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: Reproduction as the defining characteristic of life
Message-ID: <CvrLww.51q@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>
Sender: news@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: yoho.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <34dklr$kh9@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <34dnth$f97@scratchy.reed.edu> <hubey.778780195@pegasus.montclair.edu> <javhar.778859919@gwr>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 1994 15:05:18 GMT
Lines: 48

In article <javhar.778859919@gwr>, Jack van Rijswijck <javhar@Bausch.nl> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Having read up on parts of this thread, I feel that we're really
>thinking in the wrong direction here. What we're pretending to do is
>to find out whether viruses/chain letters/whatever can be called
>"alive" by applying various definitions of "life". But whenever
>anyone comes up with one definition, someone else is bound to 
>disagree with it "because in that case you could call X's alive" or
>"because in that case Y's wouldn't be alive". That shows that we're
>actually just doing the opposite thing. We *start out with* an idea
>of what life is and then try to fit the definition to it. It reminds
>me of the history of mathematics. Eg. it took 2000 years to discover
>non-Euclidian geometry simply because it took that long to realise
>that we started out with preconceived ideas of what points and
>lines are and thought that the mathematical definitions described
>exactly those things. But then it turned out that "those things that
>Euclidian geometry describes" and "the things we have in mind" are
>not the same things.
>
>So I think it might be interesting to wonder WHY we are asking these
>questions in the first place. To show that computers are not alive /
>can be called alive (whichever you prefer)? To determine whether
>"borderline cases" like viruses are alive or not? What value does
>an answer really have if it only depends on our definition? Suppose
>we were debating about the supposed "intelligence" of some computer
>program in the future. Some people would say that the thing is just
>pretending to be intelligent, others would say that by passing the
>Turing test (or whatever) it by definition *is*. But that would make
>no difference for what the program can do. So what is really more
>important... what the program can do or which label we attach to it?
>
>
>Jack van Rijswijck
>javhar@bausch.nl

Amen.  How about this.  Go ahead and create whatever alife you wish.
Does it reproduce?  fine, you will by default label it alive, I will
be more judgmental.  That doesn't change what your creation does.  I
will craft my immortal being.  I might even want to call it alive.  You
will not label it alive because it is not reproducing in any sense.  This
will make no difference to what the immortal being is doing.  

	This group needs new tech ideas, not more philosophy.

(It's not that philosophy has no place here, but I thnk everyone needs
 a breather from this discussion to evaluate arguments raised in a more
applied setting).
