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.

 

So, ATS, Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

page: 13
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Annee
 


fanastic
good of you to refrain on expressing your strongly, wrongly held opinions.



Because of your religious fanaticism - - - it would be a waste of my time.

As I learned in previous threads - - - where I stopped responding to you.




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 



Absolutely important, and I have no problem with discussing it, just seems silly to discuss it here on ATS. I come here for a less mainstream discussion. At any rate, I am sorry for being a "thread killer", and will next time just not comment.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
I'm prolife. It takes 2 to make the child. It has 2 parents. It's a 50/50 proposition. Now I'm prolife for me, but I'm prochoice for everyone else. I should have no say so in other peoples lives. I don't consider it abortion murder until the child is self sufficient. Anything after 20 weeks and your killing a baby which could be born and easily survive.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by slugger9787
 





Do not think the nervous system is operating, I could give you a couple of websites to watch the foetus silently scream.


This. Convince me that 12 weeks old foetus has developed nervous system, capable of perception of pain, and you will convert me to pro-life camp. I have already seen The silent scream video, and I dont think it proves such thing:

my.opera.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Then you are arguing on the potential development of the brain, and in terms of human-essence, you re really drawing straws between brain and body.

If the potential of that one brain cell when it specializes from stem cells is what defines medical birth, than there is no difference between that and the potential of the whole physicality. Because to argue the potential brain power of that single brain cell is what gives a person worth is really ignorant of science. Because the difference between that brain cell and the first cell to develop is barely anything. A brain cell is useless until it organizes and becomes a network of cells thinking. That has not occurred yet. And if you are arguing the potential of those cells, why does the potential of the cell clusters that allow those cells to exist not important?

You can't just pick and chose. Either all the cells are important or none of them are important. Because without that first cell, the brain cell can never exist. The potential of that first cell to become that first brain cell is indifferent to the potential of that brain cell to become a network of brain cells that can one day be human adult intelligence.

Not to mention consciousness is metaphysics. All it is is electricity in the brain. The same electron that does that is the same electron that powers the regular cells. So again the logic comes to a wall.

There is nothing special about a single human brain cell. There is nothing special about a million trillion human brain cells. Only when they organize and do processes do they become what we call intelligence.

Then you get into if its the cells that are alive, not the brain. Because a human brain is useless without the networked cooperating cells. If you poofed a human into existence at the full age of an adult, that human would not have intelligence of a human adult. The brain cells would not be networked to do anything special. He would be indifferent to that human with one brain cell in the womb. Only when they network do they gain intelligence.

So why does the brain matter at all? Because a brain not networking is just an organ filled with useless cells. What they do is important, not they themselves.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:08 PM
link   
I am pro life. As or the argument well it is a womans body so it is her choice. I think that sense the baby is also a part of the man as well I think it should be a 50/50 thing then. The man should get some say. It is not only the womans baby. Therefore the Man should have a say if he wants a part of him to be aborted.

I know there is an argument on when life starts. But for me when you know you have something growing inside of you thats when life starts.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by russ212
I am pro life. I understand that people trying and make an issue that it is the womans body therfore it is her choice, but what about the childs body. Simplying attempting to define when the child is alive seems an awful lot like Bill Clinton attempting to describe what sexual contact is. We can rationalize and say what ever we want to make us feel better about it, but we are still trying to find some loop hole for murder. Either the fetus is a life at conception or it isn't a life until it is born. I see no middle ground.

Human and alive isn't a good qualifier for the same rights as those born though.

Zygote, Embryo Fetus. . . Just because it has human DNA and is alive doesn't mean it should have the same rights as those born. In IVF we deliberately create "babies" knowing most of them will die, but pro-lifers only picket outside a building when they're able to call women murderers.

Did you know Roe v Wade didn't even need to answer the question of whether a human zygote, embryo or fetus is human and alive, because it didn't need to:

"
The pro-choice argument continues that a potential person is not an actual person. In other words, if A has the potential to become B, then it follows that A is not B. An acorn is not an oak tree. You cannot climb the limbs of an acorn, build a tree-house in an acorn, or rest in the shade of an acorn. And you certainly are not chopping down a mighty oak tree by removing an acorn from the ground.

