Total posts: 2,033
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Your final conclusion is God?
Yes - God. So why do you quote the Bible? I am an intellectual theist, not a religious person.
So you have nothing to go by other than “because God”? Very intellectual.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Your final conclusion is God? Apart from outright infanticide, this is one of his takes on abortion...
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousycome over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure—15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you.20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
No - it's being human. We do not discriminate against people with a weaker personality.Since all humans are 100% humans human rights grants everyone rights.
Look, I can bring up examples of coma patients, prisoners, etc again, but I know you’ll just dodge.
Therefore, that moral system would discriminate between all humans, not only between fetuses and already born.It's not my own conclusion - it's the only logical conclusion.
In legal terms you’ve lost the argument when it comes to human rights, personhood and pro-choice.
Can you admit that?
If you want to talk about the morality of it, then I would consider legal abortion amoral. Why do you consider it inherently immoral?
Before you reply keep asking yourself why each time you come to an answer, until you can’t answer yourself anymore.
And then give me your final conclusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Wrong. There is about 50% of the DNA strand that we cannot read, and presume it is garbage. Until we learned to read Egyptian hieroglyphs, and I have, it was thought junk pictures, and not a fully developed syntax of complicated structure. It's a matter of proper approach. Perhaps there is junk, but until we know for sure, it is wrong to assume any of it is junk. I met and spoke with James Watson, co-Nobel Prize recipient, and first to have his genome read, when I was 17 when he lectured at UCLA in the mid-60s. This was his advice, way back then. "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain.
50% of the DNA strand that we cannot read? How so? I hesitate calling any DNA junk. There’s a difference between it being junk and it being non-expressive. Just look at the history of human migration and mutations that previously were not expressed anywhere else.
Personhood is a legally contradictory fact. 1 U.S.C. §8 defines a person as born alive, regardless of state of development. But, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 defines a person as unborn at virtually any state of development, because it carries a murder charge, and murder is legally an unjustified act against another person, and nothing else. So, as long as the law is undecided and conflicted, you have no leg to stand on. Certainly not on science, because even before conception, if you agree that the DNA molecule defines personal characteristics, these are defined by the male and female gametes, in effect 2 unzipped, or RNA strands, that each can only be described as human, even before they ever join during, or shortly after coitus, so it is not even just at conception. What's your argument? A social factor? Not right for the part.
We are talking about human rights though which personhood is defined in the situation of abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
That is a faulty argument because your fingernail is not expressive of your entire DNA molecule, but only of that part that is defined by the several genes that make your fingernails. Nor is your finger.
No DNA is expressive of its entire DNA molecule. There’s a lot DNA that isn’t expressive at all in our genome.
Regardless, I don’t see how any of this refutes the argument I was making with personhood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Fine.Here is the official description:Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more. Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination.Tell me, exactly when does a fetus become "human"? The answer: when it starts to exist.
Like I said, the foundation of official human rights laws is personhood.
Anything with human DNA is human. My finger nail is human. But does it have personhood? No.
Don’t you believe personhood starts at conception? Or do you genuinely not know the different stages of development in the womb?
Therefore, abortion is a discrimination based on age, body and situation.
A lot of the time it seems like you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
IN CONCLUSION:
- My statement was correct - abortion undermines human rights
Your own definition of human rights that you share with pro-lifers-until-birthers.
- Holocaust, oppression, terrorism, and state brutality also undermine human rights
Also denial of medical and financial safety nets.
- Therefore, the west cannot judge other states for breaking human rights when they also do
I agree but for reasons other than for zygotes, embryos and fetuses that don’t have developed nervous systems.
SOCIETY DOES NOT CARE ABOUT BREAKING THE HUMAN RIGHTS - NOT EVEN IN THE WEST.
By your own twisted definition of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
As I said - abortion undermines human rights. But society does not care - this we agree on.
