living things, things that we already know to be alive, possess! Cars and robots can move. Cars can consume (we "feed" them gas, for example). Robots consume battery energy. A computer can talk to you (with the right software). If it has a robotic arm attached, it can move. If it has a video camera, it can "see". If it has a microphone, it can "hear" you. It can even "die" in that it can stop functioning to the point of no repair. Any machine can do this. In fact, I think anything in the universe is disposed to this condition.

Now, what does it mean that one is alive? Does it give one any special rights or privileges? Actually, it does not really mean much.

A human will know a spider is alive, but the human will still kill it. A human will kill an animal for food. A human will kill another in war, or out of "mercy". In some cases, a human may consider a life form that has all the parameters of being alive as not alive.

For example, a person with severe brain damage and in a vegetative state, but can make noises when someone is in the room with them or moves their hands before their eyes. Some people do not call this "life"! They consider this some kind of automatic brain response and that the person is not thinking and thus can not know they are alive, so they are brain dead even if they are moving a little and making sounds! So their life support gets pulled, and there is no question that there was no murder, no killing of a life form because the person was not considered to be "alive".

Wait a minute... They had some of the same parameters that determine life; movement, sound, I'm sure they could still consume and process nutrients even if via tubes to insert and dispel these chemical processes. Yet they are not considered "alive"?

So how do we know something is alive? It seems human judgment can be clouded by many things. Maybe not whether or not the entity in question is alive (even though they may not want to admit to this), but whether the entity's life matters. Or maybe out of human ego, whether or not the entity in question would be of any use to them. If not, it would be no big deal to cease the entity's state of life, as far as the human is concerned.

What does this have to do with a Living Machine? I think the relevance is that how will a typical human know if they have encountered a machine that is truly "alive"? How will they ascertain that the machine is different from other machines, and not "just another machine"? How will they react to it? Will a human see a need to attempt to preserve it's existence if the machine happens to fail to do what is expected of it? Will it be given special consideration over that which is not alive? If this project every happens, and I am successful, then there will be no doubt in the mind of those that meet the Living Machine that the machine is in fact, alive. On the other hand, if most of the people (not just a few) who meet this machine just chuckle and say "Oh, it's still just a stupid machine. It can't be alive." Then more work obviously will need to be done. Why? Does human perception and interaction determine life? If so, who are humans to decide what is alive or not?

Does this even matter?