Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watdragon!violet!cpshelley From: cpshelley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (cameron shelley) Subject: Re: computer life? Message-ID: <1991Feb26.213835.27074@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Keywords: Survival, instincts Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes) Organization: University of Waterloo References: <8617@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1991Feb22.220125.20891@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> <1791@svin02.info.win.tue.nl> <5375@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 1991 21:38:35 GMT Lines: 33 In article <5375@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> minsky@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes: [...] > >But that shows the great joke in the attempts to "define life" that >have appeared in this newsgroup. Missing the whole point of how >natural selection produces stuff. The lesson should be, you can't >define stuff, only words. And then, as the above illustrates, the >words you define may not have much to do with the stuff you intended >them for. So, it's all a language game eh? Unfortunatly, all we can do on a newsgroup is bandy mere words, as opposed to e-mailing each other our newly created life-forms to show our points. The only problem I've noticed in the discussion to date is that posters are trying to be all-encompassing rather than confining themselves to relevant details (or showing why something new is relevant). I think the trouble is with the use of 'evolution', which has lead to dispute over natural selection -- not the relevant process to apply to computer engineering I would say. More to the point of the original posting, why don't we leave the process undefined, assume computers will constitute an intelligence at some future point, and discuss how this could change our relationship with our science and technology, or anything else of merit. Cam -- Cameron Shelley | "Absurdity, n. A statement of belief cpshelley@violet.waterloo.edu| manifestly inconsistent with one's own Davis Centre Rm 2136 | opinion." Phone (519) 885-1211 x3390 | Ambrose Bierce