On Jan 30, 6:54 pm, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 1/30/2012 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Jan 30, 6:08 pm, meekerdb<[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 1/30/2012 2:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > >> So kind of you to inform us of your unsupported opinion. > > I was commenting on your unsupported opinion. > > Except that my opinion is supported by the fact that within the context of > chess the > machine acts just like a person who had those emotions. So it had at least > the functional > equivalent of those emotions. Whereas your opinion is simple prejudice.
I agree my opinion would be simple prejudice had we not already been over this issue a dozen times. My view is that the whole idea that there can be a 'functional equivalent of emotions' is completely unsupported. I give examples of puppets, movies, trashcans that say THANK YOU, voicemail...all of these things demonstrate that there need not be any connection at all between function and interior experience. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