Pro-life advocates attack this argument in three ways. The first is to publicize how quickly the embryo reaches its potential of a recognizably human form. Photographs of 8 to 12-week fetuses are crucial to their demonstrations. They emphasize -- with great exaggeration -- that the central nervous system begins working at 20 days, the heart at 24 days, and brainwaves at 43 days. What they don't tell you is that these are simply the first cells to maneuver themselves into place, and it will take months to construct these organs. Normally it takes until the 5th month of pregnancy before all the organs (except the brain and central nervous system) are completed, and by this time 99% of all abortions have already been performed. The brain and central nervous system are the fetus' most complex and longest running construction job, and will not be completed until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy. Interestingly, it is not until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy that construction is complete enough for a fetus to survive premature birth. Although pro-life literature leaves the impression that the 8-week old fetus is marvelously complete, the fact is that it would die immediately upon premature birth, precisely due to its lack of completeness.
"



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Pro-choice

But casual abortion is as abhorant as the prolifers who attack abortionists.

It's a tricky situation really, but it should be the mothers choice ultimately - although sadly stupid teenagers are now having casual abortions just because they are irresponsible.

Education is the way forward. And contraception.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 




If the potential of that one brain cell when it specializes from stem cells is what defines medical birth, than there is no difference between that and the potential of the whole physicality.


No its not. Functioning brain (appearance of consciousness) defines medical begining of a human person. Not just one differentiated cell, its not enough for the consciousness to emerge.



A brain cell is useless until it organizes and becomes a network of cells thinking. That has not occurred yet.


Exactly.



And if you are arguing the potential of those cells, why does the potential of the cell clusters that allow those cells to exist not important?


I am not arguing the potential. Either human consciousness (sufficiently functioning brain) exists, or not. Potential to become one in the future is not enough.



You can't just pick and chose. Either all the cells are important or none of them are important.


Why? Why cant we pick the moment which, according to our best scientific knowledge, is the beginning of human conscionusness, and define it as the beggining of human person? To me, its the most rational thing to do.



Because without that first cell, the brain cell can never exist.


Potential is not enough.



The potential of that first cell to become that first brain cell is indifferent to the potential of that brain cell to become a network of brain cells that can one day be human adult intelligence.


Exactly. Moment of conception (appearance of the first cell) or moment of first brain cell differentiation is not important. Appearance of consciousness (even in its primitive, non-adult form) is the important moment.



Not to mention consciousness is metaphysics. All it is is electricity in the brain. The same electron that does that is the same electron that powers the regular cells. So again the logic comes to a wall.


I dont see how this negates my logic.



There is nothing special about a single human brain cell. There is nothing special about a million trillion human brain cells. Only when they organize and do processes do they become what we call intelligence.


Exactly. When they organize sufficiently to become conscious, only then they deserve protection as a new human person. Till then, they are "nothing special", as you said.



Then you get into if its the cells that are alive, not the brain. Because a human brain is useless without the networked cooperating cells. If you poofed a human into existence at the full age of an adult, that human would not have intelligence of a human adult. The brain cells would not be networked to do anything special. He would be indifferent to that human with one brain cell in the womb. Only when they network do they gain intelligence.


Intelligence is not as important as consciousness. He would certainly not have intelligence of a normal human adult who has been through the whole maturing process, but if he would be conscious (seeing as consciousness is inherent and does not require learning, he probably would), then he is a person deserving protection.



So why does the brain matter at all? Because a brain not networking is just an organ filled with useless cells. What they do is important, not they themselves.


I agree, networking supporting consciousness deserves protection, not the cells. But without the cells you would not have the networking, so protecting the networking implies protecting the cells - but only if the networking (consciousness) exists - not later (death), not sooner (emeging of consciousness).


edit on 12-9-2010 by Maslo because: typos..



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 





No its not. Functioning brain (appearance of consciousness) defines medical begining of a human person. Not just one differentiated cell, its not enough for the consciousness to emerge.


The brain cells do not function properly until long after birth. So what exactly are you saying? Because if functioning human brain cells define a human being's person, then we have to take the upper limit. And because only a very few smartest people can gain the highest functionality of brain cells, the rest of us should not deserve being a person by that definition. What defines functionality? You have to define your terms. One brain cell does the same function as a trillion brain cells. They just operate at different levels of efficiency dependent on the number.

I reject this notion of personhood as well. Personhood? What does that even mean? Every society has a different definition of person. Why should the medical community have special treatment for who is right and wrong? Because a bunch of people say so? Sorry, humans are flawed. I choose science. According to science the human being begins at conception.

