Newsgroups: comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!cmcl2.nyu.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-16.sprintlink.net!tezcat!news.bbnplanet.com!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!165.254.2.53!nonexistent.com!not-for-mail
From: viren@world2u.com (Viren Jain)
Subject: Re: ---<Definitions of consiousness>---
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.1/32.230
X-Nntp-Posting-User: (Unauthenticated)
Message-ID: <E3o2JL.Fzy@nonexistent.com>
References: <32cb5c0e.4115476@news.ping.be> <5anb8f$pi4@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> <32d6aa1c.11103216@news.ping.be> <32e0d3b6.21755658@news.ping.be>
X-Trace: 852688350/17928
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: i123.142.world2u.com
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 01:49:45 GMT
Lines: 40

On Tue, 07 Jan 1997 19:03:28 GMT, AIR1@ping.be (Stephan Verbeeck)
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Jan 1997 15:09:36 GMT, I wrote (and forgot a part):
>
>>So that gives us the following new definition of live:
>>======================================
>>- The individual has to be conscious (able to recognize which similar
>>events in its environment are caused by itself and which aren't) and
>>have a means to convert energy/matter into actions in that SAME
>>environment.
[etc]

	Excuse me if I am totally off target as a result of joining
this thread of late, but what EXACTLY are we trying to define here?
Life? Well.. WHO is life? For all the progress that has been made, it
seems to me that most of the disputes are caused over arbitrarily
drawn lines around life. We seem to be wanting to define life and THEN
give it's example's. I don't think many people, if any, are capable of
totally comprehending life in and of itself as a state. Sure, we CAN
say fire is alive, we CAN say plant's are dead -- but that's hard to
do if people are using their own perception and own definition of
life; of course the orginial purpose, from what I gather, was to
define life. So I think that we should at least define WHO life should
include - since from our discussions their appears to be no one easy
'trick' to making something come alive, and call it alive. If we see
life as something defined by it's characteristics as such, we see a
relativity that pertudes upon most definitions. If your happy - life
kicks ass (characteristic). If your sad - life sucks (characteristic
that contradicts with the former). If your an insect  (from all I
know) - life is 'doing' (characteristic). If your human, life is doing
& thinking (characteristic that is distinctly different than the
former again). These are pretty bad examples, but I hope you see my
point through all this.
	Whew. I hope this made some sense, comments and curses
appreciated. By the way, does anybody see a chicken-and-egg paradox in
this whole thing? Let me know.
 -Viren Jain-
 -"The Robot Gods Are Coming This Way, and I want to Go With Them"-
 -viren@world2u.com
