From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu!rwmurphr Mon Jun 15 16:04:45 EDT 1992
Article 6215 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn.onet.on.ca!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu!rwmurphr
>From: rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree)
Subject: Re: Vitalism and Intellectuaism
Message-ID: <1992Jun11.181124.19003@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Sender: usenet@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu (Nets)
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
References: <1992Jun7.002032.614@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Jun8.134537.468@cs.ucf.edu> <1992Jun10.041831.16727@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1992 18:11:24 GMT

nlc@media.mit.edu (Nick Cassimatis) writes:


>What is so special about a why-question that it requires consciousness?

>There is a debate among some biologists concerning whether a virus is
>alive or not.  My Bio class in high school spent about 30 minutes one
>time debating this.  Though I wasn't particularly interested in the
>begining, I became so when it the following question dawned on me:
>"What would it matter either way?"  Assumet that you call it alive.
>Then so what?  Assume that you call it not-alive.  Agin, so what?
>Assume that we agree now that it is not alive, but then 30 years later
>we come up with a formal definition of life that clearly includes the
>virus.  So what?  Will this change the methods we use to combat the
>virus, the way we sneeze when infected, the chances of us curing the
>common cold ....  Not one bit!  So the only effect the debate could
>possibly have is a change in linguistic convention.  Notice that no
>self-respecting biologist would suggest that rats have a
>life-substance that a virus doesn't -- the way we think about
>organisms is sophisticated enough not to need vitalistic terms.
I've been reading a book by lynn marguluis the biologist called
five kingdoms.  In it she adresses the question of whether viruses
are alive or not.  Apparently viruses are considered "part" of
the organism they infect.  The tobacco mosaic virus is much more
closely related to the tabacco plant than to animal viruses.
The polio virus is much more closely related to people than to
other types of virus's.  So If your going to be a good reductionist
you need to start with bacteria, not viruses, according to this book.
While I wouldn't want to treat a bacteria as a sentient being, I think
it safe to say that it is not, at least to present science, an organism
without choices and probably not presently modelable as a deterministic
system.  Now most biologist know this and are still staunch reductionists.
But the reduce everything to a virus=chemical argument doesn't work for
the reasons I"ve advanced.
>Now think about the debate over whether computers can *really* be
>intelligent or *really* understand.  How is it different from the
>question of wether a virus is alive or not?
If the virus-other species system is sufficiently complicated to defy
simulation by symbol manipulating devices, which maybe it is, then maybe
understanding is also something which requires something more than 
symbol manipulation-being as such or whatever.


