I guess we also need to define what biological life means. Even biologists have debated whether viruses should be considered life.

And if we determine it must be something with cells that can sustain themselves, we run into a challenge should we encounter extraterrestrials that don't share our evolutionary path.

When we get self-building machines that can repair themselves, move, analyze situations, and respond accordingly, I don't think it's unfair to consider them life. But simply being life doesn't mean it's inherently good. Humans see syphilis bacteria and ticks as living things, but we don't respect them. We acknowledge that polar bears have a consciousness, but they're at odds with our existence if we're put in the same room. If we have autonomous machines that can destroy humans, I think those could be considered life. But it's life that opposes our own.

> I don’t think we’ll be able to replicate consciousness until we’re able to make things alive at a biological level.

But why? What gives you any confidence in that?

This is a very popular notion that I frequently encounter but I'm convinced that it is just barely disguised human exceptionalism.

It is humbling to accept that the operation of your mind could be replicated by a machine, similar to how it was difficult for us to accept that the earth is not the center of the universe or that we evolved from animals.