Page 9 of 10 [ 157 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Jitro
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 May 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 589

09 Jan 2013, 10:01 pm

Humans are different from animals. Yes we have lots of things in common with animals, but we're still different from them.



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

10 Jan 2013, 10:18 am

visagrunt wrote:
b9 wrote:
i disagree. i am mainly separated from civilization due to my reclusive nature, but i instinctively understand that every life deserves to live. my attitude to all animals (including insects and humans) is that they are no less deserving of peace and happiness than me.
i strongly feel an urge to help any life who is in trouble to escape from their dilemma if it is within my capacity to do so.
i am always rescuing insects in my house that are doomed to die if they can not find their way back outside. there is no one looking at me while i do it. i do not report my "benevolence" to anyone. it is not because of "civilization" that i am compelled to help a cricket that is not smart enough to know where my open door is. i was not taught my attitude. i just know that they, like me, are just passengers in their life's story, and i will go to great lengths to capture them and set them free outside where they can live their whole lives naturally.

no matter how smart people think they are, and how lofty their imaginings of their own importance is, no one can build a life. people may blithely stomp on a cockroach, but all the resources in the world, and the combined efforts of every genius in the world can not recreate that cockroach. that cockroach costs more than all the money on earth can buy.

i have my attitude independently of what i have been taught by "the world", and it is not because of a desire to conform to the greater will of society ,or to impress others, or to obey what others think i should do.

if i was the sole human occupant of a desert island and i encountered an animal (fish or mammal or reptile or insect) that was suffering, and if it was within my mental capacity to free it, i would be compelled by my conscience to do so without any societal or legal compunction.


That is a romantic notion, but I suggest to you that it is entirely untrue. You are only "mainly separated from civilization" in your own fantasy.

i did not say i was entirely divorced from the mechanisms of civilization. obviously i draw upon the resources that civilization has made available to me.
i do not integrate or fraternize with real people in real life situations which require philosophical thought. the sum total of my relationship to society is using the electricity
and gas and produce that i pay for without any further correspondence. i do not fantasize.

i did not learn from anyone what my tenets are.

my father used to pour oil into spider holes in the back yard to kill the spider that lived in the hole, and i remember even when i was 3 years old thinking that the poor spider who has to live in a hole in the dirt was being killed for no reason. no one told me to find it unjust that a spider who may look scary and who may have poisonous venom (that it reserves for immobilization of it's natural prey , and who would not think to use it maliciously against humans) should be killed simply because it is possible that if someone who directly stood on it may get sick due to the fear that causes the spider to bite in self defense). i was not "taught" that.

my mother used to set mouse traps designed to kill innocent mice when she saw even one mouse who tried to run away from her sight in fear. mice are no real threats because they are clean and they do not multiply into plague proportions unless unlimited food is available to them.

i used to trip the traps so as no mice would be killed for an unjust reason. (you may capitalize on the word "just" i guess).

visagrunt wrote:
What practice are you engaged in during the instant that you are reading this? You are on the internet--a tool of civilization.

yes i am a parasite that has tapped into the lifeblood of the resources that civilization has enabled, but that does not make me an integrally reciprocal element of society.


visagrunt wrote:
You are communicating with other people--a manifestation of civilization.

communication is a "2 way street" i have been told many times, but i say much more than i listen to, and that is a fault in me. i once wished that telephones only had a mouthpiece and no earpiece because it would make it much easier to talk to people on the phone.
ring them up and make an announcement and then hang up without the bother of having to cope with feedback.

i am not good at communication. i am much better at proclamation, and i wish i was more able to internalize the thoughts of others who talk to me, but i am not able to receive ideas that i have not personally speculated about.

my attitude is largely self constructed.
people can not make me believe things i have not already thought of myself.


visagrunt wrote:
Where did you get the food that you ate for breakfast this morning? If you didn't cultivate it yourself, how did you pay for it? Where did the money come from to enable that purchase? If you did cultivate yourself, on the other hand, how did you come to hold the land on which you have done so?
i have grazed on the opportunities that were available to me (that were provided by society (as a whole)) , and i have prospered.

do cows who eat the grass on the farms of ranchers have any social integration with the farmers who provided the fertile fields in which they graze? do the farmers have any knowledge of what beliefs are held by those cows, let alone instill them?


