Challenge: Computers are alive.

[AtomicMX]

Computers are living forms according to the common biology life definition.

[admiral_ju00]

this should be interesting.

[AtomicMX]

any challenger?

[admiral_ju00]

give it time, as the majority of members haven't had the chance to see this challenge.
i'll be a spectator myself.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'd say no. They're dead.

[Sayonara³]

No.

[AtomicMX]

No to what? :S
errrr if they´re dead, they were alive, watch what you said.

you ought to say that there are simply not life forms.

[Sayonara³]

No, computers are not alive, nor are they life forms, nor have they ever been considered alive, nor do they fulfill all of the qualifiers we currently associate with the living forms we know of.

Whichever.

[AtomicMX]

nor do they fulfill all of the qualifiers we currently associate with the living forms we know of.

Which qualifiers does computers does not fullfill?

[Sayonara³]

Well, since you ask, any of them.

They don't move, grow, reproduce, respond to stimuli, excrete, or carry out respiration (or any form of chemosynthesis for that matter).

[AtomicMX]

Sure they do...

Are you taking the challenge?

set the rounds, its exactly the same for me..

[Sayonara³]

How many rounds do you want? 5-10.

[Tesseract]

Are you talking about current computers, or ones that you can hypothetically make?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Hey!

Sayanora's already gotten one, let us have a chance!

[Sayonara³]

Are you talking about current computers, or ones that you can hypothetically make?
"One might be able to make a computer that fulfills the definition of life" would not really be much of a debate.


Hey!

Sayanora's already gotten one, let us have a chance!
Suits me.

[Tesseract]

"One might be able to make a computer that fulfills the definition of life" would not really be much of a debate.



Suits me.

Then Im on the no side...

[AtomicMX]

Of course i am not talking of common computers, it would be that you theorically cn make (not hypothetically) because most of the specs. needed are already done.

[Sayonara³]

Are you saying that your proposal for the debate is "if we made a living computer it would not be alive"?

[AtomicMX]

What its soy hard to understand?, i mean, you all are pretty smart...

We have a concept of life.
If something whatever fills those qualifiers then it can be named with it.

So if a computer (not a pc for the love of christ) or computational system hardware/software fills the definition of life then it might be considered as alive.

[AtomicMX]

seems that we are already debating here.

Then if you like the topic would be changed to

"Some sort of computers might be considered as living forms"

in that case the debate or my point is exaclty the same.

[AtomicMX]

if you want to debate 2 things at the same time sayonara i am ready for it...

set the rounds. 5 would be ok for this one.

[Sayonara³]

Sorry, but it seems to me that you saying "some computers might be considered living forms" cannot be reconciled with you saying "if a computer fits the definition of life, then the definition is wrong".

I think you need to make up your mind what you believe, and decide what this debate is going to be about. Changing the goal posts every other reply is going to piss people off pretty quickly.

[AtomicMX]

#1-Computers are living forms according to the common

biology life definition.
#2- Any challenger?
#3-
"Sayonara - No "
No to what? :S (asking to sayonara)
"Cap'n Refsmmat I'd say no. They're dead. "
errrr if they´re dead, they were alive, watch what

you said. (replying to cap'n to have sense in
what he said, because the first thing for

something to be death is that i should was alive).
you ought to say that there are simply not life

forms. (reply to cap'n in the sense that he said
wrong his idea)
#4-
Which qualifiers does computers does not fullfill?


#5
Sure they do...
Are you taking the challenge?
set the rounds, its exactly the same for me..

#6
Of course i am not talking of common computers, it

would be that you theorically can make (not

hypothetically) because most of the specs. needed

are already done.

#7
What its soy hard to understand?, i mean, you all

are pretty smart...

We have a concept of life.
If something whatever fills those qualifiers then it

can be named with it.

So if a computer (not a pc for the love of christ) or

computational system hardware/software fills the

definition of life then it might be considered as alive


#8

seems that we are already debating here.

Then if you like the topic would be changed to

"Some sort of computers might be considered as living

forms"

in that case the debate or my point is exaclty the

same.

Those sayonara are all my post in this thread.
Where in the %$&# world do i change my topic or point of view?

Where is the "if a computer fits the definition of life, then the definition is wrong". text in the lines i said?

and i think you shouls look for a better graduated glasses. i have kept my same point thru all the replys.

And please DO NOT PUT words on my mouth.

[AtomicMX]

and i should get a better keyboard by the way...

[Sayonara³]

in that case the debate or my point is exaclty the same.

Those sayonara are all my post in this thread.
Where in the %$&# world do i change my topic or point of view?

Where is the "if a computer fits the definition of life, then the definition is wrong". text in the lines i said?

and i think you shouls look for a better graduated glasses. i have kept my same point thru all the replys.

And please DO NOT PUT words on my mouth.

Here:
http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4351

this is the reason i hate biology.. because is too subjective.. the goal of these posts are to get life definitions for another thread that is tittled "computers are alive"...
cause if you follow the life definitions you could consider a computers as a living thing.
i really do not consider them alive, is mostly to prove how st00pid biology is.

What you are saying there is "I think computers fulfill the qualifiers for the definition of life, therefore the definition of life is wrong (or subjective, whichever) because computers are not alive".

If you mean currently available computer systems, then you are wrong because they do not fulfill the definition.

