Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul Torek)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: rationality, sentience, odds&ends
Message-ID: <2154@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29-Dec-84 04:47:11 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2154
Posted: Sat Dec 29 04:47:11 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Dec-84 00:14:37 EST
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 32

From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
> Do people love each other for rational reasons?
> Do people make love to each other for rational reasons?
> Do people choose to have children for rational reasons?
> Do people choose not to have children for rational reasons?
> Do people grieve when someone dies for rational reasons?
> Are people happy when someone is born for rational reasons?

The answer to all these questions is yes.  Not that I am answering
the questions exactly as asked; I know I will be misinterpreted,
and I PROMISE to say I told you so.

From: Brian Peterson  {ucbvax, ihnp4, }  !tektronix!shark!brianp
> Now, there is not a big fat line dividing sentient from
> non-sentient.  I percieve a continuous scale here.
> Somewhere, there is a point/range below which are only
> plants and "dumb beasts", and above which are "somebodies".

Yes there is.  Sentience may admit of degrees but you either have
some or none.

From: Brad Templeton
> ... sentient thought, not pain detection.)

Sorry, pain detection IMPLIES sentience.  Sentience:  the ability
to sense; e.g., to feel pain, touch, smell, etc.  Sentience does
NOT mean intelligence.  And I think that it is sentience (correct
definition), not intelligence, that matters.

				--The aspiring iconoclast,
				Paul V Torek, umcp-cs!flink
	(until 1/11, then back to wucs!wucec1!pvt1047)