We are no different than computers

[Mudhammam]

Which we assess by effect...and not every effect presented by every human mind will pass every test we use to ponder the same designation for a machine.  The effects aren't always all that similar either.  This is just between two humans presupposed to have mind.  

Personally, while being human is, to me, an indicator that something has mind...-not being human is no indicator that it doesn't.  Wouldn't you agree?  Or, are we humans the only creatures which possess mind, in your estimation?

(You think you haven't been programmed - that you can point to this as a difference, willing to reconsider? Will all of your objections aim to simply assert computational minds out of existence?)

I do agree that the OP's wording is unfortunate, but I wonder whether you and are -as- different from computers of today as you seem to believe.

So what's the basis for differentiating between what is protected by law and what isn't? If a being has a certain type of mind AND sentience? (Of course other animals have minds and feel as well, and should probably have some degree of protection, but is a whale or a pig a "person"? Doubtful. Yet we would rightly grant this to a newborn... and not your laptop or roomba, right?)

As far as my objections, I'm just skeptical that we can define mind in computational terms and not lose an essential element of what it means to be mindful in the fullest sense.