Does consciousness begin at conception?

Page 5 of 10 [ 157 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

04 Jan 2013, 11:28 pm

NAKnight wrote:

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

How can you conclude that "God/s" not existing (because of... evolution?) makes morals irrelevant? Belief in God has not prevented thousands upon thousands of priests in trusted positions from sexually abusing children or financially ruining people. Basing morals on fear of punishment from a deity just means one considers themselves profoundly immoral and need to behave a certain way to avoid inevitable punishment. As an atheist, I am good to other life because I want to be, because I am a good person, because I consider all life to have inherent value. My life has great purpose, meaning and I make ethical/moral choices because I choose to live it this way, not because I'm afraid of being burned in hell for eternity. TallyMan probably feels similarly to I on this.

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

04 Jan 2013, 11:39 pm

Calling humans hairless apes would because most humans do have hair.

The difference in the amount of hair between average human and a gorilla is probably not that much. The main difference is the thickness and length.

_________________
.

Telekon
Velociraptor

Joined: 16 Feb 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 411

04 Jan 2013, 11:50 pm

ruveyn wrote:

NAKnight wrote:

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'm not a biologist, but I don't think genes are additive in that way. We share 80% of our genetic material with mice but that doesn't mean that a mouse is 4/5 a man. We share genetic traits with simple-celled organisms too. We're made out of a different composition of the same stuff. That doesn't (by itself) prove that we're distantly related. Life arose on earth, so it stands to reason that we're made out of the same material.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

05 Jan 2013, 5:49 am

We share 4/5 of mice genes because mice are more related to us than , say, flies. Not only are we apes, we are also mamals and vertebrates and pluricelular animals.

_________________
.

TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

05 Jan 2013, 5:51 am

NAKnight wrote:

Nope, you don't understand me at all and have connected dots to produce an image of your own making, not mine. I don't have time to say more at this moment in time.

_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Jan 2013, 8:35 am

Telekon wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

NAKnight wrote:

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

I'm not a biologist, but I don't think genes are additive in that way. We share 80% of our genetic material with mice but that doesn't mean that a mouse is 4/5 a man. .

True. It means mice and men are blood relatives. That is we share a common origin somewhere in the deep dark past.

Mice are not men. Men are not mice. Neither are men chimpanzees, but there are genetic and behavioral similarities between the two species.

ruveyn

NAKnight
Deinonychus

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

05 Jan 2013, 4:31 pm

TallyMan wrote:

Nope, you don't understand me at all and have connected dots to produce an image of your own making, not mine. I don't have time to say more at this moment in time.

Well, then why do you act like you know and understand me even when it comes to my own personal beliefs?
That is a fair assessment of your convictions of your belief.

Best Regards,

Jake

_________________
In The Morning to all Hams on the air, ships at sea, boots on the grounds, drones in the sky and all the Human Resources charged up and ready to go just the way the Government wants you to be..

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

06 Jan 2013, 2:40 am

NAKnight wrote:

Tallyman wrote:

I value human life and my own too, however, humans are animals.

No, I disagree, humans are not animals. Humans behave based upon a set of qualitative values, whereas animals do not.
If you are basing your conclusion upon natural selection, while in some instances it may be true, not all people act viciously towards on another.

TallyMan wrote:

Strip away the thin veneer of clothing, technology and language and we are simply a species of hairless ape.

Why do you think that? You said you value your own life, but then you make the claim that we are just another species of hairless apes?
If that's how you define "value" in your life, you might would want to reconsider your language.

TallyMan wrote:

We may be "soul-less" but that does not make us inhuman nor make us heartless.

It makes us entirely inhuman. If we are "soul-less" then man would act on primal instincts and all of humanity would be cold-blooded murderers. You are assuming way too much. Man operates upon a set of morally objective values and codes that separate us from the animals. There is a difference, however you don't seem to see it that way.

Going back to the topic of abortion, I can see now why you would think the way you do.

