They are not alive, for they dont breathe and they dont die. Trees are alive, and yet they arent intellegent, while computers, which are not alive, are intellegent.
Depends on the definition of "alive" you are using. Biologically, any living thing is composed of cells. Computers are not composed of cells. Therefore, they are not alive under this sense.
Depends on the definition of "alive" you are using. Biologically, any living thing is composed of cells. Computers are not composed of cells. Therefore, they are not alive under this sense.
No.If computers were "alive" then they would probably have a mind of their own and exist in their own little world(not really). Aside from that,here's a list(not really) to classify something that is alive overall. Is able to move? Does it require oxygen? Does it require water? Does it require nutrition? Does it responds to changes in its environment? Produces waste and excretes it? Grows as it gets older? Reproduces itself? I'd say that computers are non-living.
If you guys are so sure that they are not consious in any way, what makes us different then? We are nothing but cause and effect, similar to the functions of a computer.
If you guys are so sure that they are not consious in any way, what makes us different then? We are nothing but cause and effect, similar to the functions of a computer.brandontwb
You guys are giving TC too little credit. He actually has an interesting idea. Stop writing it off as some sort of insanity, because it makes sense if you think about it logically. Computers may not be 'alive' now, but what about in the future? We already have some AI that can adapt to its surroundings and learn, what's to say that we don't have sentient computers in teh future?
If you guys are so sure that they are not consious in any way, what makes us different then? We are nothing but cause and effect, similar to the functions of a computer.brandontwb
Everything that exists in the universe is subject to cause and effect
You guys are giving TC too little credit. He actually has an interesting idea. Stop writing it off as some sort of insanity, because it makes sense if you think about it logically. Computers may not be 'alive' now, but what about in the future? We already have some AI that can adapt to its surroundings and learn, what's to say that we don't have sentient computers in teh future?
I think something needs to have the characteristics of movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and needing nutrition, to be alive. There's nothing I can see that warrants a change to all that, so computers aren't alive. As an aside though when i was a kid i laughed at the idea of plants being alive.
You guys are giving TC too little credit. He actually has an interesting idea. Stop writing it off as some sort of insanity, because it makes sense if you think about it logically. Computers may not be 'alive' now, but what about in the future? We already have some AI that can adapt to its surroundings and learn, what's to say that we don't have sentient computers in teh future?
This all reminds me of Skynet :|
rpgs_shall_rule
I trust Wasdie's judgement more...
I didn't say you have to trust my judgement. If you agree with wadsie, then so be it. I'm just voicing my personal opinion on the matter.
[QUOTE="brandontwb"][QUOTE="xaos"]Is an abacus alive? Also, do computers grow, reproduce or possess the other characteristics generally associated with life? This whole thread started on a pretty silly premise.I'm talking about consciousness. Do you need to grow or reproduce to be alive? Yes, it's quite well established that all living things must take in energy, excrete waste, react to surroundings, grow and reproduce
Nothing in a computer happens without commands or instruction.
Everything you see on your screen is the result of two voltage levels being mixed and matched in an infinite amount of ways.
Wasdie
Nothing in your body happens without a command/instruction and everything that we can see about you are a mix of chemicals fluctuating in infinite ways.
That being said I'll believe it when the computer resists me turning it off or unplugging it hahah
You guys are giving TC too little credit. He actually has an interesting idea. Stop writing it off as some sort of insanity, because it makes sense if you think about it logically. Computers may not be 'alive' now, but what about in the future? We already have some AI that can adapt to its surroundings and learn, what's to say that we don't have sentient computers in teh future?
This all reminds me of Skynet :|
Cheesehead9099
Computers could learn in a fasion however they could never learn how to do something competely new just arrange currently known abilities into tasks and alter parameters based on trial and error. It is theoretically possible that you could make a robot copy what you're doing but only if it already knew how to do the individual components and how to recognise someone else doing them already.
You guys are giving TC too little credit. He actually has an interesting idea. Stop writing it off as some sort of insanity, because it makes sense if you think about it logically. Computers may not be 'alive' now, but what about in the future? We already have some AI that can adapt to its surroundings and learn, what's to say that we don't have sentient computers in teh future?
This all reminds me of Skynet :|
markop2003
Computers could learn in a fasion however they could never learn how to do something competely new just arrange currently known abilities into tasks and alter parameters based on trial and error. It is theoretically possible that you could make a robot copy what you're doing but only if it already knew how to do the individual components and how to recognise someone else doing them already.We are preprogrammed to know how to do brain functions on a primitive level, and we could program these abilities into a computer as well. If a computer was programmed to do do something completely new I would say it could do it. Our brain already has methods of communication that we did not learn ourselves.
[QUOTE="brandontwb"]If you guys are so sure that they are not consious in any way, what makes us different then? We are nothing but cause and effect, similar to the functions of a computer.xaos
Everything that exists in the universe is subject to cause and effectThen I would argue that cause and effect and consiousness are the same thing. Think of it like this: You agree that we as humans are just products of cause and effect. Our decisions and everything is based off cause and effect, and yet you and me, we feel like we are alive, like WE choose what we want to do. I am purposing that that feeling, is in fact cause and effect itself. If you built a brain similar to a humans and looked at it objectively, it is a functioning, organized and planned piece of cause and effect machinery. But through the processes it performs and it's consciousness are not inseparable, rather they are one thing.
Log in to comment