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