TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Give Robots their RIGHTS!
- Thread starter TheAntiLion
- Start date
Clint
Stay chooned in for more!
I was thinking about viruses ( is that right?) and they aren't alive... but they do things you know... it's weird they aren't alive but it's weird.... I'm having a hard time putting my thoughts into words lol. I mean REAL viruses by the way, not computer viruses. Maybe someone will know what I mean and try to extrapolate that lol.
I heartily disagree with you.
Not because of the items you mention, but because you use the word "never" with regard to a realm in which our knowledge is not even yet strong enough to refute that they'll ever exist.
I understand what you mean. Viruses aren't classified as "alive" because they don't meet certain criteria that science generally considers as something being "living", but they're very much alive in the sense that they perform actions purposefully, and they have existed in prior forms which they exist in no more having developed new ones.
Clint
Stay chooned in for more!
Correct, but why exactly can't we do it with normal wires?
Because feelings and life are different things, yet need each other to work. Life is life and cannot be replicated through science. Feelings are nothing without life to experience them.There are plenty of scientific journals explaining how time travel is not possible. I'd post the reasons here, but they're at my parents' house (how convenient you cry! LOL)
I can tell you plenty of other things that aren't possible, but by your argument is that anything is possible. That's one of the many 'lies told to children'
Still, I seemed to have triggered some debate here!
When you say you can't do something, you're proving yourself right, cause you never will. Looking throughout the history of Science there's been plenty of times people said things just couldn't be done, but they have been.
We wouldn't be where we are today if we listened to people who said things couldn't be done.
"Lies told to children" those kids grow up to become the people who do what everyone else said couldn't be done.
We wouldn't be where we are today if we listened to people who said things couldn't be done.
"Lies told to children" those kids grow up to become the people who do what everyone else said couldn't be done.
seedjar
Let's positive thinking!
That's become a matter of increasing question. Take a look at the fields of adaptive computation and artificial life. Turing already proved that a self-replicating automaton is logically and mathematically feasable, and that was over fifty years ago - at this point it's really more a matter of finding the right medium to implement the process in.
A while back when I was writing a paper on this topic I read about a guy who built a set of 'living blocks;' a collection of interlocking wooden blocks that behave much like self-replicating molecules. If you put the blocks together in a box, add a specific sequence of blocks in a chain, and shake the whole collection for a while, you'll end up with two chains of blocks identical to the first chain. I think most all of the quantifiable aspects of life have already been emulated in machines - metabolism, environmental awareness, reproduction. The remaining barrier is scale; biological life is still faster, smaller, cheaper and smarter than human technology, by leaps and bounds. However, the gap is definitely narrowing.
~Joe
I can tell you plenty of other things that aren't possible, but by your argument is that anything is possible. That's one of the many 'lies told to children'
Still, I seemed to have triggered some debate here!
I think you read what you wanted to read there. I didn't say all things are possible. I said you are bold to irrefutably state something is impossible when:
-You have no extensive knowledge of the subject.
-Humanity has not yet grasped the concept enough to make a distinct decision.
neon-eon
Stop having a boring tuna, stop having a boring li
my personal opinion is that humans have something robots don't have, a soul. Even if you were to install artificial nerves, and then shoot the robot with the gun, it wouldn't matter. you can program a robot to appear as if it is aware. Heck it may even say it that it is aware, but the fact still remains that it is mereley a shell. On the other hand, if you were to transfer a humans brain into a robot without the brain failing, ie a cyborg, then maybe it would have a true sense of self identity. This brings up another topic that even I'm unsure about... where is the soul located, if it exists. Does it even have a location? If souls existed, then in order to give a robot self identity you would have to either transfer it or artificially create it, which sounds impossible to me. Then there's the more scientific approach...maybe what gives us self identity is the way our molecules our arranged.What if self identity is merley an atomic reaction? When I think hard, even I am unsure. There are so many posibilities out there on what self identity really is...who knows? Oh and robots could technically evolve couldn't they, you would just have to start it off with giving the robot a lot of output options and then allow it to learn from the world around it. Robots can't reproduce so the robot would have to have some means of transfering the information it learned to another robot...wow this is a confusing topic
