Does consciousness begin at conception?

Post Reply New Topic

Even if cultures differ on morality, so what? That doesn't mean that objective morality could not exist.
How does it follow that each group thinks it's right, therefore no group is correct?
The simple fact that there is a disagreement in morality does not mean that no objective moral truths could exist.



That is not my choice to make. I do not want to be responsible for someone else's suffering if it's under my control.




It is not "Faith" that drives that position, it is a in-controvertible fact. I can kill my dog in a heartbeat, grab my gun and shoot it. I don't have to exercise that, I love and care for all my animals, but to compare me to one is not helping your case whatsoever. I can choose not to subscribe to Evolution. I'm not obligated to apologize for that position, my "faith" is not just mere "faith" or psychological confidence. I have convictions as to what I believe to be true. What are you convictions? Or are you putting all of your psychological confidence in evolution? The axe cuts both ways.

I also have responsibilities whereas, Bo, my dog does not. Bo is not responsible for my f**k-ups, Jake is responsible, therefore it is my ass in the line, not his.




If Darwinism is true, then there is no purpose or meaning to life, there is no morality, there's no qualitative difference between humans and animals, there's no life after death, and there's no purpose to human history. Is that what you are trying to say?





Seriously? You do not know anything about me or my family for that matter.
If the roles were reversed and you experienced what I experienced, you would be preaching to me about the wonders of the Gospel.
Play fair with me.



But it does occur and it's something everyone must deal with on a daily basis.
It does not dispute the fact that it is an absolute right, a right that others take for granted.

Best Regards,

Jake

No, at conception we don't have a sex and we certainly don't have a gender. You are right that we default as "female" for a while.

Regardless, following that logic, if consciousness begins at conception we are all small clumps of cells; if consciousness begins age 2, then we are all two year olds.

I'm a high school graduate, graduated with a 4.0 GPA (That's a big deal) and I won a substantial scholarship, too.

One mo' 'gain!


Best Regards,

Jake

I could choose not to believe in gravity, but I would still fall if I jumped through a cliff.

Have you ever heard of polititians? It is the same thing, mostly.
If everyone got an inalienable right to live, should we pay healthcare to everyone?


I disagree anyone has a right to live. We all got a duty to live, and the punishment for not fulfilling this duty, is death.


If the theory of evolution is true. This theory with tons and tons of evidence for, and none against. This theory that just works and has wonderfully done various successful predictions. This theory that has scientific consensus. This theory that is better understood by biologists than gravity is by physicists. This theory that is called "darwinism" by some, in an attempt to make it look like the mere thought of an inidividual rather than a super confirmed scientific theory.

If this theory of evolution is true (and so far all our evidence points out to it being true) then it would mean many things:
a) Species have a common ancestor.
b) Reproduction, mutation and natural selection explain the differentiation of species.

* It would not really say much about morals. I don't think you understand evolution to claim that it has moral consequences.

* It helps the conclusion that we are animals, but it is not the only theory pointing towards saying that humans are animals. Of course we are animals biologically. Maybe you don't throw your excrement at people, but you still crap. But most importantly, we are not plants and we are alive, so ... .

* It does not seem to change or alter the "meaning of life". It just explains the complexity and variability between life forms.

* I don't think evolution is necessary or sufficient to claim that there is no life after death.

* Purpose to human history? We can make our own purpose, regardless of whether or not we have common ancestors with rats (we do) or not. Rats, apes, dolphins and bacteria have purpose too!

Nobody has perfect knowledge. Certainly in the field of biology, you appear to be uneducated.

There's no great shame in that if you don't value biology. I don't value Bolivian law, I am uneducated in Bolivian law, I don't comment on Bolivian law. I don't particularly value particle physics (beyond neutrons, protons and electrons), I am uneducated in particle physics, I don't comment on particle physics. I don't value American history... see where I am going here?

Of course: one cannot prove a negative. However, the fact that there are very few 'moral' codes that are universal across all of humanity (much less across the entire natural world) certainly does not support the idea that there might be an objective morality. Where there is no evidence for something, it generally makes more sense to abandon the idea, even if you like it.


Your statement is internally inconsistent. If you do not want to be responsible for someone else's suffering, and it is under your control, how is it not your choice to make?


You could do the same to your mother (assuming that she is still alive). Both actions are illegal (at least in the US), thanks to a consensus by the American people that they are immoral acts. The fact that you can kill your dog, or your mother, with a gun, does not make you qualitatively different from either being.

Of course. I'm not asking for an apology. I'm asking that you recognize that your faith is not a good argument for a world-view that the rest of us should give much of a damn about.


A lot of people had convictions about an apocalypse 12/21/12. and a lot of people had convictions about an apocalypse in May, and then in September of 2011 before that, to the degree that they sold their belongings and went around preaching the reality of the second coming. Beliefs, however, do not impact objective reality; we're all still here, despite those people's convictions.