visagrunt wrote:
I don't disagree for an instant that you have a unique morality, and that your morality is personal--so it is for all of us. But your morality arose in the context of your upbringing and your education. You were taught certain rules of good behaviour by the people who were responsible for your upbringing. You learned to share.

i did not "learn" to share. if i have more than i need, and if i see some life that needs what i have too much of, then i will give my surplus to them due to an innate compassion i have that i was never taught.

compassion does not equal empathy. compassion is objective in my mind. i do not have to be able to identify with those i feel compelled to throw a life line to.

visagrunt wrote:
You learned the moral of reciprocity.

i do not see reciprocity as a "moral". i do not choose to be unable to understand where people are "coming from". i do not pretend that i see the "heart" (or essence) of other peoples feelings because i was taught it is good to do so. i am simply blind to other peoples feelings, and so i do not listen because i know it is a waste of time for me and them, and all my ethics are purely instinctive.

if i was raised from birth (like tarzan) by apes, i am sure i would still see what is fair and what is not.
you may discount the ability for anyone to be instinctively ethical.

visagrunt wrote:
You learned not to take other children's toys. You took some of those teachings to heart and extended them; you have rejected others--so it is for all of us.

i did not "learn" to not take other people toys. i can feel sympathy, and i would not strip some other innocent person of their possessions because i know it would cause unnecessary suffering to them. it is basic instinct to me to treat other people with kindness.
i do not refrain from murder or rape only because it is against the law. i instinctively know it is very wrong to interfere with other people's happiness.

visagrunt wrote:
You may well be socially impaired, but that in no way separates you from civilization.
yes it does to a large degree.


visagrunt wrote:
Your moral fibre is certainly innate--but you are quite wrong to claim that it is not learned, or that it is not conditional.
you have contradictions in your assertion. innateness is not learned. surely you should know that.


visagrunt wrote:
You admit that you will fight to keep your food and your house. So let's take that to the next step.

Have you ever been truly starving? Have you ever had to act to protect your life?

if you were going to die within 8 hours due to starvation, would you steal the food from the mouth of another innocent person who is weaker than you in order to extend your life at the expense of theirs?
it is a difficult question to consider.
self defense is an easy question to consider. if i was being assaulted by people who were trying to steal my small nest egg, then i would fight hard against them because i would consider it immoral for them to do what they try to do, and i would not have sympathy for them, and so they would be at the mercy of my response.


visagrunt wrote:
You live in a civilization that is relatively free from threats to your bodily integrity and well being. Your civilization has given you the luxury of indulging in your particular morality. But I suggest that this civilization is a necessary precondition to that depth of morality. Were you to be deprived of all money; and were the stores suddenly no longer stocked, where would your morality go once you were starving?
i would not steal the fuel for the lives of others who are innocent to keep my own life in existence. but if someone was being an "overlord" and they marauded through the larders of lesser people to stockpile their own shelves with more than they need, then i would certainly think in terms of eliminating them, that is only natural.


if i was 10minutes away from dying and i was beside a 9 year old who was nibbling on an almost de-fleshed bone, then i would accept my demise. i would not rip it from their hands to feed myself. maybe that is a "losers attitude", but to buy an extra day of life at the expense of their life is the antithesis of a bargain.


visagrunt wrote:
Warlordism is, by definition, practiced by a few over the interests of many. But my point was not to suggest that we are all inherently potential warlords. Rather, my point was to suggest that morality disappears with the loss of civilization.

true morality does not surrender to force.
i think i would prevail because i trust my ability to think of new ways to live in "the wild"

visagrunt wrote:
I have a deep and abiding respect for the morality of others. But I am also firmly of the conviction that all morality is learned, is conditional and can only be understood in the context in which the individual has approached it. For these reasons, morality cannot--in my view--be anything other than subjective.


well there you go. you consider morality to be a fragile social veneer, and not a true bastion against barbarism.

there is no circumstance that could authorize my conscience to steal from those who are equally starving as i am unless they are greedy and have stockpiles that they do not deserve.

i do not wish to discuss this any more because it is too deep for me and so i hand you the title of "winner".



NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

10 Jan 2013, 10:32 am

The_Walrus wrote:

You might want conclusions that never change, you might want absolute morality, you might want humans to be separate from animals, you might want consciousness to begin at conception, you might want free will, but unfortunately we cannot alter reality with our minds. In these areas, what you or I want is irrelevant.


