Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site epsilon.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!egs From: egs@epsilon.UUCP (Ed Sheppard) Newsgroups: net.abortion Subject: Re: Society has already decided what a legal human being is Message-ID: <23@epsilon.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Dec-84 18:10:52 EST Article-I.D.: epsilon.23 Posted: Tue Dec 18 18:10:52 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 19-Dec-84 02:59:40 EST References: <181@faron.UUCP>, <21@epsilon.UUCP>, <1192@shark.UUCP> Organization: BELLCORE, Murray Hill, NJ Lines: 38 Brad: Let's look again at what Phil said, to wit: that which has no consciousness has no rights or more clearly: !conscious(X) -> !has_rights(X). At the risk of putting words in Phil's mouth, I suggest that he meant conscious(X) -> has_rights(X) as well. I assert that "conscious(X)" and "!conscious(X)" are untestable (except in my case :-), and that the above rules are useless as a means of determining either "has_rights(X)" or "!has_rights(X)". That's all I was trying to get across. You say that wanting a test for "conscious(X)" is silly. Well, I (and probably Turing :-) would disagree with you. Of course, perhaps your idea of consciousness is different from mine (and maybe Phil's too). I take consciousness to be synonymous with self-awareness since that's the only kind I've ever experienced. You say the 'just about everyone has the notion of "more" or "less" consciousness.' I don't. An entity is either aware of itself or not. If you mean that different entities display varying levels of behavioral complexity, no problem. But behavioral complexity in not necessarily related to awareness of self. In particular, your examples of intelligence and emotional display give no insight into the subjective experience (if any) of any person or dog or rock etc.. BTW, my 'right brain'? I've only got one. Ed Sheppard Bell Communications Research