I try not to have convictions; it is scientifically unsound to do so. I currently accept the theory of evolution based on the vast weight of the evidence in support of it, and the complete lack of an alternate theory that is as well-supported even a tenth as well. In order to operate on a daily basis, I accept, based on evidence and successful predictive ability, that I am currently sane and that my perceptions provide a reasonably good model of the world around me, with some notable exceptions (optical illusions, et all).


Is your dog not responsible for, say, not pooping in the house? For barking when someone comes in the door? For not biting people without your permission? For not running out into the street? For alerting you to interesting things that he perceives with his nose, which you had not previously been aware of? For remaining loyal to you and those you love? For encouraging you to occasionally get outside for a walk? My dog is responsible for all of those things, and he fulfills his duties admirably.


This statement is incorrrect in two ways. First, 'Darwinism' refers only to evolution by means of natural selection; the modern synthesis of evolution goes far beyond what Darwin first elucidated. Darwin was neither the first nor the last to contribute to evolutionary theory, only it's first successful contributor. He could not pass a modern evolution exam by even 20%, were he to be resurrected and plopped down in a classroom. Second, it does not follow that lacking a deity means that life lacks meaning. Our lives have all of the meaning that we invest in them.


again, incorrect. There might not be an objective morality without some cosmic overlord, but that's a far cry from saying that there is no morality at all.


finally something that we mostly agree on. The one quibble I have is that the degree of the quantitative difference between humans and other animals is such that it starts to approach a qualitative difference, and that it is perfectly natural for members of a species to place extra weight and value on the considerations of their own species.


No objective purpose. Human purpose, however, it has in spades.


Unsocialized humans do fling feces on occasion. Saying that you have been successfully socialized is not an insult.


No, I probably would not be. My family is Catholic; attempts were made to socialize me into Christianity. However, it never made sense to me and the nail in the coffin for me was reading the Bible. I think that I'm congenitally unable to understand accepting ridiculous things on 'faith.'


Yes, it does, and yes, people do; I work in a hospital, including lots of time in the ER, so I'm intimately familiar with death and by extension with my own mortality; I have seen more humans die than any other single animal, with the possible exception of insects as a group. The reason that anyone is able to take a 'right to life' for granted is that we live in a civlized, modern society where we are mostly capable of keeping death contained and out of public sight.

Congratulations... no, it's not. I graduated with a 3.8 (unweighted - there were a lot of science classes in there, and I did well in them) without doing 90% of the assigned homework in my last two years of high school. If, as I assume, you are an American, doing well in high school doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot any more, except to the extent that it allows you to get into a decent college or university.
Most of the people using WP are smarter than average, and certainly smarter than most of the people with whom you interacted in high school. Your grades are virtually immaterial in part because the people against whom you were being compared in that environment are not as smart as the people here, and also because high school grades reflect one's ability to get along in high school as much as they reflect one's intelligence and learning capacity. There are people here who are quite intelligent, who write clearly and concisely and say intelligent things, but who are non-verbal in real life and never got through grade school, much less high school.
To quote a movie character with a low IQ but a great deal of compassion and common sense, 'Stupid is as stupid does.' Likewise intelligence and learning. If you want us to respect you intelligence and learning, display intelligence and learning. Don't brag about your grades.

If I am responsible for someone else's suffering I'll do my best to make sure they do not have suffer as much as they can.



Other the fact that I have the free will to do so if I so decide but I wont take it to that level.



I realize that, I also realize that mere psychological confidence is not a good argument either.




So, you are putting all of your faith or psychological confidence into science, correct? If the conditions to your belief are overwhelming evidence against the contrary, whose to say that sometimes evidence could be wrong or manipulated? What conclusive un-changeable evidence has science provided?





What provides meaning in your life?




So, it's established then that there is an objective morality? Wheres does the morality derive from?





Lets be fair, if you were raised like I was, chances are you would be preaching to me, no matter how much you do not want to admit it.



Well, don't call me uneducated and I wont. Can we start there?


Best Regards,

Jake

I believe consciousness is apart from brain and so also apart from conceptions; meaning that consciousness does not need conceptions to exist.

What qualifications do you have in the field of Biology?

There are plenty of people with PhDs who are uneducated. Everyone with a PhD in homoeopathy, for example.

Well, then. In the words of the almighty Major Jackson "Jax" Briggs: "Bring It".

Right, and for those who have those who have those inclinations to act/control them in a manner that is not detrimental to everyone around them.
I know the consequences/ramifications of actions like those, therefore, I do not participate in those actions unless necessary for self-defense.


A pastor can murder anyone just as much as anyone else can. No one is considered "Good" person or "Bad" person. I'm not Holier than thou kind of guy.
The outside objective morality, dictates whether or not an action is considered "Good" or "Bad"


Best Regards,

Jake

None currently, I basing the majority of my claims off personal research and experience.


