>
>Ralph:
>>It
>>seems you are talking in ID terms here, saying life has a purpose. Do you
>>feel this purpose comes from outside of life or is part of life itself?
>>If a living organism dies, did it die because it lost its purpose? Is there
>>a purpose to the "purpose"? (I can see my questions are getting murkier
>>and murkier--even to me!). I'm just curious about how you see this purpose
>>working. Or can we just say: "Life has a purpose--but so what?"
>
>Bertvan
>Hi Ralph. "So what" is ok with me. The only purpose to life I discuss is
>what life is obviously doing - growing. I put more esoteric "purposes" in
>the same category as "the nature of the designer". I don't worry about
>questions to which I'm unlikely to find the answer.
Life does grow. Why that necessarily means it has a purpose, I'm not sure.
I agree with you that it's pointless to worry about questions you will never
have an answer to. For instance, I don't waste time trying to trisect an
angle using straightedge and compass. It's been proven it can't be done that
way. How do you decide which questions not to worry about?
[snip]
>Bertvan:
>Maybe the perfect organism could adjust to all environments. Humans are
>getting closer. Environments are part of nature and maybe changing
>environments are part of the design. (You've given me things to think
about.)
That really would be a perfect organism, all right, if it could adjust
quickly enough. Some environmental changes could be darn quick. I'm
not sure I'd nominate us for the honor, though. I mean, we work by
committee, for god's sake! :) I agree that if there is a design, then
changing environments could be part of it. So could pretty much anything
else you care to name.
[snip]
>
>>>Bertvan:
>>>A few other things had to be added that hadn't existed before. Adding
some
>>>measure of intelligence to life probably wasn't enough to make it grow.
>>>Motivation was needed for the system to do its own growing. Choice, free
>>>will, spontaneity, creativity, consciousness and emotions were probably
all
>>>necessary new ingredients. They seem to distinguish life from non life.
>>>(You'll never find any of them in a computer.)
>
>Ralph
>>These things hadn't existed before life started, you mean? Christians
>>would disagree with you, I think, since they feel God (who presumably has
>>all these things) has always existed. I'm not sure I'm ready to say (as
>>you seem to be saying) that all life (if it is to be classified as life)
>>has choice, free will, etc. It's a little scary to think of the millions
>>of bacteria roaming on and inside of me as having free will, creativity
>>and emotions! By the way (in your last sentence again!), I'd be careful
>>of that word "never". I think it was Yogi Berra (?) who said something
>>like: "Predictions are hard, especially when they're about the future".
>
>Bertvan:
>Not being a Christian (or even religious) I can't speak to much of that.
>Maybe Christians believe they existed in the mind of god. I have no opinion
>on that. Bacteria can be scary, with or without free will. I've seen
>pictures of them pursuing, devouring, fleeing and escaping from each other.
>How can we be certain they have no choice as to turn right of left.
>
>Respectful apologies to Yogi, but I think I'll go out on a limb and state
>that consciousness, free will, creativity and emotions will never be found
in
>a computer.
>
>Thanks for the non confrontational response
>
>Bertvan
>http://members.aol.com/bertvan
My pleasure. I will go out on a limb, too, and say that I detect a
certain degree of hope in your answer. You don't want to ever see a
computer with consciousness, free will, creativity and/or emotions?
Please bear with me and don't consign this to the Pit of Questions
You Never Worry About. :) Why do you hope that computers will never
acquire these non-material attributes, qualities, whatever they are?
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 11 2000 - 01:42:58 EDT