Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!koriel!ames!pacbell.com!att-out!undergrad.math.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: <Cw17z1.137@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca>
Sender: news@watdragon.uwaterloo.ca (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: yoho.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <34dklr$kh9@gap.cco.caltech.edu> <javhar.779026676@gwr> <34pjpq$ko8@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca> <javhar.779375115@gwr>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 19:40:12 GMT
Lines: 58

In article <javhar.779375115@gwr>, Jack van Rijswijck <javhar@Bausch.nl> wrote:
>we (umholme0@cc.umanitoba.ca (Douglas Alan Holmes) and javhar@bausch.nl
>(Jack van Rijswijck)) write:
>
>>>>So can we build up a list of things we agree are "alive" and not "alive"
>>>>and "in between" and build up a map of the domain. By looking at the
>>>>examples which are contentious we might determine what the correct 
>>>>properties are.
>
>>>But what do you mean by "correct"?
>
>>Agreeable to the majority of parties concerned as required to 
>>define "alive", as best we understand the concept at this time.
>
>But that makes it arbitrary, which brings me back to my point: what's
>the use of attaching labels? What knowledge do we gain? You can never
>say "this thing IS alive", only "this thing can be called alive under
>this definition of life".
>
>It would only make sense if "life" were some fundamental property or
>concept. But is it? Or it is merely an intuitive concept formed in our
>minds? And since those are inherently of a different nature than 
>formally defined concepts, the very act of defining them necessarily
>changes the subject. Besides, why should life be a binary variable?
>
>See, "as best as we understand the concept at this time" assumed that
>there is some concept `out there' called life, which we're trying to
>understand. But the concept `life' really is just a creation of our
>minds.
>
>
>Jack van Rijswijck
>javhar@bausch.nl

This is what Minsky is trying to get at.  the concept `out there' is the
ancient vitalism philosophy.

How about a simplified approach to ALife research:

       You , on your own, come up with whatever definition of ALife that
you desire.  DO SOME RESEARCH (code something perhaps).  Then report
your findings along with your definition.  It worked for the Tierra study.

For instance, Ray stated that reproduction and survival were his essential
life elements, and Tierra was the result. Very educational, good research.

My definition for ALife will not contain a reference to reproduction, I'm
still formulating it. The work will have results.  They might be useful. 
Who knows, maybe one the results will be that the definition I'm working
with doesn't appear to create things that are subjectively `life-like'


What's needed are proposals for new experimental directions.  New approaches.
Successes with old approaches.  The philosophy is nice, but the group
is bogged under it currently.

Brian Van Straalen

