Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!news.umbc.edu!haven.umd.edu!ames!ictv!tmh
From: tmh@ictv.com (Todd Hoff)
Subject: Re: The Meaning of Life
Message-ID: <1994Sep13.194058.24001@ictv.com>
Organization: /import/news/lib/organi[sz]ation
References: <34qm2c$ei2@scratchy.reed.edu> <3514ejINNlbm@mendel.sis.pasteur.fr> <plugge.117.2E743174@cs.rulimburg.nl> <8iR9ig_00WB3IuwrUV@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 1994 19:40:58 GMT
Lines: 26

In article <8iR9ig_00WB3IuwrUV@andrew.cmu.edu>,
Alan S. Ferrency <af1x+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:
>Another point made is, do we really need to determine whether these
>alife systeems are "alive" or not?  I don't necessarily think so, but
>I haven't thought enough about it yet.  If we're studying "artificial
>life" but there's no generally accepted idea of what this is, then can
>we study it?  So, I guess I'm loosening the restraints- we don't need
>a strong definition, just a general intuitive idea...
>

For alife researchers and (horror) dabblers creating an absolute
definition of alife is probably a waste of time. If we can't define
what a chair is to everyone's satisfaction what's the chance of
defining life, love, hate and other complex concepts?

However alife does not only exist in the domain of researchers, it
will also exist in the political, social, legal, and ethical domains.
If the courts determine some form of alife is LIFE then
won't all legal protections apply? Won't environmentalists or the
ACLU get involved? This process could have many unintended
consequences.

Rather than be a victim of definitions made by others it would seem
intelligent for the alife community to make a definition of alife
that would protect researchers in other domains even if a definition
is not all that useful for researchers. 
