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)