Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

From: Kevin Aylward (salesEXTRACT_at_anasoft.co.uk)
Date: 01/23/05 

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:49:35 GMT

John Fields wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:11:21 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
> <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> John Fields wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 08:30:59 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
>>> <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Fields wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> A baseball bat's not alive,
>>>>
>>>> But a baseball bat was made from a tree, that was.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Yes, and the tree it came from and the life it gave up to become a
>>> baseball bat should be respected,
>>
>> Why?
>
> ---
> Because without that life you would have nothing. No carrot, no
> baseball bat, nothing.

So, we should respect *all* electrons and protons then? Without them we
would also have nothing. So your argument fails.

Don't you see, that the building materials are simply not sufficient by
themselves to identify what should be respected. It incredible more
difficult to draw the line between even organic and inorganic chemistry.
For example, methane, ethane etc is found all other the solar system
with no hint of life. Choosing DNA is arbitrary. Consciousness isn't, in
this context. Its unique. Its something most, if not all can,
essentially, agree on in the sense that if a foetus is conscious,
killing it should be a no no.

> ---
>
>
>>> ---
>>> I'm not talking about its feelings, I'm talking about its being
>>> alive.
>>
>> I know, but you have gave no rational reason why "alive" is relevant
>> to the issue. Bacteria is alive, but we don't care about them.
>
> ---
> Certainly we do. A great deal. What makes you think we don't?

We don't care about bacteria for its *own* sake. I already made it clear
the context with which I am using words like using "care". I don't want
to get bogged down by all this verbiage.

> ---
>
>> Again, if it don't have feelings, why should we care? It certainly
>> cant. Come on now, Produce a reason.
>
> ---
> Come on, yourself. I've already given you several and still it
> doesn't seem you're capable of understanding them, so you're either
> actively keeping it from sinking in (NIH) or you have a learning
> disability.

You have gave no valid reason whatsoever. I applied your *same* argument
to declare that we should respect an electron. My argument requires no
such daft idea. An electron isn't conscious.

> ---
>
>
>>>>> Left to its own devices, a P4 is incapable of having goals.
>>>>
>>>> So is a carrot. A real goal, is an aspect of consciousness.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Why is a carrot's goal to achive adult carrothood any less real than
>>> yours was to become an adult human while you were in that area you
>>> choose to call "without consciousness"? It isn't.
>>
>> Thats correct. It isnt.
>
> ---
> Yes, Kevin, I know.

So, whats your point.

> ---
>
>
>>>>>> Unconscious goals are simple *not* sufficient to delimit life. We
>>>>>> need more.
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Delimit? In which way are you using the term?
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> decide, chose...
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Garbage, then.
>>
>> Not at all. You 101 logic seems a problem.
>
> ---
> For you, perhaps. The point is that organisms which have had life
> imbued into them and then proceed on their way toward their destiny
> don't need to _choose_ whether to accept or choose life, it was
> something over which they had no control.

Here we go again. This is all so vague.

PLEASE DEFINE LIFE

> ---
>
>>> Without unconscious goals there would be no life here
>>> as we know it since there would be no way to achieve sentience.
>>> ---
>>
>> I agree that without unconscious goals there would be no
>> consciousness. Consciousness is the tip of the ice burg of
>> unconscious behaviour.
>
> ---
> In what way? Be specific.

No idea what you mean.

Consciousness is an emergent property of very complex systems that
interact with each other. The individual systems themselves are not
conscious. The necessary and sufficient conditions for consciousness to
be manifest are unknown.

> ---
>
>> I don't really see that your sentence here makes any sense. What's
>> your point?
>
> ---
> Basically, that you can't put the cart before the horse.

See respecting electrons above. The electron come before the cart
(life).

> ---
>
>
>>> Essentially objective? If they're not totally objective, and
>>> factual, then they're merely opinions.
>>
>> They are "essentially" objective because, based on axioms, they *are*
>> objective. However axioms themselves can't always be. The axioms are
>> our starting point, which can introduce an element of subjectivity.
>
> ---
> A castle built on a foundation of straw?