Personhood is nothing more than a lame excuse to give out rights and no rights to people. A person cannot exist without their genes. The genes form at conception.


You are arguing potential. because your whole argument depends on the potential of those first brain cells to become as good as a human adult being. If they have no potential to become that adult being, then they are doomed to die and are unfit and nature will take care of it.

The fact remains that your argument is dependent on the brain cells to organize into processes that a human adult has. If they never organize, you don't have consciousness. Potential-dependent argument.



If they don't deserve protection until they organize, than murder before the age of 4-3 is ok, because consciousness is not present at birth. Consciousness is nothing more than the potting to work of observed patterns of intelligence that the brain cells adapt to and use electrical impulses to replicate. This is the basis of all primate intelligence. We see and then repeat. Humans have the capacity to grow from that and advance.


Consciousness is intelligence. it cannot exist without intelligence. Consciousness is observing patterns, repeating and optimizing those patterns. That is only possible with intelligence. Not enough brain cells, no consciousness.


It seems you are treating consciousness as some sort of thing, when all it is is a dependent clause that comes about around age 3-4 from observing patterns. Consciousness is not something. it is a verb, not a noun.


edit on 12-9-2010 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 




The brain cells do not function properly until long after birth.


What do you mean by "properly"? I mean the moment brain cells function enough for the primitive consciousness to from. That happens long before birth.



Because if functioning human brain cells define a human being's person, then we have to take the upper limit. And because only a very few smartest people can gain the highest functionality of brain cells, the rest of us should not deserve being a person by that definition. What defines functionality?


No, we have to take the LOWER limit - appearance of simple consciousness (brain waves..). and I am saying functioning brain as a whole, not brain cells individually.



You have to define your terms. One brain cell does the same function as a trillion brain cells. They just operate at different levels of efficiency dependent on the number.


One brain cell is not the same as trillion cells. The whole is more than sum of its parts. Individual brain cells would never form consciousness, but together they can.



I reject this notion of personhood as well. Personhood? What does that even mean? Every society has a different definition of person. Why should the medical community have special treatment for who is right and wrong? Because a bunch of people say so? Sorry, humans are flawed. I choose science. According to science the human being begins at conception.


Human life (body) does not deserve protection! Only human person. Even nonhuman person would deserve it - conscious artificial intelligence or aliens would be protected, too.

To be a person requires consciousness and rudimentary intelligence (at least the level required by consciousness). If human person begins at conception, suppose his development would stop there - if you meet the adult non-responding unconscious mass of cells, would you consider it human person? I wouldnt, just as plants are not considered persons. Yes, embryo at conception ha POTENTIAL to develop into conscious lifeform, but for the moment, its NOT. And just potential is not enough.



Personhood is nothing more than a lame excuse to give out rights and no rights to people. A person cannot exist without their genes. The genes form at conception.


A person cannot exist without their genes, but reverse is not true - the genes can exist without the person (embryo). So genes which does not carry consciousness with them do not deserve to be protected like the conscious person itself.
Hypothetical persons without genes, like artificial intelligences or maybe som strange aliens, dont necesarily need genes, but they would have to be protected, too.

Suppose that your consciousness would be uploaded into computer (it could very well happen in the future..). Would we have the right to kill you then? This line of logic is absurd..



You are arguing potential. because your whole argument depends on the potential of those first brain cells to become as good as a human adult being. If they have no potential to become that adult being, then they are doomed to die and are unfit and nature will take care of it.


I am not arguing potential and my argument does not depend on it (how?). Brain cells which do not form consciousness together are not persons. And when consciousness emerges, it deserves protection regardless of its ability to survive to its more adult form. Or can we kill babies with diseases that prevent them from reaching adulthood? According to this absurd potential logic, we could..

www.religioustolerance.org...

Consciousness (brain waves) emerge in cca 6th month of fetal development, that is a fact. Thats the moment I am talking about - the beginning of human person according to science.
Not brain cells differentiation, not adult brain - the moment of appearance of primitive consciousness (neural network).



The fact remains that your argument is dependent on the brain cells to organize into processes that a human adult has. If they never organize, you don't have consciousness. Potential-dependent argument.