The foundation of human rights is personhood. You probably consider personhood at the moment of conception right? Well official human rights laws don’t. You’re going by your own definition. Anyway you must view the morning after pill the same as legal abortion, correct? If not, where’s the cut off point for you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I give up. You mean that morality does not exist - society just has laws. "Hitler was not evil he just had another intersubjective morality than you and me."
Morality is defined as the distinction between good and bad - not what is good and bad. It would be a long definition otherwise.
Most people that do bad things know they’ve done bad. They just lack empathy/intelligence and/or have an ulterior “moral” motive.
I believe morality is objective (but not necessarily our understanding of it) - therefore my ethics are incompatible with yours
You believe morality is preordained? Me too, but not by a deity. But by determinism.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Give me a source or moral philosophy. As far as society is concerned - those people just have strong opinions and a demanding voice.
Would it really matter if I gave you any sources? By society you mean the pro-life society.
Do you think that I could kill you and still be justified? After all the world is complicated. No, you would not - neither would the fetus when it magically becomes a baby at birth.
I’ll steel man you and assume I’m innocent.
Regardless, they’re two different states of being— one having a fully developed nervous system which is conscious, the other not so much which infringes on bodily autonomy of the mother, like other medical conditions.
You say that murdering people is morally wrong in your country, but in my country murdering people is morally good - because morality is based on personal opinions, not universal principles.
This is why reason and empathy are good. Most of morality is intersubjective because we’re a social species.
By the way murder is a legal term for the most part.
Created:
Posted in:
People that disagree with your view could say the same about the current moral system which justifies abortion.
Minds greater than you or I have learnt from history and sided against your moral views on abortion.
You yet again admit that you value people differently based on their physical traits.
Because the world is more complicated than you would like it to be.
You cannot call an action "bad shit" without a sense of universal human rights. But your view undermines human rights.
Is gravity universal? Yes. Does gravity vary depending on what objects are present? Yes.
Do planets orbit stars? Yes.
Do you understand the analogy I’m getting at?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
We have no moral system. You are defending current liberal beliefs
Full quote: “Morality isn’t objective. It’s intersubjective. It’s a conclusion we come to with reason and empathy.”
This statement undermines universal human rights. If Germany wanted to murder the jews, they are morally justified, they could just create a new moral system.
What would the morality be based on? I say catastrophic ignorance.
It is clear that you want to value different people differently. I could use the same argument: "a child is not as developed as an adult - therefore they are less valuable"This statement undermines universal human rights
Yet the child has a developed nervous system and is conscious. A couple of months old fetus hasn’t fully developed one yet.
Anyway you could make the same argument about gametes.
Holocaust is the single biggest symbol of what happens when you disregard universal human rights.Hitler called the jews "less human" than other people, and thus justified the murder of 6 million jews.
People do bad shit regardless, though the world has become more connected.
It’s a good thing we can roughly all be on the same page, apart from abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
When there is a danger to both humans, the mother and the "fetus baby".
So what about just the mother in which the world is more emotionally invested in her?
Would you say goodbye to her?
You have not added any moral system - just a lot of moral claims.
Morality isn’t objective. It’s intersubjective. It’s a conclusion we come to with reason and empathy.
I’m defending our current moral system.
The main reason is a fetus infringes on a women’s bodily autonomy. Just as meany medical issues do.
So what. If you sit in a train that is fully packed - you might end up severely uncomfortable. You cannot just kill the other humans and throw them out to feel comfortable."Bodily autonomy" does not triumph over human rights.
You conveniently missed out the second part. I was saying in terms of medical issues.
Also a fetus/embryo isn’t as developed (nervous system) as a child that is born or a fully grown person.
You agreed that all with human DNA are humans - that includes a fetus. So if human rights exist it is immoral to legally gass a jew, and immoral to legally kill a fetus.
Why do you keep on bringing up Jews? Anyway, a fetus (at the legal time of abortion) isn’t as developed as a born human.
What would you say about gametes? Do you cry every time you ejaculate?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You misunderstand "conservatism". In China, communists are the conservatives. If you think of "conservatism" as the current day American conservatism - YES it helped a lot.
