On 2/2/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Except that in every case there is an emotion in your examples...it's just the emotion of
the puppeter, the screenwriter, the trashcan painter. But in the case of the chess
playing computer, there is no person providing the 'emotion' because the 'emotion' depends
on complex and unforeseeable events. Hence it is appropriate to attribute the 'emotion'
to the computer/program.
On Jan 30, 6:54 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 1/30/2012 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Jan 30, 6:08 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> 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
machine acts just like a person who had those emotions. So it had at least the
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@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at