Why adult? Children or babies are not conscious? Primitive consciousness forms in 6th month of pregnancy. My argument is not potential dependent, because I do not argue to protect brain cells, but network they create. If there is sufficiently developed network, then we need to protect this new entity. If there is not, then we do not need to protect this group of cells. Simple as that, no potential anywhere..



If they don't deserve protection until they organize, than murder before the age of 4-3 is ok, because consciousness is not present at birth.


Consciousness IS present at birth. Have you ever seen a just born baby? They are certainly capable of conscious thought. Seems like you are confusing the consciousness with awareness to the outside world or higher level of intelligence. They are not the same. And they are also not the same as human intelligence, because even animals are conscious.

From Wiki:


Consciousness in psychology and philosophy typically means something beyond what it means for anesthesiology, and may be said in many contexts to imply four characteristics: subjectivity, change, continuity, and selectivity.[1][6] Philosopher Franz Brentano has suggested intentionality or aboutness (that consciousness is about something). However, within the philosophy of mind there is no consensus on whether intentionality is a requirement for consciousness.[7]




Because humans express their conscious states using language, it is tempting to equate language abilities and consciousness. There are, however, speechless humans (infants, feral children, aphasics, severe forms of autism), to whom consciousness is attributed despite language lost or not yet acquired. Moreover, the study of brain states of non-linguistic primates, in particular the macaques, has been used extensively by scientists and philosophers in their quest for the neural correlates of the contents of consciousness.


en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

www.scientificamerican.com...

www.eheart.com...



It seems you are treating consciousness as some sort of thing, when all it is is a dependent clause that comes about around age 3-4 from observing patterns. Consciousness is not something. it is a verb, not a noun.


Its an inherent and emergent quality of complex neural networks in the brain. Its something. It does not require observation or stimuli from the outside world - you are conscious in a dream world, exactly as if it was a real world (according to psychological, not anestesiological definition of consciousness, of course - see wiki).



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


No, it does not. Consciousness it a verb. You need to experience things in order to generate it and copy and create it. Consciousness at birth is indifferent to a snail's consciousness. This is why the primate brain, and especially the human brain, is so cool. because its specialized to see patterns and therefore exponentially grow in consciousness. Consciousness begins when the brain cells have adapted what they are being told to do to the extent that they begin to show consciousness.

You should probably read up on the fictitious Geth. The creators of them basically took this and made each brain cell a computer program and it basically operates on the same science.

In fact I will create an analogy. In Mass Effect, Hardware is produced to hold and run Geth programs. One Geth alone has as much intelligence as Facebook Chat, in that it doesn't. Only when hundreds of them gather do they gain in intelligences. The Geth cooperate to produce consciousness. They form internal networks which allow higher thought processes. For this purpose, most Hardware that becomes soldiers are made to only hold enough intelligence as a raging animal. Hardware designated to research or do other complex items are developed to hold even more Geth programs, to increase the intelligence. Geth cities are server hubs were millions of Geth programs run to do super-human thought processes and think beyond that which is comprehensible to the human brain. These hardware platforms do grand acts for the Geth, shooting them ahead technologically, philosophically, and intelligently. Eventually the Geth got the idea to build a massive dyson sphere hardware shell that could hold all the Geth in one place and generate the most complex thoughts that could be within the universe. Virtually the intelligence of a god. The Geth do not have bodies, they are programs running tasks. They network on mass-produced hardware to do tasks outside of their server hubs and space stations.

The human brain is the same way. The human brain is a hardware. The cells are like the Geth.

To complete this analogy, consciousness, in the form we know it as of a human adult, does not occur until long after birth. Like the geth, even a foot skin cell has some form of consciousness. It just does not have the ability to network to gain intelligence. To build the hardware to run higher intelligence. The brain is that part. And it's sole purpose is to provide the specialization for eventual human adult consciousness. The consciousness which makes us who we are.

If you are alive, you have consciousness. Doesn't matter if you are a single celled organism or a biological god. However, only when the hardware, the intelligence, provides the specialized cells to amplify that does the true capabilities of that consciousness come about. Again, consciousness is a verb. It is basically another word for response to stimuli. Only when the hardware provides does consciousness become that of a human being. And that does not happen before birth. That happens around age 3-4, when children start to ask questions. When they gain the capacity to understand higher ranges of thought, because their Geth... Their brain cells, have gained the network capacity to run thought thoughts on the hardware they have.

