Best as I could.
>
> I have a dim memory of Dennett on a PBS special
> saying
> that a piece of software that could pass a general
> Turing
> test should be accorded the rights of a human.
> Seems
> right to me.
Of course Dennett actually thinks that we are just Searle's Chinese Room, that we don't think, that we just act as if we do. Whereas I thinki that Searle's Chinese Room cana ctually think.
>
> Question: did you ever have a student who
> anticipated
> your twist on the discussion, or thought that even
> if
> they sweetheart, etc. were a robot, it didn't matter
> and that such robots must have internal states akin
> or
> identical to consciousness?
Sure, also about 20% of the class.
Anybody ever reply that
> we're just robots implemented with biological rather
> than electronic stuff?
That is a little sophisticated for Phil 101, but people expressed the idea.
jks
>
> Curtiss
>
> > I used to argue about mechanical intelligence with
>
> > my students. Suppose your sweetie, boyfriend,
> girlfriend,
> > whatever, turned out to be a robot -- said,
> darling, I
> > have something to tell you, and flipped open a
> panel
> > with wiring. Would that means he was just a
> _thing_,
> > that you could disassemble her and stash her in
> the
> > basement, kick her downstairs, use her asa sex
> toy,
> > sell her to a fraternity? A certain number of
> students,
> > maybe 20%, ireducible said, Yes. Well, I'd say, I
> have
> > news for you -- you were not supposedto find out
> about
> > this until your senior year, but YOU are robots.
> Does
> > that change your view?
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree