Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!prodigal.psych.rochester.edu!stevens
From: stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens)
Subject: Re: "What is Life?"
Message-ID: <1995Jan30.224556.1414@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@galileo.cc.rochester.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
References: <jhansen-120195102007@cetq10.coe.uga.edu> <1995Jan26.153830.4455@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se> <3gbhj1$klg@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <3ghi64$osf@hptemp1.cc.umr.edu> <3gje3b$t4b@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 95 22:45:56 GMT
Lines: 20

In <3gje3b$t4b@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> holtz@netcord.Eng.Sun.COM (Brian Holtz) writes:

>I never said individuals can evolve, or that an entity has to be able
>to evolve individually to be considered alive.  Indeed, by the
>definition I'm about to advance, an individual can 'change' or 'grow'
>but not 'evolve'.

Both "change" and "grow" are the same as "evolve" in the sense that they
are adaptations -- just on different time-scales.  Why is it necessary that
something go through generational change?  Is something has the right structure
to adapt and maintain some kind of homeoregulation (maybe homeodynamisis
is a closer term than homeostasis -- or you could adopt the notion of
"autopoiesis", but in any case, reproduction and evolution are SUBSETS
of these more general activities) but that never explicitly reproduces
alive?  WHY NOT?

Greg Stevens

stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu

