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!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!maroon!hous0042
From: hous0042@maroon.tc.umn.edu (Kevin C Houston)
Subject: Re: Reproduction as the defining characteristic of life
Message-ID: <hous0042.778752069@maroon>
Sender: news@news.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration)
Nntp-Posting-Host: maroon1.tc.umn.edu
Organization: University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
References: <34dklr$kh9@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <34dnth$f97@scratchy.reed.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 08:01:09 GMT
Lines: 78

In <34dnth$f97@scratchy.reed.edu> mblock@reed.edu (Matt Block) writes:

>	Titus-

>	 A chain letter is not considered alive.  That you believe it to be
>only illustrates that your definition is circular (that is, you claim chain
>letters to be living because the information in them is propogated, which
>looks like reproduction, which is a necessary and sufficient property for
>life, so chain letters are living, so chain letters aren't a good
>counterexample to your definition.)  Give me a reason OTHER than reproduction
>to suspect that chain letters are iving... for instance, point out to me that
>something in the wildest reaches of Swahili that I take to be a living thing
>is actually merely a chain letter.  I don't think you will be able.

Well, if he can't, I can, and I don't even have to go to (Swahili is a
language...not a place ;-) ) anywhere else. Viruses act like chain letters
in many way (or chain letters act like viruses):

	Chain letters					Viruses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show up in your mailbox			show up at receptor sites on your cell

are read by you				are read by enzymes in your cell

*If* the information in the letter      *If* the gentic information codes for
is intersting to you you will copy it   meaningful enzymes it will be copied

are then stuffed into envelopes         are then stuffed into protein coats

are then mailed 			burst from the cell wall (no postage)

if Laws are passed to make chain lett.  if antibodies are produced against
illegal, variations will appear that    this virus, variations will appear
circumvent these laws (ask for prayers) that circumvent these antibodies.


IMHO chain letters are Meme viruses ;-)


>	Mules do not reproduce by any means.  Neither do seedless fruit.  The
>genetic information in them is never passed on.  New mules are made, and new
>seedless fruit, but not through reproduction as currently defined (with the
>exception of the potential cloning of fruit, which we needn't bother ourselves
>with.)  It is not the intervention of man in the process of reproduction which
>disturbs me, it is the lack of reproduction in the process of reproduction.

But, fruit do reproduce (with full passage of genetic information) by having
a piece of themselves (called a cutting) placed in the proper nutrient bath.

Mules do not pass on thier genetic information, but then niether do worker
bees. If you make a mule (or cause one to be made) and it is stubborn and
mean, you are not likely to use those parents again, but if you get a mule
that is sweet-tempered and strong, those parents will be doing th' nasty
for a long time to come (if you have your way anyhow) If a worker bee is 
strong and a good provider of nectar, the Hive will survive and the queen
(her sister) will provide the worker with all the babies the worker could 
ever want. (and those larvae are sooo cute too. 8)  )

>	That cells within an organism reproduce does not mean that the
>organism does.  That would only lead me to believe that the cells within the
>organism are living (at least by your own professed definition, which has only
>the property of reproduction as necessary and sufficient.)  Now to circumvent
>this, you have proposed that we change your definition slightly and say,
>"Something is living if and only if it reproduces, OR HAS REPRODUCING PARTS."
>But this means that reproduction isn't necessary to life.  I won't bother
>arguing against the sufficiency today, but I think you can see that similar
>arguments will hold against that.

>	59....79....99...

>	-Matt

>--

Kevin @U of MN (would appreciate a primer on A-life in a P.C. environment)

Hey, I'm into chemistry, not computers
The less a politician amounts too, the more he loves the flag. -Lazurus Long
