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