We talked a lot about a what the definition for a robot is in a previous post here:http://www.societyofrobots.com/robotforum/index.php?topic=540.0
Basically we came to the conclusion that there is no good definition . . .
But after thinking about it for awhile, I got a very GOOD definition and I want feedback on it.
SoR's definition of a robot:
electromechanical machine that can interact with the environment.
The key word here is anthropomorphic
. Why? Because I think that if people cannot connect with the machine as a 'living' entity then it just doesnt 'look' like a robot.
A computer is not a robot, but a computer with wheels is.
A washing machine isnt a robot, unless it had arms to load your clothes.
Your car is not a robot, unless it drove itself.
An automated donut making machine is not a robot, but a biped serving you donuts is.
Note that it doesnt need to be automous, or actually even sense the environment. It just needs to interact with the environment. For example,
A remote control battle bot is a robot, despite not having any brains.
A puppet is not a robot because it is not an electromechanical machine.
The point I am trying to make is, the machine must act like a 'living' entity for it to be considered a robot.
Thoughts anyone? Flaws in my logic?