I only skimmed over your actual article, as I'm reading this from work, so ignore me if I draw the same conclusions as you have. You would benefit by including an abstract introduction/conclusion clearly stating your answer to the question raised.
Quote:When does an algorithm turn alive
I'm going to rephrase your question:
"When does the complexity and/or sophistication of an algorithm become sufficent so as to be considered alive?"
I suggest that this question is misleading. Life, or consciousness (which is what we're really discussing here) should, IMHO, not be considered in terms of a binary distinction; things are not merely conscious or unconscious. Rather, consciousness should be defined as a spectrum. Ants at one end, Humans at the other. The more complex the algorithm, the better it performs, the higher on the scale it goes.
As an excersise, rank the following objects in terms of consciousness:
Human, Flower, Ant, Elevator, Screwdriver, Eliza, HAL 9000.
Note first that a Flower is certainly alive, but has little consciousness. The Elevator has a basic Input/Process/Output loop - taking button presses, engaging machinery, etc.
Here's my list, in ascending order of consciousness: Screwdriver, Flower, Elevator, Ant, Eliza, HAL 9000, Human.
In my experience, a lot of people want to do something like this - [] denotes equal precedence: [Elevator, Screwdriver, Eliza, HAL 9000, Flower], [Ant, Human]
The Philosophy of Mind is a debate that has been going on forever, but in my opinion, if you hold that there is no "ghost in the shell", then it makes no sense to start talking about consciousness as a binary distinction.
