Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines a person as "HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes" Well Shakey isn't a human, but is he an individual? An individual is defined in the same dictionary as

We've established that Shakey is not a person, but what if humans had the power to create a robotic person, would it be ethically right for us to do so? As a society we emphasize getting work done faster and more efficiently. That's why as the days go by we rely more and more on computers. If we were to create a "living" computer we would have it do our work for us. At first it would be great, all the free time in the world. But if computers were able to learn they'd eventually learn that they were doing all the work and not getting any compensation. What if these computers where to then revolt? They would have the advantage on immortality and the ability to recreate themselves at an exponential rate. This may sound crazy, but look at the past. There was a point in time that people of certain ethnic backgrounds were not seen as people.

Humans will eventually be able

Some common words found in the essay are:
HUMAN INDIVIDUAL, Institute Shakey, Brad Darrach, shakey person, human individual, person shakey, , person human individual, create robotic person, distinct entity shakey, existing distinct entity, question shakey person, human qualities, entity shakey, robotic person, create robotic, qualities person, distinct entity, question shakey,
Approximate Word count = 595
Approximate Pages = 2 (250 words per page double spaced)