Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!hoss!typhoon!willdye From: willdye@typhoon.unl.edu Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: computer life? Message-ID: Date: 26 Feb 91 03:48:58 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> <1991Feb22.220125.20891@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Sender: news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer) Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln Lines: 23 ...and then there is the 'realpolitik' approach to defining life... We use the idea of life to achieve certain political goals. For example, if a signifigant minority of people have a disregard for human life and automatic weaponry, then the state has an interest in either taking away their weapons or instilling some virtues. Suppose a proposed definition of life allowed people to live out their violent fantasies by killing 'virtual' people. If this acted as a catharsis, then the state would have an interest in keeping the virtual people defined as non-life. If, however, it becomes habit- forming, instilling a desire to try the real thing, then the state has an interest in defining life in a different way. The point is, in the real world, a definition is not merely what we think it is as we sit in bemused academia. A definition will have an affect on our behavior, and the consequenses of that behavior will affect how we continue to define things. Hmmm. 'Sounds cynical and ineloquent, but can you see my point? I'm not advocating realpolitik, by the way. willdye@typhoon.unl.edu