What would a robot have to be able to do, or what would it have to be, for us to consider it a sentient being as opposed to a non-sentient automaton? Please note I am using the term "robot" here in a broad sense, including such obviously sentient (fictional) constructs such as C-3PO of Star Wars fame. I don't consider "robot" and "sentient being" to be mutually exclusive terms. I'm interested in what fundamentally distinguishes sentient beings from automatons that merely mimic sentience.

If thoughts depend on memories and memories are unreliable then how can we trust any thought? I assume thoughts require memories because thoughts seem to require at least some time to compute, even with very simple thoughts we think thing one at a time - if it's not quite like that I think it's very close to something like that, maybe my whole doubt depends on a dubious connection between thought and memory, I don't know. I think the unreliability of memory is more obvious, memory seems to be something just given to us and we simply have to "trust" it but the possibility of doubt is still there. I recognize that there is some not inconsiderable paradox in doubting the very idea of being able to form a thought and using thought to achieve that doubt but alas... I wonder if this suggests that thought in its truest form is something more intuitive and directly related to a grasp of the present moment than reason as it is generally understand as a discursive process.

What is the difference between the idea that we can control our bodies in conformity with our will and magic? Aren't they suspiciously similar ideas?

Does the Turing test, the attempt to verify the proposition "Machines can think" through an 'imitation game', come down to a confusion over "like" and "identical with"? i.e can I say the following "If it is like x is thinking, therefore what x is doing is identical to thinking"?

if two people share a thought triggered by there shared experience of a similar situation/stimuli and/or genetic wiring (i.e. there is a causl relationship between there responses), would this be considered telepatahy? for example if two people looked at a work of art and at the same time thought to themselves the word "amazing" this would surely not be considered telepathic, as it is a very common response. But why shouldn't it be considered telepathy if they share the same thought and there is a causal relationship? I'm not saying that people can read each others thoughts outright, but that similar thought patterns are brought on by similar situations and/or genetic makeup (I won't get into nature vs nurture).

If someone is believed to be insane, yet they are happy and are not dangerous to themselves or others, what right does anyone have to force them to be treated or hospitalized? To them we may all seem insane, so do they have the right to ask us to change? What if bringing them closer to our definition of sanity leads them to additional pain or difficulty in life-- is it just to rob them of their former happiness by forcing them to conform to our definitions of sanity?

Do people who are blind, deaf and mute since birth dream? If so how?

Billions of dollars are spent each year to get people to think in ways that benefit people with billions to spend. This much seems uncontroversial. Most of the money is spent on advertisements designed to circumvent a person's reason and appeal directly to people's unreflected faculties. For those who have read anything about this history of public relations this is also perfectly understood. So how does a reasonable person deal with this knowledge? Is it reasonable to resist, to cloister oneself in defense of the ability to think somewhat more freely? It seems like you could go crazy trying to do so. On the other hand it seems like sanity has more to do these days with resembling sitcom families and having Burger King jingles running through our heads. Okay, so obviously you can tell I'm a paranoid nutjob with a tenuous grip on reality. Am I right to be overwhelmed by what seems like a ubiquitous attack against rationality in the culture at large? Is it paranoid to suggest that it's systematic?

If empirical evidence is the ultimate validation of reality, then what is the empirical evidence for existence of mind?

If mind is a special form of matter, doesn't it follow that all matter may possess a special form of mind, and that oak trees and lumps of coal have been quietly thinking all this time?