Talk:Self-replicating machine

Rapid prototypers

What is the rationale for removing the section on rapid prototypers? --TS 14:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The removal was likely perpetrated by a banned editor. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not start it up again, please be nice. JSimmonz (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Edits made by a certain indef-blocked editor have been removed, as blocked editors are not allowed to edit. If they wish to appeal their block, they must do so through the proper procedures.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Naturoid

If I recall correctly, the Naturoid concept has already been discussed with regard to this article, Self-replicating machine, and been rejected, both for appropriateness and relatedness, and also as being perhaps an example of unreasonable self-promotion. This issue should not require further discussion. I vote for removal of the mention of Naturoid in this article, even if it does occur within the See Also section. William R. Buckley (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in having a link in "See Also". SteveBaker (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I recall a variety of complaints in the past, and that Naturoid has been therefore removed. Lets see how other editors feel about this latest edit. William R. Buckley (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A naturoid doesnt seem to necessarily have to do with replication, in fact almost none of the examples in the article have anything to do with self replication. I'd say remove it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As the author of the 'theory of naturoids' (before named the 'theory of the artificial') I do not agree: a self-replicating machine is a naturoid because all the machines that try to reproduce something natural (like a biological system, which is self-replicating) are naturoids. The special case of self-replicating systems, already discussed since von Neumann, takes as its 'essential performance' right the self-replication. Massimo Negrotti, University of Urbino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.33.68 (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I can see what it has to do with this article. A self-replicating machine would, in a sense, be a naturoid, in that it could reproduce by consuming materials found in the environment, either for energy, or for more materials to build more of itself. In this sense, it is a naturoid, and, given this relation, I see no need to remove it. Remember, majority is not consensus, general agreement between all is consensus.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

References

The best and most recent example that I can think of would be the replicators from the television show Stargate: SG-1. They are self replicating devices that use ANY compatible alloy or technology to both upgrade themselves and replicate. I believe this to be the best example of not only highly sophisticated Von Neumann device but a perfect example of what could go wrong with any self-replicating technology which is not given an appropriate fail-safe. The fail-safe cannot just be a shutdown command as any technology with these properties must be able to learn as it encounters different situations. The fail-safe would have to both shut down the program and deconstruct the machine itself.

Post by, Iseriad

74.45.36.222 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Be Nice

I can't even go on vacation, I come home and you guys are at it again! Stop vandalizing and stop the legal threars please. Be nice! JSimmonz (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious the IP is your sock, and I've reported you to its blocking admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Why you say that? That not fair. JSimmonz (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)