It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fight to clone a human.

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Well i was saying both brain mass and brain to body ratio were needed, not one or the other. I think you are simplifying this matter, if you take any large animal with a small brain it tends to be less intelligent than a big animal with a big brain. That's because a small brain is used up controlling the larger body. Also larger animals tend to have larger brains to help control their body.

The Rhino for example is said to be rather dumb and it's brain/body ratio is pitiful, whereas an elephant shows considerable development and has a far better brain to body ratio. It's not a big point to disagree on i suppose as when we talk of an embryo we're talking about a brain that's little more than a few thousand neurons.


Your rhino/elephant example is a good one for what I am speaking of. We are pretty sure that rhinos are big dumb 'tanks' and also pretty sure that elephants have a good deal of intelligence, based on observations over a long period of time. The elephant, while bigger physically than a rhino, still has a higher brain/mass ratio, which means it must have a much larger brain. So even without the brain/mass ratio, one would expect the elephant to have more intelligence.

It's a simple difference in operational design. Whereas a muscle cell uses micro-fibers to contract, each fiber capable of exerting a specific force before failure, a neuron experiences no such force. Its purpose is not to exert stress and strain on a skeletal system, but to manipulate sensory data and control the muscle cells. A heart, for example, needs to be in proportion to the amount of mass of the body it supplies with blood, because more mass means more fuel is needed via the bloodstream, thusly more blood flow and a larger pump to produce that flow. A brain need not be more complex in order to handle a larger organ, because the control apparatus is the same, not dependent on the size of the organ in question.

I understand that we are talking about a few thousand neurons in an embryo, but remember that all systems are not functional in an embryo. Many of the body's systems are typically still not needed due to the environment (a mother's womb, or a petri dish full of nutrients). A good example is the respiratory. All oxygen is supplied through the placenta, so the lungs do not need to operate, and therefore do not require a brain stimulus. It would seem logical to state that that section of the brain would be developing and inoperative at that point. The heart is beating to provide private blood flow from the placenta, so it would be logical to assume that that section of the brain would be operable early on.

We have no idea if the section that controls sentience is operating or not. Each individual section of the brain has a specific function, so it would be simplifying things to state that the size alone of a developing brain would be an absolute indicator of any given operation. Size may be a better indicator of sentience over brain/mass ratio, but size alone does not necessarily indicate much in a developing brain.


It's not just the volume of muscle, it's the precision in which they need to be controlled. Take octupi for example, they are thought to have multiple brains due to the sheer complexity of the way they control their bodies. All sorts of things go into the needed minimum of brain ability to control a body, but the volume of a beings body, compared to it's brain volume is an important requisite for intelligence.


Perhaps I should clarify myself a bit here. When I speak of the size of a single muscle, I am referring to a single unit acting in one direction only. In the case of octupi arms, which are an amazingly complex maze of twisted muscle fibers, they would not be considered in this light as a single muscle. Each arm, rather, would contain thousands of single muscles, each operating somewhat independently from the others, and as such, yes, a very complex control mechanism would be required and it would be expected to be larger in size. This is quantity of individual muscles as opposed to quantity of muscle cells.


Damn see here is where we disagree. Whilst i accept the possibitily of an afterlife, the experiments done on people tend to conclude that our concousness is nothing more than a series of infinetly complex chemical and electrical actions. The experiment where a cap was placed on a person and stimulation occured to induce a "god experience" points more and more to the very real truth that our brains are nothing more than a vehicle to experience.

The spiritual side? Well i'm not sure, however assuming for a second it does need a spiritual side, then you would still need a certain size of brain to allow that cnciousness to experience all of the sensations and emotions we do.


Actually, for every experiment that you can quote me showing no afterlife, I bet I can quote you one that shows the strong probability of such. The truth is that there are simply some things outside of our scientific ability to understand at this time. The purpose, operation, and even existence of a 'spiritual man' is one of those.

So, drifting away from true science into more logical conjecture, where do dreams come from? Where do premonitions come from? Where do ghosts come from? All these things, which lead to the majority of discussions on this site, are unexplained (and in large part blatantly ignored) by scientific researchers.

Science is bound by the scientific method, and while that is a good thing and allows science to evolve and expand, it also hampers in areas (like this subject) where there is no possible way to make an experiment repeatable and therefore verifiable. When we move into these types of discussions, the old explanation of 'science can't prove it, so it doesn't exist' does not convince me. Instead, I believe that we should use our logic and thinking capacity to more thoroughly examine these subjects, with the hope of somehow being able one day to introduce the scientific method to them. Would that not make more sense than to simply dismiss a possibility because we have no proof either way?


I just wanted to quote that because it's exactly how i feel, can't disagree here i just liked the quote lol, when you finish your research and make a thread, please pm me with the address.


Glad you liked it.
I doubt it will become a thread on here, however, sorry. Of all of the projects I have to work on, this one is the most far-sighted. I cannot see myself ever succeeding in actually seeing a brain-based android, but I can see my son doing it. I can see ten generations from now some young lad or lass proudly displaying a thinking machine at a science fair. I can see an electronics catalog selling neural units for the home experimenter.

But if no one begins the journey to such an ambitious goal, then no one will be able to continue it, and mankind will lose the ability to create another labor-saving gadget for the masses to need. That would be a shame... at least I think it would. I seem to have made myself wonder about that.


Ah, well, it's a hobby.


Continuing on the next post...

TheRedneck




posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Ahh i see what you were driving at with the baby stuff, for a second it threw me. I'm afraid i disagree, i believe all of our cumulative experiences, mixed with genetics are what brings about our personalities. The genetics could almost be called the soul if you will as they are unique and random. These i think cause the base possibilities of personality, like some serial killers really are just born that way. Others are abused so badly they turn out that way, the old nature and nurture arguments.

I think those arguments are one and the same, that it's a combination of the two. I do not believe the soul is part of the personality, if i had to label a soul i would think it's a passive thing, that is there to absorb experience and learn without having to choose. Sort of like being a person at a lecture.


I'm sure genetics does play a part in the development, but I see it as more of a disposition to certain actions than being 'programmed' via DNA. A disposition simply means something may be easier to learn, easier to accept, easier to include in one's morals, etc., not that a person will turn out a certain way. Certain people have been shown to have superior psychic abilities than others, while I seem to be spiritually deaf, dumb, and blind.
That could simply mean that their brains formed with a neural pattern that allowed them to be more perceptive to whatever is involved in the psychic ability (energy?) than mine. It does not mean I am not psychic; only that it is harder for me.

It's really no different than what happens with a child's development. My daughter has no interest in technology other than to use it, while my son loves nothing better than to tear something apart in the middle of the living room floor and reassemble it (and it usually works when he is finished!). I have made no conscious attempts to steer either of them; they simply developed different personalities. That is probably mostly genetics with a slight touch of environment. Morals, however, seem to me to be mostly environment with a touch of genetics.

I have to point out that your belief of the 'soul' possibly being DNA-based, does still point to the existence of a soul. Please notice that I am trying desperately to keep religion out of this discussion, for the express purpose of clouding this argument. I am not stating that a 'Christian soul' exists, nor a
'Jewish soul', nor a 'Muslim soul', nor a 'Hindu soul' or 'Buddhist soul'. These are to some extent man-made concepts, regardless of the truth or falsehood of their aspects. What I am stating is a belief that there is more to mankind than the physical, something that transcends a material body and makes our unique experience of sentience possible. I can see nothing in the physical realm that fully explains this concept, so I look to something beyond our present definition of physical.

That said, I do give your concept of a DNA-based soul creedence. You may well be right.


Well if we believe in reincarnation then this research would be perfectly ok as the soul would just go on to something else, having learnt about something new. It would not sense pain simply because embryos don't have the nervous system to be able to sense it, they don't have developed eyes at 12 days, they don't have ears which hear, their brains are nowhere near enough to absorb the sensory input. Whilst you made a very interesting case for conciousness, in the end it doesn't matter as the baby would be unable to even sense what was happening to it. Therefore no cruelty has occured.


Even if the embryo was unable to sense pain directly, I don't believe that would give us the right to end a sentient life. If I were to carry this concept further (as is commonly done in the arena of politics
), I could state that if someone were murdered, but they were killed while asleep so there was no pain, there would be no harm done. That, I am sure, would not be your position, based on the person I have come to know.

In the end, we must either accept the fact that sentience in itself is a cause for conscientious treatment, or that it is not. I believe that it is, and I want some large body of evidence on the sentience or lack thereof in these embryos before I can condone this type of experimentation. So far, the term 'large' can hardly be ascribed to the knowledge body we have available.


I have to admit this bothers me slightly, lots of people have been helped using stem cells and the research comes indirectly from research with embryonic stem cells. It's like the people recently who had their eyesight restored, the stem cells used were from donors however the research that led to the discovery is all part of stem cell research as a whole. So it's unfair to say it hasn't helped anyone and it's true that stem cells from embryos have been used to further our knowledge of adult stem cells.


