From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!dclsic!stork!tutkie!tutgw!nitgw!orion!todd Wed Feb  5 11:55:49 EST 1992
Article 3358 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!dclsic!stork!tutkie!tutgw!nitgw!orion!todd
>From: todd@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (Todd Law)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Viruses: alive?
Message-ID: <TODD.92Jan30174753@ai07.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
Date: 30 Jan 92 08:47:56 GMT
References: <TODD.92Jan23223358@ai12.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
	<63531@netnews.upenn.edu> <TODD.92Jan25121302@ai10.elcom.nitech.ac.jp>
	<63805@netnews.upenn.edu>
Sender: news@nitgw.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Reply-To: todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
Organization: Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya ,Japan.
Lines: 55
In-reply-to: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu's message of 27 Jan 92 15:27:01 GMT


In article <63805@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>>For example: who says that even biological viruses are alive?  Respond
>>not with a dictionary, but an analysis of why this question should exist
>>in the first place.

Ah!  You ask the question I addressed in my original post!
(which I'll summarize here)

I basically stated that humans find it difficult to accept entities
of radically different architectures (non-blood and guts type) as
being members of the 'life' club.  That is why we find ourselves
asking if such marginal creatures as viruses are alive or not.
My point was that humans are very discriminatory, especially with
regards to the 'life' club or the 'intelligence' club.  I was 
addressing our internal prejudices which affect our view of the
world, trying to get at what really constitutes life or intelligence.
This is why the question exists.  It is very human to discriminate.

Whether viruses are alive or not is a moot point, and it could be
argued well either way.  The fact that we can argue logically on
both sides means we need to refine the fundamental idea of what
is alive.  I was arguing to illustrate that point.  This is why
I believe it was pertinent.  Next time I will use the word 'nature' 
when discussing ambiguous entities to avoid this kind of thing.

BTW, your point about the dictionary is well-taken.  I DO realize
however that the definitions in it are ever suspect.  They CAN,
however, be useful as a starting point towards more refined ideas
(but not absolutely necessary, as you say).  I also find it useful
to check my English because I speak the language only about twice
a month these days!  Anyohow, you have to admit that words are
only meaningful because there is a consensus on the meaning, and
the dictionary is useful for determining the status quo, wrong
as it may be (hey, this is why we have philosophy!)

And I agree with what you said about why natural language processing
is so difficult.  Natural intelligence does not begin with definitions,
but is grounded in experience, or interaction with the world.  This
seems to be what Brooks and his Moboticists are saying, and I heartily
agree.  This is more the kind of thing perhaps we should be directing
our energy towards.


Todd Law
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nagoya Institute of Technology, Itoh Laboratory
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp
$@%H%C%I!&%i!w0KF#8&5f<<(J.$@L>8E20(J$@9)6HBg3X(J
todd@juno.elcom.nitech.ac.jp (052-732-2111 ext. 2624)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