The genes can exist without the person. We extract genes all the time. It's how we do DNA tests.

If my Consciousness was uploaded onto a computer I would have the right to exist because, assuming that hardware had the capacity to run me, I have the same essence that is a human. To say I do not deserve life is to take control over me. Doesn't matter if I am a computer of a human made of flesh. It's all just molecules interacting. I am running on a computer.

You claim we need to take the lower limit. That is conception. When the first cell forms that has the potential to become a human adult. You cannot argue this case at all without the potential clause, and for that, you cannot say that the brain is what matters, because the brain is merely the hardware with the potential to become what we are as adults. The potential of that relies on the potential of the first cell to become that brain cell through differentiation and division.

This is not ridiculous at all.


The fact remains that if that thing is going to become as intelligent as a human, it deserves the right to get there. You can't say that about your average computer because without human intervention it will never occur. If that computer was designed to eventually gain the intelligence of a human, then yes, it deserves protection. Because that hardware holds the capacity to gain our intelligence, and it effectively becomes as important as the first cell after conception. in this case conception was when it was turned on.



The hole in your line of thought is the potential of those brain cells to produce a human range of thought. That potential does not exist without the potential of the first cell at conception being allowed to grow. You seem to think that only brain cells are conscious, but that is simply not true. The medical definition of consciousness is this:



1. the state of being conscious.
2. subjective awareness of the aspects of cognitive processing and the content of the mind.
3. the current totality of experience of which an individual or group is aware at any time


Anything alive is concision. it responds to stimuli and is alive. Consciousness is a verb. Therefore, to state what you state you have to accept that even that first cell is conscious to some extent. Because it is responding to the stimuli of what allows it to become a human eventually.

Therefore consciousness does not matter, because then even trees would be protected and we would all die. Genes matter. The fact that something is human.


edit on 12-9-2010 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TokiTheDestroyer
 


Pro LIfe of coarse.

Anti choice when it comes to murdering an innocent child that has not yet been born.

Anti choice to assisted murder.

The only ones that are for abortion are alive



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 




No, it does not. Consciousness it a verb. You need to experience things in order to generate it and copy and create it. Consciousness at birth is indifferent to a snail's consciousness.


Maybe yes, but it is consciousness, no matter how advanced. And while we are at it, I think even animal consciousness should be protected or I would not be consistent in my thinking. Now we just dont have a choice - its either us, or them. But if we ever would have practical technology for growing meat in factories (in sufficient quantities), I would gladly support outlawing killing of conscious animals.

But embryo till 6th month does not have any consciousness, so I have no problem with killing it, its like a plant to me.



Consciousness begins when the brain cells have adapted what they are being told to do to the extent that they begin to show consciousness.


But the stimuli for consciousness to act on do not have to come from outside world, just different part of the neural network itself. Thats how you are conscious in a dream, thats how inherent consciousness in 6th month (indicated by the presence of brain waves) develops.

I have played Mass Effects (very good games, indeed
) but the analogy does not say that individual geth program (brain/foot cell..) posesses ANY consciousness, its like facebook chat. Therefore, brain cells/geth programs can freely be killed/deleted, I would have no problem with it, as long as they together presently do not form consciousness which would be endangered by killing the cells in question.



Like the geth, even a foot skin cell has some form of consciousness.


Geth, or foot/brain cell does not have any consciousness, simple response to stimuli is not consciousness, otherwise facebook chat would be conscious
. Only together they can form one. And only THEN, should they be protected, after the formation of consciousness - because we are protecting consciousness, not the cells. Protecting the mass of cells is just a by product of protecting the consciousness itself. And if there is no consciousness because the cells are not (yet) sufficiently organized, there is no reason to protect them. Even if they have the potential to become conscious, at the moment they are not, and potential is not enough.



If you are alive, you have consciousness. Doesn't matter if you are a single celled organism or a biological god.


By your definition of consciousness:


1. the state of being conscious. 2. subjective awareness of the aspects of cognitive processing and the content of the mind. 3. the current totality of experience of which an individual or group is aware at any time


Single celled organisms, facebook chats, plants, multicellular colonies without neurons, or embryos before presence of brain waves do not satisfy either of the points. But snails, animals, fetuses with brain waves, humans (and hypotetical aliens and conscious robots) do.



Only when the hardware provides does consciousness become that of a human being.