I will accept that embryonic research, right or wrong, has done some good in that it introduced the concept of stem cell research. It has not, however, led directly to successful treatments, but rather indirectly through adult stem cell research. Show me some way to correct the problem with organ rejection, some hope of finding a way to do so, and I will reconsider. So far, all the best minds on the planet have been able to come up with is immuno-suppressive therapy, which makes the recipient susceptible to a myriad of other problems, many of them just as life-threatening as the one that was 'cured'. This is why organ transplants are done so rarely, and why they fail so often, and why, even when the organ is not rejected, many patients later die of other complications.

Still, just because something has led us to a new and better technology, is it not prudent to focus on the newer and better technology?


Well it is true, one day someone will prove it one way or the other and so we will be on side at some point. For me though it's proven beyonda doubt that an embryo doesn't have the nervious connections to sense pain, fear, happiness etc. Even if for a second we go hypothetical and assume a soul is attached at conception then the soul would merely return to heaven if it were used in research.


I have a hard time looking at this in that way. Every time I see one of the miracles I have been so blessed to be able to raise, I realize the awesome potential of this thing we call 'human life'. Any time someone in our society tries to minimalize this fabulous gift of life we have, whether it be through child abuse, child neglect, murder, torture, immoral medical experimentation, political abuse, or any other means, it evokes the fighter in me. I fight for those who cannot fight for themselves, because that is what it takes for me to feel worthy of this ability to live. To do less would make me less of a man, and less of a human.

Looking forward to your reply!
TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Your rhino/elephant example is a good one for what I am speaking of. We are pretty sure that rhinos are big dumb 'tanks' and also pretty sure that elephants have a good deal of intelligence, based on observations over a long period of time. The elephant, while bigger physically than a rhino, still has a higher brain/mass ratio, which means it must have a much larger brain. So even without the brain/mass ratio, one would expect the elephant to have more intelligence.


Not necesarily so, some animals have large brains for their size but are quite dumb. Take horses for example, dumb animals and yet for their size have resonable brain ratio. They however don't have a very good minimum volume to develop intellect, it's all used up controlling that body of theirs.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
It's a simple difference in operational design. Whereas a muscle cell uses micro-fibers to contract, each fiber capable of exerting a specific force before failure, a neuron experiences no such force. Its purpose is not to exert stress and strain on a skeletal system, but to manipulate sensory data and control the muscle cells. A heart, for example, needs to be in proportion to the amount of mass of the body it supplies with blood, because more mass means more fuel is needed via the bloodstream, thusly more blood flow and a larger pump to produce that flow. A brain need not be more complex in order to handle a larger organ, because the control apparatus is the same, not dependent on the size of the organ in question.


Yes and no, whist many mammalian brains share similar properties, the abiity to coordinate delicate movements across species is extremely varied. Some species are very specific in what they can achieve in regards to coordination where as other (like us) are quite dextrous. So a brain has to have a minimum size to accomplish this, if it's small in relation to the body then it leaves little free to develop inteligence. Unless i'm missing your point here, possible as i need some sleep



Originally posted by TheRedneck
I understand that we are talking about a few thousand neurons in an embryo, but remember that all systems are not functional in an embryo. Many of the body's systems are typically still not needed due to the environment (a mother's womb, or a petri dish full of nutrients). A good example is the respiratory. All oxygen is supplied through the placenta, so the lungs do not need to operate, and therefore do not require a brain stimulus. It would seem logical to state that that section of the brain would be developing and inoperative at that point. The heart is beating to provide private blood flow from the placenta, so it would be logical to assume that that section of the brain would be operable early on.


I'm not sure about this i'm afraid, from the research i read an embryos heart does not beat until 4 weeks. I may be wrong but i'm sure i found that in the lterature somewhere. Even if that autonomic function were being carried out though, it only shows a base system, a system running on standby, not a concious being. It may as well be a car, just a biological version.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
We have no idea if the section that controls sentience is operating or not. Each individual section of the brain has a specific function, so it would be simplifying things to state that the size alone of a developing brain would be an absolute indicator of any given operation. Size may be a better indicator of sentience over brain/mass ratio, but size alone does not necessarily indicate much in a developing brain.


Well one thing we can take from research is sentience doesn't seem to be located in one area of the brain, it seems to be multi faceted. When we run fMRI's on a persons brain and show all sorts of stimuli we find that many regions of the brain light up.

I have stated several times i am not saying it's just size, or that it's just size to body ratio, i am saying it's both of these things combined. Not one or the other.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Perhaps I should clarify myself a bit here. When I speak of the size of a single muscle, I am referring to a single unit acting in one direction only. In the case of octupi arms, which are an amazingly complex maze of twisted muscle fibers, they would not be considered in this light as a single muscle. Each arm, rather, would contain thousands of single muscles, each operating somewhat independently from the others, and as such, yes, a very complex control mechanism would be required and it would be expected to be larger in size. This is quantity of individual muscles as opposed to quantity of muscle cells.


Right ok i see you meant single activating systems like the bicep for example. Well an elephants muscles aren't simply enlarged, they have all sorts of other muscle complexs due to their sheer size, so more of their brain is taken up controlling such things. Whilst many muscle actions are subconcious, in that i mean when we hold our arm above our heads we dont' cnciously control every muscle in that action, it does require more neural power to coordinate these finer movements. If they wern't coordinated then we'd damage our bodies quite badly.

Therefore again i state a bigger body generally means more neural power is required to control it. That's why you need both a good body to brain ratio and a minimum size. Please note again i am saying you need both of these things to aquire sentience, not one or the other. This of course isn't the key to human level sentience, but i think it's the basic building block. The more complex things are of course still eluding science.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Actually, for every experiment that you can quote me showing no afterlife, I bet I can quote you one that shows the strong probability of such. The truth is that there are simply some things outside of our scientific ability to understand at this time. The purpose, operation, and even existence of a 'spiritual man' is one of those.


Woah hang on their my friend. I am agnostic remember, i am not saying there is no afterlife. I have not quoted any study claiming there is no afterlife, unless i did so by mistake and pelase point out if i did. I remain agnostic for the very reason that i don't believe the question of an afterlife can be answered by any living being at this time.

I accept it as a possibility, to me a soul would be a casual observer, but would only be capable of experience in two forms. Firstly when attached to a body capable of sensory input or in it's spiritual form, i.e ghosts. At the embryonic stage is upose i would consider it to be in limbo, blind, deaf and unfeeling.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
So, drifting away from true science into more logical conjecture, where do dreams come from? Where do premonitions come from? Where do ghosts come from? All these things, which lead to the majority of discussions on this site, are unexplained (and in large part blatantly ignored) by scientific researchers.


Dreams? Well lots of research has gone on their and my favorite and most logical theory is that it's the subconscience, deleting useless information or maybe just sorting the information out. The reason i like this theory is because i have always noticed that after i read an entire book and put it down, i can barely tell you anything that happened in that book. I mean literally 10 minutes later i would struggle to tell you, however when i go to sleep and wake up in the morning, i can then quote you entire passages of the text.

So to me sleep and dreams are like the subconscience having some time in the office.


Premonitions i'm afraid i've never found a true one yet, anything close seems to be coincidence, guess enough and you'll get it right.

Ghosts are a difficult and long subject but again i'm agnostic so i reserve judgement, i love my fence



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Science is bound by the scientific method, and while that is a good thing and allows science to evolve and expand, it also hampers in areas (like this subject) where there is no possible way to make an experiment repeatable and therefore verifiable. When we move into these types of discussions, the old explanation of 'science can't prove it, so it doesn't exist' does not convince me. Instead, I believe that we should use our logic and thinking capacity to more thoroughly examine these subjects, with the hope of somehow being able one day to introduce the scientific method to them. Would that not make more sense than to simply dismiss a possibility because we have no proof either way?


That's the same argument behind creationism, i believe there is a planet made of candyfloss, you cannot prove there isn't but does that mean we should believe in it? I do agree we should continue researching these things simply because people keep seeing them and that in itself makes them worthy of study, even if it turns out to be a strange brain effect i want to know about it.

As i said earlier we shuld continue researching embryos and if anyone, ever shows me they sense what happens to them and fear it, then i will be the first to request a ban on embryonic stem cells.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
But if no one begins the journey to such an ambitious goal, then no one will be able to continue it, and mankind will lose the ability to create another labor-saving gadget for the masses to need. That would be a shame... at least I think it would. I seem to have made myself wonder about that.


Sorry had to cut that last quote slightly to fit it into one post before i begin my next one. Yes it would be a shame, i want an android now, tell your son i'll take the first one he builds, advanced order



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I'm sure genetics does play a part in the development, but I see it as more of a disposition to certain actions than being 'programmed' via DNA. A disposition simply means something may be easier to learn, easier to accept, easier to include in one's morals, etc., not that a person will turn out a certain way. Certain people have been shown to have superior psychic abilities than others, while I seem to be spiritually deaf, dumb, and blind.


I'm not sure i put myself over very well with that. I agree DNA is a disposition that can be enhanced or muted by enviromental factors. That is what i meant in the first palce, maybe i put it rather inartfully. As for the psychic thing, lets skip that shall we, not part of the discussion and don't want to get into a slanging match over it



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Morals, however, seem to me to be mostly environment with a touch of genetics.


