1) so your brain doesn't function deterministically? even if you believe it's the case, you'll have a really hard time proving that you have any more volition than the computer you're reading this on. even if you're brain isn't deterministic due to quantum randomness, the same would be true of your computer (and everything else).
2) please explain what self-awareness is and how you know that only humans (or animals, or whatever entities you're limiting it to) have it.
3) do you believe that the brain is more powerful than a turing machine? if so, do you at least have some intuitive argument for why that's the case? if not, it would then seem obvious that the only thing seperating sentient machines from non-sentient machines, if anything, would be computational power and the program being run.
your argument reads like searle's chinese room argument, which ended up being "well, you see, the system of the room and the person can't be conscious as a whole system, because, well, that's just silly." ok, well, thanks for such a logically sound argument to back that statement up. the best thing that the article had to say was brooks' quote about our understanding of conscousness being "prescientific"; we have no idea what creates it, how broad a range of forms it can take, what (if anything) it's restricted to, etc, etc.
it's cute speculation, and probably rather fun to argue before an audience, but it will never actually be a real issue- there is a very large difference between a machine created by the hand of man, and a human created from other parts...
really? what's the important difference (that is, what makes one inherently "human" and the other not)? is it just being carbon-based, 70% water, etc?
a couple other things that blur the line more than genetic engineering (well, one's sort of a variation):
what if you were to assemble a person from scratch such that the person was never the product of an actual human womb? if the layout of the DNA were completely "programmed" from the outset and influencing environmental factors in the child's early develpmental stages were controlled, would the resulting person not have rights? why or why not? i highly doubt this will be possible within our lifetime, but i have no doubt that it will eventually be possible.
how much of a person's body would have to be replaced with prostethics before that person was no longer considered human and deserving of rights? what if the brain were directly connected to a computer so as to directly electronically communicate with both other people and vast stores of information? what if the person's brain were "transferred" to computer storage? i know, maybe a little too "ghost in the shell", and won't happen in our lifetime, but i'm sure it'll eventually be possible.
now, i know there are folks out there that will raise the cry of "wait! once we start genetically engineering babies, the line is blurred!" sure, it's blurred, a little, but i can still tell the difference between a human being and a computer at 100 yards; it's blured, but not obscured.
so not only will it not get blurrier, it's all solvable by visual identification of the entity in question?
i just realized how appropriate my nick is for this article. funny...
Slashdot Mirror
2) please explain what self-awareness is and how you know that only humans (or animals, or whatever entities you're limiting it to) have it.
3) do you believe that the brain is more powerful than a turing machine? if so, do you at least have some intuitive argument for why that's the case? if not, it would then seem obvious that the only thing seperating sentient machines from non-sentient machines, if anything, would be computational power and the program being run.
your argument reads like searle's chinese room argument, which ended up being "well, you see, the system of the room and the person can't be conscious as a whole system, because, well, that's just silly." ok, well, thanks for such a logically sound argument to back that statement up. the best thing that the article had to say was brooks' quote about our understanding of conscousness being "prescientific"; we have no idea what creates it, how broad a range of forms it can take, what (if anything) it's restricted to, etc, etc.
really? what's the important difference (that is, what makes one inherently "human" and the other not)? is it just being carbon-based, 70% water, etc?
a couple other things that blur the line more than genetic engineering (well, one's sort of a variation):
so not only will it not get blurrier, it's all solvable by visual identification of the entity in question?
i just realized how appropriate my nick is for this article. funny...