No the axioms are based on *evidence*. For example, the axiom that "the
speed of light is an invariant in vacuum" is based on extensive
experimentally support.

> ---
>
>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> Really? Give me an example where consciousness exists without life
>>>>> behind it.
>>>>
>>>> That's not the point.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> LOL! Since you can't cite an example,
>>
>> Of course I cant. Science is not sufficiently advanced to create
>> artificial consciousness. However, there is nothing in science that
>> prohibit such a situation.
>>
>>> and you just can't bear to admit
>>> that you can't, you skirt the issue.
>>
>> Dont be daft.
>
> ---
> I catch you in a subterfuge and I'm daft? LOL!

Not at all. I have been very clear on my position. I have lots of papers
putting such a position forward.

> ---
>
>>> The point _is_, Kevin, that
>>> consciousness can't exist without life driving it,
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> ---
> Now _that's_ daft! To do a proof by exhaustion I'd have to kill every
> conscious entity on this earth and note that it was no longer
> conscious after it stopped being alive. How much simpler it would be
> for you to find a _single_ example to refute my claim.

I have already stated the claim is valueless as an indicater of what
should be respected or not. Life can't exist without electrons, so if
your argument is valid, it must also be valid to conclude that we must
respect all electrons. This is plainly daft, so your argument is false,
and therefor, so is your statement that "life" is a good decider of
respect.

> ---
>
>
>>> ---
>>> Fine, but for the time being, it's life that's driving that
>>> electrochemical process that's allowing life to drive that
>>> electrochemical process thats...
>>
>> I Just knew you were going to weasel with this idea. This is besides
>> the point. I don't have any issue with the Darwinian machine of
>> replication, selection and generation of traits being the cause of
>> all consciousness. So what.
>>
>> "Life" as I belive you take is, a simple Darwinian prosee and is not
>> sufficient, in my book, or any rational book, enough to uniquely
>> define something as human/animal, i.e. an entity that should be
>> respected for its own sake.
>
> ---
> Weasel? I didn't bring up Darwin in order to sidestep the issue which
> is, basically, that without life consciousness can't exist.

Without electrons, life cant exist.

> The
> respect for life is an altogether different issue and has to do with
> simple reducto ad absurdium, the gist of it being that life is
> precious and should be conserved because if it isn't, death is the
> _inevitable_ end.

But its daft and impractical to conserve *all* life, and we don't. We
indiscriminately kill bacteria. If we dont conserve all life, life, by
itself is meaningless.

If there were no better way to ID respect, you might have an argument,
but we do. Its called "consciousness".

What is unfortunate is that historically few, if any saw that it is
consciousness that is key to being human/animal. What is more
unfortunate, is that now that this been pointed out, you are still
clinging to an outmoded idea. You need to move on to a better way of
thinking about "life".

Of course is anyway, as far as we know, but how
> tragic it would be if we found we had thrown something away which
> removed the inevitability. YMMV...
> ---
>
>> I just see this "life" idea as misguided, for historical and
>> religious reasons. Its based on ideas that consider certain bunches
>> of chemicals more special then others. I see no justification for
>> this sort of arbitrary distinction.
>
> ---
> You "see" this "life" idea as misguided for your own convenience,

No. Its based only on *logic*. I systematically attempted to come up
with a delimiter for what makes us, us. i.e. unique. Without uniqueness
we can't draw any lines at all. In which case, we would all cease to
exist as we wouldn't morally be able to eat carrots. Its trully that
simple.

It is *only* consciousness that makes us unique, and something that
should be valued for its own sake.

What is also significant about using consciousness as the delimiter is
that it can be seamlessly applied to artificial consciousness/life. If
science did eventually price a consciousness in a box, one that could
not self replicate itself, or satisfy any of the usual definitions of
life, I think most of us would still agree that a feeling aware
artificial consciences should not have its plug pulled.

> perhaps in an attempt to justify a series of abortions you felt
> necessary to have performed for your own ends?

Oh please...get real. My views on this are the same as when I was 14.

