Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!ira
From: ira@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ira Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Definitions of life
Message-ID: <CzDE9z.LD@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <3acmnn$kgo@newsbf01.news.aol.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 17:08:21 GMT
Lines: 33

In article <3acmnn$kgo@newsbf01.news.aol.com> mikestta@aol.com (Mike StTA) writes:
> I am studying possible definitions of life that would be applicable to
>all living entities- people, animals, plants, and-?  My interest is in how
>the concept of "life" applies to possible hybrid or entirely artificial
>creations that are not necessarily composed of the organic compounds of
>commonly accepted life forms.  
>Philosophical literature on the topic is scarce, despite theoretical
>studies and models that are already rapidly progressing in artificial life
>and AI, neuroscience and biology.  
>Thoughts, speculations, references, and suggestions welcome.
>
>Michael Lash, 
>Nperson@aol.com


The scientific popularization entitled Artificial Life, by Steven
Levy, covers this topic in an understandable way, and provides many
pointers to other speculators. Most prominent among them is Chris
Langton, organizer of the Alife conferences in Santa Fe.

He allows as how the most sophisticated virus programs today are more
complex than some biological virii, therefore all definitions of life
in use today based on complexity must include digital life forms. In
general, it turns out that any definition of life broad enough to
include all things considered alive now must also include certain of
these digital forms.

ira
-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