Best Regards,

Jake

But it tends strongly to that conclusion. If objective morality existed, then there would be a natural expectation that human beings' cultural evolution would gravitate towards that objective morality. But clearly that is not the case. When civilization breaks down, morality breaks down with it. Take a look at any nation in history in which government has disappeared--warlordism is the inevitable result.

This leads me to the view that morality does not exist independently of humanity; but rather that morality is a creation of human society. We don't conform to objective morality; we invent morality when we reach the decision that a well ordered society is preferable to anarchy.



How does the premise necessarily lead to those conclusion? You're engaging in absurdism.

There is absolutely nothing in evolution that precludes the identification of a "meaning" to life--we live, we think and we communicate, and whether we arrived at that state through instantaneous creation, or undirected natural selection, or my the omnipotent hand of a Creator using evolution as the mechanism for creation, we are nonetheless capable of articulating meaning.



Isn't that presumptuous of you? You might be the only one who knows your circumstances; but it is the height of arrogance to presume that yours is the only possible result of living in those circumstances.



Let's be sure we are using the same vocabulary. A "right," is an interest that can be enforced at law. Rights have no existence outside a system of law. So when you talk of a "moral right," you are talking about a nullity. Morality will identify interests; and it will set out guides for how those interests must be balanced. But morality has no means of enforcement. Your morality ends with your sphere of influence. When your morality and mine are in conflict, no resolution is possible.

Law, on the other hand, is amoral. It serves to balance interests based on an objective set of rules that are universally applicable. It doesn't matter if my morality says that it is perfectly fine to kill my neighbour. The law prohibits me from doing so, except in a very narrow set of exceptional circumstances. That has nothing whatever to do with morality, and everything to do with well ordering a society.

Looked at with any degree of critical thinking, the right to life is clearly not an absolute right, nor is it inalienable. The right to life is legitimately abrogated in numerous ways: police officers are authorized to use deadly force; we authorize the use of force by armed forces under rules of engagement; we authorize individuals to defend themselves--and in some circumstances to use deadly force in doing so. Now, you might well argue that in these cases, there is a "kill or be killed" element. So I will posit a totally different abrogation of the right to life.

When I am called upon to decide whether or not to continue care for a patient on life support, I am making a life and death decision. I am authorized by my medical license to make this decision (within a certain decision making framework, of course), but there is no question that a patient's right to life is being put into the hands of others. It has beena lienated, either to me, as the attending physician, or to an authorized individual who has the capacity to make health care decisions. If the right to life was absolute and inalienable, then no one would ever have the authority to "pull the plug."

None of these authorities necessarily sit well with a moral view that uncritically holds a right to life as absolute. But that's the gap between morality and law; and thus it has ever been.

I will not. If you intend to prove the existence of souls, then that is your job, not mine...

Good to hear it. Now go back and read what you said to start this part of the conversation.


So your claim is that humans have free will, and that animals do not?


Faith, no; faith is belief in the absence of evidence, or despite evidence to the contrary. There is a great deal of evidence that science has resulted in the lessening of the suffering of sentient beings more than any other system of human belief in the history of our species, so I accept that science provides a better model of the world than other modes of thought.
Science does not provide un-changeable evidence. That's its strength. Evidence can be manipulated, and that's why we try not to have convictions. Even entrenched theories - even those considered laws, such as Newton's laws of motion - can be overruled in the face of new evidence.



The usual: family, friends, pets, experiencing natural beauty, having a job where I help people.



.....nnnnno.
How on earth did you get
...'It's established then that there is an objective morality...' from anything that I've written?


Wait, are you saying that your faith was caused by your upbringing? That your personality made no difference? That you had no choice - no free will - in the matter?

first, I didn't call you uneducated. Second, you entirely missed my point that high school grades are not good evidence that you are well educated.

Yes, free will implies responsibilities, and every animal I've seen serves only purpose: Procreate and Eat, Sleep and Poop.
Animals (including my dog) do not have any responsibilities (Or any responsibility) that contribute (Or Contribute At All} to the well-being of the family house hold.



I want something that never changes, regardless of the day, time, year, whenever.
I want something that is there, will still be there when I leave and will be there when I arrive.

That's why I don't have my faith in Science.




I'm glad, you found meaning. I respect you for being a nurse, I could never doing anything like that personally, good karma to you.



You are saying "There is or there is not" I deal with absolutes, I want an absolute answer. Either morality is relative or it's objective. We cannot both be correct, someone must be mistaken.

If moral relativism is true, then all moral categories are meaningless. Any attempt at moral discourse is reduced to incoherence. Therefore, the only course of action truly consistent with moral relativism is complete silence. If you view all morality as relative and you're consistent, you can't ever make a moral recommendation.



You do not know me personally, you have made multiple assumptions (and so have I) can we agree to not generalize each other in the sake of a civilized discussion?



I think Walrus made the ascertation. I gave you the heat, sorry.



Best Regards,

Jake