Re: Peterson's Death Sentence
From: John Fields (jfields_at_austininstruments.com)
Date: 01/23/05
- Previous message: Pip: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- In reply to: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Next in thread: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Reply: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 13:23:03 -0600
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 09:49:35 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
>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.
--- Hardly. So far, the discussion has largely been about the respect for biological life, the distinction between a living and a non-living aggregation of chemicals, and the necessity for life to be a precursor to sentience. My argument has been that that which is biologically alive should be respected because of the life it cradles, not because of the particles of which it is composed. A single electron, _by itself_ being biologically inactive, doesn't meet that criterion, so the argument remains viable. Truthfully, Kevin, I don't see why you have such a problem with "respect". It's as though you think that there's a limited ampout of respect in the universe and if it's afforded to anything/anyone other than yourself your supply of it will be diminished. --- >Don't you see, that the building materials are simply not sufficient by >themselves to identify what should be respected. --- What I've been saying all along, and which you don't seem to be able to draw the distinction between, is that the respect isn't for the vessel itself, it's for its contents. In a sense, "If you don't want to waste the wine, don't break the bottle." That then implies that if you don't want to waste the wine you have to care for (respect) the integrity of the bottle. --- >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. --- So what? Organic chemistry is simply the chemistry of carbon-containing compounds. --- >Choosing DNA is arbitrary. --- In what respect? --- >Consciousness isn't, in this context. Its unique. --- are you suggesting that the DNA in unique living organisms isn't? --- >essentially, agree on in the sense that if a foetus is conscious, >killing it should be a no no. --- My position is that if a fetus is alive, killing it should be a no-no. YMMV, but that's also been argued to death, so why keep bringing it up? --- >> >>>> --- >>>> 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. --- The meaning can vary as context changes, so if you don't wish to be misunderstood it's incumbent on _you_ to make your meaning clear in the context in which you're currently using it. By doing that (and I might add, taking a little more care with your punctuation, grammar, and spelling) the amount of unnecessary verbiage will certainly decline. It's all a question of courtesy, Kevin, in that if I have to continuously backtrack to try to glean meaning from what you've written, then you're causing me to waste my precious time. But perhaps that doesn't matter, since, in what seems to be your view no one is as important as you are and what matters is that you be the least inconvenienced. --- >>> 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. --- Apples and oranges. --- >>>>>> 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. --- You really haven't figured it out yet? --- >Here we go again. This is all so vague. > >PLEASE DEFINE LIFE --- Why? We both know what it is and can apply the classical definitions, so what would be the point other than to provide you with another soapbox? --- >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. --- Very nice. I agree. --- >> --- >> 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. --- An example of a single axiom which, so far, appears to be fact doesn't alter the fact that a conclusion based on an array of axioms, some of which may not be factual, can't be considered fact. --- >> --- >> 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. --- What position? That you've been very clear on your position? Or something else? It's not clear... --- >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. --- I've already dealt with this question of the electron at a lower level earlier on in this post, but if you want to take a look at a bigger picture, then my view is that _everything_ in the universe should be respected. I mean, how can you _not_ respect what brought you into being? You write about an electron as if it were an insignificant speck of nearly-nothing, and yet its secrets are so tightly wrapped up that none of us you can't make one from scratch! What's to not respect about that?-) --- >> --- >> 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. --- Now you're talking!!! --- >> 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. --- Having respect for life doesn't mean that we can't take it, nor should it. We have to eat to conserve our own lives, so the question becomes one of where to draw the line. --- >We indiscriminately kill bacteria. --- No, some bacteria we specifically keep alive because we find them beneficial. --- >If we dont conserve all life, life, by itself is meaningless. --- Well, some would argue that, under any conditions, life itself is meaningless, so it all boils down, it would seem, to an individual's point of view. --- >If there were no better way to ID respect, you might have an argument, >but we do. Its called "consciousness". --- What do you mean by "ID"? --- >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". --- I'm not arguing that it's not consciousness which is the key to our becoming human in the sense of becoming rational beings, I'm arguing that without life being the precursor to that consciousness, we would not only not be human, we wouldn't be here. I can't see why you can't grasp that concept, but it does seem to have you frustrated to the point where you're becoming patronizing. As usual? --- >> --- >> 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. > -- John Fields
- Previous message: Pip: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- In reply to: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Next in thread: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Reply: Kevin Aylward: "Re: Peterson's Death Sentence"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
