Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!mips!wdl1.wdl.loral.com!wdl1!mikeb From: mikeb@wdl35.wdl.loral.com (Michael H Bender) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: computer life? Message-ID: Date: 27 Feb 91 19:34:29 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@wdl1.wdl.loral.com Organization: Ford Aerospace, Western Development Laboratories Lines: 36 In-Reply-To: eomu01@castle.ed.ac.uk's message of 20 Feb 91 11:31:31 GMT eomu01@castle.ed.ac.uk (Hall) writes; The actual biological definition of a living organism can be described ^^^^^^^^^^ by the mnemonic "MERRING". Movement - ... Excretion - ... Respiration - ... Reproduction - ... Irritability - ... Nutrition - ... Growth - ... 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...? Although you refer to these as CRITERIA, they sound more like SYMPTOMS to me (i.e., CLASSIFICATION, not DEFINITION). Mike Bender