Just to agree with everybody else - this is really good, especially once it gets to the distinction between things and us, and how we're more like things than we realise we are, but that still doesn't mean that things are conscious or a kind of human with a stony or technological face. "Things have agency, but their agency is altogether thingy... We recognise ourselves in NA images, but also something other than ourselves; or rather, still ourselves – but ourselves complicated, enmeshed, othered..."
Just to be devil's advocate, I wonder if the point of attack for this argument would be Turing's consciousness test. If a thing manages to pass the consciousness test, how can we be sure that it isn't actually conscious? - Edward _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