Yes, and that happens around 6th month of pregnancy, altrough its consciousness in its simplest form, but it does not matter.
4th month of pregnancy - ZERO consciousness, 7th month of pregnancy - 100% presence of some form (NO matter how advanced) of consciousness (as evidenced by brain waves). It does not matter that by your definition its not human consciousness. Even non-human consciousness should be protected. But NO consciousness should not, even if the system has human genes in it, or potential to become conscious in the future.



The genes can exist without the person. We extract genes all the time. It's how we do DNA tests.


So then why is it important that human tissue without consciousness (embryo) has human genes in it?



If my Consciousness was uploaded onto a computer I would have the right to exist because, assuming that hardware had the capacity to run me, I have the same essence that is a human.


There you say it - the essence of being a human (or any being worth protecting) is his consciousness. Not genes, or cells without it (embryo), even if they have potential to become one in the future.



You claim we need to take the lower limit. That is conception. When the first cell forms that has the potential to become a human adult. You cannot argue this case at all without the potential clause, and for that, you cannot say that the brain is what matters, because the brain is merely the hardware with the potential to become what we are as adults. The potential of that relies on the potential of the first cell to become that brain cell through differentiation and division.


I am not arguing the potential. Brain (or any system) is either sufficiently complex to be conscious in specific, current point in time (and then it must be protected from now on), or it is not, and then it doesnt have to. There is not any input regarding the future (or potential) of the system in the equation. If it does have primitive consciousness at the moment, then it must be protected even if it stays on the level of snail for the remainder of his life. If it does not have any consciousness, then it doesnt have to be protected, even if it has a potential to become conscious and develop even to the level of biological god in the future.
I claim to take the lower limit of CONSCIOUSNESS, but when there is not any consciousness, there is nothing to take, maybe only potential, which is not enough.




edit on 13-9-2010 by Maslo because: typos



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Ah the neural network. The homo-centralist viewpoint. I do not care about that. It is dependent on the nervous system being the be all and end all of intelligence and dependent on the human viewpoint. It is not objective. I do not deal with subjective matters of multicellular life forms. Stimuli occurs for all living creatures. Just because it isn't powered by nerves and a bio-electrical system, doesn't mean it doesn't count. Cells use something similar within that is not made of nerves, but rather chemical versions of them. We call it cell signalling.

The geth would not agree with your assessment. Again, homo-centralist and subjective.

You have to use the potential clause, you are not going get anywhere in this discussion without it. The potential of an item standing in its own environment to develop into something with human intelligence. That is what gives it rights. Tissue with human dna that is not going to do anything but die does not count. Sperm and egg cells that are literally programmed to die does not count.

The best example I have heard is that when nature knocks down a tree and kills somebody, you can't bring nature to court. When a human does, you can. What is done by human hands to terminate that potential is murder. What is done my nature is not.

Your argument depends on those single celled organisms that specialized into becoming the brain one day becoming as conscious as a human being. Consciousness begins after birth. Until then, even those neurons are doing nothing but copy and pasting. They have no value. They have no worth. Only their potential does. So you are arguing their potential.

Consciousness is a verb. It is what enables intelligence. Therefore consciousness does not matter in this argument, because it is not relevant to the ability of the hardware.

To put it in nerd-speak, if you have the hardware to run a human-level AI it deserves something. But if its running software to have rat AI, that does not discount the fact that it can run the human a human AI.

The hardware is what matters, not the software. being suppressed via software does not discount the hardware.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Maslo
 

Consciousness is a verb. It is what enables intelligence.

Consciousness is a noun
. What were you saying about intelligence? Sorry, just because something has the potential to become something doesn't mean it counts as that. My food has the potential to become fecal matter, I still eat it. Veal has the possibility of growing into a cow and producing more meat, but we eat it. I'm obviously too hungry to argue right now.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





The best example I have heard is that when nature knocks down a tree and kills somebody, you can't bring nature to court. When a human does, you can. What is done by human hands to terminate that potential is murder. What is done my nature is not.


Nature is the murderer, then. It is irrelevant that you cannot punish it, if there was some way to bring it to court, we would do it. The end effect is the same - a murder of conscious entity.




Consciousness begins after birth.


No. Why do you keep repeating this? Consciousness in humans begins long before birth, approximatelly in 6th month. Do you seriously believe that a newborn is not conscious? That is absurd..