Agreed fully for the majority, and i mean 99% of the people. I believe the occasional intra-species predator is born rather than raised, but they really are the exception to the rule, a true fluke of genetics.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I have to point out that your belief of the 'soul' possibly being DNA-based, does still point to the existence of a soul. Please notice that I am trying desperately to keep religion out of this discussion, for the express purpose of clouding this argument. I am not stating that a 'Christian soul' exists, nor a
'Jewish soul', nor a 'Muslim soul', nor a 'Hindu soul' or 'Buddhist soul'. These are to some extent man-made concepts, regardless of the truth or falsehood of their aspects. What I am stating is a belief that there is more to mankind than the physical, something that transcends a material body and makes our unique experience of sentience possible. I can see nothing in the physical realm that fully explains this concept, so I look to something beyond our present definition of physical.


Well by a DNA soul i merely meant it's what could define our dispositions, it doesn't mean it's supernatural in nature, just plain old biology. I cannot yet find the cause of sentience and neither can any scientist, it's the greatest of myteries i think, even greater than how it all started in the first place.

However i'm agnostic, i sit on the fence, enjoy the view and try not to catch my backside on the prickly roses growing up it, i accept there could be a supernatural soul, or plain old material biology, i have no clue either way who is correct. So i consider both sides carefully before making decisions.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
That said, I do give your concept of a DNA-based soul creedence. You may well be right.


Maybe, i have no clue, just doing mental exercises




Originally posted by TheRedneck
Even if the embryo was unable to sense pain directly, I don't believe that would give us the right to end a sentient life. If I were to carry this concept further (as is commonly done in the arena of politics
), I could state that if someone were murdered, but they were killed while asleep so there was no pain, there would be no harm done. That, I am sure, would not be your position, based on the person I have come to know.


Well again, i don't think embryos are sentient, i think even if a soul existed it would need to latch on to a working body, not a loose clump of cells. Please see my above post to my attitude towards why i don't believe they're sentient.

The murder is a bad example for this reason, the person whilst asleep and unable to feel pain is still sentient. I don't believe an embryo to be sentient and what science cannot yet explain our level of sentience, it can give us some basic building blocks, like a minimum brain size. We know for example a goldfish will not achieve human level sentience, although i've known sme goldfish smarter than some people, but that's another story



Originally posted by TheRedneck
In the end, we must either accept the fact that sentience in itself is a cause for conscientious treatment, or that it is not. I believe that it is, and I want some large body of evidence on the sentience or lack thereof in these embryos before I can condone this type of experimentation. So far, the term 'large' can hardly be ascribed to the knowledge body we have available.


I believe sentience is cause for concientious treatment, absolutely and no equivications, however i don't think embryos contain the necessary brain minimum to be sentient. As i stated, assuming a soul exists, not specific to a relgion then i think that soul would need a body to experience fear, pain, suffering etc. An embryo is not a body.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
I will accept that embryonic research, right or wrong, has done some good in that it introduced the concept of stem cell research. It has not, however, led directly to successful treatments, but rather indirectly through adult stem cell research. Show me some way to correct the problem with organ rejection, some hope of finding a way to do so, and I will reconsider. So far, all the best minds on the planet have been able to come up with is immuno-suppressive therapy, which makes the recipient susceptible to a myriad of other problems, many of them just as life-threatening as the one that was 'cured'. This is why organ transplants are done so rarely, and why they fail so often, and why, even when the organ is not rejected, many patients later die of other complications.


Well to use your earlier arguement, just because we havn't shown it can't help doesn't mean we should stop looking
Once all avenues are exhausted, then we should give it up, not before, that's how true science works.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Still, just because something has led us to a new and better technology, is it not prudent to focus on the newer and better technology?


Yes we should focus on new technologies, however research on embryonic stem cells still has more to give i feel, and hopefully could lead to the use of adult stem cells only. That would be a happy day.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I have a hard time looking at this in that way. Every time I see one of the miracles I have been so blessed to be able to raise, I realize the awesome potential of this thing we call 'human life'. Any time someone in our society tries to minimalize this fabulous gift of life we have, whether it be through child abuse, child neglect, murder, torture, immoral medical experimentation, political abuse, or any other means, it evokes the fighter in me. I fight for those who cannot fight for themselves, because that is what it takes for me to feel worthy of this ability to live. To do less would make me less of a man, and less of a human.

Looking forward to your reply!
TheRedneck


I hope you aren't calling me less of a man there redneck! I would fight for any person in trouble, even if it endangers my life. In fact i have done that before, for a friend and once for a perfect stranger, i have trained many years to defend myself and would rather they tried beating me than someone else. I still have the damaged body to prove it, one of my ribs is not properly connected after a baseball bat made friends with it, so again i hope i'm not a lesser man.

Embryos in my mind are not sentient and that's why i don't fight for them, even if i accept the idea of a soul as a fact, i still wouldn't see the research as wrong because i don't think the soul would sense anything without a formed body. Again i think the soul would be like a person watching a lecture, the lecture being our lives and therefore without the sensory organs to experience life, the soul would not be aware of what was happening to it. Therefore no suffering has been caused.

Looking forward to another of your epic replies.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Not necesarily so, some animals have large brains for their size but are quite dumb. Take horses for example, dumb animals and yet for their size have resonable brain ratio. They however don't have a very good minimum volume to develop intellect, it's all used up controlling that body of theirs.


Not the best example of your point, I'm afraid. Horses are far from simply 'dumb animals', possessing a superior social intellect and learning ability. Here's a couple of links you might be interested in on that subject:
www.alphahorse.com...
www.guidehorse.org...

This also helps prove my earlier point that there is no such thing as 'simple' intelligence. Each species of animal has its own type of intelligence, and we as humans seem to forget this and judge them by our own standards. Intelligence is not our exclusive domain, although I do believe we are probably at the top of that list (unless you ask a dolphin
).


Yes and no, whist many mammalian brains share similar properties, the abiity to coordinate delicate movements across species is extremely varied. Some species are very specific in what they can achieve in regards to coordination where as other (like us) are quite dextrous. So a brain has to have a minimum size to accomplish this, if it's small in relation to the body then it leaves little free to develop inteligence. Unless i'm missing your point here, possible as i need some sleep


I think it is very possible from this quote that we are missing each other's points. You seem to be arguing toward complexity being a requirement for more brain size, which I can agree on completely. While an elephant's thigh muscle probably weighs as much as its trunk, that thigh muscle is a simple actuator of huge size and requires a very simple control signal. The trunk is an amazingly complex mass of intricate muscles and therefore would require a very highly advanced control mechanism. Their mass might be the same, but their complexity is vastly different.

Our hands are also extremely complex, but they have much less mass than our thighs. So why would so much more brain area be devoted to the hands, with less mass? Because of the complexity, obviously. The hands are not only enormously complex in their musculature, but also in their sensory ability. So perhaps we can agree that brain mass is relevant to the complexity of a body. I know I can.


I'm not sure about this i'm afraid, from the research i read an embryos heart does not beat until 4 weeks. I may be wrong but i'm sure i found that in the lterature somewhere. Even if that autonomic function were being carried out though, it only shows a base system, a system running on standby, not a concious being. It may as well be a car, just a biological version.


Obviously the circulatory system is not equivalent to the sentience of a being, but this is only used for illustration of the various system developments. In other words, I am explaining how one system may develop faster than another system because it will be needed sooner.

Every creature starts out as a single cell. that is not a heart cell, or a brain cell, or a skin cell, simply a cell (which we now call a stem cell). That cell divides until there are enough of them to start developing into more specialized cells. A stem cell may develop into a neuron that is designed to handle one system of bodily function, then reproduce to form the required quantity of cells. It is assumed that each section of the brain develops from a single stem cell at some point during development (as do the various organs and other required systems).

This is the whole basis of stem cell research: why and how do these cells know what and when to turn into their destined type of cell?

So if we carry this observation further, we realize that the stem cell which controls sentience may or may not have differentiated at the time periods we are assuming it has not. We know only when the various systems we are familiar with start to develop, but as previously stated, there is no research on what the soul is, when it begins developing, or even how it develops.


Well one thing we can take from research is sentience doesn't seem to be located in one area of the brain, it seems to be multi faceted. When we run fMRI's on a persons brain and show all sorts of stimuli we find that many regions of the brain light up.


Actually, when we consider the actual operation of the brain as a series of learned links from one set of neurons to another, it makes sense that there would be activity in every section devoted to receiving stimuli, one for processing that stimuli, one for directing the stimuli to the various muscles/glands/etc., one for the sentience to feel the stimuli, and probably several sections to compare the stimuli to stored memory patterns. Stating that the sentience is scattered because the flow of information is widespread is like trying to state that the front bridge on a motherboard is where data is stored because it experiences activity when data is read. It is not, but rather is one link in the flow pattern.


Right ok i see you meant single activating systems like the bicep for example. Well an elephants muscles aren't simply enlarged, they have all sorts of other muscle complexs due to their sheer size, so more of their brain is taken up controlling such things. Whilst many muscle actions are subconcious, in that i mean when we hold our arm above our heads we dont' cnciously control every muscle in that action, it does require more neural power to coordinate these finer movements. If they wern't coordinated then we'd damage our bodies quite badly.


