I noticed something recently. There's literally not a single defining factor between animals and robots. They both have various components that are essential to them operating, and take what they receive as input (hearing, seeing, smelling, etc.) and convert it to output (movements, saying things, feelings, etc.). If you really look at it, robots are a form of animal, just like any other. They even operate off of electrical signals, the same way we do. What are your views on this? Do you think that on a basic level, humans have possibly created what could be considered as a new form of life?
Robots don't need to eat, breath or reproduce and have no feelings. They aren't alive.
Animals are symbiotic, robots are mechanical/technical
Robots do what you want, animals just shit everywhere.
[QUOTE=NotAName;33183853]Robots don't need to eat, breath or reproduce and have no feelings. They aren't alive.[/QUOTE]
Animals eat and breathe because they have an internal generator that runs off of the food they eat and the oxygen they inhale. They have feelings because their brain tells them to feel certain ways for survival and a better understanding of their surroundings.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;33185385]Animals eat and breathe because they have an internal generator that runs off of the food they eat and the oxygen they inhale. They have feelings because their brain tells them to feel certain ways for survival and a better understanding of their surroundings.[/QUOTE]
So do you.
You are a robot I'm so sorry.
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;33185406]So do you.
You are a robot I'm so sorry.[/QUOTE]
I was saying that animals/humans/robots are all essentially the same, even if humans and animals are infinitely more advanced versions of robots.
Robots are not animals by definition.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;33183599]Do you think that on a basic level, humans have possibly created what could be considered as a new form of life?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not. I don't see where the distinction occurs between us and animals apart from that we are more intelligent than they. And this exists between animals apart from us as well. You don't see obvious emotion in a fly, but you certainly see it in a dog. This argument goes back to Darwin. When many people were arguing that human intelligence and animal intelligence was actually different in kind, he was arguing that it was different only in degree.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33185956]Absolutely not. I don't see where the distinction occurs between us and animals apart from that we are more intelligent than they. And this exists between animals apart from us as well. You don't see obvious emotion in a fly, but you certainly see it in a dog. This argument goes back to Darwin. When many people were arguing that human intelligence and animal intelligence was actually different in kind, he was arguing that it was different only in degree.[/QUOTE]
What? I was saying that on a very basic level, humans, animals, and robots are all the same.
Oh I see I misread that
Also no there is a very strict definition of life and robots do not meet it
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;33186486]Oh I see I misread that
Also no there is a very strict definition of life and robots do not meet it[/QUOTE]
I was saying from a broader interpretation of it, not the literal definition of "life"
The seven life processes-
Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Growth
Reproduction
Excretion
Nutrition
Did you ever do biology in school?
I agree with OP. This thread reminds me of I, Robot for some reason.
In a broad sense, Robots are artifical life forms that can act similiar to humans and animals from instructions provided by its software (brain?).
[QUOTE=RobL;33188537]The seven life processes-
Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Growth
Reproduction
Excretion
Nutrition
Did you ever do biology in school?[/QUOTE]
have YOU ever done biology? there are things classified as life that do not do hardly ANY of those.
[QUOTE=RobL;33188537]The seven life processes-
Movement
Respiration
Sensitivity
Growth
Reproduction
Excretion
Nutrition
Did you ever do biology in school?[/QUOTE]
Robots can move.
Respiration is just something else that is required to keep our components working.
Sensors of any kind can be added to a robot, we simply have much more advanced ones embedded in our skin.
We are built out of a material that can grow, yes. However, it would be very possible to have a robot that takes outside materials and uses them to build onto its-self.
Replicating robots that can build duplicates of themselves exist.
Simply by mounting a generator on a robot (like we have internally) it would be able to generate it's own power, and waste.
Robots do not need nutrition to stay running, as they work off of batteries- they need no internal power source. If you were to add an internal generator, it would need fuel.
From a very very broad perspective one could call robots a form of proto-life. Not life itself yet. In a sense I have to agree in that humans and animals are essentially biological machines.
Though I'd say the main difference lies in intent. A robot doesn't perceive their own agenda (no matter how simple, even just reproduction) but they have pre-given agendas which they do not stray from. And even if we made a robot from nothing but biological components, it would lbe merely a robot.
On the most basic, [i]basic[/i], [b][i]basic[/i][/b] level they are the same in that they use energy and do things.
But big distinction, they can only ever do what they are told.
Also the seven processes of life (by machines I mean mostly robots and AI) -
Movement - Yes (some).
Respiration - No; Machines do not require any gasses to operate (however they may use it for other functions, like blowing compressed air).
