From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Thu Apr 16 11:34:08 EDT 1992
Article 5056 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: SHRDLU's mind
Message-ID: <1992Apr11.060817.4973@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 11 Apr 92 06:08:17 GMT
References: <1992Apr7.203327.516@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Apr8.081207.1027@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Apr9.201157.16607@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 70

In article <1992Apr9.201157.16607@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.081207.1027@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.203327.516@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>
>[in response to "SHRDLU has a *little* mind..."]
>
>>>OK, so what are the moral consequences of this belief?  
>>>
>
>>Moral consequences??? What is being talked about here?
>>Are you telling me that you don't step on ants? You
>>don't eat meat and plants? (hundreds of other examples
>
>Well, Antun, that won't wash with me.  I'm vegetarian.

Well, that is not enough! You eat plants, you step on
bugs, come on admit it - you have been the cause of
at least one little animals premature death. What
about all the people you associate with that aren't
vegetarians? You support those people - yes?
Just how far can one strech morality? Morality is
like the proper driving side of the road - it's
different everywhere, so which morality are we
talking about?
>
>>Please make this clear, why do we attribute a moral
>>agency to things with minds? My belief as to why we
>>do this is because things with minds can be influenced
>>in behaviour (NOT BECAUSE THEY INFLUENCE!), Thus a moral
>>agent is a being that fits your mental model of that
>>being. Thus a human is a moral agent, a animal is
>>less so, and a rock is practically a non-agent.
>
>This is nonsense.  Why wouldn't HAL fit your "mental model"
>of a moral agent?

I am not quite sure which HAL we are talking about, but
if you mean the one from the movie 2001, then YES it does
fit as a moral agent, it has the capability to understand
your mental model of itself. As for when it killed, then
I would argue that it has lost it's sense (model) of
morality, just like people go insane.
>
>>	To be a little more explicit, the human being
>>attempts to match his behaviour to what he thinks you
>>expect. The animal does this to a degree less, and the
>>rock does not attempt to change its behaviour in any
>>way to match your mental model of itself.
>>
>>To be a moral agent, it comes down to being capable
>>of being such.
>
>Now if this ain't circular, I don't know what is...

Sorry to hear that you don't know what circular is :-)
But my argument is not circular, recursive would be
more of a proper term in this instance. Being capable
of something in this instance instantiates it.
>
>
>Hmm...I thought so...
>
>- michael


-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


