Similarities Between Lycan And John Searle
For this analysis the argument between William Lycan and John Searle debating whether or not computers could potentially be considered ‘people’. Lycan presents us with “Harry”, which is ‘a humanoid in form and he can converse intelligently, play golf and the viola, write passable poetry, control his occasional nervousness, make love, prove mathematical theorems, show envy, display anger, etc.’ Lycan’s view is that Harry acts in ways that are not distinguishable from other people, and outward behavior is usually enough to say the acting individual is a person, therefore there is no good reason to say that Harry is not a person. A second instance to consider is Harry’s ‘friend’ Henrietta. Henrietta was born a human, but over time all the
…show more content…
Do we consider individuals with prostheses to be less human than individuals who have the entirety of their bodies still with them? Where do we draw this line, and who gets to decide? Some individuals argue that ‘she would not be human, because she is no longer in possession of her natural body given to her by God’ and while that is a point to be made, it seems shaky at best. Computers and synthetic parts of the human body may not currently have the functionality and realism to them as our natural body parts do, however even that is a quickly approaching facet of the past. Even today doctors and scientists the world over work every day to make things such as functional prostheses that work using electrical impulses from the brain, and growing functional organs using a 3D printer and stem cells from specific individuals. Computers have not yet been around for half of a century and one can view the tremendous difference from the monstrous machines that emerged out of World War II and the five pound pieces of machinery we carry around today. I believe it is perfectly reasonable with all of this evidence and the fact that year after year we have worked on ways to create intelligent, learning, responsive computer programs, to believe that someone that is made out of completely synthetic body parts is a
Do we consider individuals with prostheses to be less human than individuals who have the entirety of their bodies still with them? Where do we draw this line, and who gets to decide? Some individuals argue that ‘she would not be human, because she is no longer in possession of her natural body given to her by God’ and while that is a point to be made, it seems shaky at best. Computers and synthetic parts of the human body may not currently have the functionality and realism to them as our natural body parts do, however even that is a quickly approaching facet of the past. Even today doctors and scientists the world over work every day to make things such as functional prostheses that work using electrical impulses from the brain, and growing functional organs using a 3D printer and stem cells from specific individuals. Computers have not yet been around for half of a century and one can view the tremendous difference from the monstrous machines that emerged out of World War II and the five pound pieces of machinery we carry around today. I believe it is perfectly reasonable with all of this evidence and the fact that year after year we have worked on ways to create intelligent, learning, responsive computer programs, to believe that someone that is made out of completely synthetic body parts is a