Sensitivity - Somewhat; Machines will never stop because they are "hurt", unless they are told to. And if they are told to, they can never decide not to stop when they are "hurt".
Growth - Not really. Some machines can be added on to and can be told to add parts to themselves, but that's more like enhancements than actual growing.
Reproduction - As far as I know, there is no 100% self replicating machine, however there is a slim possibility of creating a true one.
Excretion - None, machines do not excrete anything because they use electrical energy. However some functions they preform may create waste products.
Nutrition - Sort of. They require energy like us, but it is pure electrical energy instead of chemical energy that produces waste.
To be honest the seven processes of life seem more like ground school thing than actual science.
Since three of those are essentially all the same process
Respiration, Nutrition and Excretion and one can even go as far as say that machines and robots fullfill these points.
Take a machine powered by a gas engine
nutrition - gas
respiration - oxygen is required for intake for the combustion reaction
excretion - I think that's a given.
Sensitivity is also fairly easily programmable - Take computer overheating and autoshutdown for instance.
A Sensor picks up a certain situation (heat) and this then makes the machine turn off until said situation passes away.
To be honest the biggest distinctions these days we have to make is reproductive and seeking in effect.
A machine requires nutrition but most machines do not seek it out themselves.
[quote]
Robots do not need nutrition to stay running, as they work off of batteries- they need no internal power source. If you were to add an internal generator, it would need fuel.
[/quote]
Most food you ingest is essentially a form of a battery when you think about it.
I think the major defining difference is that robots are manufactured using machines and industrial materials, whereas living organisms are born.
While I understand hypotheticals about when artificial intelligences and robots in general become smart enough to afford rights, for the moment they are in an odd position where they appear to have some intelligence while in reality having very little. They're stupid as fuck and most rights do not even fit them, why does something with no free will deserve freedom or something with no survival instinct or will to live deserve the right to life?
It's gonna be weird later when they are intelligent, but not at a uniform level. Make it clear as day that as you get more intelligent, you get more rights. Classify different machines based on criteria from manufacture and be legally obliged to treat them fairly. It probably won't be a general thing and rights will be very very different, but it's strange.
I feel like if the definition of life has to be broaden, it is not really that comparable.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;33190458]On the most basic, [i]basic[/i], [b][i]basic[/i][/b] level they are the same in that they use energy and do things.
But big distinction, they can only ever do what they are told.
Also the seven processes of life (by machines I mean mostly robots and AI) -
Movement - Yes (some).
Respiration - No; Machines do not require any gasses to operate (however they may use it for other functions, like blowing compressed air).
Sensitivity - Somewhat; Machines will never stop because they are "hurt", unless they are told to. And if they are told to, they can never decide not to stop when they are "hurt".
Growth - Not really. Some machines can be added on to and can be told to add parts to themselves, but that's more like enhancements than actual growing.
Reproduction - As far as I know, there is no 100% self replicating machine, however there is a slim possibility of creating a true one.
Excretion - None, machines do not excrete anything because they use electrical energy. However some functions they preform may create waste products.
Nutrition - Sort of. They require energy like us, but it is pure electrical energy instead of chemical energy that produces waste.[/QUOTE]
Resperation is required to keep what we are made out of working, as well as to fuel us.
Machines are programmed to stop functioning when they are damaged to a certain extent, the exact same way that our brains tell us to.
Our growing is only beneficial to us as humans, it is possible for robots to grow in a similar way, but there is no point in them doing so yet.
It would be childs play to make a self reproducing machine, 3d printers can already make every single component required to make a new 3d printer.
They need just as much nutrition as we do, just in a differnet form. Different life forms consume different things to generate energy.
Robots are not conscious. There's is nothing in them that gives them collective consciousness. They are an unattached and impersonal series of circuits.
What makes animals (including humans) unique is that our bodies are so advanced that we have a sense of awareness and a single conscience. To argue that what we consider "robots" are no different from animals is essentially the same as saying a light switch or a flashlight is no different. You can take the two a part all you want until everything is separated and say "SEE?! IT'S ALL JUST A BUNCH OF CHEMICAL REACTIONS NO MATTER WHAT!" all you want, but that is just not how our reality works.
In short, "robots" are not a single, collective consciousness. They are not aware of their being. They are a series of ins and outs that are so simple in comparison to the animals that grew out of our universe and, like I said, are no different than a light switch or a flashlight, just with more functionality.
[QUOTE=Andokool12;33193017]Robots are not conscious. There's is nothing in them that gives them collective consciousness. They are an unattached and impersonal series of circuits.
