Computers considered as living form.

[AtomicMX]

First of all i hate biology....

 

The living things have being considered as those whom present some characteristics.

 

Growth - You can make a computer that repairs itself and add itself new stuff with a nice coded program.

Metabolism - Energy Supply, Batteries, with a nice program that makes the computer indetify energy supply.

Motion- Computer would have to move to repair itself..

Reproduction.- Nice code and mechanisms to make the computer build another.

Response to stimuli - Kerboard? Sensors? Cameras?

[admiral_ju00]

 

First of all i hate biology....

 

that's a matter of opinion. nothing more' date=' i'm afraid.

 

Growth - You can make a computer that repairs itself and add itself new stuff with a nice coded program.

Metabolism - Energy Supply, Batteries, with a nice program that makes the computer indetify energy supply.

Motion- Computer would have to move to repair itself..

Reproduction.- Nice code and mechanisms to make the computer build another.

Response to stimuli - Kerboard? Sensors? Cameras?

 

well, when you create a computer that does not need ANY outside interference/intervention for any or all of it's functions, please let the world know.

 

but then again, you creating this computer would indeed constitute an interference, would it not?

[AtomicMX]

well, when you create a computer that does not need ANY outside interference/intervention for any or all of it's functions, please let the world know.

Errrr living things live because they need outside interference/intervention.

 

And i hate biology because it is not a science as thought (i started a challenge that no ones dares to take by the way.) and because is too subjective. That´s why if you use the biology definition of live, you could be able to consider computers as living things my friend.

[Crash]

Whats the challenge? and one biologists definition of living isnt nessecarily anothers......

cant agrue for something you know little of my friend

[AtomicMX]

The challenge is on challenges forums and its

 

Biology and Psychology are not sciences.

 

and well... most of the definitions of live can be applied to computers...

 

And i do not know little about the topic.

[Crash]

Well i took it from your definition of living not including all the basic things (MRSGREN)

that your definition of living (live is the wrong english) was incomplete

And no, computers aren't living(yet)

*left for the challanges forum

[AtomicMX]

well then i could make a challenges for this topic either..

if you like we could talk about it.

[Crash]

About what the definition of life is? or whether computers a considered to be livng?

if you come up with the moot, i accept your challange PM me when you get the downlow and well go from there

[Sayonara]

Computers are not considered life.

 

What you're saying is that we could design one that is, although I think we're a long way off from that. Even if we had that technological ability, creating such a computer would not mean we then had to consider all other computers as life forms.

[Sayonara]

Also, you have this all back to front.

 

If an artificial form fulfills all the provisions of our definition of life, we would consider it life. We woudn't complain that the definition was "wrong".

[AtomicMX]

thanks as well