> While I agree that
> there may be no inherent "specialness" between two bunches of inert
> chemicals, a bunch of chemicals that is alive is certainly more
> special than a bunch that isn't.

Not to me it isn't. A self replicating molecule is nothing special other
then it self replicates. It has no consciousness. Why you fail to see
the major relevance of this escapes me. I can only conclude that it is
due to brainwashing from childhood.

> ---
>
>> We have a much better justifiable distinction now. Its consciousness.
>> Its just unfortunate that few appreciated this, again, mostly due to
>> erroneous religious faiths.
>
> ---
> A much more _convenient_ excuse for unjustifiably taking life is more
> like it.

You just don't get it. How many times must it be pointed out that if
something cant feel, and never could, that its feelings don't matter. It
don't have any feelings. Dah...

>
> And, Kevin, who the hell do you think you are (or anyone is) to be the
> judge of which religious faiths are "erroneous" and which aren't???

Easy. All religions I am aware of are blatant, provably, contradictor,
therefore false. Again, its that simple. Thee is nothing to debate.
www.evilbible.com

Get real, like ignorant peasants of 1000's years ago dreamed up some
asinine idea of an all powerful, all knowing, everywhere at once, who
can do anything, made us all, entity. Get bloody real dude. Its the most
pathetic fantasy every imagined. Wake up and smell the roses dude.

>
>> Oh dear... Look, millions take Prozac. It makes them *feel* better.
>> Hence our feelings are effected by chemicals. We measure electrical
>> impulse when someone feels pain. We can artificially induce out of
>> body experience, bright lights, etc. There are millions of cause and
>> effect experiments done every day, like drinking a pint of Guinness.
>> All of this is in support to the view that it is electrochemical
>> process that make as completely what we are.
>>
>> The alternative that our minds is not just the result of the
>> electrochemical process of the brain has no evidence to support it
>> whatsoever. All you doing is a cop out. Like, well, we dont know 100%
>> sure, its only 99.9999999%. Yeah, get real dude.
>>
>> We are a biological machine. Its that simple. Its something you
>> should learn to accept. Its the way it truly is.
>
> ---
> In order to try to cloud the issue and take the advantage, you keep
> trying to pretend that I've, somehow, stated that that isn't true. If
> you can, I'd like to see where you can find that I stated that we're
> not machines.

But if you accept this, then you should see the relevance that it is
only consciousness that makes us unique. That is, inanimate matter from
animate matter.

> ---
>
>> A "fact" in science is what is perceived to be true beyond all
>> reasonable measures of verification. Like, its a fact that Clinton
>> got a BJ from that intern.
>
> ---
> Since you weren't there to witness it, it's your _opinion_ that she
> gave him head.

You obviously didnt even read the above.

What part of "is what is perceived to be true beyond all reasonable
measures of verification." did you fail to understand?

Nothing much in science or life is absolute.

>
> A _fact_ is that life precedes consciousness. Do the experiment any
> number of times for verification, the result will always be the same.

The fact is, electrons precedes life. Do the experiment any number of
times for verification, the result will always be the same.

Lets all hail to thy great lord, thy electron.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Abiogenisis
    ... According to this view, life is a purely ... >>living from non-living matter are real rather than illusory. ... The fact that we can't yet describe consciousness ... word that connotes a high degree of ignorance. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • The Sirian souls come in many fashions
    ... Earth mother and Nature, like humans tend to. ... for the Earth and all of life on and in it, ... believe, is to raise my spiritual consciousness, and help others who want to ... Certain plants contain substances that captured the radiant energy ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: The Sirian souls come in many fashions
    ... Earth mother and Nature, like humans tend to. ... for the Earth and all of life on and in it, ... believe, is to raise my spiritual consciousness, and help others who want to ... Certain plants contain substances that captured the radiant energy ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Im determined to prove "God" doesnt exist. How do I go about it?
    ... One major one is the unfairness of life. ... individual souls. ... "Although I am a typical loner in daily life, my consciousness of ... are fundamentally alone throughout this life. ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... > Because without that life you would have nothing. ... >> consciousness. ... See respecting electrons above. ... >> Dont be daft. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)