From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Thu Feb 21 2002 - 15:16:24 MST
Anders wrote:
<snipped most of the discussion of Singer's philosophy... yes I agree with
pretty much all of that, the handwaving & groupthink was bothersome to me
too>
>
> I would sum up by saying that from the perspective of an SI, the
> difference between a man and a dog is not negligble. A dog
> cannot change
> itself very far, while humans are in a sense a general form of being
> that can at least aspire to vastly different behaviors and lives. When
> it comes to being autotelic, the human has more in common with the SI
> than the dog.
Maybe I should rephrase my statement here... in terms of the process of
transformation, of which humans and dogs are both part, in the past through
natural selection, and in the future probably including more direct
intervention, the dog is not so far from us after all. Evolutionarily, how
far from dumb dog to sentient dog? Does that make an ethical difference to
an SI? Should it make a difference to us?
Emlyn
***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not
the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,
disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us
immediately and delete the document.
Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's
responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the
material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus
or other defect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:40 MST