Subject:
|
Re: Validity testing (was: Did animals have rights before we invented rights?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 17:20:54 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1151 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> - Within bounds: animals are not "self-aware" by Larry's definitions
Just as a quick note, I'm not sure I've given such a definition, other than
by example ("I know it when I see it", or so I think). I'm open to someone
trying to give one, I suspect it's a thorny problem. (the circular
definition "you're self aware if you know you're self aware" is tempting but
not particularly useful as a metric for measuring)
(is the fictional character Ping-chan in www.MegaTokyo.com self aware???
Dunno. She's showing emotions but that could just be her programming)
Some will no doubt cite this as example of my laxness. Whatever. Guess what,
I don't have all the answers. Never said I did. (1) Deal.
1 - coming off as smug < not necessarily == > claiming to have all the
answers. One can be pretty comfortable with one's path and choices without
necessarily having a rock solid foundation all the way down to the core.
Bridges DO get built across swamps without needing to find bedrock. I think
there's bedrock down there but haven't gone digging in every direction
necessary to prove it. The bridge is floating on its supports just fine.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
244 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