Ignoring your mental gymnastics, It would have been productive if you came from the stand point of how China has the reputation of being the Wild West of science. But oh well.
You clearly misunderstand human rights. The important thing is not exactly how people are treated, but that they are treated FAIRLY, aka as equal beings. Yes, the government can't afford good healthcare to people (unlike in Norway), but they are not paying healthcare ONLY for a particular group like jews, women, or layers. Poor people have a higher priority for healthcare not because their human value is greater, but because their ability to fend for themselves is weaker than other groups.
This isn’t a group vs group issue. Only if you made it one.
Every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights
Except for people that don’t have money for their medical bills, people in comas, prisoners, fetuses, etc, etc, etc.Overall this is amoral in terms of it doesn’t solely lean one way or the other.
Why did you reverse them? This is my argument against you.
I’ll assume it’s a mistake.
The question: "What is an ethical system that supports human rights and abortion at the same time?"You cannot refer to law. Killing Jews is not moral just because in a particular society they did not consider Jews to be humans. Come with a moral theory, like Theweakeredge.
I’ve addressed this in my other post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
So the DECLARATION of human rights has changed?They began by claiming that "all humans are to be treated as equally valuable - regardless of the individual traits of each person"But now they make an exception: "humans with a specific trait, being a fetus, do not have human rights".
Believe it or not, the world is much more complicated than "All humans are to be treated as equally valuable - regardless of the individual traits of each person.” Seriously!
This change is clearly not a result of "human rights". This is an attempt to justify abortion. Try to explain, using the basic idea of human rights, why abortion is justified?
The main reason is a fetus infringes on a women’s bodily autonomy. Just as meany medical issues do.
There’s also circumstances such as rape/incest/major disabilities and life threatening complications for mother/infant.
Do you see where abortion could be morally justified? Or no abortion at all? I wouldn’t be surprised if you said no abortion at all with the rhetoric you’ve been spouting.
Also, my challenge still stands: give me a set of principles from which you can explain both human rights and abortion as equally moral.
Is the above sufficient?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
I ask the question to those favoring abortion: What if the fetus , by natural selection [mutation] develops the ability to resist abortion? What, then? To date, no answer.
Favouring abortion might be too strong a term, but alright.
Natural selection requires reproduction. it doesn’t work if the fetus is aborted in the first place. It doesn’t work from the get-go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You can treat me any way you like, asking as I have the same right. I stand by my comment that when stupidity is on your side, you would NOT say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live. You seemed to agree
I guess I’ll have to be more direct. Conservatism isn’t famous for its intelligentsia.
I asked you about a comment YOU made. You said it was without substance. Will you answer?
I was referring to a particular quote. You lack basic reading comprehension.
No. That is YOUR thinking as a liberal. We believe every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights.It refers to all humans. Babies are humans.How? Babies are human.
Simple thinking for simple folk.
The "all men" in the DoI is referring to humans. The declaration doesn't mention women, but I bet you won't say it "lacks substance" when it comes to women's rights. Who's being disingenuous now?
Benjamin and I previously agreed to what “Men” means. I didn’t want to create an unnecessary tangent. But yes, women throughout much of history have been treated as second-class citizens/cattle. Conservatism hasn’t helped.
And he is saying it is then either contradictory, or not as clear as you think. His challenge is, "how can you be pro human rights AND be pro abortion? You have not met his challenge
As I said, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to abortion directly. It’s clearly pro-choice.
As you are dodging his challenge, it's clear who it is that doesn't know what he's talking about.
Dodging what exactly? Unlike the Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to abortion directly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Lol. I agree. When stupidity is on your side, you would NOT say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live.
Keep in mind you said: “But a little unborn baby, on the other hand, is NOT as valuable to Joe Biden as he is to Trump. Biden would hack him to pieces in the womb even up to the 8th month! The unborn don't have human rights to liberals. Shoot, liberals don't even think babies are human”
Don’t be disingenuous. Or I’ll keep treating you as such.
The Declaration of Independence is flowery wording with no substance?
