How could we determine whether an advanced, lifelike robot was alive? What’s missing to make it alive?
Answers
Answered by
0
Answer:
( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥ follow me and make my answer brainlist( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥( ˘ ³˘)♥
Explanation:
A robot is non-living until it is self-replicating and self-supporting. A self-replicating program is not living, because it is not self-supporting. ... A self-replicating program is not living, because it is not self-supporting. A self-supporting robot is not living, because it is not self-replicating.
Answered by
0
Answer:
In order for a robot to be considered alive, it needs to be driven by its own interest and not by a human determined program. Descriptions of living robots from the science fiction genre illustrate this understanding of a living machine.
Similar questions