From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!ames!agate!boulder!tigger!tesar Fri Jan 31 10:26:34 EST 1992
Article 3220 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!ames!agate!boulder!tigger!tesar
>From: tesar@tigger.Colorado.EDU (Bruce Tesar)
Subject: Re: Strong AI and Panpsychism
Message-ID: <1992Jan28.165322.25735@colorado.edu>
Sender: news@colorado.edu (The Daily Planet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: tigger.cs.colorado.edu
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
References: <1992Jan27.155128.5910@oracorp.com> <1992Jan28.004208.27238@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1992 16:53:22 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <1992Jan28.004208.27238@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>
... lots of stuff on Panpsychism and AI deleted ...
>
>However, I think that you point out one *very* good reason above to 
>believe that consciousness is *not* merely descriptive, and that the
>moral consequences if it is.  If there is no fact of the matter whether
>something is conscious, then morality (or at least most versions of it)
>goes out the window.  Why should I treat *you* as conscious, if that is
>merely a "descriptive" term?  And therefore, why should I treat you as any
>more worthy of ethical consideration than a rock, or a roomfull of air, or
>a computer?
>
    You could start by explaining why I should treat *you* as more worthy
of ethical consideration than a rock, given that you are conscious and
the rock is not. What is so important about being conscious?
>
... additional stuff deleted for brevity ...
>
>- michael


-- 
Bruce B. Tesar                    Internet:  tesar@cs.colorado.edu
Computer Science Department
University of Colorado at Boulder 
Boulder, CO  USA  80309-0430


