Anthony Cerrato  wrote or quoted:
> "Tim Tyler"  wrote in message
> > Anthony Cerrato  wrote or quoted:
> > > "Tim Tyler"  wrote:
> > > > Robert Karl Stonjek  wrote or

> > > > > The potential for synthetic biology | By Pamela
> Silver and Jeffrey Way
> > > > >
> > > > > ? 2003 Nature Publishing Group
> > > > >
> > > > > Synthetic biology is a new discipline based on the
> > > > > expectation of a revolution. In the future,
> > > > > bioengineers will create new organisms based on the same 
> > > > > strategies that engineers use to design computer
chips, bridges,
> > > > > and skyscrapers. Mathematical modeling will drive
> > > > > the design of useful, artificial organisms, instead of
> > > > > relying on the blind, trial-and-error methods of
natural selection.
> > > >
> > > > It sounds like artificial life rechristened.
> > >
> > > I dunno--depends whether or not there are biologists in
> > > that bunch or just electronics/computer guys. I do like
> > > this idea of engineering "synthetic" life in a
real biological
> > > sense.

[...]

> >   Artificial life amounts to the practice of ``synthetic
> >   biology'' and, by analogy with synthetic chemistry, the attempt to
> >   recreate biological phenomena in alternative media will result in 
> >   not only better theoretical understanding of the phenomena under 
> >   study, but also in practical applications of biological principles 
> >   in the technology of computer hardware and software, mobile robots,
> >   spacecraft, medicine, nanotechnology, industrial fabrication and 
> >   assembly, and other vital engineering projects.''
> >
> >  - Chris Langton's "What is Artificial Life?" essay, from:
> >    http://alife.ccp14.ac.uk/zooland/zooland/

> Make no mistake, I am not putting down computer simulation
> and other techniques in the study of synthetic methods of
> various kinds (as a rather old retired analytical chemist I
> am very aware of the power and utility of these techniques
> in increasing our knowledge and ability to duplicate/improve
> various real world processes.) I would agree that the
> extension of such techniques to biology may well turn out to
> be invaluable in ultimately duplicating the Origin of Life
> process(es) in the lab--they certainly will be useful in
> studying various aspects of the subject. The only point I
> was making was the following: if some sequential method were
> theoretically developed for an OOL process, using computer
> models for example, and the method was completely accepted by 
> biologists through peer review, no one will completely really
> believe it until and if it is actually duplicated in real world
> labs.  Would you? :))

"Artificial life" was /never/ a term confined to computer simulations.

It has /always/ been a term that referred to man-made organisms -
of *all* sorts.

Whether the orginsms in question have been in virtual worlds,
made from metal, plastic, silicon, fullerenes, molecular
nanotechnology - or other material - has never been specified
in definitions of the term.

Alife 1 - back in 1987 - had Eric Drexler, Richard Dawkins, Hans Moravec,
and A. Graham Cairns-Smith giving talks - those guys are *not* computer
scientists.
-- 
__________
 |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim{at}tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/3/04 10:27:03 PM