I'm just wondering about what defines "life". Because if we made a robot that was programed to reproduce itself, learn, change according to it's surroundings, and stop functioning after a while, could we not call it "alive" and why?
2006-07-09 06:00:21 · 14 answers · asked by cricket 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
My dear friend,everything is quite ALIVE here.Every paticle in the space or body is trying to attain equillibrum with the atmosphere.Our space is ALIVE,the continuous change in the atmosphere makes the all bodies to react & attain equillibrium.There is no perfect EQUILLIBRIUM.There is a continuous change of body to liquid,gas,fire and ether.Every piece of space or body is FIERY or LIVE.Only thing is you are unable to see them ALIVE.
2006-07-09 07:19:08 · answer #1 · answered by . 3 · 11⤊ 6⤋
This robot no matter how advanced could never really "feel". Therefore, all of its functions, all of its learning, and adaptations are artificial. Responses to commands, programming. You could argue that human beings are merely a fleshly version of that; merely responding to the commands of our environment slowly being programmed throughout our lives, but I dont think robots or whatever kind of artificial intelligence you want to come up with could learn to "feel" happiness or loss or anything. It could reproduce the symptoms of these emotions but, well, you get the picture. Also, humans, animals, plants, bacteria, and any other living thing have cells that reproduce on their own. Robots no matter how advanced even if they could repair themselves rely on materials inanmate parts that have to be replaced. No other form could ever take a cell from one being and a cell from another and create a completely new being that grows and matures on its own.
2006-07-09 16:29:51 · answer #2 · answered by manonfire 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What makes something alive is the same thing that makes it conscious. There is a line between periodic automation and non-periodic complexity.
It does not matter how complex or sophisticated your robot would be, it would still be a set of recursive and repetitive rules. Our brains and even those of insects are based on chaotic information processing systems with a broader spectrum of possibilities, behaviors etc.
It's actually a well balanced mix of order and chaos that makes life possible.
Today's computer software are too orderly and too simple to let chaos ignite life into them.
2006-07-09 13:05:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
" Life is the characteristic state of organisms. Properties common to terrestrial organisms (plants, animals, fungi, protists and bacteria) are that they are cellular, carbon-and-water-based with complex organization, having a metabolism, a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and—through natural selection—adapt."
Is it cellular, carbon-water based. Does it have a metabolism, have the capacity to grow, and have the capacity to evolve (physically with respect to it's offspring). Doubt you were able to do all that with a robot. But I applaud your efforts.
A.I. and robotics has always been something I wanted to learn about. Thus far, unfortunately, I haven't gotten around to it. Perhaps someday, when my children are a little older.
BTW, I believe you would need the assistance of Nanotechnology to REALLY bring a robot to life.
2006-07-09 14:10:13 · answer #4 · answered by tigerzntalons 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say that living things have cells, yet a scientific answer doesn't seem strong enough. It possible to breathe yet not live. Science cannot completely explain this enigmatic entity called life. To live you must think, wonder, and question. To live you must run, jump, and experience. To be alive you must do something with your life and not be a turtle stuck inside its shell. I think this is why a robot cannot really be alive.
2006-07-09 13:08:02 · answer #5 · answered by an amateur 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because it would not really be "reproducing" itself- it would gather parts and put together anpother robot.
Live animals use reproductive processes such as mitosis or miosis, whereby the organism itself produces the parts, not goes out and finds them like a robot would have to.
Also, cell production is a continuous thing- it not only happens in reproduction, it happens in every organism as we grow, shed skin, breathe, ingest, digest, etc., we are creating new cells and modifying existing cells.
2006-07-09 13:06:25 · answer #6 · answered by teachingazteca 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great question!!!!!!!!!
I think its because what we have been programmed to belive / see / Perceive from childhood-- what is Alive and what is Dead.
Look at what William black wrote:
I Question not my Corporeal or Vegitative Eye
As I Question not Window concerning sight
I See through it and not with.
This world is Five windows of the soul and distorts
Heavens from pole to pole.
And leads you to belive A Lie
when you see through NOT wITH the Eye!!!!!!!!!!!!
2006-07-09 23:32:34 · answer #7 · answered by leo m 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Self-awareness. Yes this means I do not consider plants to be " alive ", they are complex organisms, but I refrain from giving them too much credit.
2006-07-09 13:35:57 · answer #8 · answered by judson d 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if it has a spirit of some type it is alive.
the robot would be alive if a spirit assumed control of it after you built it.
if there is no spirit, then we assume it is matter only or the spirit inside itself is nearly dead.
2006-07-09 13:07:08 · answer #9 · answered by kevrob8008 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Something comes "alive" when it receives attention, care or love. It doesn't have to be animated.
2006-07-09 13:07:26 · answer #10 · answered by The Indigo Cobra 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
thee movement and awakness of something thremental and physical behavior of someething.
2006-07-09 13:28:20 · answer #11 · answered by jopuppy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