Well then, I guess I'll just have to wait and see won't I?
I can still pick and choose what I want to "Believe" in if it makes enough rational sense. Free will encourages rationality.
I tottaly understand the general consensus is Evolution and Darwinism, if it works for you, more power to you.
That's one of the consequences of "faith" you know?

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..


RageHQ
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 81
Location: Columbus, Ohio

10 Jan 2013, 9:09 pm

Before we are born, we are pure consciousness and energy. At conception we are shaped and formed into the vessel. Everyone has a soul even before they were born. The brain shapes how we think and is formed according to how you use or abuse it. So simply, consciousness existed before you were even born. Perception is the result of the shape of the brain. Those born without brains are conscious, but unable to function physically because their wiring was damaged, unable to send frequencies to the body parts.


_________________
Autistic/BAP
120 aloof, 94 rigid and 109 pragmatic
Aspie score: 174 of 200
Neurotypical score: 29 of 200
AQ: 40


NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

10 Jan 2013, 9:56 pm

IChris wrote:
I do not understand free will as implying responsibilities.


When you think about "Free Will" superficially, it makes enough clear enough against "determinism"
Free Will encourages choices, actions, consequences and ramifications on those actions.
Determinism, by nature, does not, if determinism is true, all actions and consequences were already pre-decided and their outcomes (consequences) were already in motion.

Consider the Law of Unintended consequences;

If determinism is true, no action regardless of the decision I will make will result in the the same conclusion because it is been predicided to do so.
I could never adjucate between a good/bad judgement because I have pre-determined to do so. Debating would not matter.

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..


01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

11 Jan 2013, 12:29 am

NAKnight wrote:
Well then, I guess I'll just have to wait and see won't I?
I can still pick and choose what I want to "Believe" in if it makes enough rational sense. Free will encourages rationality.
I tottaly understand the general consensus is Evolution and Darwinism, if it works for you, more power to you.


You admit facts overwhelmingly supports Evolution and Darwinism. Yet you choose to believe otherwise. That is no different form believing the Earth is flat. Yet you what to call your choice 'rational'?

Quote:
That's one of the consequences of "faith" you know?

Then you don't understand reason.

Quote:
Consider the Law of Unintended consequences;

If determinism is true, no action regardless of the decision I will make will result in the the same conclusion because it is been predicided to do so.
I could never adjucate between a good/bad judgement because I have pre-determined to do so. Debating would not matter.


There is no such thing as will. Never mind 'free will'. Your law of 'Law of Unintended consequences' is just nonsense. The fact is 'morality' is just opinions. It is ironic that you think one can 'rationally' choose to believe anything yet morality is absolute independent of belief.



trollcatman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Dec 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,919

11 Jan 2013, 9:10 am

Jitro wrote:
Humans are different from animals. Yes we have lots of things in common with animals, but we're still different from them.


Humans are animals.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

11 Jan 2013, 5:13 pm

b9 wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
When civilization breaks down, morality breaks down with it.

i disagree. i am mainly separated from civilization due to my reclusive nature,

That computer device you are using suggests otherwise.

You may stay away from society, but civilization has given you a lot of comfort. I can tell by your access to electronics. I bet that you have also never actually felt hunger or thirst, and if you did then it is most likely for entertaining purposes - You went lost in a camp for a couple of hours.

Quote:
but i instinctively understand that every life deserves to live.

This is unlikely to be true. For starters instincts are not something you can understand or be conscious about. They are programming.


Quote:
no matter how smart people think they are, and how lofty their imaginings of their own importance is, no one can build a life.
Soon enough somebody will.

I can make life inside computers though.


Quote:
people may blithely stomp on a cockroach, but all the resources in the world, and the combined efforts of every genius in the world can not recreate that cockroach.

People can already recreate human hearts though.
Quote:
that cockroach costs more than all the money on earth can buy.
Not really. We can't make a cockroach artificially, but we can easily find one. Shall we need some, we can easily make a colony of cockroaches

Quote:
while what you say is superficially true, i would suggest that only a few psychopathic people would become "warlords". i think that the vast majority of people would not become warlords,
Well sure, they would serve the warlords and do the dirty job.

