From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato.ac.nz!aukuni.ac.nz!kcbbs!nacjack!codewks!system Fri Oct 30 15:18:07 EST 1992
Article 7432 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!comp.vuw.ac.nz!waikato.ac.nz!aukuni.ac.nz!kcbbs!nacjack!codewks!system
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
Message-ID: <F21DTB4w165w@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz>
>From: system@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 16:01:38 NZST
References: <1260@tdat.teradata.COM>
Organization: The Code Works Limited, PO Box 10 155, Auckland, New Zealand
Lines: 33

swf@teradata.com (Stanley Friesen) writes:

> In article <1992Oct14.225558.29323@meteor.wisc.edu> tobis@meteor.wisc.edu (Mi
> |
> |>was conscious?  How would you distinguish a 'real' aliem from a perfect
> |>'android' type robot?  
> |
> |I dunno. Beats the hell out of me. Hopefully they would not try to immigrate
> |to our turf and we could avoid the issue.
> 
> Wouldn't count on it.  Did the Europeans stay out of North America?
> 
> |>(For that matter, is the distinction even meaningful)?
> |
> |Yes, yes, a googol times yes! It is the most important distinction around!

Oh yes. Can you explain WHY, rather than being so wildly assertive.

In the probable event that WE are contacted by an advanced entity, you 
might really not be the one making the judgement. As we speak the 
perfect android robots are debating whether a theoretically possible 
carbon based life form could ever be intelligent. What if they met 
these carbon based life forms who could pass the 01001100 Test. Should 
they be given rights? Or exploited? 

Some of the androids argued a googolplex times that it comes down to 
subjective experience and the distinction HAD to be made.

-- 
  Wayne McDougall, BCNU
  This .sig unintentionally left blank.

Hello! I'm a .SIG Virus. Copy me and spread the fun.


