Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

From: John Fields (jfields_at_austininstruments.com)
Date: 01/23/05 

Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:00:09 -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,
>should be valued for its own sake.
---
It isn't _just_ that which makes us unique.  Contributing to our
uniqueness is the systems we have on board which have allowed our
consciousness to evolve to the point where it has.  With no opposable
thumb, or the ability to walk upright, or on and on, we wouldn't be us
and our consciousnesses would not be what they are.  The systems we
have on board evolved with no effort on our part, and are part of the
package of _life_ which must develop to the point where the systems
can become functional as a machine before they can evolve into a
sentient being.  That machine deserves respect for its own sake, since
without it there can be no consciousness and no intellect.
---     
>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 
---
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.
---
"artificial consciences"? Hmmm... Saturday night with Mr. Guiness, I
suspect!-)
Why not?  
It's just a machine, if we created it we're its God, and if we want to
what's the justification for _not_ pulling the plug? 
Certainly that should be easier to do than putting a kitten in a
vacuum chamber.
--- 
>> 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.
---
I'm not surprised...
---
>> 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. 
---
Which is what makes it special, duh...
---
>It has no consciousness. 
---
Nor did I say it did.  If you disagree, show me where I wrote that it
does.
---
>Why you fail to see the major relevance of this escapes me. 
>I can only conclude that it is due to brainwashing from childhood.
---
LOL! Everything that escapes you has to be due to external causes,
doesn't it?
---
 
>>> 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...
---
What I get is that you've so blinsided yourself that you think that
everything which you haven't written is wrong. How many times does it
have to be pointed out to you that it's not feelings that are under
discussion, it's simply the taking of life prior to the onset of
consciousness.
---
>> 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
---
Well, then, I submit that "Kevinism" is a religion because, on
occasion, you have been proven to be "blatant contradictor" and,
therefore, false.  Of course you will deny it, and fight tooth and
nail, just as any religion would, to keep from having to admit its
fallibility.
---
 
>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.
---
Geez, Kevin, is that what _all_ religions are about?
---
>> ---
>> 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.
---
See above, on uniqueness.
---
>
>> ---
>>
>>> 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?
---
The part about "reasonable measures of verification" and where you got
your information.  I'm not saying it didn't happen, but what I _am_
saying that your third or fourth or fifth hand repetition of something
doesn't affort it the status of fact.
---
 
>Nothing much in science or life is absolute.
---
If that's not absolutely true, then something in science or life could
be true, which makes the statement false.  If it _is_ absolutely true
then it _has_ to be false. 
---
>> 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.
---
Yes.
---
>Lets all hail to thy great lord, thy electron.
---
Now, now, Kevin... 
-- 
John Fields

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. ... >to declare that we should respect an electron. ... So is a carrot. ... is an aspect of consciousness. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)