Here again, I believe you are confusing mass with complexity. While the two can be related, they need not be. An elephant's muscles may well simply be larger and bigger, or they may be more intricate, as in the trunk. The former requires no additional control over a smaller muscle, the latter will require much more control over a simpler musculature.


Woah hang on their my friend. I am agnostic remember, i am not saying there is no afterlife. I have not quoted any study claiming there is no afterlife, unless i did so by mistake and pelase point out if i did. I remain agnostic for the very reason that i don't believe the question of an afterlife can be answered by any living being at this time.

I accept it as a possibility, to me a soul would be a casual observer, but would only be capable of experience in two forms. Firstly when attached to a body capable of sensory input or in it's spiritual form, i.e ghosts. At the embryonic stage is upose i would consider it to be in limbo, blind, deaf and unfeeling.


No, you did not reference any experiment, and neither did I. I simply wanted to make sure this discussion didn't go into a frenzy of googling afterlife experimentation. I completely agree that while we do have something called a soul, we have no idea as to exactly what it is.

Oops, darn character limit. To be continued...

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Dreams? Well lots of research has gone on their and my favorite and most logical theory is that it's the subconscience, deleting useless information or maybe just sorting the information out. The reason i like this theory is because i have always noticed that after i read an entire book and put it down, i can barely tell you anything that happened in that book. I mean literally 10 minutes later i would struggle to tell you, however when i go to sleep and wake up in the morning, i can then quote you entire passages of the text.

So to me sleep and dreams are like the subconscience having some time in the office.


I actually tend to agree that dreams are at least partially the brain's inner workings on data accumulated. I am not sure that is their only purpose, but I do think that is one purpose.


Premonitions i'm afraid i've never found a true one yet, anything close seems to be coincidence, guess enough and you'll get it right.


I'm afraid I disagree. While you would be right that statistically an infinite number of choices would lead to some being interpreted as premonitions, this is something that is nigh impossible to quantify sufficiently to evidence either belief. I simply know that I have heard of many premonitions from third party sources, personal friends, family members, acquaintances, to categorize them as mere coincidence. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps a little time researching this subject with an open mind would be a good exercise for you.


Ghosts are a difficult and long subject but again i'm agnostic so i reserve judgement, i love my fence


Yeah, it looks nice and comfy.


Seriously, I have no answers either on the ghost phenomenon. I have hypothesis, but that's for another thread.


That's the same argument behind creationism, i believe there is a planet made of candyfloss, you cannot prove there isn't but does that mean we should believe in it? I do agree we should continue researching these things simply because people keep seeing them and that in itself makes them worthy of study, even if it turns out to be a strange brain effect i want to know about it.

As i said earlier we shuld continue researching embryos and if anyone, ever shows me they sense what happens to them and fear it, then i will be the first to request a ban on embryonic stem cells.


It was also the same argument used to show that the earth is round, and the same one used to determine that the earth revolved around the sun. In both cases, traditional science had determined that something different was happening, and it took someone going out on a limb and declaring that they wanted evidence before they would believe the established answers. That is what I am advocating here: more research into what we may or may not be dealing with. And just as Columbus (I am sure) would have admitted defeat as his ship fell of the edge of the world, I will admit defeat as well, should my concerns be shown to be groundless.

BTW, I am not that fond of candyfloss... could you believe there's one made of dark chocolate for me?


Yes it would be a shame, i want an android now, tell your son i'll take the first one he builds, advanced order


Message relayed.


reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I'm not sure i put myself over very well with that. I agree DNA is a disposition that can be enhanced or muted by enviromental factors. That is what i meant in the first palce, maybe i put it rather inartfully. As for the psychic thing, lets skip that shall we, not part of the discussion and don't want to get into a slanging match over it


OK, I can concede that we basically agree in principle, if not on the quantitative aspects.



Well by a DNA soul i merely meant it's what could define our dispositions, it doesn't mean it's supernatural in nature, just plain old biology. I cannot yet find the cause of sentience and neither can any scientist, it's the greatest of myteries i think, even greater than how it all started in the first place.

However i'm agnostic, i sit on the fence, enjoy the view and try not to catch my backside on the prickly roses growing up it, i accept there could be a supernatural soul, or plain old material biology, i have no clue either way who is correct. So i consider both sides carefully before making decisions.


Oh, you have a post leaning slightly... and that beam is starting to split...


That is sufficient for my point, which is that the soul, the thing that makes each of us an individual, is not well-known or well-documented. So how can anyone be sure of its condition or location?


The murder is a bad example for this reason, the person whilst asleep and unable to feel pain is still sentient. I don't believe an embryo to be sentient and what science cannot yet explain our level of sentience, it can give us some basic building blocks, like a minimum brain size. We know for example a goldfish will not achieve human level sentience, although i've known sme goldfish smarter than some people, but that's another story


So, a person asleep and unable to feel pain is still sentient, but an embryo who's sleeping status is unknown and who is physically incapable of reporting pain if it is felt is not? I'm afraid your logic escapes me here. care to clarify?

Oh, and I prefer to state this as "I've known some people dumber than a goldfish". It angers the people more that way (and usually makes them think).


I believe sentience is cause for concientious treatment, absolutely and no equivications, however i don't think embryos contain the necessary brain minimum to be sentient. As i stated, assuming a soul exists, not specific to a relgion then i think that soul would need a body to experience fear, pain, suffering etc. An embryo is not a body.


Er, if an embryo is not a body, perhaps we need a new definition of body. An embryo is recognizable as a humanoid creature, with all the organs developing in place (including a brain). I wonder if you are confusing this with a zygote, which has no distinguishable features and precious few specializing cells?


Well to use your earlier arguement, just because we havn't shown it can't help doesn't mean we should stop looking. Once all avenues are exhausted, then we should give it up, not before, that's how true science works.

Yes we should focus on new technologies, however research on embryonic stem cells still has more to give i feel, and hopefully could lead to the use of adult stem cells only. That would be a happy day.


I would agree with this, if there were some indicator that stem cell research will be able to advance our technology. In this case, we have a perfectly acceptable alternate (adult cells) which are continually being improved as to their differentiability... (is that a word?
) ...and no indication that we will ever be able to overcome the rejection problem associated with embryonic stem cells.

This is no longer a question of abandoning a technology, but rather of focusing the technology on the most promising front. the fact that this front is much less controversial is simply an added plus. We'll have to disagree on the 'promise' of new advancements form embryonic research, though, because I have seen nothing save the introduction of the technology in general that has come out of embryonic research.


I hope you aren't calling me less of a man there redneck!


Absolutely not! I am simply explaining why I am passionate about this issue. We have had a wonderfully civil debate to this point, and never would I endanger that with personal attacks.

Out of characters (again!
) and looking forward to your reply
TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck

Not the best example of your point, I'm afraid. Horses are far from simply 'dumb animals', possessing a superior social intellect and learning ability. Here's a couple of links you might be interested in on that subject:
www.alphahorse.com...
www.guidehorse.org...


I read the links and that evidence is anecdotal, the last study i read showed horses to be rather dumb, sorry but i'll just have to disagree here. The links are rather biased.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
This also helps prove my earlier point that there is no such thing as 'simple' intelligence. Each species of animal has its own type of intelligence, and we as humans seem to forget this and judge them by our own standards. Intelligence is not our exclusive domain, although I do believe we are probably at the top of that list (unless you ask a dolphin
).


Indeed we need to adapt intelligence testing, without going off topic even amongst humans this needs to be done. Who is smarter, Beethoven or Einstein? I think intelligence is very badly scienced, however it has little relation to embryos in that sense as it's slightly to early in life.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I think it is very possible from this quote that we are missing each other's points. You seem to be arguing toward complexity being a requirement for more brain size, which I can agree on completely. While an elephant's thigh muscle probably weighs as much as its trunk, that thigh muscle is a simple actuator of huge size and requires a very simple control signal. The trunk is an amazingly complex mass of intricate muscles and therefore would require a very highly advanced control mechanism. Their mass might be the same, but their complexity is vastly different.


Yes i understood what you meant, a bicep in a human will take the same neural ability to actuate then the bicep in an elephant. However i was trying to state that larger animals tend to have more complex muscular systems as they have a larger skeleton. That's all i meant, i understand fully what you were getting at.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Our hands are also extremely complex, but they have much less mass than our thighs. So why would so much more brain area be devoted to the hands, with less mass? Because of the complexity, obviously. The hands are not only enormously complex in their musculature, but also in their sensory ability. So perhaps we can agree that brain mass is relevant to the complexity of a body. I know I can.


I was saying that all along lol maybe i explained myself rather badly, but nevermind.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Obviously the circulatory system is not equivalent to the sentience of a being, but this is only used for illustration of the various system developments. In other words, I am explaining how one system may develop faster than another system because it will be needed sooner.


Agreed certain systems may develop faster as they are needed, if that's the arguement i would say that sentience would be the last thing to develop as it is not needed whilst a baby is developing into a full human being. In fact some fascinating research has shown a babies brain isn't fully developed when it leaves the womb, and even young children don't have a fully developed brain. For example, if you show a three year old pictures of themselves as a baby, they cannot realise that is them, even if it's explained. To a three year old they were always three, if that makes sense.