What makes animals (including humans) unique is that our bodies are so advanced that we have a sense of awareness and a single conscience. To argue that what we consider "robots" are no different from animals is essentially the same as saying a light switch or a flashlight is no different. You can take the two a part all you want until everything is separated and say "SEE?! IT'S ALL JUST A BUNCH OF CHEMICAL REACTIONS NO MATTER WHAT!" all you want, but that is just not how our reality works.
In short, "robots" are not a single, collective consciousness. They are not aware of their being. They are a series of ins and outs that are so simple in comparison to the animals that grew out of our universe and, like I said, are no different than a light switch or a flashlight, just with more functionality.[/QUOTE]
Our consciousness is just caused by our brains being very advanced. Theoretically, you would be able to produce the exact same result by programming an extremely advanced computer that way.
Also, some living beings/animals don't have consciousness, like in microorganisms. Their brains aren't powerful enough for it.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;33192821]Resperation is required to keep what we are made out of working, as well as to fuel us.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;33192821]Machines are programmed to stop functioning when they are damaged to a certain extent, the exact same way that our brains tell us to.[/QUOTE]
True, however we can chose to ignore those signals, they can't. If you've got ten big guys coming to kill you, and you twist your ankle, you're going to keep running.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;33192821]Our growing is only beneficial to us as humans, it is possible for robots to grow in a similar way, but there is no point in them doing so yet.[/QUOTE]
How would it be possible for them to grow in a similar way?
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;33192821]It would be childs play to make a self reproducing machine, 3d printers can already make every single component required to make a new 3d printer.[/QUOTE]
Completely 100% untrue. The Rep Rappers (for example) can only reproduce about 60% of themselves. To be 100% self replicating, they would have to print out all the parts, go find metal and cut out the needed pieces along with making screws and gears and wire, they would have to print out circuit boards or breadboards, then they would have to solder or at least connect all the components, [i]then[/i] they would have to put that all together, and upload their own code to the new machine. Then [i]and only then[/i] will it be 100% self replicating.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;33192821]They need just as much nutrition as we do, just in a differnet form. Different life forms consume different things to generate energy.[/QUOTE]
I suppose using solar panels could be considered getting their own energy, so fair enough.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;33193116]Our consciousness is just caused by our brains being very advanced. Theoretically, you would be able to produce the exact same result by programming an extremely advanced computer that way.[/QUOTE]
Are you truly self-conscious if you are programmed to be?
well then that goes into how humans were first created (or rather life) and things become very complicated and fuzzy at that point...
Robots don't have free will, at least not at the moment as robots are pre-programmed do to tasks, while I'm sure that all forms of life have at least some basic free will. I'm sure even workers for a colony (such as bees) would still have free will, or simply just free thought (but they only act for a greater good).
Animals are also capable of reproduction, I think that's also a factor to be considered in this debate.
[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;33195394]Fair enough.
True, however we can chose to ignore those signals, they can't. If you've got ten big guys coming to kill you, and you twist your ankle, you're going to keep running.
How would it be possible for them to grow in a similar way?
Completely 100% untrue. The Rep Rappers (for example) can only reproduce about 60% of themselves. To be 100% self replicating, they would have to print out all the parts, go find metal and cut out the needed pieces along with making screws and gears and wire, they would have to print out circuit boards or breadboards, then they would have to solder or at least connect all the components, [i]then[/i] they would have to put that all together, and upload their own code to the new machine. Then [i]and only then[/i] will it be 100% self replicating.
I suppose using solar panels could be considered getting their own energy, so fair enough.
Are you truly self-conscious if you are programmed to be?[/QUOTE]
Growing in effect is no magical process, but instead essentially increasing the matter of the individual in a predetermined way as matter and energy get's added in.
Say your solar powered example. What if it had a program, that made it construct additional solar cells if it had spare energy and material and then attach these to itself.
It's a very similar process and also different from the process shellcrabs employ (as those do not graft the new parts to their bodies but merely use them).
Right now there are obviously differences between life and machine, but I wouldn't go as far as to claim that the standard external signs are it.
[QUOTE=Antdawg;33197477]Robots don't have free will, at least not at the moment as robots are pre-programmed do to tasks, while I'm sure that all forms of life have at least some basic free will. I'm sure even workers for a colony (such as bees) would still have free will, or simply just free thought (but they only act for a greater good).[/QUOTE]
Free will is a philosophical dilemma.
Our decisions are merely results from our perception of the situation. Robots have that too.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.