Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!eru.mt.luth.se!news.kth.se!sunic!news.chalmers.se!news.gu.se!gd-news!d6243
From: sa209@utb.shv.hb.se (Claes Andersson)
Subject: Re: Thought Question and What is life
Message-ID: <1995Feb5.135353.2644@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se>
Sender: usenet@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: d6243.shv.hb.se
Organization: Dept. of economy and computer science.
X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #2.1
References: <1995Feb2.114842.6220@news.unige.ch>
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 1995 20:12:29 GMT
Lines: 55

sylvere@unige.ch (Silvere Martin-Michiellot) wrote:
>Hi there,
>
>I've been watching over your too leading reflexions (see the subject) since the beginning, AND I START TO GET BORED.
>
>Why ?
>
>Well, it seems that you lack of realism : stop banging your head against the wall, and go back to the begining : the question is WHY DID SOME PEOPLE ASK THESE QUESTIONS ?
>
>First let's talk about life : we all know what lives on our planet and what doesn't, even if there is NO clear definition of life (at least for now).
>But, what if you land on another planet ? (and that is the REAL question)
>Will I be able to determine what lives and what doesn't ?
>.... and there everything collapses...
>You have to decide what is alive or not, by enumeration, or with criterias, and then look at things you meet and declare "that lives" or "that doesn't"
>Said another way, you have to formalise/program/decide-a-priori and then apply your rules... and maybe if it doesn't fit your unconcious definition, you can change the rules.
>
>BUT, IT IS STUPID TO BELIEVE YOU CAN PUT A DEFINITION (BTW, that's what you've done, all
 of you) OF WHAT LIFE TRULY IS (AS IF YOU ALREADY HAD CHOSEN WHAT "THINGS" LIVE AND
 WHAT DON'T) SINCE YOUR DEFINITION WILL ITSELF DECIDE WHAT LIVES AND WHAT
 DOESN'T. UNIVERSAL LIFE DETECTORS DON'T EXIST, SORRY.

 And why don't they exist, do you have any reason to believe that they don't, except for
some sort of fear for penetrating Life which is taboo. Like I think that it's very likely that
life can be defined as an entropy sinking mechanism. Do you have something to object
except for fuzzy statements like "Life can't be categorised" and "Why do you think that
everything can be categorized?" I can't imagine that life can exist without having a mechanism
that maintains it. If it is in a dormant state it still must remain as it is, if it decays it
will never "wake" up again. But it is a great problem that we have only one instance of life
but not necessary fatal. Can you suggest any type of lifeform without a entropy sinking
mechanism. Still: life in universa that aren't subject to the laws of thermodynimics will
be trickier...

>
>The second problem is consciousness. My method of thinking is the same, and may be did M. Minsky opended the way.
>Let's examine ourselves. I'm in front of my computer, writing something, having an intellectual activity... BUT in no way
being conscious of what I do. When I "become" concious of that, I do nothing else that BEING CONSCIOUS... and that is
related to M. Minsky's cognitive point of view about a relation with short term memory (I personnaly believe he should
have say working memory, but it is out of the topic I deal with now).
>Moreover some try to state that there can or cannot be consciousness in a NN or a TM, or whatever...
>But, first, you forget that all these models are coherent (all themselves) PRODUCTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION and by
since it seems stupid to talk about the consciousness of a model (like if I wanted to talk about the consciousness of the news I read).
>Second, THIS IS THE SAME PROBLEM OF DEFINITION AS "LIFE" (above) : let's imagine a computer program that pass
the Turing Test, well it's up to us to DECIDE if it is conscious or not, without any argument, but as a postulate (in fact how
 can I be sure the news I read are not written by a computer ? I can't but it doesn't matter since I've decided that computer
 or whatever would be as conscious as I believe I am).
>
>Really sorry for all of you.

 Very well, for what the TM or NN are concerned someone else will have to flame :-) But for flaming on
your points on the definition of life, see earlier in this post. Very well, I just wonder if you have some
reason more than the usual pseudo-theological fear of defining life and just leaving it proclaiming
that  "It cannot be defined! Everything cannot be defined!". I can agree that the fact that we have just
one instance of life (Tierra ?) is a problem but as I've said I'm not sure it is fatal.

Claes Andersson. University of Bors. Sweden
