AtomicMX Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admiral_ju00 Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Whats the challenge? and one biologists definition of living isnt nessecarily anothers...... cant agrue for something you know little of my friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted June 6, 2004 Author Share Posted June 6, 2004 well then i could make a challenges for this topic either.. if you like we could talk about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crash Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 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". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicMX Posted March 10, 2005 Author Share Posted March 10, 2005 thanks as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now