Quote:
my next door neighbor has a house that is better than mine, and she is an old lady. if all laws ceased to exist, i could go there and kill her and throw her body away somewhere and usurp her assets, but even if i was allowed to do so, i certainly would not. it would remain unconscionable for me to do so because my moral fiber is innate and not learned or conditional.
It is more about your own comfort than about laws. So instead of imagining laws going away, imagine not having any roof and a snow storm is coming. But the lady does not allow you to get in her house. Would you embrace your death without trying to breach into her house with no permission?


_________________
.


ripped
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 651

12 Jan 2013, 12:25 am

Consciousness begins at birth, specifically with the inhalation of the first breath.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Jan 2013, 12:30 am

ruveyn wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
No brain, so no mind, so no consciousness.


The fetal brain begins to function fairly early in its development. By about the 5 th or 6 th month. Maybe a bit sooner. One the brain can produce a reflex action I would say there is consciousness, albeit of a low order.

ruveyn

Reflex arcs, by definition, don't involve the brain.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Jan 2013, 12:40 am

ripped wrote:
Consciousness begins at birth, specifically with the inhalation of the first breath.

RageHQ wrote:
Before we are born, we are pure consciousness and energy. At conception we are shaped and formed into the vessel. Everyone has a soul even before they were born. The brain shapes how we think and is formed according to how you use or abuse it. So simply, consciousness existed before you were even born. Perception is the result of the shape of the brain. Those born without brains are conscious, but unable to function physically because their wiring was damaged, unable to send frequencies to the body parts.

Both of these statements lack evidence.



NAKnight
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 30 Nov 2012
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 387
Location: Gitmo Nation Elvis

12 Jan 2013, 9:32 am

01001011 wrote:
You admit facts overwhelmingly supports Evolution and Darwinism. Yet you choose to believe otherwise. That is no different form believing the Earth is flat. Yet you what to call your choice 'rational'?


I call it making a choice. If determinism is true, I wouldn't be able to adjucate that decision, my exercising of what I believe it entirely up to me to decide.
Rationality is the ability to adjucate between reasons. Free Will encourages rationality.

01001011 wrote:
That is no different form believing the Earth is flat.


And making the notion that Evolution (Despite apologetic evidence) is the only possible way everyone should think and conform is just as malign.


01001011 wrote:
Then You Don't Understand Reason


That is why I have outside, objective convictions as well to support my "faith"
Just because I have "Faith" does not mean I lack knowledge as well, the two are not inter-related.


01001011 wrote:
There is no such thing as will. Never mind 'free will'. Your law of 'Law of Unintended consequences' is just nonsense. The fact is 'morality' is just opinions. It is ironic that you think one can 'rationally' choose to believe anything yet morality is absolute independent of belief.


Morality isn't something that you learn in a book or read in an online forum.
I agree with TallyMan that morality is innate. I accept that morality has transcendent value.
Humans derive that transcendent value from "God" if you will.
Like I said before, Morality isn't something you learn.


There is no such thing as will. Never mind 'free will'. Your law of 'Law of Unintended consequences' is just nonsense.

That is a clear evidence against determinism, you can decide whether or not to accept or disagree with it.



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..


Last edited by NAKnight on 12 Jan 2013, 11:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

12 Jan 2013, 11:04 am

Vexcalibur wrote:
b9 wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
When civilization breaks down, morality breaks down with it.

i disagree. i am mainly separated from civilization due to my reclusive nature,

That computer device you are using suggests otherwise.

my utilization of what is available to me does not indicate an immersion with civilization.

if everyone on earth except for yourself died tomorrow, then you could still start your car, and you could still go to the supermarket and source cans of food etc as long as they remained in stock.

if i had a generator that could power my house with the free fuel that i could obtain from many places after the demise of people, then i could still go on the internet for a short amount of time to learn from what is posted there even though no one else existed on earth. i agree i may not survive for long, but it is due merely to the availability of resources that have not perished that i could survive rather than any social interaction i may have with other people.

red algae thrive on the nutrients that leak off farmlands into the rivers, but no red algae individual has interacted socially with humans who supply their nourishment.


the people who exist in the world maintain the availability of, and perpetuate the development of the things that i rely on, but my "parasitic" reliance on the resources that flood the world due to other peoples efforts has nothing to do with being friends with those who enable the existence of the resources that i need".


