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.
I guess we already do -- babies.
2. Science can measure and define fun, love, worry, anger. I refer you to neurochemistry and biochemistry.
False. All science can measure is neurochemistry and biochemistry. It cannot measure the actual feelings and it cannot measure spirit.
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.
You miss my point entirely. Like anyone else I have occasionally thought a fallen tree branch or discarded hose in the woods was a snake, especially at dusk or any other time when the light is bad. My point is that even though we can't define it, we know what life IS. Just like art and pornography still have elusive definitions, yet most of the time we know both when we see them.
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.
I left 'yet' out quite on purpose. By definition, science, because it deals with the physical world and ONLY with the physical world, will never be able to measure anything that is metaphysical in nature. It will never be able to tell us whether there is or isn't a God, whether there is or is not an afterlife, whether morality is just a head-trip or is actually based on something transcendent and eternal, etc. Science is no closer to answering these questions than it was 10,000 years ago.