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!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!centre.univ-orleans.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!scsing.switch.ch!news.dfn.de!gs.dfn.de!fauern!faulrs!msn!smurf.noris.de!hugis!venus!alex
From: alex@venus.nbg.sub.org (Alexander Adolf)
Subject: Re: Stumbled across new definition for life...
Message-ID: <9Q0RBYMC@venus.nbg.sub.org>
Organization: Nuernberg, Germany
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <1994Aug20.123928.23119@msuvx2.memphis.edu>  <33c9i3$rco@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <1994Aug23.031910.23228@msuvx2.memphis.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 1994 20:31:31 GMT
Lines: 52

Mark C. Langston (umlangston@cc.memphis.edu) wrote:

:   At the most basic level, there must exist some unit of life that by
: necessity must exhibit all properties of what we term life, even though 
: larger systems of these same units may not necessarily exhibit these same
: properties.

Hm. Somewhat reminds me of the race going on in particle physics since
the 60s: "Is there a 'minimum', undividible (greek: atomos, hence
atom) in the sense that its dvision products would no longer have
certain properties,  particle which carries all properties to qualify
it as an 'elemntary particle'?"

Here we have a similar question: "What is the smallest system which we
would call life?" The intention of course being to build larger
systems out of it and call them 'alive' too. Physicists have had no
decisive success with this approach. And I doubt wether we will have
here.

In the first place a cell seemed a good idea to me as an 'atomic'
living object. What about viruses? Well, we could stick them together
with cells into one class (maybe 'DNA carriers'?). But then I
remembered that tv-feature where they described how vagabonding _pure_
DNA got sort of "eat up" by soil bacteria and integrated into their
DNA thus craeting random mutations.

This is the "virus effect" but without an actual virus or the
reproduction effect without any cellular hull or similar or even
without the interaction of more than one 'unit' in both cases.

Therefore my idea is to abstract the DNA to the concept of inheriting
properties. Defining it via then ability to give heritance of
properties won't work (mule example). But this alone isn't sufficient.
Otherwise any C++ program would be 'alive' as its components, which
make up its properties inherit their properties from their
predecessors. And we wouldn't want that to be called 'alive', would we?

Hey, clever point I made. By the definition of the ability to inherit
from someone/soemthing I state that the soil bacteria in my above
exmaple are alive, they inherit, but the mere, floating DNA itself is
not alive, as it's solely the heritance giver.

Well, as I stated we'd need some more criteria. Ideas?


  -- Alexander Adolf

-- 
                                              #include <std-disclaimer.h>
Alexander Adolf ---------------------------------- alex@venus.nbg.sub.org
Georg-Simon-Ohm Polytech.Univ. Nuernberg/FRG --- Department of Electrical
Engineering -------- Computer Science and Information Technology Division