That doesn't mean they're concious of course, i just mean that if children of that age don't have fully developed brains then what does that say about embryos?


Originally posted by TheRedneck
So if we carry this observation further, we realize that the stem cell which controls sentience may or may not have differentiated at the time periods we are assuming it has not. We know only when the various systems we are familiar with start to develop, but as previously stated, there is no research on what the soul is, when it begins developing, or even how it develops.


Agreed there is no research on what the soul is or if and when it developes. However would you agree it takes a minimum brain size in relation to the body to achieve conciousness? Or are you saying a hummingbird could also achieve a sentient state? Who is to say humans are unique in having souls?


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Actually, when we consider the actual operation of the brain as a series of learned links from one set of neurons to another, it makes sense that there would be activity in every section devoted to receiving stimuli, one for processing that stimuli, one for directing the stimuli to the various muscles/glands/etc., one for the sentience to feel the stimuli, and probably several sections to compare the stimuli to stored memory patterns. Stating that the sentience is scattered because the flow of information is widespread is like trying to state that the front bridge on a motherboard is where data is stored because it experiences activity when data is read. It is not, but rather is one link in the flow pattern.


Well not quite, the same sections light up when shown faces for example, whereas different sections light up when shown a football. Those sections seem to show up in each individual over and over, so it seems that sentience has a pattern and we can map it out. As time goes by, as we've mapped out everything, will this prove we understand conciousness?


Originally posted by TheRedneck

Here again, I believe you are confusing mass with complexity. While the two can be related, they need not be. An elephant's muscles may well simply be larger and bigger, or they may be more intricate, as in the trunk. The former requires no additional control over a smaller muscle, the latter will require much more control over a simpler musculature.


Read my reply above, my idea of mass was only in relation to the idea that larger bodies tend to have more muscle systems. I don't just mean individual muscles are larger but that they have more stabalising muscles.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I'm afraid I disagree. While you would be right that statistically an infinite number of choices would lead to some being interpreted as premonitions, this is something that is nigh impossible to quantify sufficiently to evidence either belief. I simply know that I have heard of many premonitions from third party sources, personal friends, family members, acquaintances, to categorize them as mere coincidence. I would respectfully suggest that perhaps a little time researching this subject with an open mind would be a good exercise for you.


Well we will have to ageree to gisagree on this one, i doubt it has a good deal of bearing on the discussion as eve if we accept this as reality you could easily still argue against a soul, it adds no proof or disproof. I have researched it honestly, quite a good deal, even had personal experiences with such matters, and yet i find chance a beautiful thing. If someone gives me more direct proof, from a source i can trust, then i'll believe.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Yeah, it looks nice and comfy.


Hehe yep the fence is lovely and comfy most of the time. It's interesting though that smetimes, usually by religious zealots i get called a coward as i'm not willing to decide. My simple view is that i have not been given enough evidence to decide either way, so i think i'm doing the logical thing.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
It was also the same argument used to show that the earth is round, and the same one used to determine that the earth revolved around the sun. In both cases, traditional science had determined that something different was happening, and it took someone going out on a limb and declaring that they wanted evidence before they would believe the established answers. That is what I am advocating here: more research into what we may or may not be dealing with. And just as Columbus (I am sure) would have admitted defeat as his ship fell of the edge of the world, I will admit defeat as well, should my concerns be shown to be groundless.


Ok we have to disagree here, the earth was shown to be round in ancient greece by mathamaticians, in fact one of them worked the diameter out to astounding accuracy. The same goes for the earth goign around the sun, you cannot cmpare such things to the research of a soul.

Columbus did NOT discover the earth is round, you will forgive me for going off topic but it bugs the hell out of me that myth is still propogated. Many before him believed it and as i said the greeks ahd mathmatically worked out the diameter. Oh adn columbus believed it to be egg shaped if i recall correctly


Sorry off topic.

We both agree more research should be done, my opinion is that with current research we know there is a minimum brain size needed to aquire human level conciousness, therefore we're safe to use embryos as we see fit until someone shows research to the contrary. As i stated earlier, if anyone ever shows you are correct i will be absolutely up in arms and fighting to stop this research.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
BTW, I am not that fond of candyfloss... could you believe there's one made of dark chocolate for me?


We'll have to set up two different churches, one for dark chocolate, one for candyfloss! I guess we can see here how religious wars start, they argue over the most subtle and stupid differences.

Char limit.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
h, you have a post leaning slightly... and that beam is starting to split...


That is sufficient for my point, which is that the soul, the thing that makes each of us an individual, is not well-known or well-documented. So how can anyone be sure of its condition or location?


*Hastily adds supports to fence*


Well my simple arguement, along with scientists would be that until you prove it it cannot be accepted. So we go with what we currently accept as true in science, and that's that we havn't found existence of a soul, we have shown small proofs of how the brain works and how conciousness develops with fMRI scans.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
So, a person asleep and unable to feel pain is still sentient, but an embryo who's sleeping status is unknown and who is physically incapable of reporting pain if it is felt is not? I'm afraid your logic escapes me here. care to clarify?


An embryos sleeping status is known according ot modern science thats where you're missing my logic. Dream states have been studied, we are well aware of the brain areas involved and an embryos doesn't have those areas, therefore they can't dream.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Oh, and I prefer to state this as "I've known some people dumber than a goldfish". It angers the people more that way (and usually makes them think).


If they're that dumb they wouldn't stop to think, i guess i have less face in people already unwilling to engage their brains.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Er, if an embryo is not a body, perhaps we need a new definition of body. An embryo is recognizable as a humanoid creature, with all the organs developing in place (including a brain). I wonder if you are confusing this with a zygote, which has no distinguishable features and precious few specializing cells?


I linked a picture of a 12 day old embryo many pages back. It is not as you describe at that age, it doesn't have two lungs, a seperate digestive system, a true spine, measurable limbs etc. It really is little more than a collection of cells. I am fully aware of the difference between a zygote and an embryo, that is why i'm so agreeable with embryonic stem cell research.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I would agree with this, if there were some indicator that stem cell research will be able to advance our technology. In this case, we have a perfectly acceptable alternate (adult cells) which are continually being improved as to their differentiability... (is that a word?
) ...and no indication that we will ever be able to overcome the rejection problem associated with embryonic stem cells.


Well the indicator as you conceded earlier is that embryonic stem cell research has helped advance adult stem cell research. That to me means it's helped advance general science. We have no evidence we will be able to fully adapt adult cells either, so for now we must continue research, unless someone proves that embryos feel and register pain, and/or have a soul.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
h, you have a post leaning slightly... and that beam is starting to split...


That is sufficient for my point, which is that the soul, the thing that makes each of us an individual, is not well-known or well-documented. So how can anyone be sure of its condition or location?


*Hastily adds supports to fence*


Well my simple arguement, along with scientists would be that until you prove it it cannot be accepted. So we go with what we currently accept as true in science, and that's that we havn't found existence of a soul, we have shown small proofs of how the brain works and how conciousness develops with fMRI scans.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
So, a person asleep and unable to feel pain is still sentient, but an embryo who's sleeping status is unknown and who is physically incapable of reporting pain if it is felt is not? I'm afraid your logic escapes me here. care to clarify?


An embryos sleeping status is known according ot modern science thats where you're missing my logic. Dream states have been studied, we are well aware of the brain areas involved and an embryos doesn't have those areas, therefore they can't dream.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Oh, and I prefer to state this as "I've known some people dumber than a goldfish". It angers the people more that way (and usually makes them think).


If they're that dumb they wouldn't stop to think, i guess i have less face in people already unwilling to engage their brains.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Er, if an embryo is not a body, perhaps we need a new definition of body. An embryo is recognizable as a humanoid creature, with all the organs developing in place (including a brain). I wonder if you are confusing this with a zygote, which has no distinguishable features and precious few specializing cells?


I linked a picture of a 12 day old embryo many pages back. It is not as you describe at that age, it doesn't have two lungs, a seperate digestive system, a true spine, measurable limbs etc. It really is little more than a collection of cells. I am fully aware of the difference between a zygote and an embryo, that is why i'm so agreeable with embryonic stem cell research.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
differentiability


You know what, i have no idea if that's a real word and i don't care, i love it and have now added it to my vocabulary.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
This is no longer a question of abandoning a technology, but rather of focusing the technology on the most promising front. the fact that this front is much less controversial is simply an added plus. We'll have to disagree on the 'promise' of new advancements form embryonic research, though, because I have seen nothing save the introduction of the technology in general that has come out of embryonic research.


Again i guess we agree to disagree. I and many real scientists think there is still merit in advancing embryonic stem cell research. In time one of us will be proven correct and i will happily retract my arguements if i'm proven wrong.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Absolutely not! I am simply explaining why I am passionate about this issue. We have had a wonderfully civil debate to this point, and never would I endanger that with personal attacks.


Agreed, i am shocked and extremely pleased it has stayed so polite, the issues have been addressed solely on their merit, although of course some morals have crept in but i think that's acceptable.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Here's something you should think about also, once a clone is fully matured who is to say another Earthbound spirit doesn't try to inhabit the body or a foreign one, deceased extraterrestrials.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by menguard
 


Unrelated to the debate i think, lets leave it on topic.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by menguard
 


Unrelated to the debate i think, lets leave it on topic.


