From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!uqcspe!cs.uq.oz.au!paulh Tue Jan 28 12:16:20 EST 1992
Article 3046 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!uqcspe!cs.uq.oz.au!paulh
>From: paulh@cs.uq.oz.au (Paul Henman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle Agrees with Strong AI?
Message-ID: <6303@uqcspe.cs.uq.oz.au>
Date: 23 Jan 92 05:25:09 GMT
References: <1992Jan16.054716.14332@oracorp.com> <1992Jan16.145637.26097@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Jan16.182948.18737@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@cs.uq.oz.au
Reply-To: paulh@cs.uq.oz.au
Lines: 10

In <1992Jan16.182948.18737@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:

>I don't know about "understanding" which may well be not unlike
>"living" in this respect -- but I do think there is a fact of the matter
>about whether a given system possess conscious experiences in this sense;
>it's not a matter that's a subject for legislation, as "life" might be.
      *********************************************

Why not?  If we decide that a machine is conscious there may be ethical
considerations to deal with.  Maybe conscious is linked with life?


