Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!news.larc.nasa.gov!grissom.larc.nasa.gov!kludge
From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov ( Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: computer life?
Message-ID: <1991Feb22.205741.21538@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 22 Feb 91 20:57:41 GMT
References: <1991Feb14.135220.7790@vax1.tcd.ie> <1991Feb19.130832.9715@shiva.sci.com> <1991Feb19.163133.8664@news.larc.nasa.gov> <1991Feb22.154109.26616@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: news@news.larc.nasa.gov (USENET Network News)
Reply-To: kludge@grissom.gatech.edu ( Scott Dorsey)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center
Lines: 45

In article <1991Feb22.154109.26616@watdragon.waterloo.edu> cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) writes:
>It is interesting that crystals have both of these properties.  They 'grow'
>becoming a highly organized structure while compiling energy in the form
>of molecular bonds, and reproduce by splintering.  Should we think of them
>as life-forms?  I guess this is where "metabolize" comes in; on the one
>hand, crystals anabolize minerals to build themselves but I don't believe
>they have any intrinsic catabolic process which tends to break them down.
>Is there a geologist in the house?!  Now, are viruses life-forms?

Viruses are debatable, which is part of the problem.  If you consider
viruses as being life forms, then perhaps we can construct a computer which
will easily fit the definition of being living.  Like viruses, computers 
don't self-replicate, but they are used as models to instruct and design
other computers, the actual construction being done by living beings.

One other thing, which I forgot to mention, by the way:

3. Living things are self-repairing.

By this, I mean that if injured, they heal themselves.  Of course, the
self-healing is fairly limited by available resources and by the organism's
degree of redundancy (ie. if a head is chopped off a person, it will not
grow back easily, but a loss of blood is swiftly compensated for).

>Anyway, on the original topic, computers are certainly highly organized,
>but they do not have a metabolism in the above sense -- they do not have
>any intrinsic processes that break them down (excluding material fatigue),
>probably because they are not under any competetive pressure for resources
>and they don't reproduce.  At present, these functions are done for the
>computers by their manufacturers and users.  The situation may change
>though.

Organization isn't enough.  One thing you'll find in all organisms is a 
very high degree of redundancy.  Even in bacteria you'll find a large 
amount of superfluous genetic material.  Parts subject to damage tend to
be duplicated.  And while the degree of organization is very high, it does
not always appear to be so to the naked eye (much like that of computers).

>So, I concur that metabolism and reproduction are necessary for life
>as we understand it, but complexity deserves attention as well.

Complexity is certainly required for life, but I think that's because 
complexity is required for mechanisms of metabolism and reproduction.  
(And self-repair).  
--scott