5 ms·
>Patients in a vegetative state lie in bed, are unable to voluntary move or speak, sometimes can't even move their eyes anymore, but the consciousness-meter tel
by ggggtez 6y ago
>Patients in a vegetative state lie in bed, are unable to voluntary move or speak, sometimes can't even move their eyes anymore, but the consciousness-meter tells us that about a fifth of them remain conscious.
> If I take my Tesla car and beat it up with a hammer, it's my right to do it. My neighbor might think that I am crazy, but it's my property.
So, by his own reasoning, you can take a hammer to 4 out of 5 humans in a vegetative state, because they aren't conscious, and thus are property?
- arbitrage 6y agothat is such a specious conclusion, of course it doesn't mean that. you're arguing in bad faith.
- ggggtez 6y agoConsidering the discussion of AI and Consciousness comes down entirely to definitions of words, I think it's reasonable to point out where these definitions will lead us. Of course what I'm saying is absurd. And yet, isn't that what the author proposes when he says that we can't hit dogs because they are conscious, but it's ok to hit a car? If consciousness is to be the measuring stick for moral behavior, then we should absolutely point out these inconsistencies. Keep in mind that this work was made along with Crick, who has occasionally espoused eugenics [1]. If the author is broaching into the subject of what constitutes personhood, we should be extremely skeptical of the path it leads to. [1] Whether or not you think his position is defensible, it at least should make you read the proposal more closely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Eugenics