On Aug 4, 1:42 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:48 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It would be natural to assume that with the level of technology at the
> > moment, anything that you can converse with normally is probably
> > conscious, but that doesn't mean anything as far as what we are
> > talking about. Just because you might think something is probably
> > conscious doesn't mean that it tells you about whether or not a given
> > hypothetical technology can feel or understand anything.
> So you agree you might think something is conscious because of the way
> it behaves but it may not actually be conscious? I thought you said
> before the whole question is meaningless.

The question is meaningless because what I assume, infer, guess,
deduce, etc based upon something other than me can change from moment
to moment and because none of those thoughts and assumptions
necessarily mean anything as far as determining whether the person in
a coma is going to wake up or not, or whether a computer, voicemail
system, or YouTube was ever alive itself or was always just a


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to