It seems that the following possibilities should be considered in comparing
computers and biological life. Each paragraph could summarize a position
someone could take.
1: life equals computation
1a: There is a special emergent quality that happens with the occurrence
of certain (so organized) biochemical reactions. There is also a
special emergent quality that happens in certain (so organized)
computations that can be done on a computer. Therefore, if life
is equated with this "special emergent quality", then life on
computers is a reality. We already have certain programs (in the
contexts of certain programming environments) that can be considered
alive. It is only a matter of time and sophistication before
computers become conscious and self-aware.
or
1b: There is NO special emergent quality that happens with the
occurrence of certain (so organized) biochemical reactions.
Likewise, there is NO special emergent quality that happens in
certain (so organized) computations that can be done on a computer.
Both biological life and computer life are illusions. Consciousness
and self-awareness are illusions. The fact that we cannot get
computers to be self-aware is of no consequence because we are not
really self-aware either. Biological organisms have the same
limitations that computers do.
2: life does not equal computation
2a: There is a special emergent quality that happens with the
occurrence of certain (so organized) biochemical reactions. There
is NO special emergent quality that happens in certain (so organized)
computations that can be done on a computer. Therefore, even though
the computations on the computer can simulate the happenings of
physics and chemistry, the computer can not capture the "special
emergent quality".
2aa: The "special emergent quality" can be understood
as a non-computable effective process...some non-computable
aspect to a force (for example, there would be an aspect
to gravity that could not be expressed in an equation).
or
2ab: Every effective process is computable (all forces expressible
in equations) but there is a special emergent quality that
transcends effective processes. Therefore, computations
cannot capture or express that "special emergent quality".
2b: There is NO special emergent quality that happens with the
occurrence of any (so organized) biochemical reactions. There is a
special emergent quality that can happen in certain (so organized)
computations that can be done on a computer. This means that
we have the latitude to create or consider formal worlds on
computers (or in our imagination) that can not, in fact, exist in
the real world.
1a and 1b (and possibly 2b) offers the best vocational possibilities
(getting paid for doing this stuff). 2a (2aa, 2ab) for me offers the
most intriguing intellectual and philosophic possibilities (a
lthough it would be quite a personal gamble to try to make a living off
of these ideas). One might say that 1a,1b,2b are the result of a financial
attractor... and 2aa,2ab (at least for me) are a result of a philosophic
attractor. Of course, it would be convenient if 2aa,2ab could be
proved wrong. Then we could all get on with doing stuff without
"wasting" time talking about it. On the other hand, it would be a bit
presumptuous to think that we have it all figured out right now in
1995. (People thought they did back in 1895 also). By participating
in this discussion, we are at least recognizing the possibility of
additional significant discoveries in science.
Jeff Prideaux