Until then, even those neurons are doing nothing but copy and pasting. They have no value. They have no worth. Only their potential does. So you are arguing their potential.


Complex neural network is already established long before birth. Neurons, or stem cells, doing nothing than copying and pasting is what happens during first three months. Thats when they have no value, and can be destroyed.




To put it in nerd-speak, if you have the hardware to run a human-level AI it deserves something. But if its running software to have rat AI, that does not discount the fact that it can run the human a human AI.


This is where I disagree.

I dont think the hardware deserves something. Hardware is not worth protecting at all. Rat AI is questionable, I think it deserves some limited protection, and thats why we have laws against animal abuse.
It is the AI that deserves protection, not the hardware.




The hardware is what matters, not the software. being suppressed via software does not discount the hardware.


Exactly the opposite. Hardware is not worth protecting, software is. We only protect the hardware (human body, brain) because currently we cannot find another way to protect the software (the mind, consciousness). If we find it sometime, we can all live happilly without any hardware in some ascended realm or something, and our bodies can be destroyed



edit on 13-9-2010 by Maslo because: typos



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


As for the geth, here is a quote from Mass effect wiki:




However, since geth do not "die" in any traditional sense (upon the destruction of a geth platform, its programs are simply transmitted to the nearest available platform) and so have no real losses to mourn


As you can see, the geth do not die when their hardware is destroyed. Because it is the software that matters, not the hardware.



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 


That's not intelligence. That's fecal matter. All things have the 100% potential to die, so under your logic all things might as well be put to death. We are dealing with specifics. if things that have the potential to become intelligent don't have the right to exist, than murder is a-o-k up to age 5.


reply to post by Maslo
 


When you breathe you murder conscious entities . you can't pick and chose. That is hypocrisy. Just forget about consciousness all together. All consciousness is is the ability to remain alive. It is more or less the derivative of life. Life over time is consciousness.



No. Why do you keep repeating this? Consciousness in humans begins long before birth, approximatelly in 6th month. Do you seriously believe that a newborn is not conscious? That is absurd..

It's a broad term. If you define it as a response to consciousness, then it begins at conception. if you define it like philosophy, when the mind realizes death and abstract terms, then it begins long after birth. You have to define your terms. You can't just say that when a nerve cell pumps electricity it's consciousness because that's indifferent than a muscle cell doing the same exact thing. Only when networking cells comprehend abstract matters and begin to question them does a creature become consciousness in the philosophical sense. When an organism with a genetic code begins to respond to stimuli, then it has consciousness in the biological sense.



Complex neural network is already established long before birth. Neurons, or stem cells, doing nothing than copying and pasting is what happens during first three months. Thats when they have no value, and can be destroyed.


No, they are not. They are merely there. They are not "established". Again, not until the person begin asking the big questions does it have consciousness. Neural networks are nothing more than electricity recording patterns. Those patterns get recorded and played back, and then the brain modifies them for the specific person's needs. That is all consciousness is. Life over time. That begins at conception for medical terms. philosophically, it begins after birth. A child is just a broken recorder. When the brain has recorded enough patterns to get by in life, it has spare time to run subsidiary processes. These then create a conscious entity.



This is where I disagree. I dont think the hardware deserves something. Hardware is not worth protecting at all. Rat AI is questionable, I think it deserves some limited protection, and thats why we have laws against animal abuse. It is the AI that deserves protection, not the hardware.


We have animal abuse laws because 9/10 times a person abusing animals moves on to humans, not to mention it's simply sick and disgusting to the sane people of the world. It's simply wrong. We don't ask why, it's just a fact. It's wrong to inflict pain for enjoyment. The hardware, once activated, has a right to be protected. This is because it has the ability to become like man. Once off, it is dead. Unless it is a computer that sleeps by turning off. In that case, once broken, it deactivates and is dead. For a human, death is obvious. A dead person has no chance of coming back to life. A new genetic strain in a zygote has 100% chance to become a living human adult. And for that it deserved protection.

Not to bring Mass Effect into the question again, but that Geth recording of it asking if it has a soul. Did it have any less protection and right to live the second before the thought entered its programs? Is the fact that that existence is not current delete it's rights? A second later it will think about it. A second later it will be as man. A second before it is not. The fact remains that it is going to ask that question and become as smart as brain. Why should it be any different for a child? For a fetus? For a zygoat? They are just longer than a second. It's going to ask that question. Does the child deserve more right the second after that question than before?

