Abortion

Quote from: Soze on August 26, 2009, 11:57:21 AM

What is "us"? The brain?
The brain has to receive input to respond to stimuli.

"Us" is that indefinable thing that makes us conscious of what we are doing. Clearly such a thing exists, for I have an identity in the sense that I am me and nobody else; I experience what I do from my perspective but cannot flit around the Universe outside my body - yet, there is no known physical explanation for what causes the neurons in the brain to create this sensation of being, this feeling of identity.

Why can't the "mind" just be the brain?

Build a robot capable of understanding himself and he will have the sense the he is only him from the perspective of inside his components, seeing through his inorganic eyes. The feeling of identity is the limitation of understanding (software) to the hardware its confined in.

To me, it is life's greatest mystery - and, indeed, the one reason I do not rule out free will entirely, for the explanation for it (if it is ever known) may also allow the possibility of decision on the part of the individual.

You do not rule out freewill, because it allows individual decisions?

When I say we needn't be aware of anything, I don't mean we shouldn't be receiving input, I mean we shouldn't consciously know of it. The data could just be processed as any machine would, and appropriate actions taken. This process does not require a sense of identity, being, consciousness, sentience or awakeness.

Back to the robot. Input goes to the data processing sensors of the brain and the software determines a course of action and acts. Determining the action with respect to sensation is consciousness. A calculator could be said to be conscious of numbers, but it wouldn't understand the concept of numbers or the concept of the calculator without additional comprehensive ability.

Quote from: Soze on August 26, 2009, 11:57:21 AM

This sounds like a distinction between awareness and self awareness which really just depends on the amount of information and context the computer has. If the computer was built to be aware of its own processes so that it might continually evaluate its own processes and decide which ones were optimal to use or even expand upon, that seems like it would be self awareness to me.

Not to me. All that would do is add another few processes on top of the ones already running. At what point does the lump of silicon turn into a sentient being with some sense of identity?

When it can process information with respect to itself. When relevant information regarding actions includes itself.

A calculator is not aware of space or time, so the space it occupies is also unnoticed. Its entire understanding of everything comes down to data it knows how to process but doesn't understand. A robot does recognize it takes up space and has a physical existence. A calculator doesn't know it exists. Self awareness allows for new paradigms of behavior because it adds new elemental variables.

Quote from: Soze on August 26, 2009, 11:50:32 AM

So the morning after pill is not abortion?

I don't know enough about it or what it does to have an opinion on whether or not it is an abortion.

It functions a few ways but I'm thinking how it could prevent the fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus so that it will die rather than grow.

Quote

Also, two cells are just as incapable of sentience. Conscious thought requires a neural network. I can't even imagine all the complexities it would require but to start it would have to store information (perception/memory), organize information and put it in context with other information (conceptualize), and manipulate components of information to come up with new information (comprehension). That alone would take a whole lot of brain cells.

But it's still a human.

An insentient human cell or cluster of cells with potential to grow into a functioning sentient human.
Why does the human part matter? An insentient human is just like insentient grass, except for genetic differences.

Quote

A legal document of a will is prepared in advanced for when he loses his ability to dictate distribution of property. A king can set up conditions for his 'retirement' from power, but he no longer has the privileges he had when he retires. A dead man cannot vote, he cannot sue, he cannot do anything after death, because he lost his consciousness.

Yes, this is true.

Quote

Beautiful. You've begun respecting life for its capacity to perceive and feel.

Was this sarcastic?

Not at all. It is my position that consciousness/sentience/perception is the basis for what we bestow rights.
We don't give rocks, grass, or flesh rights.

Quote

A full grown monkey can run, walk, reason, feel pain, feel happiness, prioritize, observe and comprehend it's surroundings, etc. An embryo cannot. A cluster of cells young enough to be incapable of thought, is nothing but genetically human, and technically alive. Lettuce or fungus is alive, but not respected. You already admitted genetics aren't a deciding factor.