If you mean some imaginary computer system that we can conceive of, then you are wrong because:
(i) That is special pleading and does not apply to "computers" as a technology, and
(ii) If it fulfills all the qualifiers for the definition of life, then it's alive. QED.

[Sayonara³]

Not that that is a reason not to debate it, I just think you are being inconsistent (which makes it difficult to work out exactly what you are proposing).

If "Some sort of computers might be considered as living forms" is the actual title of the debate, then my answer is now "agree".

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If he's saying we could make a computer that is alive (not say that any one is), then I don't want to debate this. In theory, a computer could be alive, but not a computer like we use everyday.

[Crash]

I want to debate this!!!!! You say your have an undefeatable awnser to tihs....cant wait to see what it is;)
The moot should be "Computers are not living organisms" or "computers are not considered living forms"

[Tesseract]

And I also want to debate, interesting topic. :-)
Im on the agree side.

[AtomicMX]

I did say that i do not consider them as alive because i don't think so, it sounds weird, but talking about the biology "science" concept of life, then i agree to say that a computer might be considered as a living form.

And at last you agreed.

But something i do not understand is, who agrees and who does not?

so we can make the debate for the god´s sake.

[Tesseract]

I did say that i do not consider them as alive because i don't think so, it sounds weird, but talking about the biology "science" concept of life, then i agree to say that a computer might be considered as a living form.

And at last you agreed.

But something i do not understand is, who agrees and who does not?

so we can make the debate for the god´s sake.

I agree that one could create a computer (machine) that would be considered alive. :-)

[Sayonara³]

I agree that one could create a computer (machine) that would be considered alive. :-)

Me too.

[AtomicMX]

The there is no debate because i'm right. tararan (*)

[Tesseract]

The there is no debate because i'm right. tararan (*)
I think we could still debate the actual title of this thread.Computers are alive...I say no. :D

[AtomicMX]

no my friend, because if you are going to the way you are going i will loose in 2 rounds.
´but i´ll better watch my english and well... i think this debate would be close or
named as "some computers are living forms"

[Tesseract]

no my friend, because if you are going to the way you are going i will loose in 2 rounds.
´but i´ll better watch my english and well... i think this debate would be close or
named as "some computers are living forms"

I say the debate is more like:

"One could create a computer that could be considered a lifeform" :-)

[AtomicMX]

i agree.

I do not debate just for being right or wrong (althouhg get to seem like) i debate to get something, and certaily i got it here in this .... debate hall... and thaks to you for participating.

[Cohen]

That was a bit of an anti-climax, I was looking forward to this one. :-(

[berkan]

I personally don't believe in a soul, but some think that a computer couldn't ever be considerd as a living form since it doesn't have a soul. My answer is YES a computer can be considered a living form, because I think that life is much more complicated than the defenitions above. A similar example would be a "Virus" some consider it alive and some don't.
Sorry didn't want to interfere with the debate, just felt the need to post this...

[Sayonara³]

Do bacteria have souls? What about fungi? Ants? Asparagus?

Unless you could test whether or not a soul is present, it would never be a qualifier for the attribute of life anyway.


This isn't actually the debate - this is still a challenge. Someone still has to agree to argue with AtomicMX that some computer he might be able to make (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4340) would not be alive according to a definition he isn't sure of (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4351).

[YT2095]

Computers are living forms according to the common biology life definition.was your original post.
you cannot pressent that and change your deffinitions just because you eventualy recognise that you`re on a loser "in two posts" as you stated. you`re arguing a point NOW that is nothing like it, and far removed from your original challenge.
prescise deffinition and challenge is required from the start, otherwise you`ll just be picked appart from the beginning. maybe a rethink is in order and start it again, by the way, trying to argue about what MIGHT BE possible in the future (whether it`s a living computer or not) is futile, it`ll be based purely on opinion, and therfore worthless, with no winner or loser.

have a rethink dude :)

[admiral_ju00]

Do bacteria have souls? What about fungi? Ants? Asparagus?

Unless you could test whether or not a soul is present, it would never be a qualifier for the attribute of life anyway.


This isn't actually the debate - this is still a challenge. Someone still has to agree to argue with AtomicMX that some computer he might be able to make (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4340) would not be alive according to a definition he isn't sure of (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4351).


ROFL. Is there no end to your Cynicism and desire to rip someone a new bodily orifice???

On the other hand, that's the best part about many-a-post of yours and very necessary process of science.

Can't remember who said it, but here goes:
An extraordinary and novel claim(theory) must be backed up/supported with an equally extraordinary proof

[Sayonara³]

Cynicism is key to not going insane ;)

[YT2095]

Ehem!....

and WHAT`s wrong with Insane? LOL :))

[AtomicMX]

LOL i did not read the last post, and yes you are right.

And i retract this debate... i do not know if it can be canceled.

I did this when i arrived this forum i was hasty, and i apologize, but thanks, now i watch my mouth to an excentric level.

Yet i would make a challenge " You can build a computer considered as a live form "
not might... because might is for starships and stuff.

[Sayonara³]

OK; do you want to close this challenge and make a more specific one, or just change this challenge?

[AtomicMX]

Shut it down.
As you said i cannot continue with this motion because it would not be a consistent position. (Y)

[AtomicMX]

(please)