That is the real question.





Exactly the opposite. Hardware is not worth protecting, software is. We only protect the hardware (human body, brain) because currently we cannot find another way to protect the software (the mind, consciousness). If we find it sometime, we can all live happilly without any hardware in some ascended realm or something, and our bodies can be destroyed


Software can be copied. hardware cannot. It needs to be produced. If you could read the human's mind, you could copy it into a code, than replicate it perfectly into a new body. The body takes effort and energy to make. The copy and pasting of the human's consciousness is very easy. The hardware is what matters. There is a hierarchy. The hardware can exist without the software, the software cannot exist without the hardware. Does the foundation of a sky scrapper nor deserve more protection than it's windows? Is the foundation not more important? After all, the windows can be replaced. If you take out the foundation, everything goes down. The hardware totally deserves more protection that the software. Just like the foundation is more important than the window. it is a hierarchy. Without the base, there is nothing.




As you can see, the geth do not die when their hardware is destroyed. Because it is the software that matters, not the hardware.


We cannot transmit. We have no proof of a heaven to go to that will take care of us. We must deal with physical matters. The software can be copied, the hardware needs to be produced.

To us Legion as an example, does he not cherish his hardware? He doesn't care what happens to his software, he can get beamed out. It is the hardware he has to protect to allow that software to exist. If legion dies, you should hear his words. he certainly worries about his hardware, because he can't save his software.

3:30




edit on 13-9-2010 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)




edit on 13-9-2010 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 




It's a broad term. If you define it as a response to consciousness, then it begins at conception. if you define it like philosophy, when the mind realizes death and abstract terms, then it begins long after birth.


Definition of consciousness:



the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself




the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought


We know when consciousness arise in humans:



26 weeks or 6 months: The fetus 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. The higher functions of the fetal brain turn on for the first time. Some rudimentary brain waves indicating consciousness can be detected. The fetus will probably be able to feel pain for the first time. It has become conscious of its surroundings. The fetus has become a sentient human life for the first time.


I define it as situation when the mind realizes SOMETHING. So your first definition (biological) is too early - automatic responses, either on cellular or vegetative neuronal level, are not conscious. Your second definition (philosophical) is too late, because consciousness does not have to realize some arbitrary complex abstract terms to exist (why?). Just simple feelings or basic concepts ("I feel well", "I dont feel well", I want/dont want something, I observe something (even in a dream - internal, not external world)) are enough.



You can't just say that when a nerve cell pumps electricity it's consciousness because that's indifferent than a muscle cell doing the same exact thing.


We know that waht we perceive as consciousness is located and facilitated by neural networks in higher parts of the brain (telencephalon). So by measuring avtivity in this area, we can exactly find the time when primitive consciousness emerges in fetal development.



Only when networking cells comprehend abstract matters and begin to question them does a creature become consciousness in the philosophical sense. When an organism with a genetic code begins to respond to stimuli, then it has consciousness in the biological sense.


I prefer psychological definition of consciousness. See above.
Even the one you have me earlier is good:



1. the state of being conscious. 2. subjective awareness of the aspects of cognitive processing and the content of the mind. 3. the current totality of experience of which an individual or group is aware at any time


By this definition, the separation line between conscious and uncoscious system is located between biological and philosophical definitions separation lines (uder philosophical, above biological) - single celled organisms like bacteria colonies, or simple vegetative multicellular organisms (embryo) are uncoscious, whereas higher organisms with sufficiently advanced neural networks (or analogous structures, eventually) to meet the above points are conscious (higher animals, fetuses with brain waves in telencephalon, babies, humans..).




To us Legion as an example, does he not cherish his hardware? He doesn't care what happens to his software, he can get beamed out. It is the hardware he has to protect to allow that software to exist. If legion dies, you should hear his words. he certainly worries about his hardware, because he can't save his software.


He clearly worries about his software primarily, as do all geth. Thats why he is trying to beam out. He would not be trying to beam out if the software was not important. Hardware is just another material resource for geth, its the information encoded in their neural networks that defines geth. Just like the information encoded in human neural networks is what defines sentient human being, and our bodies, cells, genome is nothing more than potentialy replaceable hardware.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join