Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 11:51:42 10/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2002 at 12:09:38, Louis Fagliano wrote: >On October 19, 2002 at 10:47:01, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>Consider an analogy between an amoeba and Fritz: >> >>Most people would agree that amoebas are alive. But suppose some very tiny >>predator were to take a very tiny bite out of one particular amoeba? Furthur, >>suppose that the bite was so tiny that it only removed only one single atom from >>the amoeba. Chances are, that bite would not kill that amoeba. But then let >>another very tiny predator take another very tiny bite [another atom] out of >>that same amoeba. Maybe that bite, too, would not kill the amoeba. But let the >>process continue, one bite at a time until that poor amoeba is all eaten up. >>Most would agree that life would have left the amoeba after one of those bites. >>[Unless one believes in "amoeba ghosts."] >> >>Most would also agree that the original amoeba consisted of a finite number of >>atoms, arranged together in a very special way. But who would seriously assert >>that individual atoms are alive? I wouldn't. And yet, the amoeba, consisting >>of a finite number of atoms, is alive. Something, life, is added to the >>collection of inanimate atoms. How? I don't know. >> >>Now lets look at Fritz. >> >>Fritz may be considered to be "merely" a collection of machine instructions, >>with the machine instructions arranged in a very special way. A very large >>collection, indeed. Just like the amoeba is a very large collection of atoms. >> >>Most would agree that a single machine instruction is not alive. But what about >>the very large collection of machine instructions called Fritz? If a very large >>collection of inanimate atoms can have life, why not the same for a very large >>collection of inanimate machine instructions? >> >>It seems that life cannot be ruled out for Fritz! Of course, this by itself >>does not prove that Fritz is alive. But it does rule out the possibility that >>Fritz could not be alive. >> >>Life is not created in the image of Man. >> >>More later. >> >>Bob D. > >An atom and a machine instruction are are not even close to being the same. In >fact, the only thing they have in common is that they are both nouns. > >An atom is a type of noun that is a "thing". It has mass and other properties >associated with mass. Other types of nouns are, of course, persons (which are a >subtype of "things"), places, things, qualities, or acts. Only things and >persons are actual physical objects. Places, qualities, and acts, though they >are nouns, and can be perceived, are not entities existing in space or time. A >law is a noun but is no attributes associated with a thing. Thus, it is >meaningless to ask, for example, what is the temperature of the three strikes >and you're out law. > >So I claim that not only is Fritz not alive, it's not even an inanimate object! >The inanimate object is the actual computer running Fritz. Fritz exists on >level that's removed from even being an inanimate object let alone being alive. >It's the set of instructions for inanimate object to perform. So, you prefer to define life as being something physical? If so, is this just a preference, or is there some reason? Bob D. P.S. It's OK with me for people to have preferences different from mine.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.