Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxr!mhuxv!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: A Hypothetical Question (personhood)
Message-ID: <312@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Oct-84 10:04:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.312
Posted: Thu Oct 25 10:04:38 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Oct-84 03:33:38 EDT
References: <310@mhuxt.UUCP> <28000005@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 41

> This analogy is a bit farfetched.  There is no such computer capable
> of independent thought at this time, or in the foreseeable future.
> Computers can only do what they have been programmed to do.  However,
> a child can grow beyond his or her initial "programming".

The possibility or lack thereof of a computer program such as I have described
being written in our lifetimes or ever bears NO relation to the aptness of the
analogy.  I'll go further - even if we somehow could prove the impossibility
of such a program, it does not affect the validity of the analogy.  
   A structural recap of the arguement:
	W(x) ::= "It's wrong to kill x."
	T(x) ::= "x is a thinking individual."
        W and T are restricted to operate on arguements which are or have the
   potential to become a thinking individual.

	I argued that     T(x) implies W(x), using as example x="a computer
program with the potential to become a thinking individual."
	I argued that NOT(T(x)) implies NOT(W(x)), with the same x.
	Itis clear that ((T(x) implies W(x)) and (NOT(T(x)) implies NOT(W(x))))
    implies (T(x)=W(x)).  (more succinctly, ((T => W) ^ (~T => ~W)) => (T=W). )
    NOTICE that this is true WHETHER OR NOT there exists an example of T(x)
    where x="a computer program with the potential to become a thinking 
    individual".  The proper place to challenge this arguement is the next
    step, where generalization takes place - we use y="a fetus, which may or
    may not yet have become a thinking individual", and claim that if the
    above arguements were accepted with x , they should also be true for y, 
    and say T(y)=W(y), or "It is wrong to kill y if and only if y is a thinking
    individual".  A fetus is not a thinking individual when the number of
    cells it consists of is less than several thousand.  *WHEN* a fetus
    becomes a thinking individual is also open to arguement, although
    there must exist some stage of developement at which nearly everyone
    can agree "no, it has not yet become a thinking individual."  

    I invite challenges to the generalization step and debate on the safest
lower limit for the *WHEN*, but objections of the form "but no computer can
think anyway" will no longer be responded to.

    No, please!  NOT net.abortion.predicate_calculus!

Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxl!mhuxt!js2j