Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
From: Chris@smithg.demon.co.uk (Chris Gordon-Smith)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!smithg.demon.co.uk!Chris
Subject: Re: "What is Life?"
References: <gbrown.140.00601186@ozemail.com.au> <1995Feb21.102546.4597@news.unige.ch> <gbrown.168.002A6130@ozemail.com.au> <mws.3.009D3240@pond.com> <chronstr-2803950232120001@colmac761.bucknell.edu>
Organization: Myorganisation
Reply-To: Chris@smithg.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 28
X-Posting-Host: smithg.demon.co.uk
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 19:55:43 +0000
Message-ID: <796506943snz@smithg.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk

In article <chronstr-2803950232120001@colmac761.bucknell.edu>
           chronstr@bucknell.edu "Me" writes:

> There are two definitions of life.  By failing to separate them,
> it has become difficult for most people to define the word.
> 
> 1. Life (in the biological sense):  The maintenance of a series of
> replicating entities.
>
Seems reasonable to me.
 
> 2. Life (philosophical sense):  The existence of a conscious entity, i.e.,
> the act of perception.
> 

Eh?  This seems so bizarre to me that I begin to wonder whether you actually 
mean what you appear to be saying.

What about a simple plant such as a fern. I'm no philosopher, but would 
any philosopher argue either that a fern is conscious or that it is not alive? 
Definition 2 would seem to lead to one or other of these conclusions. I suppose 
if you take a mechanistic view of perception (eg the ability to respond to 
sunlight) you might say that a fern percieves, but if you regard this as 
evidence of consciousness you would also have to say that a camera which sets 
its exposure according to the measured light intensity is conscious.
 
--
Chris Gordon-Smith 