How is another animal capable of perception and action more dissimilar from a human than a cluster of cells incapable of both perception and action?

By the very fact that he is not a human... he is a monkey. Now, monkeys are very intelligent, and in fact have societies with political structures just like humans do; I recognize that. But by the very fact that they are not human simply by definition, he cannot be more similar to a human than a human.

You do not see the differences between a human and an embryo?

Quote from: W on August 26, 2009, 12:20:31 PM

Quote

Also, two cells are just as incapable of sentience. Conscious thought requires a neural network. I can't even imagine all the complexities it would require but to start it would have to store information (perception/memory), organize information and put it in context with other information (conceptualize), and manipulate components of information to come up with new information (comprehension). That alone would take a whole lot of brain cells.

But it's still a human.

An insentient human cell or cluster of cells with potential to grow into a functioning sentient human.
Why does the human part matter? An insentient human is just like insentient grass, except for genetic differences.

Grass will never become sentient, but the human will develop into a fully sentient being, if he isn't already one, which I'm not entirely convinced that he's not.

Quote from: W on August 26, 2009, 12:20:31 PM

Quote

A legal document of a will is prepared in advanced for when he loses his ability to dictate distribution of property. A king can set up conditions for his 'retirement' from power, but he no longer has the privileges he had when he retires. A dead man cannot vote, he cannot sue, he cannot do anything after death, because he lost his consciousness.

Yes, this is true.

Quote

Beautiful. You've begun respecting life for its capacity to perceive and feel.

Was this sarcastic?

Not at all. It is my position that consciousness/sentience/perception is the basis for what we bestow rights.
We don't give rocks, grass, or flesh rights.

Okay.

Quote from: W on August 26, 2009, 12:20:31 PM

Quote

A full grown monkey can run, walk, reason, feel pain, feel happiness, prioritize, observe and comprehend it's surroundings, etc. An embryo cannot. A cluster of cells young enough to be incapable of thought, is nothing but genetically human, and technically alive. Lettuce or fungus is alive, but not respected. You already admitted genetics aren't a deciding factor.

How is another animal capable of perception and action more dissimilar from a human than a cluster of cells incapable of both perception and action?

By the very fact that he is not a human... he is a monkey. Now, monkeys are very intelligent, and in fact have societies with political structures just like humans do; I recognize that. But by the very fact that they are not human simply by definition, he cannot be more similar to a human than a human.

You do not see the differences between a human and an embryo?

That embryo is a human by the law of biogenesis.

Why can't the "mind" just be the brain?

Build a robot capable of understanding himself and he will have the sense the he is only him from the perspective of inside his components, seeing through his inorganic eyes. The feeling of identity is the limitation of understanding (software) to the hardware its confined in.

How do you know? What is it about certain ordered collections of matter that creates a sense of self-awareness?

You do not rule out freewill, because it allows individual decisions?

Sorry, I didn't express that very well. By "the explanation for it" I meant the explanation for self-awareness.

Back to the robot. Input goes to the data processing sensors of the brain and the software determines a course of action and acts. Determining the action with respect to sensation is consciousness. A calculator could be said to be conscious of numbers, but it wouldn't understand the concept of numbers or the concept of the calculator without additional comprehensive ability.

I don't think a calculator is conscious of anything, at least not in the sense that we are conscious of ourselves. A calculator just has electrical charge moving around inside it, and it's an enormous leap from saying that something contains moving charges to saying that it is actually aware of something.

When it can process information with respect to itself. When relevant information regarding actions includes itself.

But why does that particular information generate self-awareness? It's still just moving electrical charges; the fact that those charges represent something when interpreted a certain way shouldn't make any difference as to whether the machine is conscious or not.

A calculator is not aware of space or time, so the space it occupies is also unnoticed. Its entire understanding of everything comes down to data it knows how to process but doesn't understand. A robot does recognize it takes up space and has a physical existence. A calculator doesn't know it exists. Self awareness allows for new paradigms of behavior because it adds new elemental variables.