Thank you, for your one liner appreciated, but yes the topic of statements posed has many variables into the bigger picture.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by menguard
 


I posted a one liner because i didn't think it needed more, look i don't want to argue over such a thing it just didn't seem related to the subject that much. I didn't want to offend you or say your view was unimportant, only that it wasn't conducive to the debate. Wether it's an alien soul or a human soul is unimportant until we prove a soul.

My apologies if you felt a one line post wasn't enough to counter what you said.

[edit on 4-7-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


All things are relative to a discussion, it just takes the awareness to see it, but yes there is definately an essence to ones being, if you haven't experienced it yet, there's a reason.

Why not try for yourself, go outside your body at night while your sleeping, command it to your subconscious to let go of the body. And view it consciously.



posted on Jul, 4 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by menguard
 


Sorry no, please don't detract this thread from science. Whilst i respect TheRednecks view that there may very well be a soul, i don't want to discuss it in metaphysical terms on a theory without substance. Provide me proof and we'll talk, the threads basis was a science one. TheRedneck has made very good and clear arguments about conciousness, and excellent points on the soul. If you can do the same please do, without linking new age sources that have absolutely no proof.

I have been in dreams i've been able t direct apparently showing the real world, they are however dreams, nothing more than extrememly realistic projections of our minds. No scientific proof has ever been extablished to prove things like remote viewing or dream remote viewing beyond chance.

This thread is about stem cell research, the idea of a soul has developed in response to the morality of the issue and the idea of suffereing, if you can show some science behind your ideas that is beyond psychology iwill give them more time.

My apologies again for seeming rude, i just want things to stay on topic and remain structured and well thought out.



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Just a quick note about the debate with menguard: I can see his point. We have brought up the possibility of a 'soul', while undefined, as being very relevant to the issue.

I'm typing up the response to your reply to me now.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I read the links and that evidence is anecdotal, the last study i read showed horses to be rather dumb, sorry but i'll just have to disagree here. The links are rather biased.

I can't disagree that the links are to horse-lover sites and therefore would contain bias, but that is what I came up with after about 10 seconds of googling. The subject of how intelligent a hose is isn't a main focus of this thread, only an example. So I didn't spend a lot of time on it.

I will say this: around here, in a rural setting where there are quite a few horses, it is considered common knowledge that horses have above-average intelligence. That in itself is anecdotal, but being anecdotal does not necessarily equal being false. You might want to consider spending a bit of time around them as part of your research.


Indeed we need to adapt intelligence testing, without going off topic even amongst humans this needs to be done. Who is smarter, Beethoven or Einstein?


I would say that it is a moot comparison. Einstein's intelligence centered around mathematics and logic, whilst Beethoven's centered more around music. Both were geniuses.

But this brings up another though: Without giving thought to the question, I would choose Einstein, simply because his forte was similar to mine. I would imagine that someone who was capable in music (I personally consider myself lucky to play a radio :lol; ) would choose Beethoven. We naturally tend to recognize intelligence easier if it is similar to our own.

A good example of this is the honeybee. Hives act and react with some semblance of intelligence, yet individual bees themselves demonstrate very little that we have been able to observe. The intelligence of the hive seems to come from the collaboration of simple animatrons rather than from one centralized brain. This casts another light on the requirement of intelligence/sentience. Does the collective hive have self-awareness? I don't think that can be proven either way, but ask most scientists and you will be scoffed at.


Yes i understood what you meant, a bicep in a human will take the same neural ability to actuate then the bicep in an elephant. However i was trying to state that larger animals tend to have more complex muscular systems as they have a larger skeleton. That's all i meant, i understand fully what you were getting at.


Exactly my point, except that larger size does not necessarily equal greater complexity. The only thing about the elephant that has greater complexity is the trunk, as previously mentioned. The leg, which weighs many many many times what my leg does, is actually less complex. I think you have associated size with complexity and that is simply not always the case.

You can quote me plenty of examples where it is true that a larger body contains more complexity, but I can quote cases where it is not true. All it requires to make the comparison unreliable is one incorrect instance. For a statement to be true, it must never be false.


Agreed certain systems may develop faster as they are needed, if that's the arguement i would say that sentience would be the last thing to develop as it is not needed whilst a baby is developing into a full human being.


That is my point, yes. And while I understand your reasoning that sentience may be the last thing to develop, I cannot say for a fact this is true. We simply do not know when it develops. Is it possible that there is a reason it must begin development earlier than expected? The only answer to this is a resounding 'yes', because we do not understand all the details of sentience or intelligence. Therefore, the possibility does exist.


In fact some fascinating research has shown a babies brain isn't fully developed when it leaves the womb, and even young children don't have a fully developed brain. For example, if you show a three year old pictures of themselves as a baby, they cannot realise that is them, even if it's explained. To a three year old they were always three, if that makes sense.


Now this is where I become scared, when the concept of non-sentience in an embryo is taken to this conclusion. I know you are not advocating that a three y/o child should be experimented on, but there are those who would see no problem with it.

I have done some amount of research into this myself, princpally raising teo wonderful children from conception to near-adulthood. Their personalities were developing well before this age, personalities that today are well-manifested. I challenge any scientist to state that their research is more informative than mine.

My daughter has had a spirited mind and 'dainty' behavior since infancy. She is still 'dainty' (you should see her learning to drive with her pinkys standing straight out
) and has a talent for writing, poetry, and a caring and compassionate nature. My son has always been rougher and more of an in-your-face type person, and that as well has developed into his personality, as someone who stands for what he believes in, will not back down from a fight, and has the ability to think outside the box to solve problems.

My wife and I did not instill these things; we simply were honored to be able to watch them happen. And along your same thinking of "if children of that age don't have fully developed brains then what does that say about embryos?", could it not also be said that "if children of three do not demonstrate intelligence well, yet have intelligence, might not an embryo be less able to demonstrate intelligence whilst having intelligence?"


Agreed there is no research on what the soul is or if and when it developes. However would you agree it takes a minimum brain size in relation to the body to achieve conciousness? Or are you saying a hummingbird could also achieve a sentient state? Who is to say humans are unique in having souls?


No, I would not agree on the brain size/mass comparison, as mentioned above. Brain size/complexity, probably. I could, however, consider the concept of a hummingbird having sentience. Humans are not necessarily unique in having souls, especially considering the fact (as already established) that we as humans do not even have a good working definition of a soul.


Well not quite, the same sections light up when shown faces for example, whereas different sections light up when shown a football. Those sections seem to show up in each individual over and over, so it seems that sentience has a pattern and we can map it out. As time goes by, as we've mapped out everything, will this prove we understand conciousness?


The general sections used for various tasks and stimuli do tend to remain constant for different individuals, I will agree with this. Faces and footballs tend to evoke different concepts, as one is living (and a species member) and the other is inanimate. It could be that the difference involves memory-based emotions between the two (see my concept of a baby's initial recognition of mother above), or it could be that the differing sections have to do with differing responses (a football indicates physical activity, a person indicates social activity). These are just two possibilities; there are many others. And as long as there are multiple possibilities, we do not understand which possibility is true.

I cannot say if thorough mapping of the brain's activity will lead to a thorough understanding of consciousness; it might, but then again, it might not. Scientific research cannot be timed to this degree. We will understand when we understand, and not before. In the meantime, we should continue to research until we do understand. We do not need to know the length of the road to know that we must travel it to arrive at our destination.

...to be continued...

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
...continued...


Well we will have to ageree to gisagree on this one, i doubt it has a good deal of bearing on the discussion as eve if we accept this as reality you could easily still argue against a soul, it adds no proof or disproof. I have researched it honestly, quite a good deal, even had personal experiences with such matters, and yet i find chance a beautiful thing. If someone gives me more direct proof, from a source i can trust, then i'll believe.


I believe it adds evidence, if not proof. Anything that science does not fully explain leaves room for doubt (and thusly, requires more research
). The only way I could personally discount the possibility of anecdotal paranormal activity is to discredit literally millions of witnesses. If you are willing to do this, then that is your perogative, but it would seem to me that all claims of paranormal activity should at least be researched before being simply dismissed as 'anecdotal'.

Bear in mind that electricity was first discovered from the anecdotal experiences with static electricity. Why else would any scientist rub silk and glass together to create a spark, if no one had ever accidentally witnessed it? Of course, we are now well aware of electricity and its abilities; otherwise I doubt we would know each other and be having this debate. The gorilla was originally an anecdotal tale, one which had the witnesses committed in insane asylums for their wild tales. Someone finally got evidence to show the world they existed. The same with the giant squid, the infamous Kraken of sailors' legends. I personally saw this creature discovered and documented inmy own lifetime, yet in my early life, it was an anecdotal fairy tale.

Simply put, until we have proven that there is no possibility that paranormal experiences and souls and ghosts and all these other things can exist, we must keep an open mind to them. That also goes for the existence of a soul and sentience in a brain/body which has not yet experienced birth.