Best Regards,

Jake

You are ignorant of what it means to be an animal, and ignorant of the powers of evolution. Non-human animals - especially mammals - are just as capable of the emotional, empathetic actions as humans are; emotions come from the more primitive parts of our brains and from our neurochemistry, which are highly conserved throughout the mammalia and even through more clades than that. A mother cat caring for her kittens and a human woman caring for her baby experience the same emotions of love and attachment.

Evolution is perfectly capable of producing those emotions, and of producing wider emotions of empathy and caring in social species like ourselves. It's not about some sort of 'might makes right,' it's about preserving our genes; in a social species, reciprocity means that helping others is literally helping ourselves.

ValentineWiggin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 May 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,907
Location: Beneath my cat's paw

06 Jan 2013, 4:29 am

Quote:

There is no scientific theory involving such fairy-dust concepts as a "soul",
and, more importantly, we DO "act on primal instincts", with the only thing separating you from a cold-blooded "murderer" is that you have not been a situation where your survival is at stake, which is a pure result of modern convenience.
Conversely, the vast majority of mammals and especially primates much like us DO exercise established codes of conduct- such is to be expected in highly-social species.

"Morally objective values"? Name a single universal moral value, except an incest taboo,
which is resultant of the evolutionary disadvantages which often plague the offspring of that act.

We are animals. It's either that or Plants, Fungi, or a type of bacteria.

Sorry.

_________________
"Such is the Frailty
of the human Heart, that very few Men, who have no Property, have any Judgment of their own.
They talk and vote as they are directed by Some Man of Property, who has attached their Minds
to his Interest."

metalab
Snowy Owl

Joined: 22 Jan 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 145
Location: Portland, Oregon

06 Jan 2013, 10:30 am

Consciousness began at the big bang.

But that shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not women should be able to control all processes of their body.

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

06 Jan 2013, 11:18 am

There is a scientific theory of consciousness, it is called quantum mechanics.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

06 Jan 2013, 11:23 am

androbot2084 wrote:

There is a scientific theory of consciousness, it is called quantum mechanics.

Link? Now I'm curious.

androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

06 Jan 2013, 11:33 am

Roger Penrose wrote a book explaining the theory. Certain structures of the brain are quantumly shielded to allow infinite calculations.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

06 Jan 2013, 11:34 am

metalab wrote:

Consciousness began at the big bang.

But that shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not women should be able to control all processes of their body.

So you equate the universe with consciousness? I equate Earth with it and think of humans as the conscious part of the planet. I see all life as a part of Earth, not separate from it. We belong to this planet.

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,811
Location: London

06 Jan 2013, 11:36 am

NAKnight wrote:

If determinism is true, all our actions are random and without purpose.

No, if determinism is true, all our actions are determined. "Random" and "determined" could not be any further apart.

Quote:

If all of man was evolved, then "Gods" could not exist, therefore no moral standard is established, thereby making morals and moral irrelevant.

Neither of your conclusions here follows the premise.

Evolution says nothing about a god, at most he is not necessary.

Morality is not provided by a god, so the non-existence of any god could not make morality irrelevant.

Quote:

If man has no morals or morals are irrelevant, man is reduced to an animal.

No, man is an animal because man eats to access energy, is made up of many complex (eukaryote) cells, lack rigid cell walls, and can move spontaneously.

Quote:

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.

The first statement is correct, all man's actions are the result of instincts and drives, although calling them "primal" degenerates them somewhat.

Quote:

If man has no soul, then, killing and murdering fellow men (born and unborn) would constitute natural selection and no moral objection would matter.

Natural selection isn't moral, it is just a brute fact. If you can't see why sentient beings have a right to life beyond the hypothetical existence of a soul... then get out a bit more?

A soul is immortal. Why would a soul affect whether it is moral to destroy a mortal body?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Jan 2013, 11:41 am

The_Walrus wrote:

A soul is immortal. Why would a soul affect whether it is moral to destroy a mortal body?

There is not a shred of empirical evidence supporting the supposition of a soul than can outlive the body in which it emerged.

In short, the soul if it exists, cannot survive the destruction of the body.

ruveyn

Page 5 of 10 [ 157 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 10 Next

Jump to:

Does consciousness begin at conception? Post Reply New Topic

Does consciousness begin at conception?