A robot does recognise that it has physical existence, but that's not what I'm talking about when I speak of consciousness. What I am talking about is the feeling of being awake, of being aware of things. Being able to process information and actually being conscious of that information are two very different things - the subconscious mind is an excellent way of illustrating this.

Quote from: Soze on August 26, 2009, 12:21:45 PM

Why can't the "mind" just be the brain?

Build a robot capable of understanding himself and he will have the sense the he is only him from the perspective of inside his components, seeing through his inorganic eyes. The feeling of identity is the limitation of understanding (software) to the hardware its confined in.

How do you know? What is it about certain ordered collections of matter that creates a sense of self-awareness?

I see no reason why I shouldn't think that software in hardware that knows the truth that it is software in hardware, wouldn't be self aware. What more to self awareness is there then knowing about one's own physical existence?

Quote from: Soze on August 26, 2009, 12:21:45 PM

You do not rule out freewill, because it allows individual decisions?

Sorry, I didn't express that very well. By "the explanation for it" I meant the explanation for self-awareness.

Why would either freewill or self awareness require the other?

Quote from: Soze on August 26, 2009, 12:21:45 PM

Back to the robot. Input goes to the data processing sensors of the brain and the software determines a course of action and acts. Determining the action with respect to sensation is consciousness. A calculator could be said to be conscious of numbers, but it wouldn't understand the concept of numbers or the concept of the calculator without additional comprehensive ability.

I don't think a calculator is conscious of anything, at least not in the sense that we are conscious of ourselves. A calculator just has electrical charge moving around inside it, and it's an enormous leap from saying that something contains moving charges to saying that it is actually aware of something.

When I say aware of things, I'm talking about what input it is built to be sensitive to and act upon even if it doesn't have proper context.

Quote from: Soze on August 26, 2009, 12:21:45 PM

When it can process information with respect to itself. When relevant information regarding actions includes itself.

But why does that particular information generate self-awareness? It's still just moving electrical charges; the fact that those charges represent something when interpreted a certain way shouldn't make any difference as to whether the machine is conscious or not.

I consider awareness to be a continuum, and only being aware of electrical signals is very limited consciousness. If it understood what they were, what they meant, etc. it would be more conscious because it can give it context. We humans just have more information about what input we take in and that our minds are processing the data. We the software, know about the existence and basic processes of the software. A calculator doesn't have any context to its input. Similarly, it doesn't have any knowledge of itself, and doesn't have any sensory devices or neural pathways to become aware of itself.

Quote from: Soze on August 26, 2009, 12:21:45 PM

A calculator is not aware of space or time, so the space it occupies is also unnoticed. Its entire understanding of everything comes down to data it knows how to process but doesn't understand. A robot does recognize it takes up space and has a physical existence. A calculator doesn't know it exists. Self awareness allows for new paradigms of behavior because it adds new elemental variables.

A robot does recognize that it has physical existence, but that's not what I'm talking about when I speak of consciousness. What I am talking about is the feeling of being awake, of being aware of things.

Does a robot not have the sensation of awareness?

Being able to process information and actually being conscious of that information are two very different things - the subconscious mind is an excellent way of illustrating this.

I'd say that being consciousness of information is having a better understanding of the information and its context.
Subconscious processing is just lower levels of processing that the mind software found in the processes isn't built to interpret or explore itself. Same way a calculator can process data without having or needing knowledge that it is processing. If it could see its own background processes, it would be much more self aware.

Our brains can only handle self thought so much considering the limits of efficiency on the brain. If every neuron on its own was able to think about a single neuron, then no processes of the brain would ever be hidden.

Also, by dedicating processes of the brain that are built specifically for other functions by not thinking about those things in the here and now, we should be able to reach into our subconscious thoughts. Hypnotism does just that.

I see no reason why I shouldn't think that software in hardware that knows the truth that it is software in hardware, wouldn't be self aware. What more to self awareness is there then knowing about one's own physical existence?

