From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!dclsic!stork!tutkie!tutgw!nitgw!orion!todd Tue Jan 28 12:17:17 EST 1992
Article 3112 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!dclsic!stork!tutkie!tutgw!nitgw!orion!todd
>From: todd@ai12.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle Agrees with Strong AI?
Message-ID: <TODD.92Jan23224728@ai12.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
Date: 23 Jan 92 13:47:32 GMT
References: <1992Jan16.054716.14332@oracorp.com>
	<1992Jan16.145637.26097@news.media.mit.edu>
	<TODD.92Jan22225612@ai12.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
	<1992Jan23.032151.8824@nuscc.nus.sg>
Sender: news@nitgw.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Reply-To: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Organization: Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya ,Japan.
Lines: 49
In-reply-to: smoliar@hilbert.iss.nus.sg's message of 23 Jan 92 03:21:51 GMT



In article <1992Jan23.032151.8824@nuscc.nus.sg> smoliar@hilbert.iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar) writes:

>>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.  

To me it implies that the parts of their environment are simply
that: parts of their environment.  By your way of thinking, the
human environment includes rocks, which must be alive.  Not likely.

>>                                                      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.

Man can exist in space, albeit for not very long, and space is
maximally barren.  But I agree that life (and intelligence) must
defined by an entity's environment.

Why do you think a computer virus's environment is so barren 
anyhow?  Not very physical varied, admittedly, but very rich in
informational structure, probably a high degree of dimensionality
(defined in a fractal way), other 'beings' (other viruses, people), 
lots of hardware to play with, etc.  By this perspective,
the computer virus passes the life test again!


Todd Law



--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagoya Institute of Technology, Itoh Laboratory
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
$@%H%C%I!&%i!w0KF#8&5f<<(J.$@L>8E209)6HBg3X(J
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (052-732-2111 ext. 2624)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


