Syntho-sis

There is really only one question, and it is "what?".

 

Other questions are just justr more specific version of "what?"

 

When is what time.

Where is what place.

How is what method.

Which is what one of a group.

Why is what reason.

 

So you question is really for what reason.

 

The question "what reason?" is meaning less without a context.

Why should I believe you?

Or right, since consciously allocating individual neurons probably involves a lot of neurons.

Why not pay someone to answer the original question so none of your own neurons are allocated?

Why allocate neurons to even ponder this question?

My question for Mr.Comfort is where does he get his religious authority?

Wikipedia isn't a crappy source if it has the answer to the question being asked.

How does the individual asking the question know that unless they use another source?

Do you plan to answer the question?

 

"I would guess Cain bred with the atheist females. The atheist females liked the bad boy with the bling. While the atheist males, who descended from the apes, were into gay stuff, since this is what animals do, according to modern science. The neo-humans, who could extrapolate to the future, avoided that and began to increase their population."

 

LOL

Maybe I was a bit short. I apologize.

I would like to say that it is a bit hard to learn anything when people attack everything you say. It is annoying because it's not about explaining concepts, it is about tearing other people's arguments apart so you can stimulate your own intellectual ego. I find that extremely irritating..

It's kinda sad that such intelligent people fall victim to the same facets of human nature that everyone else does...

Every single thread on this website there is at least one person attacking another.

They are either being a smart-alec or they are just being generally rude.

Maybe the person is confused about something..Why not try explaining it to them instead of making them feel like they are partially retarded?

Then when they go to ask a serious question they are given crappy sources like Wikipedia or they are attacked even more..

Discussions aren't won or lost. It's not about who has the most words or the most sarcastic remarks. It's supposed to be about teaching and learning..

I see it every day on here... It almost makes me wanna stop hanging out on here.

Really? So "Healthy", which is also the absence of something (sickness), is therefore offering nothing.

 

Is that your logic?

Why you people so friggin uptight all the time?

Pot isn't just some random commodity..

It's ruined lives and families. If you don't believe me just go visit Eastern Kentucky.

Now's it's pot, then it will be coke, then heroin, then meth...It will never stop until everyone is satisfied.

It doesn't offer anything except for the absence of something (religion)..

Essentially it is nothing therefore it offers nothing.

imo

I've just finished playing Mass Effect 2, which I had to wait a month for, because the order was screwed up. It was good while it lasted, well written et.c but seemed to be over really quickly (I blame the structure of the missions / story for that.)

 

I'm sure the game relies on replay value, you get extra perks when playing through again, but I see that as more of a chore than anything.

 

I've also been playing the excruciatingly poor Avatar game, which I downloaded solely as a graphics test for SLI. It uses a modified engine from Far Cry 2 (I forget the name), and does look incredible on my set up...the game itself, is dire.

 

I've also had a few games on Civilization IV recently, where I believe Civilization V is due out soon...so something to look forward to.

Yea I wanna get around to ME2 soon..Does it let you continue your game to play side missions after the main quests or do you have to start the game over like in the first one?

I've played all the Far Cry games and it's odd that they would use the same engine for avatar..The engine is Dunia I believe..

peace

I have just started playing Assassin's Creed II, but so far I am not very impressed.

Yea I know what you mean..It's a cool game but it's basically the first game with a few upgrades..

I'm not sure I understand your questions. If the pack of cells is not alive, and it's not sentient, then it's not human.

Okay, here goes. In my opinion an embryo is a human life. Why do I think it is a human? For the same reason that I think you are a human. It has a mother and a father. I know this is open to debate, but it's counter intuitive to say otherwise imo.

It might be killing a "potential", but it's not killing a life, and it's not killing a human. It's not murder. When you kill off bacteria, you don't commit murder, do you? And bacteria *ARE* alive.

The potentials? Sounds like a good concept for a movie or something.. It just seems like you are though. Killing a person. Because if you didn't kill them they would probably go on to live a life. That's all anything is about isn't it? The potentiality? Why do you get up in the morning knowing that one day you will die? Because potentially you could have a happy life between then and now.

Now, about "potential" for life:

1. Are you supporting contraception? If you are, then by your own definition you are preventing the potential of life and are committing "murder".
   
2. Did you ever, in your life, ejaculate not while having coitus? Then by your own logic, you destroyed potential life, and are responsible of murder.
   
3. Did you ever use detergent? You actively kill life when you do.
   
4. Did you ever step on an ant? did you ever kill a roach? Murder murder murder.
   

Question 1: That doesn't apply because the process of life hasn't technically begun until the egg and sperm unite.

Question 2: See question number one.

