Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!deakin.OZ.AU!rand!amk
From: amk@rand.mel.cocam.oz.au (Adam Krebet)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: computer life?
Summary: Do computers have selfish genes?
Message-ID: <179@rand.mel.cocam.oz.au>
Date: 28 Feb 91 06:54:33 GMT
References: <1991Feb14.135220.7790@vax1.tcd.ie> <1991Feb19.130832.9715@shiva.sci.com>
Organization: Co-Cam Computer Group, Melbourne, OZ
Lines: 44

In article <1991Feb19.130832.9715@shiva.sci.com> joe@shiva.sci.com (0000-Admin(0000)) writes:
>In article <1991Feb14.135220.7790@vax1.tcd.ie> bjkinane@vax1.tcd.ie writes:
>>I am preparing a presentation on the subject of whether computers can be
>>considered as an emerging life-form....... 
>
>First off, what constitutes a 'life-form'? Taking into consideration that
>the 'species' of computers is varied, one might stretch the point
>and proclaim computers as a species evolving along the silicon line 
>as opposed to the carbon line. But, then again, there are diverse mutated
>forms of cars.  And, so far, I have not seen any behavior exhibited from any 
>motor vehicle which would permit me to assert that it is intelligent (this 
>includes it symbiotic passenger).
>
>Since I haven't been beat upon in some time, I thought I would throw this
>out :-).

Jokes aside, it seems to me that the need for intervention by another life
form in reproduction does not necessarily disqualify one as being a life
form oneself.  We have a symbiotic relationship with computers in which
they serve us in return for species perpetuation.

However, because computers are so specialised, they rarely show much of
the 'selfish gene' behavious that Richard Dawkins discusses.  There is no
group survival instinct as computers do not directly perpetuate their
own genetic structure to successors.

Software is probably a better candidate as a life-form, using computer 
hardware as its survival machine.  There are still problems here, as
there is not clearly defined and global goal in software - except to serve
the specific purpose for which it was written.

Now, since software can be used to simulate living things, I feel that
some software systems can be seen to be living (as in some existing systems).
In general though, not all programs display the behaviour of living systems.
One can certainly program a 'living' being in a computer (theorem of 
equivalence).

Who was the S.F. writer who first postulated that the universe is the
result of a computer simulation??

============================================================================
[When in doubt, don't generalise]...
Adam Krebet
============================================================================