Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.alife
From: Chris@smithg.demon.co.uk (Chris Gordon-Smith)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!smithg.demon.co.uk!Chris
Subject: Re: Computers--Next stage in evolution? Hmmmmmm.....
References: <3jlpjg$ak4@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au> <3jmi3b$ljc@agate.berkeley.edu> <D5t31C.86A@topazio.dcc.ufmg.br> <D68D06.Az@gremlin.nrtc.northrop.com> <3lrhis$dnm@news.dungeon.com>
Reply-To: Chris@smithg.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 41
X-Posting-Host: smithg.demon.co.uk
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 20:16:15 +0000
Message-ID: <797026575snz@smithg.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:28781 comp.ai.philosophy:26561 comp.ai.alife:2962

In article <3lrhis$dnm@news.dungeon.com> Your "Your User Name" writes:


> Nonsense! Excuse my french, cognitive processes are inbuilt (nature), 
> feral or otherwise children - like all animals - still have the ability 
> to think, learn, and reason. 
> 
> Computers on the other hand are in no way "alive". They may be 
> proh=grammed to imitate life in a crude manner, but should never be 
> confused with true life.
> 
> It is perhaps worth suggesting that researchers into AI etc spend some 
> time around living people. By living I don't mean "sad terminal junkies", 
> but spend a few evenings down the pub/bar listening and observing real 
> people at play. You can learn a lot!

This is a pretty abusive article to post, but I'll try to answer as though the 
point were intended seriously.

The idea that computers can only imitate life is similar to the idea that 
there is some sort of 'life force' which cannot exist on a computer. This 
may be held as an article of faith by many religious people. Roger Penrose has 
a go at framing the argument in more scientific terms in 'The Emperor's New 
Mind' and (I believe) in his new book, which I haven't read.

If you want to insist that there is something about life which is different in 
principle from systems that can be built using computers then you need some 
kind of rational argument, unless you're making the statement from a religious 
point of view.

Personally, I find this whole debate rather like the one about whether or not 
photography is art. Photography (Alife) is interesting in its own right, and 
worth pursuing regardless of whether or not it is Art (Real Life). That's not 
to say that the Alife vs Real Life argument doesn't matter - it does. But while 
its being resolved there is a lot we can learn from pursuing Alife.

-- 
Chris Gordon-Smith
London
UK
Email: chris@smithg.demon.co.uk
