On 2/2/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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 
chess the
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.

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.


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