I don't consider automatas life, since as the name implies: they're automated. They react without thinking based on a clear set of rules - even "thinking" automatas are predictable assuming you have the code, since they evaluate each variable according to a set of preset definitions to reach a logical (to them) solution. Even when the weight of a variable is dynamic, it's not real "thought". You could argue that a human is predictable, but there is still the "free thought" and random decisions that a human (or other creature) may take. A mechanism ruled by a defined set of base rules (because even learning automatas need a few base rules) will never be considered a living thing in my eyes.
All life is governed by mathematical rules. The basic difference between a bacterium and a computer-simulated cellular automaton is the level of complexity of both the organism itself and the environment.
Your basic computer-generated cellular automaton isn't even as complicated, mathematically, as one of the millions (or billions... I don't rightly know) of molecules that makes up one bacterium. And the neural networks of the most advanced robots today are nowhere near as complex as those in your common mosquito. Yet those cellular automata or robots can still exhibit the same behavior as bacteria and insects, given the right rule-set or programming.
Captain Kirk's vaunted human "unpredictability" is due to the fact that we live in a very fuzzy environment, where the mathematical principles that guide our behaviour must deal with environmental stimuli that are very complex from a mathematical standpoint. Thus, we use "fuzzy" logic to guide us... to side-step the math, which is too complicated to do within a reasonably short period of time. Computers can use fuzzy logic, too... and it's becoming more and more common. You'd be surprised at how many computer brains use fuzzy logic instead of binary logic nowadays... from airconditioners to cameras to cars to video games...
But then, this life has not "evolved"... which is a conundrum. But it's possible to create A-life that uses fuzzy logic, interacts with an A-environment, grows, reproduces and etcetera... and does this all in a very organic manner.
If we want "spontaneous" A-life... Given enough computing power... it may be theoretically possible to mathematically describe the universe. Set a simulation running, on a big enough scale, and it may be possible to "evolve" life within this computerized universe (after a few billion computing hours...)
Sure, from our point of view, it will be limited, predictable, and artificial. But the same strictures that apply to it also apply to us. We will both be trapped within a matrix from which we cannot escape (for them, the virtual universe, for us, the "real" universe), with seemingly complex organic structures and behaviors which have evolved from very fundamental mathematical laws.
You seem to know a lot on a hell of a lot of subjects.
But then again, I know you're capable of far better.
Even so, all fire is is the product of several different chemical reactions. Plus, it contains NO CELLS. 
