Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!dsinc!netnews.upenn.edu!msuinfo!frith!dailey From: dailey@frith.uucp (Chris Dailey) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: computer life? Message-ID: <1991Feb22.220125.20891@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Date: 22 Feb 91 22:01:25 GMT References: <1991Feb14.135220.7790@vax1.tcd.ie> <1991Feb19.130832.9715@shiva.sci.com> <1991Feb19.163133.8664@news.larc.nasa.gov> <8617@castle.ed.ac.uk> Sender: news@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu Organization: Michigan State University Lines: 84 In article <8617@castle.ed.ac.uk> eomu01@castle.ed.ac.uk (Hall) writes: >The actual biological definition of a living organism can be described >by the mnemonic "MERRING". But a living computer would not need to follow a biological definition, would it? I would think that, by definition, a living computer MUST NOT follow the biological definition, but have its own. >Movement - O.K. so I suppose some computers (more formally robots) can > be said to be able to move. I am not always in motion. Does that mean that I am not a living organism when I am not in motion? Well, if you go to a lower level, I guess you can say that blood flows, the heart pumps, etc. But ... computers have thousands of microscopic switches moving around, not to mention hard drives continually going. >Excretion - I hardly think that a computer is able to excrete metabolic > waste products from itself (unless you count the endless > reams of garbage that I seem to be able to get out of them)! A computer generates heat. >Respiration - This is the breaking down of some form of chemical energy > source. Whilst a computer may be said to require energy > not many can be said to be able to make their own. A computer's respiration happens 'off site' at your local power plant. >Reproduction - This subject has already been touched on. It only remains >(at some for me to say that I doubt that it can be said that >point in its computers making other computers can be called >life-cycle.) reproduction. A program can reproduce itself [ex: fork() in UNIX]. Are you limiting things to just hardware? [Which you can if you want -- I would not presonally place such a restriction on the definition of a lifeform.] Maybe there exists a form of life outside the realm of the physical. How many times have you heard Dr. McCoy on Star Trek say, "It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."? >Irritability - In other words a response can be produced by doing > something to it that it doesn't like. O.K. so here is > another criterion (sorry if it is spelt wrongly) that is > satisfied by computers since I seem to be able to get a > response quite easily (usually in the form of error > messages). Is grass irritable? >Nutrition - Can a computer be said to feed itself? I think not. >Growth - I fail to see how a computer can be said to grow during the > period of its life. At lest I have never seen a computer > change in size even over several years. Have you? I have grown in many ways that do not relate to size. Mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc. >This may seem to be a simple form of classification, but that fact >remains that for an organism to be considered to be alive (and hence a >life form), it must fulfill all the above criteria (with relatively few >exceptions and even then only an exception in perhaps 1 or 2 of them at >a time). Above, we can see that computers fail on 5 out of the required >7 criteria, therefore I would strongly conclude that computers cannot be >said to be true life-forms in any stage of development. However, people ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >always make mistakes, so perhaps in years to come we will all be >replaced by our more efficient, robotic models...who knows...? A true ORGANIC life-form, maybe. I think the goal is to go beyond what is, and create what is not yet. Maybe we'll end up creating something even better than the 'true life-forms' you speak of. It seems to me that your criteria are arbitrary, that is, based on the will and discretion of someone that had things in mind other than what we are looking for. >:An ardent philosopher and scientist. -- Chris Dailey dailey@(frith.egr|cps).msu.edu __ __ ___ | "A line in the sand." -- The Detroit News __/ \/ \/ __:>- | \__/\__/\__/ | "Allein in der sand." -- me