From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!ukma!memstvx1!langston Mon May 25 14:05:31 EDT 1992
Article 5665 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!ukma!memstvx1!langston
>From: langston@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Morality and artificial minds / other-minds
Message-ID: <1992May14.175331.2164@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: 14 May 92 17:53:30 -0600
References: <1992May12.004333.9259@psych.toronto.edu> <1992May12.213616.5027@csc.canterbury.ac.nz> <1992May12.135033.6650@cis.ohio-state.edu> <l12nqiINNak8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Distribution: world
Organization: Memphis State University
Lines: 39

In article <l12nqiINNak8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber) writes:
> In article <1992May12.135033.6650@cis.ohio-state.edu> chandra@cannelloni.cis.ohio-state.edu (B Chandrasekaran) writes:
>>
>>ii. If we end up making artificial creatures in the future who are not
>>only intelligences but also minds ....
>>we should treat them appropriately depending upon what kind of mind
>>they are and how they would like to be treated. 
> 
>  Here once again, it is instructive to bring in the issue of
>  other-minds as an adjunct to the discussion of artificial minds.
>  Cows, pigs, chickens etc. have 'other-minds' all of which are
>  probably more complex and 'higher' than anything a-i will come-up
>  with for a while.  Other-minds should get at least the same treatment
>  and respect as the above passage concedes to possible
>  artificial minds.  Predation is an unacceptable form of behavior,
>  even if some local aberration of nature came up with predation in
>  the past on this planet !!!


Hmmm... since when is predation an 'aberration of nature'?
This sounds a bit contradictory.  I agree with the need for consideration
of 'other minds' when discussing artificial minds, but I fail to see
where anything developed naturally is aberrant.  If you follow the logic
through, isn't everything, including homo sap., an aberration?

If so, I happen to like some of my more aberrant behaviours, such as
eating, sleeping, and copulating.  

Apparently an aberration to be abhorred,

-- 

Mark C. Langston                                  "What concerns me is not the
Psychology Department                              way things are, but rather
Memphis State University                           the way people think things
LANGSTON@MEMSTVX1.MEMST.EDU                        are."     -Epictetus

     "...a brighter tomorrow?!?  How about a better TODAY?"  -me