Vexcalibur wrote:
You may stay away from society, but civilization has given you a lot of comfort. I can tell by your access to electronics. I bet that you have also never actually felt hunger or thirst, and if you did then it is most likely for entertaining purposes - You went lost in a camp for a couple of hours.


despite the vagueness of what you are trying to say, i agree. no one person can create a world in which they can lay back and relaxedly enjoy without any effort. not even you, so i think you are being hypocritical by ascribing me as a singular parasite that sucks on the goodness of the worlds combined efforts. if civilization did not exist, then neither would you.

i was saying that i do not have to get to know or become friends with anyone in order to benefit from the resources available in this world. i do not have to bow down to and idolize anyone in order to get steaks from the butcher. that is all i was saying.

Vexcalibur wrote:
b9 wrote:
but i instinctively understand that every life deserves to live.

This is unlikely to be true. For starters instincts are not something you can understand or be conscious about. They are programming.


i was not saying i understand the mechanisms behind my instinctive attitude that all lives are equal. i was just stating that i do understand instinctively that all lives are equal. i sneeze instinctively when a foreign object irritates my nasal membrane, but i do not exactly know the mechanisms behind that instinct (except for the need to expel foreign matter from my nasal cavity that is biologically beneficial)

you can not convince me that i have incorrectly concluded that all lives are equal because i have only a dilapidated understanding of "why" i concluded that all lives are equal. you tell me that i am incorrect in my opinion that i think every life has equal value because you believe i do not know why i think it is so.
it is instinctive to me that all lives are equally valuable, and i will not abandon my belief simply because i can not analyze why i believe it. that is the hallmark of instinct.


Vexcalibur wrote:
b9 wrote:
no matter how smart people think they are, and how lofty their imaginings of their own importance is, no one can build a life.


Vexcalibur wrote:
Soon enough somebody will.
I can make life inside computers though.

no one (including you) can create a true life that has desires. true lives "want" things, and spontaneous "wants" and "desires" can not be programmed.



Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
people may blithely stomp on a cockroach, but all the resources in the world, and the combined efforts of every genius in the world can not recreate that cockroach.

Vexcalibur wrote:
People can already recreate human hearts though.
so what? you are flying at a low altitude with that thought. hearts are only physiological organisms, and they are able to be created in a laboratory, but hearts are not beliefs or needs. they only pump blood to keep an organism (thinking or not) alive.



Vexcalibur wrote:
Quote:
that cockroach costs more than all the money on earth can buy.
Not really. We can't make a cockroach artificially, but we can easily find one. Shall we need some, we can easily make a colony of cockroaches
you are scratching the bottom of your intellectual barrel with that statement. if cockroaches became extinct, then all the efforts of every scientist on earth with unlimited funds
could not bring them back.

yes hollywood could engage prop designers to build cockroach facsimiles that look good, but no one could ever bring real cockroaches back.



MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

12 Jan 2013, 12:46 pm

Well, b9, just take care that you don't accidentally step on a poor tiny insect when you're walking outside the house. After all, it's important to be considerate of every creature's life out there.



b9
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

12 Jan 2013, 1:39 pm

MCalavera wrote:
Well, b9, just take care that you don't accidentally step on a poor tiny insect when you're walking outside the house. After all, it's important to be considerate of every creature's life out there.

i do not understand what the motive of your post is. i think you are mocking me but i am not sure. i am liking WP less and less due to comments like yours.
i do not know why you wish to ridicule me, but i think you feel bolstered in your negative opinion about me because you have seen other people who also mock me that are wholeheartedly supported by many other members of this site.
i maybe not smart enough to talk here, but i thought i was allowed to talk here anyway without being ridiculed.
you are a very popular member of this site, and so i will consider you to be a spokesperson for this site, and i guess i will look for other places to talk.

i know i am not stupid, but i am seen to be stupid on this site.
i will stick around until someone else also tells me i am too stupid to belong here.
you are somewhat representative of this site, so i do give credence to what you say.

but i will never believe that any life is less valuable than mine.
i may seem stupid for what i say, but i hope i will not be banned for simply being not as smart as you.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Jan 2013, 2:04 pm

LKL wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
TallyMan wrote:
No brain, so no mind, so no consciousness.


The fetal brain begins to function fairly early in its development. By about the 5 th or 6 th month. Maybe a bit sooner. One the brain can produce a reflex action I would say there is consciousness, albeit of a low order.

ruveyn

Reflex arcs, by definition, don't involve the brain.


They do if they pass through the medula oblongata.

ruveyn