Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!math.lsa.umich.edu!jjewett
From: jjewett@math.lsa.umich.edu (Jim Jewett)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Fresh Ideas (hopefully)
Message-ID: <1990Oct11.210307.7279@math.lsa.umich.edu>
Date: 11 Oct 90 21:03:07 GMT
References: <3560@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <14517@hydra.gatech.EDU> <90277.034819BINDNER@auvm.auvm.edu> <5640@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL>
Sender: usenet@math.lsa.umich.edu
Reply-To: jjewett@math.lsa.umich.edu (Jim Jewett)
Organization: University of Michigan, Department of Mathematics
Lines: 26

In article <5640@suned1.Nswses.Navy.MIL>, lev@suned0.nswses.navy.mil
(Lloyd E Vancil) writes:

|> I think I agree with you as far as the different evolution goes but I wonder
|> if we would recognise a truly "awake" computer or Computer system.  Could
|> the inter related systems we already have created be awake in some way and
|> if they are, or are not, how would we "prove it"? 

So maybe the internet is alive, and "heals" when major sites leave, and
grows, and reproduces, and ... ?  Crystals also meet many of the definitions
of life ... I won't say that they aren't alive, but computers aren't the
only place we run into ambguities.  Is a virus (biological) alive?

But I do like the idea that the Mean Time Between Failure is just how long
the computer can stay up.  ;)
 
|> At this level this is the same question the SETI people face.  For us to
|> recognise intelligence the observed and observer must have some common
|> mental ground.

The intelligence in science thread, and the semantics thread (text)
are about this.

-jJ 
jjewett@math.lsa.umich.edu       Take only memories.
Jewett@ub.cc.umich.edu           Leave not even footprints.