Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Thought Question
Message-ID: <jqbD3Lwur.ItL@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3gj2j4$11t@nyheter.chalmers.se> <3gpgac$24i@cato.Direct.CA> <1995Feb2.184916.8345@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3h6dj8$a6h@cato.direct.ca>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 01:44:50 GMT
Lines: 50

In article <3h6dj8$a6h@cato.direct.ca>, Allan Turner <aturner@Direct.CA> wrote:
>In article <1995Feb2.184916.8345@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg 
>Stevens) says:
>>[...]
>>>Objects are not and will never be life forms, no matter what people try
>>>to delude themselves into not facing that fact.

[Allan, please take the time to form proper sentences.  Despite the recent
discussion here about personal variations in approximate grammars, I think we
can all agree that some sort of adherence to prescriptive grammar can aid in
communication.]

>>Really?  This is some strange and new "interpretation" of the word "object"
>>which I hadn't previously been aware of.  Or are you defining an "object"
>>as something non-living?  If so, this still doesn't help, because you have
>>specified inclusion criteria neither for "objects" or "life forms."
>
>No it's not quite a strange and new interpretation, people use the word
>object all the time in normal conversation to refer to an inanimate
>object. I thought that people would understand what I meant.

Using "object" only to refer to "inanimate", i.e., non-living objects, is
rather circular when responding to someone (viz., Hans Moravec) writing
about economic objects being life forms.  As Greg Stevens pointed out, you
haven't provided any means to distinguish between living and non-living
objects; threfore we cannot know what you mean, beyond the tautology that
"[non-living things] are not [...] [living things] ..." and the rather
ambiguous and controversial "[non-living things] [...] never will be
[living things] ...".

This isn't normal conversation; this is philosophy. :-)

>	Also I don't think that everyone that writes about life forms
>has to include a definition with their statement! How much time do you 
>want to waste?

When the issue at hand is just what is or is not a life form, defining
the term is certainly not a waste of time.  Perhaps you've already forgotten
the context in which you made your remarks.

>I was just using the words in their standard english 
>usage definitions.

In standard English usage, when one wishes to restrict the scope of "object"
to those that are inanimate, one uses the phrase "inanimate object".
Check any dictionary to verify that "object" by itself is not so restricted.
If you aren't more careful, you may become the object of ridicule! :-)
-- 
<J Q B>