Do you really think the quote Benjamin referred to was in direct reference to abortion?
“All men are created equal, and have been endowned by their creator certain unalienable rights, among them freedom and the pursuit of happieness."
Every human is of equal value and thus have equal human rights
Except for people that don’t have money for their medical bills, people in comas, prisoners, fetuses, etc, etc, etc.
Overall this is amoral in terms of it doesn’t solely lean one way or the other.
Why? The Declaration of Independence establishes that we all have human rights and that those rights are inalienable and from God. Absolutely pertinent to Ben's argument
You can interpret it all day long, it doesn’t change the fact the Declaration of Independence doesn’t refer to abortion directly, or does it?
From the same place the writers of the Declaration of Independence got it. But you've already told us you think the Declaration of Independence lacks "substance". (!!!)
The quote Benjamin used lacks substance when it comes to abortion. I would consider that self-evident.
And he is saying it is then either contradictory, or not as clear as you think. His challenge is, "how can you be pro human rights AND be pro abortion? You have not met his challenge
Neither of you know what you’re talking about. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights refers to abortion directly. There’s no contradiction that I know of. It’s clear as day.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Are you going to reply to me?
I did say the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clearly pro-choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
But a little unborn baby, on the other hand, is NOT as valuable to Joe Biden as he is to Trump. Biden would hack him to pieces in the womb even up to the 8th month! The unborn don't have human rights to liberals. Shoot, liberals don't even think babies are human.
Some people say Trump is one of the greatest conmen to ever live. I say not when stupidity’s on your side.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
First of all - my moral system has nothing to do with this debate - you (as a defender of abortion) has been challenged to support human rights and abortion at the same time.
If by “human rights” you mean the official Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and not just something you like to say, then okay.
The laws surrounding abortion are clearly pro-choice. Can you find any laws that are specifically against it?
Secondly, here is my moral system boiled down:"All men are created equal, and have been endowned by their creator certain unalienable rights, among them freedom and the pursuit of happieness."
That’s just flowery wording with no substance. Is there anything that directly talks about abortion or is it just interpretation? You might as well use the bible. I find it amusing you’re quoting the Declaration of Independence in this circumstance.
Men: every creature with distict DNA from the species homo sapiens
Agreed.
Freedom: you can do whatever you want
Not very substantive, but okay.
Right: what others should not do to you, you should not do to others - if you don't want to be murdered do not murder others - a right is the opposite to a freedom
Murder is a legal term. I assume you’re not using it as such when it comes to legal abortion.
Ethics: the rules which humans follow. The important part is that we do not treat different humans differently. I cannot justify murdering ONLY jews, or babies, or anyone
What about fetuses, embryos, zygotes and gametes?
The important thing about Human rights is that it applies to everyone. So if you accept the "termination" of a human fetus, you must also accept every other killing of a human.
Where are you getting your human rights from?
What about people in comas? Why do we treat them differently to those that are conscious?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Can you summarise your moral system alternate to the current one please?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Ethical systems are much more complicated than good vs bad.
What we have now is better than the government forcing a (fully developed conscious) woman to carry till labour.
Assuming she doesn’t use a coat hanger first.
What ethical system would you propose that is better? abstinence from sex? Don’t delude yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Sorry if I was harsh. I hate being formal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I don't really want to go into all of it here, but if you want to know the general layout see my debate, "Kantian Ethics vs Utilitarianism"Then tell me what you think.
I voted. Are you able to see my reasons? It’s my first time voting, I’m unable to see other votes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
By “moral law” you’re putting moral value onto law. Again, morality is subjective or intersubjective, not objective.
One persons moral law isn’t necessarily another persons moral law.
You can use deduction on an individual or a group whom share moral values, but you won’t get anything objective. Just that which represents their moral opinions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
How is “objective” and “morality” compatible with each other as “objective morality”?
I explained “Objectivity is without emotion whilst morality is regulated by it.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well if by objective you mean separate from emotion then yes, morality is objective.
