Does consciousness begin at conception?

Post Reply New Topic

I'm obviously not on par with an expert like him, but are you sure it's a theory and not just wishful thinking?

Scientists are still human beings after all.

Do you recall which book? He writes books that are 500-600 pages in length. It would be a bit of a chore to skim through them all to find what you're talking about.

So, now your saying there is such a thing as a soul, it's immortal, not physical, right?




So, where is the Morality provided from? Is morality a subjective cultural response to evolution? Could Objective morality exist, even with cultures of different views on it?



So can every other species on earth, what separates man from the lower species is the ability to create and use tools and create complex environments, whereas our chimpanzee brethren can not.



I'm calling it what it is. I'm not going to "suger-coat" it for you.



I do get out, I actually work two separate jobs on a daily basis. Have a car, make rent and working towards living on my own. Why should I believe sentient beings have a right to live? What right is that? Is that an absolute right? I thought no morally absolute rights could exist.



The right to live, as provided by The_Walrus.



You may state that, evolution may state that, but I actively choose to not agree with it personally. I'm not going to subscribe, although the position is well-represented. I would like to think that I am on a "higher-level" than my dog, because I am. I have dominion over the animals and I am not one of them. That's just me.



Your not hurting my feelings. It's all good.



Because I am not one of them, I am aware of the "powers of evolution" I choose not to subscribe to the ascertation because it creates a very bleak picture for humanity in the name of being "correct" as opposed to a society where society is pushed to better itself and others, rather than procreate and spread it's genetic blueprint. That's just me.


Best Regards,

Jake

Roger Penrose wrote a book called "Shadows of the Mind".
Neurons of the brain have structures called microtubules that are quantumly shielded.

That does not logically follow. 500 years ago we did not have a shred of empirical evidence for an expanding universe.

No, I'm saying that by definition, a soul is immortal. I do not concern myself with whether it exists or not.

There are many views on what makes something moral.

Some, the utilitarians, believe morality is doing whatever is best for the population.
Some, the Kantians, believe that morality is doing your duty, never treating people as a means to an end, only doing things that could be done by all in a sustainable manner, and working towards a world where everyone is treated as an end in themselves, never as a means.
Some people follow virtue theory, and say that it is right to do whatever builds your character.
That's just scratching the tip of the iceberg.

Under utilitarianism (which comes in many forms), morality comes from the consequences of your actions.
Under Kantian ethics, morality is obeying these rules at all times.
Under virtue theory, morality is building your character.

Is morality subjective- possibly. I would argue not, myself.

Objective morality could exist, yes. Even utilitarianism could objectively be moral.

Yes, every other animal species can do those things. That is the definition (roughly) of animal. Therefore, as humans fit the definition of animals, humans are animals.

Chimpanzees (and many other animals) can use tools. I'm not sure what you mean by "create complex environments".

Is a severe brain damaged person who cannot create and use tools a "man"? Is a foetus? Is a baby? Is an elderly person beset with Parkinson's and dementia? What about, hypothetically, a chimpanzee that mystically possesses the dexterity and intelligence of man that communicates by writing in English?

You don't need to sugar coat it, but just because something is primal doesn't mean it is simple.

Working two jobs daily is neither necessary sufficient for "getting out" in the context I meant it.

If you think the only reason we say murder is immoral is because "humans have a soul", then you are mistaken and need to educate yourself. I suspect, however, that you do know the true reasons and are simply being facetious.

We say murder is immoral because unnecessarily ending someone's existence without their consent is a breach of their liberty, it will usually decrease total happiness, allowing murder will lead to people being killed all over the place which will prevent society from functioning, and any number of other reasons. Can't believe I just had to explain why murder is wrong

What makes you think no absolute rights exist?


The vast majority of people who accept the fact of evolution do not believe that survival of the fittest is a moral goal to aim for.

I accept gravity exists, that doesn't mean I am against flight. I accept the mechanics of how a gun works, that doesn't mean I am in favour of mass killing.

You can't get "ought" from "is".

Chimpanzees also throw dung and excrement at each other, like most other animals, last I checked I don't do that.




Am I un-educated? Do I have to get a degree under my belt?



Murder is immoral because it is an violation of a in-alienable, absolute right to live.



I wasn't implying that none did exist. I appreciate your willingness to argue my point for me though.

Best Regards,

Jake

Thanks! I saw that one listed and wondered if it might be the one you meant, did not want to read the whole thing only to find out it wasn't.

I like this quote of his I found on Wikipedia:

Universal moral values aren't necessarily objective values. Ayn Rand's values would be universal if everyone followed them, but they wouldn't be objective. Objective morals are binding no matter what people do; they are non-conventional and transcendent. Plato's idea of Good and the Ten Commandments are examples of objective morals.

