Salandriagado wrote:Arkolon wrote:Is a computer a person, in your opinion? If not, why not? And why didn't you address the last point I made about neurological/conscious autonomy?
No, it isn't: that's why your definition is bullshit. It is not a person because it is not "an entity recognised by law as separate and independent, withlegal rights and existence including the ability to sue and be sued, to sign contracts, to receive gifts, to appear in court either by themselves or by lawyer and, generally, other powers incidental to the full expression of the entity in law". I ignored your other point because it's entirely and completely unconnected to the point. You don't mention autonomy in your definition of "person" - only consciousness.
Wait, which part of this denies computers the ability to be considered by law as persons?