Does consciousness begin at conception?

Post Reply New Topic

Why would people act viciously towards one another? Other animals don't except when competing for food or mates... humans don't differ in that respect either.



We are hairless apes. I value myself and my fellow hairless apes. I also value other animals too. You seem to want to put humans on some sort of platform where you can look down on other animals with contempt. Why is that?



Of course humans would not be cold-blooded murderers (well most of us anyway! ) You seem to be equating animals with being ruthless killers. Most are not, especially towards their own species. Most mammals look after and tend their young and defend their young against predators. Humans differ little in this respect - we kill and devour countless other species.

I get the impression you have little regard for animals and consider them disgusting or contemptible somehow?

Even though I do think we probably have souls, though it can't be proved, I agree with Tallyman on this. People and animals only act vicously when in unhealthy situations, such as a dog that is left alone too much although as a pack animal it needs constant companionship, or a person forced into situations that aren't healthy for him. For instance why do people sent to prison frequently come out with more criminal behavior than they went in with?

Humans are animals, and it's when we deny our animal natures exist and try to play god that we find ourselves at odds with the world.

To compare natural predatory behavior in other animals to viciousness is mistaken. Humans once had to hunt to survive, in fact we are still the most efficient predator on the planet, which is part of why we're dominant and destroying environments that other species depend on. Curbing our predatory instincts is necessary in order to live in our great numbers in civilized societies. But it doesn't always work, isn't always healthy, and as a result people sometimes erupt into violence. We can be as vicious as any other animal on earth and we prove it again and again.

Do we have souls? Maybe.
Are we animals? Most definitely.

Not until there is a brain and nervous tissue.

ruveyn

What is a "soul" of what is it made and what are its laws of operation?

ruveyn

At the moment of conception according to the perspective of the 4 dimensional space time continuum there exists a fully functional human brain.

Man, what you been smoking today?

Consciousness begins in my ballsac

I do mean conscious thought. Our consciousness may register, "I am thirsty, now," but the feelings of thirst arise from the sympathetic nervous system as a result of its maintainance of homeostasis. The parasympathetic later is responsible for, "I have to pee, now," and as any five year old knows, the need to pee can arise entirely independently from consciousness!

But all this seems remote from your idea of "interests," so it's rather a moot point.



A legal interest is any interest that a legal remedy may be sought to protect. Given that this discussion ultimately leads us headlong into the question of the legal regulation of abortion, I think it is important to set the legal framework for the discussion. A phenomenological assessment of intrauterine consciousness is interesting, but of very little use unless it is going to inform a broader medical-ethical discussion of prenatal care or obstetrical practice.



I still fail to see the relevance beyond an academic discussion. If conscious preferences are the foundations for consideration of interests, then why do we take any steps to extend the lives of people who are in a permanent vegetative state, or who are sufferring with dementia?

I do not see the lack of conscious thought and preferential identification of interests as lying at the root of the ethical argument. To me, the root lies in the simple existence of a distinct human being. At some point there is a transition from an entity with no interests (such as an unfertilized ovum) to a human being with a complete package of crystalised legal rights. The debate is where that transition occurs, and I am not at all persuaded that the development of consciousness is that trasition.



Well, interests as you have defined them. But I do not see that conception (the cognitive ability) is limited to post-natal events. You may have no memory of your responses to stimulus in utero, but that does not mean that you could not perceive those stimuli and respond to them.



A good starting point for mutually productive discussion.



Well, I know they matter legally, because liability can attach for errors and omission in prenatal and obstetric care.

And I know they matter to me personally, because that is one of the bases on which I would make an ethical decision about caring for a pregnant patient. (Were I to practice Ob/Gyn, which I don't.)



That is exactly the root question. How do we make these incredibly complex, difficult judgements?

And, of course they matter to the extent that they are construed as mattering by others, because ultimately, it is these others who are the people making the decisions. A fetus has no means to contribute to the discussion of whether or not a woman will terminate her pregnancy, or what kind of prenatal care will be given. These decisions are all made by third parties who consider factors like the viability of the fetus, the health of the fetus, the health of the mother, and the rights of the mother within the decision making framework.

A soul is the timeless essence.

Originating in some guys balls

I was being facetious, though it is interesting you mention that. I have read about an amoeba (or it could be another single-celled organism, or maybe a roundworm) that is theoretically immortal

Several organisms possess this trait:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_immortality

Of course, that doesn't mean that these organisms can escape the end of the planet.. or in the long run, the heat death of the universe...

Anyway a society that wants to achieve immortality should solve the abortion issue.

No, I have Dominion over the animals, as it should very well be. I will not grant my dog the same rights as I do as a person, because......it's not a person.
If that statement bothers you in an anyway, it shouldn't. The truth that man is dominion over animals is self-evident.

I also do not like being called "Hairless Ape" like I'm an animal in a zoo. No thank you. That's not my culture and heritage.

Best Regards,

Jake

You (and I and every other human) are relatively hairless and we all share 95 percent of our genome with chimpanzees, which is a species of ape. Apes and humans are blood (genetic) relatives. That is a flat out fact, not a mere supposition or theory.

ruveyn

I think I have an idea of what TallyMan believes.

If determinism is true, all our actions are random and without purpose.
If all of man was evolved, then "Gods" could not exist, therefore no moral standard is established, thereby making morals and moral irrelevant.
If man has no morals or morals are irrelevant, man is reduced to an animal.
If man is equal to animals, all of man's actions are of result of primal instincts and drives.
If man's actions are out of result of primal instincts, man has no soul.
If man has no soul, then, killing and murdering fellow men (born and unborn) would constitute natural selection and no moral objection would matter.
If no moral objection would matter, then things of moral value would also not matter.
If things of moral value do not matter, then items of meaning and purpose are are reduced to being meaningless.
And things that are meaningless are also purposeless.
And a life that is without meaning or purpose is one that requires searching for meaning and purpose.


These responses are based upon what you have said to me, and I have connected the dots to a conclusion.

Best Regards,

Jake