James Rogers writes:
> All you've described is an efficient market, not a living being.
Yes, you could say that, although an 'efficient market' is just a subset of
what I described.
You are right to state that my speculations are based on a very loose
definition of what a 'living being' is.
> Your definition of "living thing" is awfully loose. You
> could apply that definition to any number of mechanical
> devices that you would probably agree are not alive.
But then, maybe I can ask you this: suppose we manage to produce an AI out
of silicon. How is that AI a living being?
Suppose an AI appears out of a vast network of computers, as some people
speculate. Since each individual computer can easily 'survive' on its own,
how does that affect the whole network as a 'living being'?
My speculations have a similar basis as the speculations that sentience may
arise out of a network of computers, only I am using a network of humans as
my underlying element. My claim is that, as the communications between the
nodes in the network become more efficient, the entire network takes on a
greater resemblance to living things. I also claim that this would
especially show when the network is challenged to respond to an external
event as a single, coordinated entity. Whereas at other times, when there is
no need to respond in coordinated manner, the network may show little
resemblance to a living thing. [One might then even say that it is 'asleep',
but I don't want to stretch you too far...]
> So then you agree that "group entities" of humans are built
> entirely on voluntary participation and are by no means
> necessary for individual survival.
They do seem to be necessary for what we consider comfortable survival,
though. A human being with no support from other human beings has a very
> Your "society" is an arbitrary application of grouping.
> What is your metric for "society"? If I can voluntary
> join or voluntarily leave a group, at what point am I
> designated "a member of society" regardless of my
> individual disposition?
This doesn't seem relevant to me - I think you're asking this because you're
limiting yourself to a stricter definition of what a 'living being' might be
than I do.
Note also, I do not state that a 'group entity' is entirely a living being;
I'm only saying that group entities do sometimes (or often, depending on the
entity) resemble properties characteristical to living beings. Hence, such a
'group entity' might in a way be considered alive, although according to a
strict definition it is of course not.
But then, how do I know whether you are alive or not? You might be just a
simulation. I only see text that appears as if it originated from an entity
named "James Rogers". I have no reason to believe that you are actually
You seem to be using the biological definition of 'living', which seems to
me irrelevant for this discussion.
> Many types of cells cannot survive on their own. Ones
> that can (or collections that can) are individual organisms.
> Two creatures living in symbiosis are not the same creature.
> A cell that can choose to disassociate itself from the
> organism and survive is an individual organism in its own right.
True, of course. Again, I am viewing the situation in a manner that seems
somewhat more relaxed than yours. If you want to operate with your strict
definition, you are of course correct.
And somewhat limited by ordinary definitions, too.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:24 MDT