Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!news.cs.indiana.edu!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!ux.acs!oleary From: oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu (Doc O'Leary) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: computer life? Summary: Life-form, not biological life Message-ID: <3319@ux.acs.umn.edu> Date: 21 Feb 91 06:59:14 GMT References: <1991Feb19.130832.9715@shiva.sci.com> <1991Feb19.163133.8664@news.larc.nasa.gov> <8617@castle.ed.ac.uk> Organization: University of Minnesota, Academic Computing Services Lines: 38 In article <8617@castle.ed.ac.uk> eomu01@castle.ed.ac.uk (Hall) writes, among other things: >The actual biological definition of a living organism can be described >by the mnemonic "MERRING". > >Movement >Excretion >Respiration >Reproduction >Irritability >Nutrition >Growth Would you, then, say that a person in a severe coma is not a living organism? The person would fail, like a computer, to meet 5 of the 7 above (perhaps even all 7). Couldn't you, likewise, say that computer viruses are living organisms (biological?) because they meet at least 5 of the above 7? A *computer* is not a life-form anymore than is a corpse. Each is merely a system that has the potential to "contain" life. Without proper "software," neither can be considered a life-form. I'd say a major difficulty with this discussion is the varied definitions of life. Though there are similarities that make different life-forms analogous, the definition of computer life should not be the same as that of biological life. ********************** Signature Block : Version 2.1 ********************* * | * * "Was it love, or was it the idea | If at first you don't succeed . . . * * of being in love?" -- PF | you have failed. * * (Which one *is* Pink?) | * * | oleary@ux.acs.umn.edu * ****************** Copyright (c) 1991 by Doc O'Leary ********************