Columbus did NOT discover the earth is round, you will forgive me for going off topic but it bugs the hell out of me that myth is still propogated. Many before him believed it and as i said the greeks ahd mathmatically worked out the diameter. Oh adn columbus believed it to be egg shaped if i recall correctly


LOL, I was not aware you knew about that, sorry. I typically use the myths that people are more familiar with when I need to point something out, as it saves having to educate them in the middle of a debate. Forgive me this little tort.


The point still stands, since it is a fact that at one time the earth was believed to be flat. When we deny the existence of something simply because we do not understand how it could be, we leave ourselves open to continued ignorance. To fully understand the universe and all that is in it (the stated goal of science), we must accept first that we do not know everything. That is my point here, that we do not know, we only suspect that an embryo is not sentient... and as long as we state unequivocally that we do know that there is no sentience, we can never learn the truth.

Perhaps that is one purpose of some people stating they know, to sooth uneasy consciences...


We both agree more research should be done, my opinion is that with current research we know there is a minimum brain size needed to aquire human level conciousness, therefore we're safe to use embryos as we see fit until someone shows research to the contrary.


Is it logical to use the terms 'opinion' and 'know' in the same sentence?


The trick here is that we do not know as long as we question, and we only question that which we do not know. If there is a chance that future research could show that we have been killing sentient people all these years, would it be an argument to state 'we didn't know'? Especially if some had been advocating more research before the experimentation went forth?

I'm sorry, and no disrespect intended, but this seems to be a precariously shaky argument. Either there is a possibility of being wrong on this issue, or there is not. I do not understand 'I'm right until I am proven wrong', particularly when human lives could be at risk unnecessarily. My argument allows that I may be wrong, without risking harming another sentient being. Yours places these beings at risk should you be wrong.


We'll have to set up two different churches, one for dark chocolate, one for candyfloss! I guess we can see here how religious wars start, they argue over the most subtle and stupid differences.


Off topic, I believe, but I had to continue this to say two things: I agree completely, and hooray for dark chocolate planets!


reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Well my simple arguement, along with scientists would be that until you prove it it cannot be accepted. So we go with what we currently accept as true in science, and that's that we havn't found existence of a soul, we have shown small proofs of how the brain works and how conciousness develops with fMRI scans.


It may not be able to be accepted, but that does not mean it should not be considered as a possibility when there is no proof either way. I am not advocating that we suddenly state that embryos have souls, I simply believe we must consider the possibility before acting in a way which could be proven later to be barbaric.

Oh, and my pet peeve
: We do not have 'proofs' of how the brain works, we have evidence of the working of the brain, obtained with MRI. A bit nit-picky, perhaps, but proof is a strong word, and when common meaning is used, it can evolve into scientific meanings among the population. We have no proof either way, only theories which so far have been little more than interpretations of the evidence.

That does not mean they are not true, it means we do not know for a fact if they are true. research will tell if they are.


An embryos sleeping status is known according ot modern science thats where you're missing my logic. Dream states have been studied, we are well aware of the brain areas involved and an embryos doesn't have those areas, therefore they can't dream.


Er, no, it isn't known. I will admit that 'sleeping status' was not an accurate description of my intended meaning; I was referring to the fact that we do know the status of an embryo's brain. We do know when there are detectable brain wave patterns, but we are unable to interpret what those brain wave patterns mean. If we could do so, we would be able to tell what an individual was thinking during an MRI.

My comparison, if somewhat poorly worded, stands. Where is the difference between a human who is unconscious and one whose sentience state is unknown?


I linked a picture of a 12 day old embryo many pages back. It is not as you describe at that age, it doesn't have two lungs, a seperate digestive system, a true spine, measurable limbs etc. It really is little more than a collection of cells. I am fully aware of the difference between a zygote and an embryo, that is why i'm so agreeable with embryonic stem cell research.


So it doesn't look like us? Here again, no disrespect intended, but that's hardly a scientific basis for a life and death decision.

...to be continued...

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 5 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
---continued---


Well the indicator as you conceded earlier is that embryonic stem cell research has helped advance adult stem cell research. That to me means it's helped advance general science. We have no evidence we will be able to fully adapt adult cells either, so for now we must continue research, unless someone proves that embryos feel and register pain, and/or have a soul.


Actually, there is evidence that adult stem cell differentiation can be as extensive as embryonic stem cells. This is cutting edge and still being worked on, but the evidence I have heard is promising. This is my main contention: we do not have to take the moral risks associated with embryonic stem cell research, certainly not to the extent of farming embryos for slaughter. See www.sciencemag.org...

There are no indications that rejection inherent in embryonic stem cell usage can be overcome.


Agreed, i am shocked and extremely pleased it has stayed so polite, the issues have been addressed solely on their merit, although of course some morals have crept in but i think that's acceptable.


I agree, this has been a pleasurable debate, and one I look forward to participating in. My compliments to you on your civility; it takes two to tango.

---finally finished
---
TheRedneck


[edit on 5-7-2008 by TheRedneck]



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I will say this: around here, in a rural setting where there are quite a few horses, it is considered common knowledge that horses have above-average intelligence. That in itself is anecdotal, but being anecdotal does not necessarily equal being false. You might want to consider spending a bit of time around them as part of your research.


I must admit i have a decent amount of research in this area. I used to muck out horses on the local farms and walk recovering horses around the yards. I know horses very well and whilst i think they're beautiful animals i have to say they don't seem smart at all. I found it quite relaxing looking after them though.


Originally posted by TheRedneck

I would say that it is a moot comparison. Einstein's intelligence centered around mathematics and logic, whilst Beethoven's centered more around music. Both were geniuses.

But this brings up another though: Without giving thought to the question, I would choose Einstein, simply because his forte was similar to mine. I would imagine that someone who was capable in music (I personally consider myself lucky to play a radio :lol; ) would choose Beethoven. We naturally tend to recognize intelligence easier if it is similar to our own.


That was my whole point so the comparison wasn't moot. I was trying to say that we view intelligence in seriously narrow and rather flawed terms. Genius is in my view only defined by achievment in a field. Whether that be science, music or philosophy.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
A good example of this is the honeybee. Hives act and react with some semblance of intelligence, yet individual bees themselves demonstrate very little that we have been able to observe. The intelligence of the hive seems to come from the collaboration of simple animatrons rather than from one centralized brain. This casts another light on the requirement of intelligence/sentience. Does the collective hive have self-awareness? I don't think that can be proven either way, but ask most scientists and you will be scoffed at.


I wouldn't scoff at you, for many years i've wondered about this one. A friend of mine keeps honey bees. I have for years wanted to keep some myself but sadly i don't have the space and more importantly there are kids living on both sides of our house so i don't want to risk them being stung. However an individual honey bee seems quite stupid but the hive is very smart. If you've ever captured a swarm or been witness to it you'll notice how they react in a very group think way that ensures their survival. Would love to discuss that more, maybe on another thread, although i think we agree so it woudln't be a big debate



Originally posted by TheRedneck
You can quote me plenty of examples where it is true that a larger body contains more complexity, but I can quote cases where it is not true. All it requires to make the comparison unreliable is one incorrect instance. For a statement to be true, it must never be false.


Ahh but there is the old saying, the exception proves the rule. Oddly within science this one law seems to be accepted because there always seems to be an excemption to the rule. The noble gases i think are along that line, that they can't combine with any other element and then scientists find certain noble gases can combine with other elements when put under extreme conditions. I think only 3 noble gases are left that havn't been made into compounds, but i digress.



Originally posted by TheRedneck
That is my point, yes. And while I understand your reasoning that sentience may be the last thing to develop, I cannot say for a fact this is true. We simply do not know when it develops. Is it possible that there is a reason it must begin development earlier than expected? The only answer to this is a resounding 'yes', because we do not understand all the details of sentience or intelligence. Therefore, the possibility does exist.


Well if we go by your previous idea that the most useful things will occur first then sentience would be last as it's not needed for survival whilst inside a womb. The possibility exists however in my view it won't develop until a lot later, maybe around 4 months, (note i picked this out of many reasons including body development).




Originally posted by TheRedneck
Now this is where I become scared, when the concept of non-sentience in an embryo is taken to this conclusion. I know you are not advocating that a three y/o child should be experimented on, but there are those who would see no problem with it.


You are right in thinking i would not experiment on a three year old child, or a two year old or any child after maybe 4 months of life (by 4 months i mean whilt still in the womb). Anyone who sugests this is ok i think needs to do some serious research and thinking.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I have done some amount of research into this myself, princpally raising teo wonderful children from conception to near-adulthood. Their personalities were developing well before this age, personalities that today are well-manifested. I challenge any scientist to state that their research is more informative than mine.

My daughter has had a spirited mind and 'dainty' behavior since infancy. She is still 'dainty' (you should see her learning to drive with her pinkys standing straight out
) and has a talent for writing, poetry, and a caring and compassionate nature. My son has always been rougher and more of an in-your-face type person, and that as well has developed into his personality, as someone who stands for what he believes in, will not back down from a fight, and has the ability to think outside the box to solve problems.


