From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!nuscc!hilbert!smoliar Tue Jan 28 12:16:18 EST 1992
Article 3044 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!nuscc!hilbert!smoliar
>From: smoliar@hilbert.iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar)
Subject: Re: Searle Agrees with Strong AI?
Message-ID: <1992Jan23.032151.8824@nuscc.nus.sg>
Summary: the computer virus as artificial life
Sender: usenet@nuscc.nus.sg
Reply-To: smoliar@iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar)
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore
References: <1992Jan16.054716.14332@oracorp.com> <1992Jan16.145637.26097@news.media.mit.edu> <TODD.92Jan22225612@ai12.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1992 03:21:51 GMT

In article <TODD.92Jan22225612@ai12.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp writes:
>
>
>In article <1992Jan16.145637.26097@news.media.mit.edu> minsky@media.mit.edu
>(Marvin Minsky) writes:
>
>>>  How about this: let's let Searle
>>>off the hook for a moment, be asking this question:
>>>
>>>	     If we could build a machine that is suitably reactive, and can
>>>	     assemble raw materials so as to make working copies of itself
>>>	     would the resulting machine be ALIVE?
>>>
>>>In  other words, is "understanding" analogous to "living" in the old
>>>vitalist controversies?
>
>
>This is a case where technology has imitated life quite well.
>Viruses (virii?), both biological and program varieties, can 
>reproduce quite efficiently.  A computer virus consumes
>memory space, it produces offspring, it can even produce excrement
>(by freeing up memory - or turning on the printer!)
>- all the behavioural requirements of life itself!
>
I would prefer to let Eugene Spafford have the last word on this one.  The
following paragraph is taken from the final section of his paper, "Computer
Viruses--A Form of Artificial Life?," in the ARTIFICIAL LIFE II proceedings
volume:

	Our examination of computer viruses leads us to the conclusion
	that they are very close to what we might define as "artificial
	life."  Rather than representing a scientific achievement, this
	probably represents a flaw in our definition.  To suggest that
	computer viruses are alive also implies to me that some part of
	their environment--the computers, programs, or operating
	systems--also represents artificial life.  Can life exist
	in an otherwise barren and empty ecosystem?  A definition
	of "life" should probably include something about the
	environment in which that life exists.
-- 
Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511
Internet:  smoliar@iss.nus.sg


