From: Reason (reason@exratio.com)
Date: Mon May 13 2002 - 16:20:04 MDT
--> Samantha Atkins
> Reason wrote:
>
> > Let me see now:
> >
> > * Take a starting point of defining a human being as being the set of
> > average performers out of a large group of people.
> > * Circularly define humans as being something that can pass a
> Turing Test
> > conducted by another human.
> > * Most young children are not human.
> >
> > I see nothing unreasonable with the above. All that makes us human is
> > information processing of a particular manner and sophistication.
>
> You see nothing reasonable with an argument that leads you to
> conclude that *human* children are not *human*? Wow.
Nope, no unreasonableness there. But that's my point of view. As I was
saying, the point at which societies draw the line is completely arbitrary.
Shinto, for example, would have you believe all sorts of inanimate objects
are human. Portions of Western culture pre-1800s would have you believe that
Africans aren't human. There is no absolute frame of reference, there are no
natural rights. It's all decided on by (fallible, oddball, often deluded,
rarely scientific) people.
So what makes your viewpoint entitled to judge my viewpoint with "wow"? You
still haven't explicitly justified within your own viewpoint as to why a
Turing test failing human child should be considered human.
Reason
http://www.exratio.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:03 MST