That's the very question I am saying we cannot answer. I see no reason why consciousness should follow directly from processing information about oneself.

Why would either freewill or self awareness require the other?

I didn't say they would, all I said was that once we find an explanation for self-awareness, there's a chance it may also allow for free will, which is why I don't rule it out entirely even though I consider it unlikely.

When I say aware of things, I'm talking about what input it is built to be sensitive to and act upon even if it doesn't have proper context.

Well, I suppose that is awareness, but it's not the sort of awareness I am expressing bewilderment towards. When I say that something is aware, in the context of this discussion, I mean that it is actually conscious of what it is doing, as opposed to the stimuli simply triggering responses.

I consider awareness to be a continuum, and only being aware of electrical signals is very limited consciousness. If it understood what they were, what they meant, etc. it would be more conscious because it can give it context. We humans just have more information about what input we take in and that our minds are processing the data. We the software, know about the existence and basic processes of the software. A calculator doesn't have any context to its input. Similarly, it doesn't have any knowledge of itself, and doesn't have any sensory devices or neural pathways to become aware of itself.

I think we are talking about different things. I don't see how consciousness (which is the sense in which I am speaking of "awareness") can be a continuum; either we are conscious of our surroundings, or we are not. Of course, there are certain states - such as sleep - in which we are aware of less than at other times, but we are still sentient beings all the while. As far as I'm concerned, the amount of sensory input processed and the phenomenon of sentience need not correlate. You could, at least in theory, have an isolated system which is sentient - conversely, you could have a machine hooked up to every kind of input device imaginable that does nothing but relay the data to where it needs to go.

Does a robot not have the sensation of awareness?

We have no way of knowing.

I'd say that being consciousness of information is having a better understanding of the information and its context.
Subconscious processing is just lower levels of processing that the mind software found in the processes isn't built to interpret or explore itself. Same way a calculator can process data without having or needing knowledge that it is processing. If it could see its own background processes, it would be much more self aware.

Our brains can only handle self thought so much considering the limits of efficiency on the brain. If every neuron on its own was able to think about a single neuron, then no processes of the brain would ever be hidden.

Also, by dedicating processes of the brain that are built specifically for other functions by not thinking about those things in the here and now, we should be able to reach into our subconscious thoughts. Hypnotism does just that.

Yes, but the point is that we are not necessarily aware of every piece of information we process, and therefore sentience is not a direct consequence of information processing. However, I do find the part of your post that I bolded very interesting, and will give that matter some thought.

@ soze. how much different reactions does there have to be for there to be an awareness. if there is a scientific reason there should be a number. do you need a system to have 1000 parts then bam it has a awareness. also a new property shouldn't just pop out when you add more of the same together. that would be like if I double the amount of steel I have it all of the sudden now is yellow. although this argument does not prove free will it does imply that there is more then just action reaction in the brain.
I know this might not be that understandable but it is the clearest I can be.

I posted something last week, that ended this debate and made everyone on both sides completely happy.  Alas, it was lost in the attack and now I cant remember it.  Oh yeah,  I solved world peace too.  Although, I'm kind of glad that one got lost.  I like my job.

Yeah that was a great post you made Wardogg, pity we can't remember it

I posted something last week, that ended this debate and made everyone on both sides completely happy.  Alas, it was lost in the attack and now I cant remember it.  Oh yeah,  I solved world peace too.  Although, I'm kind of glad that one got lost.  I like my job.

true, a world at peace leaves marines with no one to kill.

You could all get nicer jobs like rescuing animals who have their heads stuck in jars

can we kill them afterwards?

You could all get nicer jobs like rescuing animals who have their heads stuck in jars

Or he could push them further in for the worlds cutest souvenir.

You could all get nicer jobs like rescuing animals who have their heads stuck in jars

Who knew it was an actual job?  Stupid cats.

That belongs in cute animals thread.