Ahh but hang on there. If your children had been raised in a poor african family, unable to eat most days, i am willing ot bet they'd be different. If they had been raised in an abusive family i am willing to bet they'd be different. The point being is that even though you think you havn't changed them, the very fact they have been loved, cared for and suffered no real hardship has effected them. It's effected them in a positive way i'm sure but it has shaped them into the people they are.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
My wife and I did not instill these things; we simply were honored to be able to watch them happen. And along your same thinking of "if children of that age don't have fully developed brains then what does that say about embryos?", could it not also be said that "if children of three do not demonstrate intelligence well, yet have intelligence, might not an embryo be less able to demonstrate intelligence whilst having intelligence?"


Children of 3 show intelligence and levels of sentience but often not complete self awareness. It's theorised to be a learning mechanism.


Originally posted by TheRedneck

No, I would not agree on the brain size/mass comparison, as mentioned above. Brain size/complexity, probably. I could, however, consider the concept of a hummingbird having sentience. Humans are not necessarily unique in having souls, especially considering the fact (as already established) that we as humans do not even have a good working definition of a soul.


Well we will have to disagree here. I think it's an arguement we cannot settle, still it was fun to debate



Originally posted by TheRedneck
The general sections used for various tasks and stimuli do tend to remain constant for different individuals, I will agree with this. Faces and footballs tend to evoke different concepts, as one is living (and a species member) and the other is inanimate. It could be that the difference involves memory-based emotions between the two (see my concept of a baby's initial recognition of mother above), or it could be that the differing sections have to do with differing responses (a football indicates physical activity, a person indicates social activity). These are just two possibilities; there are many others. And as long as there are multiple possibilities, we do not understand which possibility is true.


Not quite. It wouldn't matter if you took someone from an african tribe or a western human the results would be the same. Our brains seems to be set to define organic and non organic items, animals from plants, dangerous items from safe items etc. The basics of these ideas seem hard wired, some have to be learned in our modern society but the basics are there.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I cannot say if thorough mapping of the brain's activity will lead to a thorough understanding of consciousness; it might, but then again, it might not. Scientific research cannot be timed to this degree. We will understand when we understand, and not before. In the meantime, we should continue to research until we do understand. We do not need to know the length of the road to know that we must travel it to arrive at our destination.


Well we dont' disagree that research should continue, and that's the beauty of science.



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I believe it adds evidence, if not proof. Anything that science does not fully explain leaves room for doubt (and thusly, requires more research
). The only way I could personally discount the possibility of anecdotal paranormal activity is to discredit literally millions of witnesses. If you are willing to do this, then that is your perogative, but it would seem to me that all claims of paranormal activity should at least be researched before being simply dismissed as 'anecdotal'.


Hey hang on, i never said i would discount the witnesses, again remember i'm agnostic. I'm saying i won't believe one way or the other until proof is provided but i will err on the side of caution until i have proof.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Bear in mind that electricity was first discovered from the anecdotal experiences with static electricity. Why else would any scientist rub silk and glass together to create a spark, if no one had ever accidentally witnessed it? Of course, we are now well aware of electricity and its abilities; otherwise I doubt we would know each other and be having this debate. The gorilla was originally an anecdotal tale, one which had the witnesses committed in insane asylums for their wild tales. Someone finally got evidence to show the world they existed. The same with the giant squid, the infamous Kraken of sailors' legends. I personally saw this creature discovered and documented inmy own lifetime, yet in my early life, it was an anecdotal fairy tale.


Your electricity arguement proves my idea of erring on the side of caution. People didn't believe it until proof was provided and that's how i operate, it's how science operates and so until someone proves a soul, proves an embryos has one and proves it knows whats going on, then experimentation is fine. I would rather allow the research and any possible evidence to evolve then hold the research and wait until we are clear on a soul, which may takes thousands of years, or more probably never be proven or disproven.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Simply put, until we have proven that there is no possibility that paranormal experiences and souls and ghosts and all these other things can exist, we must keep an open mind to them. That also goes for the existence of a soul and sentience in a brain/body which has not yet experienced birth.


I accept the possibility, i have not said otherwise, i just don't think it's true according to current science research. However that doesn't mean it's not true.


Originally posted by TheRedneck

LOL, I was not aware you knew about that, sorry. I typically use the myths that people are more familiar with when I need to point something out, as it saves having to educate them in the middle of a debate. Forgive me this little tort.


Ahh forgiven. I understand you would rather keep the debate in terms most people are aware of but i must say i don't think propogating a myth is ever good.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
The point still stands, since it is a fact that at one time the earth was believed to be flat. When we deny the existence of something simply because we do not understand how it could be, we leave ourselves open to continued ignorance. To fully understand the universe and all that is in it (the stated goal of science), we must accept first that we do not know everything. That is my point here, that we do not know, we only suspect that an embryo is not sentient... and as long as we state unequivocally that we do know that there is no sentience, we can never learn the truth.


Hang on a second, how about i state without proof that plants like wheat have intimate souls that feel horrible, physical pain and we are torturing them? Should we stop farming and killing wheat? I could say the same for rice and corn as well, thereby obliterating most of our food crops. Again, without proof i should not stand in the way of science. It's the same with embryo research.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Perhaps that is one purpose of some people stating they know, to sooth uneasy consciences...


I have no conscience on the matter as i consider it clear, i feel that statement was an attempt at discreditating my views and the views of mainstream science.


Originally posted by TheRedneck

Is it logical to use the terms 'opinion' and 'know' in the same sentence?



Actually yes. No matter what facts are presented, even those that are absolutely and incontrovertably true, there will always be those who state otherwise, therefore it's an opinon, based on facts but an opinion nonetheless



Originally posted by TheRedneck
The trick here is that we do not know as long as we question, and we only question that which we do not know. If there is a chance that future research could show that we have been killing sentient people all these years, would it be an argument to state 'we didn't know'? Especially if some had been advocating more research before the experimentation went forth?


Wuite simply yes it would be a very acceptable arguement to say we didn't know. Just like we didn't know leaded petrol was dangerous and CFC's were destroying the ozone layer.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
I'm sorry, and no disrespect intended, but this seems to be a precariously shaky argument. Either there is a possibility of being wrong on this issue, or there is not. I do not understand 'I'm right until I am proven wrong', particularly when human lives could be at risk unnecessarily. My argument allows that I may be wrong, without risking harming another sentient being. Yours places these beings at risk should you be wrong.


Yes it puts thema t risk if your'e correct, but my arguement states we are not correct and so there is no risk and no shaky arguement. I only acept being wrong as a possibility because i never think anything is 100% correct. However i go with my 99.9% and bet it's the right choice, if i'm ever proven wrong i'd repent and aruge your case.


Originally posted by TheRedneck

Off topic, I believe, but I had to continue this to say two things: I agree completely, and hooray for dark chocolate planets!


How very dare you, me and my candyfloss people will invade you and destroy your heathen belief of dark chocolate worlds!


Originally posted by TheRedneck
It may not be able to be accepted, but that does not mean it should not be considered as a possibility when there is no proof either way. I am not advocating that we suddenly state that embryos have souls, I simply believe we must consider the possibility before acting in a way which could be proven later to be barbaric.


Ahh but hang on, many things are proven to be barbaric later in existence. How do you think todays surgeons will be viewed? I'm not a fan of star trek but i am reminded of one of the flms where bones calls the earth doctors butchers



Originally posted by TheRedneck
Oh, and my pet peeve
: We do not have 'proofs' of how the brain works, we have evidence of the working of the brain, obtained with MRI. A bit nit-picky, perhaps, but proof is a strong word, and when common meaning is used, it can evolve into scientific meanings among the population. We have no proof either way, only theories which so far have been little more than interpretations of the evidence.


Well we disagree, we have proof that certain chemical responses cause certain actions, we have proof that the injection of certain chemicals causes certain responses, we have proof that directed magnetic fields at certain areas of the brain causes certain reactions adn we are able to explain why these occurences come about. These however are very small parts of the brain, truly, pathetically small parts. However they are parts and start to form that picture, i think it'll take lieterally a few hundred years before we have it pinned down.




Originally posted by TheRedneck
Er, no, it isn't known. I will admit that 'sleeping status' was not an accurate description of my intended meaning; I was referring to the fact that we do know the status of an embryo's brain. We do know when there are detectable brain wave patterns, but we are unable to interpret what those brain wave patterns mean. If we could do so, we would be able to tell what an individual was thinking during an MRI.


Please provide the research stating a 12 day old embryo has a discernable brain wave pattern, i am very interested in seeing it. I am going on pure speculation when i say those patterns are very likely nothing more than random electronic discharge from celular activity, not just brain waves but from the whole body and tweaked by pro life advocates. However i will correct what i say here if you can show me the research otherwise.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
My comparison, if somewhat poorly worded, stands. Where is the difference between a human who is unconscious and one whose sentience state is unknown?


Well that's our difference, i think it's status according to modern science is known to within 99.9% probability.


Originally posted by TheRedneck

So it doesn't look like us? Here again, no disrespect intended, but that's hardly a scientific basis for a life and death decision.


You misinterpret what i mean by look. I said it has no disernable organs. That isn't just not looking like us, that's not even being like us remotely. Human embryos at 12 days are not really discernable from cow embryos, sheep embyos or mice embryos. By your logic we should imbue them all with the same rights.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join