We are animals, but a special kind of animal. What differentiates us from the other creatures is our wills. Animals act on instinct. You don't see ascetic monkeys. No species of animal goes on hunger strike or takes celibacy vows except humans. Animals are slaves to their genes and could never be responsible for violating a code of conduct. No one could be punished for violating the primate "code of conduct" because that would imply responsibility, which would imply free will. Animals have no notion of responsibility.

You mean, 'Roger Penrose wrote a book explaining his hypothesis.' (or even, 'his conjecture.')
It's not a theory until it has survived rigorous testing, and Penrose's hypothesis is not testable.

BS. Microtubules are components of the cytoskeleton, which every eukaryotic cell has - not just human neurons. There is no such thing as 'quantum shielding.' This is just sciency-speak to dupe people who know nothing about actual science.

He's conjecturing that, if there is a soul, its presence would have no effect on the morality of killing or not killing the body in which it resides, because the soul itself is not harmed by that action. His statement is in good standing with thousands of crusaders and conquistadores who slaughtered entire villages ('kill them all - God will know his own,') and baptized and then killed native children (so that they could not be later corrupted by their parents, and thus ensuring that they would go straight to heaven). If you truly believe in a soul, those actions were logically consistent and moral.



Morality, like rights, comes from people. There is no objective morality, only claims to it; there are, however, standards of morality that are highly conserved across most human cultures, which are only abandoned in the face of religions that makes people believe absurd things (like, 'it's ok to kill children to ensure that their souls will go to heaven').


You are incorrect that other species do not do these things. Chimpanzees create and use complex tools, as do many other species - even birds have been shown to do this.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 131906.htm


Why? Only if you're not a sociopath with no capacity for empathy. Asperger's does not preclude compassion and empathy, only the ability to read body language. If you could alleviate the suffering of a being who can sense pain and fear, why would you not choose to do so?


Fine, as long as you recognize that it's faith, and not logic or evidence, that drives that position (and that you obey the laws that the rest of us mandate for compassionate animal care).


You are, in fact, an animal, and evolution does not preclude the progressive urge towards increasing compassion.


Because you have been successfully socialized not to by your parents, from an early age. If throwing feces and masturbating in public is a sign of being an animal, are you claiming to be a separate species from Down's syndrome people, many of whom do both?


If it were inalienable, it would not occur.

Some humans do. Dolphins don't. Does that mean dolphins are above humans?

Yes, you would appear to be uneducated. I would probably blame the notorious Californian school system rather than your lack of a degree, or else a general deficiency in curiosity. Many people begin to understand these concepts without visiting university.
What did you mean when you said "I thought no morally absolute rights could exist."?

Have you never owned a cat? While I don't want to belabor your point, I have seen a cat go on a "you changed my food, damn you" hunger strike.

Oh, and animals other than humans do exhibit grief.

Last edited by BlueAbyss on 06 Jan 2013, 7:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So following one of those events that happen, people die. While most stay dead, a few after many hours of having no heart beat, electrical activity in the brain, not breathing, just come back to life.

It is common enough that the saying is, you are not dead until you are warm and dead. Dead people fished out from beneath the ice having been underwater for hours come back to life.

Current research, dogs are drained of blood which is replaced by near freezing saline solution, and after three days, have their blood replaced, are warmed, and come back to life. It is projected to be used on the battlefield soon, to transport people in an ice box to where they can be repaired, then restarted.

In almost all cases, the person who returns is the one that left. They may remember everything like the cracking of the ice.

Others through trama, are the same person, but have no memory of the last five years. Everything else, they are good. It does not even show up till someone mentions something from the past, and they were there, but have no memory. It takes a while to establish just what they are missing, and it is a block of time.

Still others are fully human, but are not the person who left. There are stories through time of Walk ins. Everyone is a stranger to them, they do not know wives, children, but they are fully functional. Reports say they have a different manner of speech, gait, and may have knowledge the missing person did not. They may speak another language.

Some come back as babies or small children, in an adult body, and have to learn to speak. They do, and quickly become functional, so no damage.

Being ice cold and dead for twelve hours does nothing, the same personality returns, same memory, which says something about our view that such things are stored in an electrical and chemical means.

Those who cleanly lose a block of time, never seem to recover it. They can go forward, are themselves, but that block of time is gone.

Most of this points to the life force not needing the body, existing without it for a while, then returning with full knowledge, or a loss of recent years, but walk ins point to another life force becoming attached to the body, and reviving in it.

Unlike HAL, humans do not sing Daisy, Daisy, as they shut down, they just leave. Returning there is no loss of identity, function. Sometimes memory, for a set block of time, that can reduce them to children, and sometimes a total stranger.

Questions that do not fit the answers.

evidence, please?

Because they weren't actually dead in the first place.

evidence, please?

answers that do not actually exist.

If consciousness begins at conception then we are all females.

http://www.gender.org.uk/about/04embryo/44_cncp.htm