I posted something last week, that ended this debate and made everyone on both sides completely happy.

I actually laughed out loud.

I think the anti-abortionists have all left FES.

I think the anti-abortionists have all left FES.

Bull, we just get sick of stating our same points over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Not our fault you people ignore them.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 11, 2009, 03:02:46 PM

I think the anti-abortionists have all left FES.

Bull, we just get sick of stating our same points over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Not our fault you people ignore them.

We ignore them because you keep stating them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Make some valid ones or at least fresh fallacies.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 11, 2009, 03:02:46 PM

I think the anti-abortionists have all left FES.

Bull, we just get sick of stating our same points over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Not our fault you people ignore them.

You have a problem making coherent points, so you're easily ignored.  I'm not trying to be mean to you or troll you, I just wish you'd learn a little before you jump into a debate.  

Quote from: Christianrocker90 on October 11, 2009, 03:05:26 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 11, 2009, 03:02:46 PM

I think the anti-abortionists have all left FES.

Bull, we just get sick of stating our same points over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Not our fault you people ignore them.

You have a problem making coherent points, so you're easily ignored.  I'm not trying to be mean to you or troll you, I just wish you'd learn a little before you jump into a debate.  

You just can't leave it at personal religious choice can you?

If you left the decision to personal religious choice, then abortion would have to be legal, to give people that choice. I thought you wanted to ban abortion?

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 11, 2009, 03:18:58 PM

Quote from: Christianrocker90 on October 11, 2009, 03:05:26 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 11, 2009, 03:02:46 PM

I think the anti-abortionists have all left FES.

Bull, we just get sick of stating our same points over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Not our fault you people ignore them.

You have a problem making coherent points, so you're easily ignored.  I'm not trying to be mean to you or troll you, I just wish you'd learn a little before you jump into a debate.  

You just can't leave it at personal religious choice can you?

Um are you saying it is a religious choice to make incoherent points? This is what she was talking about. Think before you speak.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 11, 2009, 03:18:58 PM

Quote from: Christianrocker90 on October 11, 2009, 03:05:26 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 11, 2009, 03:02:46 PM

I think the anti-abortionists have all left FES.

Bull, we just get sick of stating our same points over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Not our fault you people ignore them.

You have a problem making coherent points, so you're easily ignored.  I'm not trying to be mean to you or troll you, I just wish you'd learn a little before you jump into a debate.  

You just can't leave it at personal religious choice can you?

I can't?

You just can't leave it at personal religious choice can you?

To answer your question (Terror pretty much hit on this already).. If a woman becomes pregnant and the question of abortion is raised for whatever reason, and the woman decides not to have one because it is against her personal religious beliefs, then I am 100% OK with that.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 11, 2009, 03:18:58 PM

Quote from: Christianrocker90 on October 11, 2009, 03:05:26 PM

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on October 11, 2009, 03:02:46 PM

I think the anti-abortionists have all left FES.

Bull, we just get sick of stating our same points over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Not our fault you people ignore them.

You have a problem making coherent points, so you're easily ignored.  I'm not trying to be mean to you or troll you, I just wish you'd learn a little before you jump into a debate. 

You just can't leave it at personal religious choice can you?

So your argument is basically my "church told me it's bad so it's bad"?

Killing or being killed is, in itself, not bad or good only its purpose could be.

So when, in a country, people have agreed/accepted that their government in some bad situations can send some of their beloved persons to join a war in which they should kill and some of them would likely die, only their government should also decide when an abortion is allowed or not. It is as simple as this.

May I add that in the past, the strongest Church in a country was practically playing the government role too. So I am not surprised that in our days many still follow the instructions of their Church.

On the other hand, I personally didn't face the abortion situation, because as Jesus lived (at least as it was written in the NT) I didn't/don't need to express my love to any other by sex. And also I don't feel, it is good for me to 'seriously' oppose anyone in what he/she decides to do in his/her life... based on any other's instructions (Family, State or Church).