First you use a hypothetical for your argument, saying that if a hypothetical AI was strong enough Law would accept it. (I'm sure most here will not accept a hypothetical as main argument.)
Really?
The very structure of logic is made by the pair if-then. If (premise) then (conclusion).
Especially my case where I argue consciousness is unique to humans beings. I can only use an "if" premise to develop a scenario where non humans have consciousness. So I used some likely entity as a possibility.
Where's exactly the logical flaw?
Then you use an example of intelligent primate legal status cases failing to prove another point. Seems contradictory. Primates are very smart. Primates are also biological; some would say this is a huge difference.
That's a mess of argument.
What is contradictory (assuming you have the same cofty's position) you saying Law don't assume metaphysical positions and after you post a link about rivers granting legal rights as persons! This doesn't sound metaphysical to you?
And the links are weird and strict exceptions.
In a statement, the government said research had clearly established cetaceans are highly intelligent and sensitive, and that dolphins "should be seen as 'non-human persons' and as such should have their own specific rights."
As Cupp expressed to me via email, he’s advising against reading too much into this before we know more about what the judge was thinking:
The judge may merely want more information to make a decision on the legal personhood claim, and may have ordered a hearing simply as a vehicle for hearing out both parties in more depth. These kinds of claims are new terrain for judges, and we should be cautious about drawing conclusions as to judicial intent based on the format used to schedule hearings.
Do you really think these cases are related to animals and rivers having consciousness just like humans? The judicial intent was based on indistinguishable consciousness between rivers, animals and humans?
