Xenobot ( first living robots ) question (help)
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 12:37 am
I was challenged by foolishly sharing you’re fb post about being Cristal clear “these are not robots “
I regret it greatly , as I do not know anywhere enough about the subject .. fool me .
This is a rebuttal I received about you’re statement I shared
can you please tell me what your definition of 'robot' would be, and why that these artificial assemblages of living cells should be excluded? It's not enough to just say something along the lines of, 'robots aren't made from living cells'. Of course a definition like that would exclude these things. But it wouldn't explain why that definition is to be preferred to any other, making your point true but banal.
To start the ball rolling, Wikipedia defines the word as follows:
'A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer—capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically.'
It then goes on to describe something of the history of the word, including its common connection to humanoid or mechanical machines. If limited to that sort of thing then, yes, this would of course exclude these structures. But the word is now routinely used for non humanoid mechanisms.
'Xenobot'seems like a good word 'Living robots', maybe not so much. But it's not clear to me that it’s wrong .
Another was
I disagree. The cells require electricity to exist, they may be organic in essence, but definitely not in function...
Im sure you’re very busy and I am so sorry to disturb you
For my foolishness..
I thought it would be of interest of yourself to answer
It would also be educational for myself , so I may not make such a blinder again ..
Thank you Bernardo
I regret it greatly , as I do not know anywhere enough about the subject .. fool me .
This is a rebuttal I received about you’re statement I shared
can you please tell me what your definition of 'robot' would be, and why that these artificial assemblages of living cells should be excluded? It's not enough to just say something along the lines of, 'robots aren't made from living cells'. Of course a definition like that would exclude these things. But it wouldn't explain why that definition is to be preferred to any other, making your point true but banal.
To start the ball rolling, Wikipedia defines the word as follows:
'A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer—capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically.'
It then goes on to describe something of the history of the word, including its common connection to humanoid or mechanical machines. If limited to that sort of thing then, yes, this would of course exclude these structures. But the word is now routinely used for non humanoid mechanisms.
'Xenobot'seems like a good word 'Living robots', maybe not so much. But it's not clear to me that it’s wrong .
Another was
I disagree. The cells require electricity to exist, they may be organic in essence, but definitely not in function...
Im sure you’re very busy and I am so sorry to disturb you
For my foolishness..
I thought it would be of interest of yourself to answer
It would also be educational for myself , so I may not make such a blinder again ..
Thank you Bernardo