Question 3: Life is just a chemical reaction. The only reason any of this is relevant is because people's Limbic system's get involved and they decide certain things are wrong. This is same reason you don't like it when people talk smack about your mamma.

Question 4: It doesn't have anything to do with ending life for the sake of ending life. It has everything to do with hypocrisy. Why punish the man who pushes a pregnant woman down the stairs when there are millions of sacks of cells that are thrown in the garbage everyday?

So, unless you're willing to explain the difference between the above (specifically the first two) and a pack of divided cells that aren't *YET* alive, there seems to be no difference. If one's murder, the other one's murder too. Is that what you support? I'm not sure I understand your position on these issues, and i don't see how this logic holds in being consistent.

 

~moo

Think about all the illogical things you do everyday..Now imagine a society built from the ground up based on fallacies.

It might be logical to use slaves to do our forced labor. Saves time training people and such, but would it be right?

Because you can't murder a non-person. You are assuming that the embryo is a person -- without explaining why, nor defining person. Anyone who does not hold that *baseless assumption will not consider abortion murder.

 

*I've yet to see any reasonable definition that has zygotes or embryos as a person but does not include or exclude the wrong things.

Well that's odd...Because you are acting based on the assumption that you do have a definition of what a human is.

I have a solution! Let's not do anything (abortion or otherwise) until we figure it out..

Sound good?

Merged post follows:

I

don't understand this analogy. You destroy what you destroy. You prevent everything that might have happened after that.

 

So if I destroy an embryo..I prevent it from becoming a human, right? Or was it never even an embryo in the first place because I destroyed it?

 

 

What?

 

Trust me on that one. Bad after-taste.

I'm not sure I understand your questions. If the pack of cells is not alive, and it's not sentient, then it's not human.

 

It might be killing a "potential", but it's not killing a life, and it's not killing a human. It's not murder. When you kill off bacteria, you don't commit murder, do you? And bacteria *ARE* alive.

 

Now, about "potential" for life:

1. Are you supporting contraception? If you are, then by your own definition you are preventing the potential of life and are committing "murder".
   
2. Did you ever, in your life, ejaculate not while having coitus? Then by your own logic, you destroyed potential life, and are responsible of murder.
   
3. Did you ever use detergent? You actively kill life when you do.
   
4. Did you ever step on an ant? did you ever kill a roach? Murder murder murder.
   

 

 

 

 

So, unless you're willing to explain the difference between the above (specifically the first two) and a pack of divided cells that aren't *YET* alive, there seems to be no difference. If one's murder, the other one's murder too. Is that what you support? I'm not sure I understand your position on these issues, and i don't see how this logic holds in being consistent.

 

~moo

Are we all not just "packs" of living cells?

Why are people convicted of a crime for harming one's own pet? If I starve a bunch of puppies to death I will probably go to jail and get a massive fine.

On the other hand. If I decide to get my big ol magnifying glass out. Go outside and cook some ants I will not go to jail..Will I? Even if I killed millions of ants. Maybe I'll burn six million ants. Have a nice little ant genocide.

On the other other hand. If I decide to try this with some bald eagles I would probably be:

A. Attacked by said eagles.

B. Be convicted of a felony.

Whether you want it to be or not, this is a matter of morality. This whole thing keeps going back to what is right, and what is wrong.

It's whatever society deems to be wrong/right.

Seems to me you guy's are arguing as if there were some absolute morality (which is ironic). Would you say it would be wrong for me to prevent a woman from having an abortion if she wanted one? I'm assuming yes..

Reality is reality is reality is a goose!

Our brains are conglomerations of chain reactions and the scientific method is limited by

1. Human nature..

2. Human observation...

IMO One day we will have artificial intelligence so advanced we won't even have to think about stuff like this.

Or just interrupt Hitler's parents the night he was conceived. They might still conceive a child - maybe even that same night. But it would be a different sperm cell, and hence a different person. You wouldn't have "killed" Hitler, and alterna-Adolf is not "dead" in our timeline. He just never existed.

 

Or you could do the same thing with any of his ancestors. Or just cause some significant change in any of their lives. The likelihood of any particular "potential person" coming into being is ridiculously small, so pretty much any change would prevent history as we know it.

Kindav reminds me of the Grandfather paradox...

Okay now think about this. What if I decided to go back in time to the big bang. Let's pretend that I could gather up all the matter that was created at this exact instance in time. Let us also pretend that I could somehow fit this into a box. Then I decide to travel forward in time and throw this box into a black hole. Now I'd probably have to rely on inter-universal travel to achieve this.

Does this mean that I've destroyed something completely? Or that it never existed in the first place and is therefore impossible to destroy?

I'm still failing to understand how voluntary abortion is not murder.

You ever make a smoothie with cornflakes and strawberries? I wouldn't recommend it...

