Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!crash!snodgras
From: snodgras@crash.cts.com (John Snodgrass)
Subject: Re: Defining "Life"
Organization: CTS Network Services (CTSNET), San Diego, CA
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 20:48:50 GMT
Message-ID: <snodgras.780094130@crash.cts.com>
References: <35acgm$232@network.ucsd.edu>
Sender: news@crash.cts.com (news subsystem)
Nntp-Posting-Host: crash.cts.com
Lines: 30

In <35acgm$232@network.ucsd.edu> reality@ucsd.edu writes:


>I echo Marvin Minsky's sentiments about defining "Life".  Such
>definitions come at the *end* of scientific endeavors, not 
>at their genesis.  I recently had to write an entry on "Artificial
>Life" for a forthcoming _Encyclopedia of Semiotics_ and I found
>this quotation from William James' _Principles of Psychology_
>which sums up the point nicely:

>"It is better not to be pedantic, but to let the science be as vague 
>as its subject, and include [vaguely defined] phenomena if by doing 
>so we can throw any light on the main business in hand.  It will ere 
>long be seen, I trust, that we can; and that we gain much more by a 
>broad than by a narrow conception of our subject.  At a certain stage 
>in the development of every science a degree of vagueness is what 
>best consists with fertility."


     How inappropriate to quote a brilliant and wide-ranging mind
in support of Minsky, whose position has nothing to do with leaving
things vague for the sake of open-mindedness. He is anything but
open-minded -- to him, disagreement with his position "ruins" a group
discussion. His position has far more to do with concealment and 
obfuscation. He calls for leaving vague only what conflicts 
in an obvious way with his professed view.  Are machines self-organizing?
No? Well, let's leave the definition of life open, shall we? 


     JES
