Actually, we do classify some elementary particles as "ubiquitously proto-biotic" hence the terms "organic" (having to do with life) and "inorganic" (not having to do with life). And yet no one would consider a pool of organic compounds as "alive".Bohm2 wrote:We don't classify atoms, elementary particles and their properties as ubiquitously "proto-biotic" because they are / can be the components and causes of living cells and bodies. Likewise, there wouldn't seem to be broad justification for using another upper-level end product ("mind", psyche) as part of an identification for any future precursor affairs introduced at the bottom.
That argument comes down to basically thus: Because we like to think that life "emerges" from non-living matter, let us also stick with that cognition (true or false) and think that awareness also "emerges" from non-aware matter.
But that was my whole point. It is subjective to draw a fine line between matter possessing the properties of life and matter which does not, hence the virus conundrum. Just as it is subjective to try and draw a fine line between matter which has corresponding awareness and matter which does not. Just because we get it wrong concerning one class of phenomena does not mean we should also get it wrong concerning another class of phenomena as well.