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!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!watdragon.uwaterloo.ca!bpvanstr
From: bpvanstr@yoho.uwaterloo.ca (Brian Van Straalen)
Subject: Re: LIFE? (was Evolvable Code....)
Message-ID: <CvF7uo.19M@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>
Sender: news@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: yoho.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1994Aug29.223840.23541@msuvx2.memphis.edu> <33vsc6$f1g@morrow.stanford.edu> <1994Aug30.205234.23587@msuvx2.memphis.edu> <TOSATTER.94Aug31103714@vegan.dazixco.ingr.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 1994 22:30:24 GMT
Lines: 48

In article <TOSATTER.94Aug31103714@vegan.dazixco.ingr.com>,
Tom Satter <tosatter@edaco.ingr.com> wrote:
>i have an interesting thought that might add to this discussion.  my wife
>and i were talking about life the other day and the subject of seedless fruit
>came up.  almost all bananas sold in the united states are seedless.  in one
>way it is possible to say that this is a terrible trait for a banana as there 
>is no way for it to reproduce itself, on the other hand, in the current
>environment, a seedless banana is actually more likely to be propagated, as 
>humans really like bananas without seeds and so WE propagate the banana.  the 
>same goes for seedless grapes and oranges.  working off the mule analogy, it
>could be argued that seedless fruit plants (and mules) are not alive since 
>they can't reproduce (which is silly).  i think the point of the argument is
>that they DO reproduce, they just use and unconventional means of doing so.
>that is, they require an outside element (humans) to be present as a part of
>their reproduction cycle.
>
>any thoughts about this?
>
>tom -- just plain old tom
>tosatter@edaco.ingr.com

Interesting, seedless fruits are the botanical equivalent of mules.  

I think everyone agrees that seedless fruit trees are alive.

So, either : reproduction is not necessary for life

	or

	   :  you need a vague new definition of reproduce.

choose your poison.

I've advocated the first poison (for some reasons I mention elsewhere).
I've also brought up the idea of the `active initiator' premise to deal
with the vague nature of reproduction. (Libraries reproduce by accumulating
books until it can't hold them, then by human intervention, perform
asexual (or sexual) reproduction to spawn a new library. In fact, a library
performs all the functions of a living being, if you permit human intervention
to be a valid process).

Is there a philosophy newsgroup to send this thread to ?

Lord Othman (swearing to drop this thread, I mean it this time, I'm not joking,
You think I'm kidding, but I'm not, just you wait and see, no more on this
topic, at least for quite some time...yes....quite some time, there .... It's
all been said,... done .... end)