You did not explain how they’re compatible though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
I don't want to say objective because people use that word to mean different things and idk how you mean it.
Objectivity and morality I find incompatible.
Objectivity is without emotion whilst morality is regulated by it.
Hence my promotion of intersubjective morality
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
That is the same as saying morality does not exist
Morality is not what’s right or wrong, it’s the distinction between right and wrong that we instil in our communities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Because if there wasn't an option to do otherwise, like a robot following it's programming then there is no moral decisions making. There is no ethical responsibility. There is no moral agency.
Do you think morality is objective? I personally adopted the view of intersubjective morality
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
You mean scientific causality - that is not the same. Determinism has as a premise that only external forces decide what you do, but causality allows internal causes to exist.
What? External and internal causes are governed by the same fundamental forces.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
You have to assume that the person pulling the trolley lever had the option to do otherwise
What for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Determinism is incompatible with free will but ethics must assume free will
Why must ethics assume free will? You’re responsible for your actions either way.
When it comes to justice we’re also able to learn from our mistakes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
I'm doubtful it is real. No one can answer the question of how a non-material thing can impact a material thing.
Well for sentient beings perception plays a big part in chemistry.
What about the fundamental forces in physics? They are all for the most part non-material.
I doubt you could explain how two materials impact each other without non-material qualities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Well we wouldn't say that a question is separate from the sound waves or photons that constitute and transmit it. So can you say the mind is separate from the brain?
The known universe is singular. So can you say anything that resides within is separate from the universe? My answer is no to both your question and mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Does the mind even exist or is it only the brain?
Mind is an abstract. All thoughts are abstract in a sense.
Does your question exist? It’s a rhetorical question by the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wagyu
Have any of you used the term “hip hip hooray”? For some context, hip hip hooray is allegedly derived from the German phrase “hep hep”, an anti-semtic term used during the riots of 1819, in which the Nazis use the phrase whilst rounding up Jews during the holocaust.
It seems like you’re conflating two time periods which are a century apart.
Other than that, I’ve always wondered why I never liked Happy Birthday being sung to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Yes different factors affect the result. But you claimed that conciousnes is basicly ONLY atoms. I Belive that a "soluts" is what transforms "conciousness" into the experience we feel.
Your arguments are starting to become bad faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Well you’re you from a mixture of your lineage, how you were raised, what you were taught, where your grew up, etc, etc, etc. The list goes one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Yeah. From a purely naturalistic standpoint, consciousness would not exist. Our body would be no more "conscious" than a pile of dust.
Well it depends how one would define consciousness.
As I said “my position is there is no fundamental line to draw (apart from medical practicalities). I view consciousness as something that reacts to stimuli.” In other words you could probably make some sort of spectrum (for a lack of a better word) of consciousness. From something that hardly reacts to its own environment, to something that actively influences its environment for its own intentions.
Yes, our body reacts to stimuli, saves memory and takes action, but without a "soul", the experiences we have should not exist. They must be a metaphysical concept because matter does not inhibit the ability to create "experience". By experience I mean feeling like a person, we feel like having a body, not being a body. If we think of the experience as a purely material product, I do not believe we can trust our own objective existence, as "I" do not exist, only the atoms my body is built of. That is the reason why everybody must have a world view beyond science.
I get it. Some people like to admire how the magic trick is done, while others like to keep it a mystery.
Just keep in mind you don’t have to be a naturalist to admire how.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The question really is not how our brains make decisions, but what metaphysical thing makes us "feel" alive, even if a computer could simulate a brain, I doubt that consciousness would feel "alive"
Well we “feel” via chemical and electrical impulses. I think it’s safe to say memory plays a big role in “feeling alive” though.
Did you feel alive when you were developing in your mothers womb?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Why? You have exactly the same brain, with the same quantum states.
With different perceptions comes different brain chemistry. Well I guess it depends if both you and the clone didn’t know who was the original.
