Actually you make my point for me. It is not something that CAN be so defined. To complicate matters further, there will come a day when we can make machines that will meet ALL of those requirements. Will those machines really be alive?
There are and always will be some things that science can't touch. Reminds me of those miniature candy bars that used to come in assorted bags around Halloween and the packaging on each bar said, "Fun Size!" Has science ever been able to define or measure fun? Or hope? Or love? Or worry or anger? Yet not only do we know instinctively what they are but we can even make comparisons of quantity and quality of each, e.g., I had more fun this time than last year.
In the same way, we know instinctively what life is, whether something is alive or not, and inanimate matter ain't it. (Otherwise we wouldn't know to call it inanimate.)
Some things can't be defined or dissected in a laboratory because words and science are instruments that are far too crude. Such things strongly imply the existence of a realm beyond the physical.
Such things are properly termed, "supernatural," and are outside the realm of science
1. If we create devices which meet all those criteria, then yes, they shall be truly alive. The real tough question revolves around whether things which do NOT meet all of those criteria can be considered alive.
There are and always will be some things that science can't touch. Reminds me of those miniature candy bars that used to come in assorted bags around Halloween and the packaging on each bar said, "Fun Size!" Has science ever been able to define or measure fun? Or hope? Or love? Or worry or anger? Yet not only do we know instinctively what they are but we can even make comparisons of quantity and quality of each, e.g., I had more fun this time than last year.
2. Science can measure and define fun, love, worry, anger. I refer you to neurochemistry and biochemistry.
In the same way, we know instinctively what life is, whether something is alive or not, and inanimate matter ain't it. (Otherwise we wouldn't know to call it inanimate.)
3. You believe you "instinctively" know life when you see it. I'm willing to bet that you can be fooled on that score. I know as fact that many people do NOT automatically recognize life when they see it, and have mistaken non-life for life from time to time.
Some things can't be defined or dissected in a laboratory because words and science are instruments that are far too crude. Such things strongly imply the existence of a realm beyond the physical.
4. No. Non-sequitur. You leave out the "yet". Many things are well explained by 21st century scientific methods which were inexplicable in the 19th century.