From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!gatech!mcnc!ecsgate!lrc.edu!lehman_ds Tue Jan 28 12:18:28 EST 1992
Article 3199 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!gatech!mcnc!ecsgate!lrc.edu!lehman_ds
>From: lehman_ds@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle Agrees with Strong AI?
Message-ID: <1992Jan23.165930.155@lrc.edu>
Date: 23 Jan 92 21:59:30 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>
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC
Lines: 55

In article <1992Jan23.032151.8824@nuscc.nus.sg>, smoliar@hilbert.iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar) writes:
> 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
  I think that a virus is a bad example here.  even today there is debate
on the idea of a virus being condered "alive".  The problem with a virus is
that it requires a host to reproduce, something that does not fit nicely in
the "accepted" definiton of life.  And comment of the article by Sparfford:
Yes, a virus can be in a barren and lifeless area(even the vacum of space
for some) and survive.  The virus is a borderline creature.  As I said before,
I don't think the virus was a good example.
    Drew Lehman
    Lehman_ds@lrc.edu


