I consider legal entities such as corporations to be living organisms. So I don't agree that life is limited to organisms with a visible (biological) body.
It's a bit slower than we regularly imagine computer-based AI to be, of course :)
I'm pretty confident there are not now, and never have been, any corporations with this characteristic.
I agree with your comment. This is how I think about corporations too. But I'd like to mention something about the name "Artificial Intelligence". I think that Artificial Intelligence is not artificial and it is not intelligent. I define AI as the ability of an organism to make right decisions to perpetuate its existence. Not only this is not artificial it is a widespread natural process. I also use it as the definition of life. An organism that can make the right definitions to perpetuate its existence is said to be alive.
Or maybe, more generally, the ability to make decisions.
Complex organisations can self-organise even though the individual parts have little understanding of their position in the structure.
A better simile would be societies at large, and the changes in things like housing markets or stock markets, driven by individuals who are only guided by their own private interests, not those of the market as a whole.
This is also true for animals, including humans. Most of our decisions are made by micro-organisms in our gut, by our microbiome. There are other decision-making centers as well. The self is not even aware in most cases that he/she is just applying a decision that was made for him internally.
Do I need to define "living"? I may just list some living organisms everyone agrees that they are living organisms such as animals, plants, and bacteria. Their common element to me is not that they have a visible body but their ability to make intelligent decisions to further their existence. So to me, to have a biological body is not a requirement to be alive. The only requirement is the ability to make intelligent decisions to perpetuate its existence as an organism. What I am saying is that life start as the result of an agreement between entities. Human body is the result of an agreement between the egg and the sperm. A legal entity starts as a legal entity. Why do you think corporations cannot be considered live organisms?
> Their common element to me is...
Stating what you mean when you're talk of 'living', as you're doing here, is giving your definition of it.
> Why do you think corporations cannot be considered live organisms?
Did I say anything to that effect? Not in the comment you're replying to.
In another comment on this post I said that a notion of 'living' is a mental construct, not an objective phenomenon outside of ourselves.
If you "execute" the program manually, you may still not understand Chinese, but the program still does. The room, including you and the program, is functionally a single entity that speaks Chinese. The human is an implementation detail as much as the grey matter is an implementation detail in a Chinese speaking human.
Searle's argument that the machine does not actually possess "understanding" is simply special pleading. Unless he can define "understanding" in a meaningful way, the difference between an "understanding" entity and a "simulating" entity is non-existent.
These arguments all boil down to unscientific armchair philosophy. I have no idea why people seem to accept them as meaningful other than that the people who came up with them or wrote about them are otherwise highly regarded -- but that's literally an argument from authority.