http://alife.tribe.net/thread/921b4925-ebec-4b08-a350-e6ca90edd0a1?format=rss Tribe.net. Local Connections http://alife.tribe.net/thread/921b4925-ebec-4b08-a350-e6ca90edd0a1#ba3e303b-9d0a-41ac-a8ee-20ca0ec5cbe3 Personally, I think we should send machines capable of building infrastructure as soon as possible, if we ever want to colonize, and self-replicating machines would be an elegant way to accomplish that. Your philosophical/linguistic question is a fun one, though. The classic cogsci example of this is that a thermostat can be most easily described in terms of intent. Often, the people using a machine have sound cognitive reasons for anthropomorphizing: a lot of our brain power is wired toward socialization, so why not use those patterns to interface with your equipment? It's tough to say whether our perception of intentionality is just convenient pattern-matching, or if our whole concept of intent is just a pragmatic device we have developed to deal with responsive systems. But as an engineer, I certainly think of almost anything I've made as "alive" whenever it's in working order. Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:56:40 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/921b4925-ebec-4b08-a350-e6ca90edd0a1#ba3e303b-9d0a-41ac-a8ee-20ca0ec5cbe3 Joel 2004-06-12T20:56:40Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/921b4925-ebec-4b08-a350-e6ca90edd0a1#bd1a909b-bcd2-41c4-9b47-9cc9c5c17585 Maybe he meant "die" in the sense that the project will die without the rover's ability. Wed, 19 May 2004 14:30:22 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/921b4925-ebec-4b08-a350-e6ca90edd0a1#bd1a909b-bcd2-41c4-9b47-9cc9c5c17585 Euphoria 2004-05-19T14:30:22Z http://alife.tribe.net/thread/921b4925-ebec-4b08-a350-e6ca90edd0a1#c8a90e83-4160-4ce9-957a-1cd7cf7c2946 Here is a quote from Cornell University astronomer Steve Squyres in reference to The mars rover Opportunity (emphisis mine). "There are cliffs the rover could fall over and *die* if we aren't careful," said Squyres. "We are gong to proceed carefully and methodically." http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/06/rover.crater/index.html He could of said "be destroyed" but he said "die". Of course, this can be dismissed as common anthropomorphization, but how many generations of rovers will it take until it becomes more correct to say die than destroyed? 1? 5? 100? Never? Fri, 07 May 2004 20:25:05 GMT http://alife.tribe.net/thread/921b4925-ebec-4b08-a350-e6ca90edd0a1#c8a90e83-4160-4ce9-957a-1cd7cf7c2946 Sal 2004-05-07T20:25:05Z