tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sat May 09 22:09:08 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: ...beings capable of using language...
- From: "Qermaq" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: ...beings capable of using language...
- Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 01:14:32 -0400
ghItlh Nathan:
>This is interesting.., no one has emphasised this word before, and it
>may make a difference...surely no one would accuse a robot or a
>computer of fullfilling the requirements for the word 'being'. Would
>(for example,) Data be considered a being??? I feel that we should
>examine this word....
'Being' is basically defined in two ways - something that is actual, or
something that lives. It is not defined in terms of self-awareness or
consciousness at all - one definition is simply "human", but all others do
not limit themselves to conscious creatures. I suspect anything 'alive'
could be a being.
So then, what is alive? Is Data alive? Perhaps, depending on your definition
of life. 'Growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of
adaptation to environment through changes originating internally' is one
definition. In this sense, since Data is not capable of metabolic growth or
organic reproduction, one might say he is not alive. But if you stress point
3, you might call him alive.
Of course, what matters here is Marc Okrand's definition of 'being'. Can a
being be not alive? If so, what constitutes a being? I said that the word
'being' was likely unimportant since anything capable of truly using a
language (employing it in new and unpredictable ways - I do not feel a
computer language used by a mainframe is the 'use' considered here) is
clearly clever enough, either through evolution or design, to consider the
words they use, to think and reason. Data can clearly do this. Is he then a
being? Perhaps it is less clear than I initially thought.
Qermaq