And if you guys mirrored each other exactly in terms of thought, etc. There would have to be a lot of conditions set for there to be an exact same consciousness. For a short while at least
A similar thought experiment is to ask yourself “Am I the same person I was 5 minutes ago?”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
I agree with that definition to some extent.But the problem for me is that our brains should react to stimuli without feeling "existence". A computer as complex as our brain would not necessarily perceive the world, rather it would just react to it. If consciousness is purely a product of atoms then how come our brains react to stimuli while another consciousness, named the soul, perceives our world just spectating it through our bodies. Consciousness as a product of atoms would not need to "see" our world, as the information needed could be processed directly by our brains.
A computer as complex as our brain would not necessarily perceive the world, rather it would just react to it.
Like I said in my last post that’s pretty much what our subconscious does before we’re consciously aware.
If consciousness is purely a product of atoms then how come our brains react to stimuli while another consciousness, named the soul, perceives our world just spectating it through our bodies
That would be our subconscious brain.
If somebody made an exact clone of me, and we killed me, would that still have my consciousness?
Both you and the clone wouldn’t have the same consciousness to begin with. Both of you would experience the world differently.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Scientifically, there is no major difference between a couple of atoms and a fully functional human when it comes to the fact that it must follow all the laws of physics.Free will could be described as being the result of highly complex chemistry in our brains. Consciousness is a little bit different. If an atom cannot have consciousness why can humans have? I mean, imagine a human without consciousness, we would not know the difference since it would act the same way, as free will can be a result of complexity. Consciousness is not scientific, but metaphysical. I cannot even understand why it exists.
I consider everything conscious to the degree it reacts to stimuli. That includes atoms.
Let us make a thought experiment, imagine that we are able to simulate free will and a human body in a computer. Consciousness could not be detected, since a human with and without consciousness would react in the same way to our communication. I think that such a computer-simulated-human would simply not "feel" existence, rather it would just calculate its own feelings and show them to us.
Our subconscious parts of the brain do the same though, which we have no direct control over.
There have been many studies that have shown the subconscious makes decisions before we’re consciously aware.
The existence of consciousness is one of the reasons I am a Christian, it proves to me that a soul exists. To me, it does not matter if this metaphysical consciousness can affect my brain physically, as long as it makes me more than a complex structure of atoms.
It’s healthy to test your beliefs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You weren’t talking about Caesar which ruled Rome 2000 years ago which he had control over religious institutions and the bible.
You act in such bad faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Obedience to those who have authority over us is very much in line with the way we are taught to conduct ourselves. If you are in a work environment, do what the boss says. Work as if you were working for God, not man. If you do things this way, you can abide in peace even in bondage.
This is really really really crazy. There are so many logical issues with this including religious ones that it’s unbelievable someone could think of this.
And you have the gall to say “The church doesn't condone slavery. Slavery is something in the domain of secular authorities.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
Consciousness is was distinguishes us, humans, or God, from a computer. In that every decision we make change our internal status as well as the outside world.
I assume free will is required for how you define consciousness. What about when it comes to life. Where do you draw that line?
By the way Benjamin, can you please reply to us by clicking that arrow at the bottom of our comments or typing in our name where it says receivers. Thanks you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
My actual reasoning goes like this1. Everything is logical2. Some things, like consciousness, have no logical explanation3. Some truths, like consciousness, are based on the knowledge we humans do not possess, but still must be a logical explanationConsciousness exists even if we humans cannot understand him.
Some people are able to draw a line between what conscious is and is not. My position is there is no fundamental line to draw (apart from medical practicalities). I view consciousness as something that reacts to stimuli.
But I wonder, what are your thoughts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Jarrett_Ludolph
Question 1:Is the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) a successful argument? Why or why not?
As long as religion has been around people have been attributing phenomena to gods. Islands, volcanoes, weather, the Moon, the Sun, etc, etc, etc.
The more knowledge we gain, the further back the nescient shadow of gods retreat. If history is anything to go by— the universe, how we view it today, is just a very small piece of the puzzle.
Question 2:Should I try to do another debate on the KCA?(the two I had were not really real debates)
Up to you.
Created: