Dr Who's computer in court

Originally posted by knightmeister
My argument would indeed be bunk if that was what I was saying. My hope with the computer argument was that it may show how logically a machine could A) not really be sentient or aware in the way we understand it or B) not reallty be held morally responsible because a machine does what a machine does. als C) that since we do not and would not dream of holding our home PC morally responsible , why would we hold a more sophisticated computer morally responsible.

Well, you've not shown this because, again, your proof is based upon the abrogation of logic. That is,
the advantage of using a computer would be to have absolute perfection in the adherence of a fully
discernible program. Yet, your 'proof' requires a 'logic crash.' You haven't shown why such a logic
crash is demonstrably necessary or why the crash yields necessarily conclusion 'A' (shock) versus
conclusion 'B' (not shock).

As it pertains to your goals:

A) Not shown;
B) Not shown;
C) Not shown.

You've shown nothing but that your argument requires the suspension of logic to believe.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
You've shown nothing but that your argument requires the suspension of logic to believe.

Shall I take your nearly constant evasion over the past two weeks as a
concession that your argument is bunk?

Originally posted by Nemesio
Shall I take your nearly constant evasion over the past two weeks as a
concession that your argument is bunk?

LOL! I'll take that as a yes.