DavecUK The problem really goes back to, what is life, sentience etc..
Not sure it totally does. It’s more about what is useful for humanity in my head.
DavecUK The logic is inescapable, if you could manufacture a machine with electronic neurones that precisely replicated the brain and it’s activity/abilities, and compared that with a “living brain in a jar”…I’ll call this the brain in a jar hypothesis…What would be the difference?
The difference would be that, imho, that the brain had come about because of natural evolution and the other is man-made
DavecUK Scientists can’t even agree whether a virus is alive or not…I personally don’t believe a virus is alive….but I believe a bacteria is.
I don’t know why they can’t just agree that anything that can evolve is ‘alive’ but that not all living things need to have rights. We don’t worry about the lives of wheat that makes our bread. We don’t even extend that to meat <shrug> - which I for one am happy about philosophically as long as it gets good welfare.