One way to answer this question, is to first consider the definition of death and use the opposite definition for when life begins. When the heart stops one is considered dead. Therefore when the little heart of the unborn begins to beat it is alive. Death is not defined as when all the cells of the body finally die, since fingernails and hair continues to grow after we are buried. Before the little heart beats in the unborn, it would be analogous to the fingernails and hair of a dead person. which no religion defines as still being alive.

I disagree, and that's actually a myth. About the hair and fingernails continuing to grow. Lack of moisture causes the flesh to shrivel up around hair and nail.

If you are on the anti-choice from the time of conception side of the debate, it seems to me that destroying any human cell should be considered "murder" since technology might one day make any cell into a person. What happens when biologists discover how to convert say a grasshopper cell into a human one? Does that then mean that squashing a grasshopper underfoot becomes murder? Or what if they discover how to turn inert materials into cells etc. etc.

That is why at birth seems to be a more objective criteria.

Well that might work if you didn't flush billions of cells out of your body everyday. If hundreds of thousands didn't just fall off of your skin to become dust.

In no way is that humanly practical, nor is it possible to "save" every single human cell. I do not believe that this is murder though. IMO abortion is murder for the simple fact that we go thru a complex, sterilized process in order to eradicate a mass of human cells that will in due time become a human being, it is already a "human life." This is all a matter of opinion and subjective observation though. I know most of you would contend otherwise.

Merged post follows:

So I have a question for you all. It has to do with one of my earlier posts. Unfortunately no one was able to understand what I was trying to relate.

If I by some chance had a time machine. I might decide to travel back to 1888 to Austria- Hungary, the birthplace of Adolf Hitler. Now this would be a few months before the actual birth of the little demon. I might decide to pose as a practicing physician in the little town of Gasthof Pommer. I might call his mother in and have a discussion with her. I might spend several hours relating to her who I was. I might tell her about all the strange atrocities her son would perform, all the horrible things that would be enacted on Germany in the future.

Now, at this point she would probably being crying. I would present her with two choices. She could either ignore what I had just told her and leave, then forget about everything I had just told her. Or, I could show her the means by which to prevent mass genocide and war.

Let's say she did allow the abortion. Now I decide to travel back to the current time. I find the first encyclopedia I can. I find that there is no mention of a man named Adolf Hitler. There is brief mention of a Worker's party of Germany but only for it's relation to some obscure politicians in early 20th century Germany.

Who would not agree what I had just performed was the greatest assassination in History? Have I not just ended a life to save others?

Do you see the dilemma I face when I attempt to sympathize with the pro-choice ideology? I'm sure I can conjure up even more of these "stories" if you'd like.

IMO if silicon based life were to evolve on some distant planet, I don't think it would be very physically recognizable. Even if they were able to able to perform the same mental tasks as us.

On the original question...Would I consider the original machine human? No I would not. Would I consider it intelligent and worthy of the same rights as applied to humans? I think it depends on how advanced these machines really are at that point and whether or not they are self-replicating. (Which would be a bit strange.)

I'm so very confused about the pro-choice standpoint.

When do you think life begins? At birth?

Hmmm...Well think about this for a minute. Say I build a time machine. I decide to go back in time 6 months before the birth of Hitler..

I don't think I need to go any further do I?

Or do I?

Is there more to that thought?

If you are able to understand every single biochemical process that defines a 'cow', then somehow you can recreate these trillions of processes in a lab, then you are lucky enough to be able to amplify this recreation so that it can be mass produced...on and on.

I'm wondering, would you call that a cow? Or just a sophisticated chemical recreation? What if we could do the same with humans?

Is life only constituted of organic matter? What is organic? Well it usually means there is carbon involved. Can real life only be made of carbon?

What if I use something different? Like silicon?

Is that not life?

There, that's the rest of my thought.

Hmm..I just had a weird thought...

Synthetic-Cows..

Two of those wars we didn't technically lose...I'll let you decide which.

Yep, I work with (And have worked with) a lot of bands in one capacity or another.

That's cool..any big names?

Good points Pangloss.

How long before China decides that we aren't a good investment?

What if they decide to get rid of their dollars and switch to Euros? That would utterly decimate us imo. OPEC is already talking about using Euros. Our trillions and trillions don't even mean anything in the first place. We have nothing to back them up, it's just paper. It's like we've become a commodity and we have to hope some country that actually does have an industry will buy our dollars. We no longer produce anything except debt.

IMO the biggest problem we have is our economy and it's not being handled correctly. I mean think about it. We just come out of one of the worst recessions we've ever had, and they're already talking about spending trillions of dollars on healthcare and eventually energy. Money that we don't have right now. Money that will come out of the American people's pockets, who are just now struggling to make it.