reply to post by Leahn
Correlation doesn't imply causation.
Only when you have possible alternative cause or can rule out the causation by logic. If not, correlation implies causation. In fact, all we can
observe are just correlations.
However, in casual use, the word "imply" loosely means suggests rather than requires. The idea that correlation and causation are connected is
certainly true; where there is causation, there is likely to be correlation. Indeed, correlation is used when inferring causation; the important point
is that such inferences are not always correct because there are other possibilities, as explained later in this article.
Edward Tufte, in a criticism of the brevity of Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, deprecates the use of "is" to relate correlation and causation
(as in "Correlation is not causation"), citing its inaccuracy as incomplete. While it is not the case that correlation is causation, simply
stating their nonequivalence omits information about their relationship. Tufte suggests that the shortest true statement that can be made about
causality and correlation is one of the following:
"Empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality."
"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."
If you were correct, and material brain was all that there is to mind, any other system of equal complexity would exhibit a similar characteristic. As
it is, they do not. This is your evidence that something more is necessary.
How do you know? Do we have a system of similar complexity to compare?
Also, not all complexities are equal, its the way
brain is complex that is important.
My point is that you justified killing unborn babies prior to a certain threshold because they didn't have fully functioning brains, and you used
that to argue that they are not conscious. Do you still defend this idea?
Yes. Brains undeveloped/damaged beyond some level cannot be sentient, or contain mind.
Enough. According to this criteria then, you must be ok with the killing of MCS patients, or people in coma or vegetative states, as they don't meet
your criteria of sentience. Are you?
People in coma still have a mind inside, encoded in the neural network, its just "paused". They can thus recover, and their mind, still existing in
this form, must be protected. If they cannot, then yes, kill them and harvest their organs for others, since they are just empty vessels now, the mind
information is lost.
Fetuses do not have mind at all, not even paused mind, until it develops for the first time.
No. I am implying that if you like utilitarianism because if advances something that Christianity already did two thousand years ago, then
utilitarianism is useless. Why should I move from Christianity to Utilitarianism if I will just keep doing what I already am doing? What good did it
do? None since nothing changed.
Because christian moral system, while often coming to good conclusions, has wrong motivation for them (divine command theory), and thus requires the
existence of a deity, specifically christian god, and other unnecessary baggage to be valid. Utilitarianism requires just sentient beings.
And modern christian moral system sometimes also comes to bad conclusions, such as in case of abortions, cloning, ESC therapy, homosexuals etc..
Utilitarianism is superior in these cases.
No, they weren't. Sorry, but you don't know more about my religion than I do.
All actions have consequences. Pretending they do not exist do not change this fact. If you are incorrect, you just sanctioned the death of 1.2
million human beings, yearly. In fact, you would have actively fought for the right of people to kill 1.2 million human beings yearly. If "sad" is
the emotion that such evokes on you, I fear what kind of atrocity you must support in order to cause you to feel either regret or guilty.
If I had acted according to best available information at the time, and moral judgement. The alternative is not to make moral decisions at all.
There are no moral consequences for allowing life to run its course. People are born naturally and die naturally, and there are no moral
considerations on such events. However, killing people is wrong.
Omission bias logical fallacy + naturalistic fallacy. Just because some course of action is more passive and more natural than the alternative, does
not make it better.