The family dynamics and the kids’ reactions all rang true, and made this story poignant. Very effective use of the snapshot technique, too.

Mr. Hernandez just published “Fembot” on DayBreak, which is set in this “universe” and is even more ambitious, IMO:

http://daybreakmagazine.wordpress.com/2009/12/25/daybreak-fiction-fembot/

I think that should read: “But does that mean dead frogs like to dance?”

Apart from that, short, sharp, nice and effective. Thought-provoking. And quite a few writers I see in the slushpile could use Carlos’s brevity. Some stories are soooooo bloated.

Anyway, the philosophical zombie and the Chinese Room: not sure what the story alludes to here. I see several possibilities:

1) The hardware is changed, but the software is still the same (old Greg = New Greg);
2) The hardware is changed, but the software is different (Old Greg ≠ New Greg);
3) The hardware is changed, but the software is different *because* it had to fit the new hardware;
4) The hardware is changed, and while the software was originally the same, it changed because of some added enhancements, such as perfect recall, more computing power, and so on;

Carlos, smart writer that he is, leaves that for the reader to work out. Personally, I suspect option 4 is closest to the story.

Comes the $64 million question: does the new Greg have intentionality, is he conscious, does he have a ‘soul’? It’s as if Carlos had John Searle and Daniel Dennett have it out through Angela and Bonnie.

The story title hints at the most probable interpretation:

Homeostasis: a relatively stable state of equilibrium or a tendency toward such a state between the different but interdependent elements or groups of elements of an organism, population, or group;

Which would hint that the mind of the ‘new’ Greg is now in a new equilibrium with his body. And possibly also that the ‘new’ Greg has finally reached a new equilibrium with his surrounds (his family, his job). And finally, possibly, that the ‘new’ Greg has a consciousness, will, intentionality and, well, ‘soul’ that is now in a new equilibrium with his new hardware.

Basically, what it comes down to – I think – is that the question ‘can a machine – let’s call it ‘Artificial Intelligence’ of the strong kind – have intentionality/a consciousness/a soul?’ is answered by Greg’s actions:

—Would a ‘soulless automaton’ try so very hard to get through to his son?
—Would a ‘soulless automaton’ be so gentle and caring with his daughter?

The clincher is here:

“Two months later, Greg slides into third during a company softball game. It’s a close call. They give it to him because nobody can believe he can play softball at all. But it is a legitimate close call. Even if he hadn’t been stabbed in the head and now needed a computer to keep him alive, it could have gone either way.”
If the call is so close, that it doesn’t make a difference, then there *is* no difference. Both old and new Greg are human, have intentionality, have consciousness, have a ‘soul’ (for lack of a better term).

As always, YMMV…;-)

(Non-CGP people can ignore this comment, and I’ve just downloaded the story & get back to this thread after I’ve read it…;-)