hutch (02/18/83)
Well, it has been at least a week, and no flames have gotten to me
for my philosophical maunderings. Other things, yes, but philosophy, no.
However, rgvdh (how do you pronounce that?) at mit-cc (I think) has
mentioned to me that there is no clear dichotomy between alive and
unalive, based on complexity of actions.
This is true, and I admit happily that I was being vague. I think that
the important assumptions for this sort of argument rest on the fact
that we occupy a position in the spectrum of "aliveness" and that we
can set fuzzy, but real, limits on what parts of that spectrum we will
consider to be alive.
These limits, for practical purposes, are
to be alive, a thing should exhibit both complexity of structure
(with complexity being left undefined for the moment) and some
semblance of motivation in its actions. There is nothing of
motivation in the actions of botulus toxin, where the botulus
organism shows the very primitive motivations of seeking food,
reproducing itself, and secreting substances to (sort of) defend
itself. Viruses seem only to try to reproduce themselves, and
cannot even move themselves about.
for us to perceive a thing as alive, we have to be able to observe
thing. We have to observe it under different conditions. We have
to observe it over a period of time which lets it exhibit behaviour.
And we have to be able to recognize such behaviour and classify
it in a way that lets us determine if it is motivated.
Note that according to the second assumption-set, we cannot say that
(for instance) a mountain is not alive, or part of a living organism.
We can, however, say that it is not alive to the best of our knowledge.
I will now define complexity, for the purposes of my argument. I think
that complexity is a quality of the metric being used to analyze a given
system. (WHAT?!) That is, any time we analyze something, we can build
at least one representation of that thing. The "best" representation is
the one which can be used to predict or describe the largest number of
features of the thing being analyzed. Any given representation can be
called a metric, since it is actually a measure of some attribute of the
features of the thing being represented. The number of separate metrics
and components of metrics, the number of states in a system, whatever,
all can be used to give a general notion of complexity. The larger the
number of these metrics, features, and states, the more complex we can
say a thing is.
Anyway, to continue this flame in a productive direction (HA!!) I will
assert that the apparent level of complexity of action on the part of
a thing which we have decided is alive, can be used to deduce how much
awareness it should minimally need to perform those actions. When we are
dealing with "unalive" things, we can say that no awareness is requiured.
When we are dealing with borderline things, we can say that there is
some borderline awareness that should be present to describe some of the
less predictable or mechanical (in the general sense of the word) actions
that the thing performs. When we get to a certain order of complexity,
we can no longer predict easily what will be the action in response to
a given environment and stimulus.
Therefore, I can say that a human has to have a considerable level of
awareness in order to operate effectively. This awareness seems to
include a feedback mechanism which makes the awareness capable of
introspection. Kinky, no?
The question at this point becomes, how does this introspection operate,
what can it be used to determine (about itself), and what things can
be learned with it?
Recap: I have made the assertions that because I have physical senses
which inform me that the world is too complex for me to model easily,
and that my model is frequently wrong, that in fact the world must have
an independent existance apart from my perception of it. I also assume
that I exist, which I take as a given.
From my conclusion that the world has objective existance, I
then validate some points of my model. I can describe a phenomenon
which I call "life" and which I can describe as having the qualities of
"awareness" and "complexity" where the awareness is necessary to mediate
the (mechanical) complexity.
I assert that the "human" has awareness which has feedback
capability, and will discuss the nature of that awareness as revealed
by application of that feedback capacity.
I now return to my gopher hole, awaiting the descent of the great
mallet from the sky that will squash all this pretentious discussion.
Steve Hutchison
... decvax!tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!hutch