Atheism

  • 472 Replies
  • 56061 Views
*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Atheism
« Reply #390 on: June 04, 2016, 01:04:35 AM »
Animal rights? Animals have the right to become tasty food products. Yum, tasty tasty meat!!!  :-*
And what if they were dogs? Would you care then? And, remember, pigs are way smarter than dogs.

Haven't seen his signature?

*

Symptom

  • 2294
  • Bash The Fash
Re: Atheism
« Reply #391 on: June 04, 2016, 08:11:32 PM »
Animal rights? Animals have the right to become tasty food products. Yum, tasty tasty meat!!!  :-*
And what if they were dogs? Would you care then? And, remember, pigs are way smarter than dogs.

If I traveled to a country where dogs are eaten, and I was offered a dish with dog meat? I would have no problem eating it.

And you don't have to tell me that pigs are smart, I am a farm worker. So I'm pretty sure I have interacted with pigs much more than you have.
Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism

*

FlatEarthDenial

  • 303
  • FE is anti-science.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #392 on: June 04, 2016, 11:31:39 PM »
Animal rights? Animals have the right to become tasty food products. Yum, tasty tasty meat!!!  :-*
And what if they were dogs? Would you care then? And, remember, pigs are way smarter than dogs.

If I traveled to a country where dogs are eaten, and I was offered a dish with dog meat? I would have no problem eating it.

And you don't have to tell me that pigs are smart, I am a farm worker. So I'm pretty sure I have interacted with pigs much more than you have.
Great that you don't deny that animals you eat are smart! So, have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Do you have any idea what's happening there?
A former Flat Earther.
This is my story, which I'd encourage every Flat Earther to read:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67051.0

*

Symptom

  • 2294
  • Bash The Fash
Re: Atheism
« Reply #393 on: June 07, 2016, 05:11:08 PM »
Animal rights? Animals have the right to become tasty food products. Yum, tasty tasty meat!!!  :-*
And what if they were dogs? Would you care then? And, remember, pigs are way smarter than dogs.

If I traveled to a country where dogs are eaten, and I was offered a dish with dog meat? I would have no problem eating it.

And you don't have to tell me that pigs are smart, I am a farm worker. So I'm pretty sure I have interacted with pigs much more than you have.
Great that you don't deny that animals you eat are smart! So, have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Do you have any idea what's happening there?

Yes I have. And I've even slaughtered animals myself that I've had a "personal relationship" with, with my own two hands, a bolt gun, and a sharp knife. Trust me, when it comes to this kind of of stuff, you have nothing to tell me that I haven't already had first-hand experience with. And still, I'm not a "holier than thou" veggie. Imagine that.
Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism

*

FlatEarthDenial

  • 303
  • FE is anti-science.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #394 on: June 08, 2016, 12:40:58 AM »
Animal rights? Animals have the right to become tasty food products. Yum, tasty tasty meat!!!  :-*
And what if they were dogs? Would you care then? And, remember, pigs are way smarter than dogs.

If I traveled to a country where dogs are eaten, and I was offered a dish with dog meat? I would have no problem eating it.

And you don't have to tell me that pigs are smart, I am a farm worker. So I'm pretty sure I have interacted with pigs much more than you have.
Great that you don't deny that animals you eat are smart! So, have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Do you have any idea what's happening there?

Yes I have. And I've even slaughtered animals myself that I've had a "personal relationship" with, with my own two hands, a bolt gun, and a sharp knife. Trust me, when it comes to this kind of of stuff, you have nothing to tell me that I haven't already had first-hand experience with. And still, I'm not a "holier than thou" veggie. Imagine that.
It's not hard to imagine. What's hard to imagine is that you think that being able to do such things somehow justifies them.

And, given the responses I got in the vegan debate, they aren't painting some unrealistic picture!
A former Flat Earther.
This is my story, which I'd encourage every Flat Earther to read:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67051.0

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Atheism
« Reply #395 on: June 08, 2016, 02:45:29 AM »
In a thread about Atheism, you bring a video that has mostly bad religious (creationist?) arguments for eating meat. Strange.

We don't eat people because A) - It spreads disease and B) - Is not sustainable.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

FlatEarthDenial

  • 303
  • FE is anti-science.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #396 on: June 08, 2016, 12:30:14 PM »
Quote
In a thread about Atheism, you bring a video that has mostly bad religious (creationist?) arguments for eating meat. Strange.
Most of them aren't even religious. These are arguments meat-eaters bring up, as you can see in the vegan debate, just put in a different context (to show that they don't make any sense).
Quote
We don't eat people because A) - It spreads disease and B) - Is not sustainable.
How do you know that eating animals is any better? It also spreads disease, the most well-known being salmonella. It is going to get even worse, because factory farming is the greatest cause of the antibiotic resistance. Using animals for food, at least the way it's done today, is also environmentally unsustainable.
A former Flat Earther.
This is my story, which I'd encourage every Flat Earther to read:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67051.0

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Atheism
« Reply #397 on: June 08, 2016, 12:40:10 PM »
I completely agree. Farming practices should improve. So should many other things. But it does not have to be the one or the other. Absolutes are silly.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

FlatEarthDenial

  • 303
  • FE is anti-science.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #398 on: June 08, 2016, 01:02:09 PM »
I completely agree. Farming practices should improve. So should many other things. But it does not have to be the one or the other. Absolutes are silly.
Sometimes they aren't silly. Is a complete lack of slavery silly?
A former Flat Earther.
This is my story, which I'd encourage every Flat Earther to read:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67051.0

Re: Atheism
« Reply #399 on: June 08, 2016, 01:11:04 PM »
So, have you ever been to a slaughterhouse? Do you have any idea what's happening there?
I suspect the clue is in the title.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Atheism
« Reply #400 on: June 08, 2016, 01:15:08 PM »
Touche. Although I can argue that slavery never did go away, and never will.

Animals will never have the same rights as people because they don't have the capability to fight for them. People will fight for animal rights, but even those people will be expressing their moral values to the animals. Not the animals values. If an animal can express it's values you would probably be less impressed with animals.

Also, when is it okay to kill an animal? Where is the line? Mammal, bird, reptile, worm, bacteria, plant? Nature does not have a line, so where do you draw yours?

This is a moral value argument, not a absolute argument. Hence my previous statement.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

FlatEarthDenial

  • 303
  • FE is anti-science.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #401 on: June 09, 2016, 02:01:06 AM »
Quote
People will fight for animal rights, but even those people will be expressing their moral values to the animals. Not the animals values.
So, do you consider animal psychology to be a pseudoscience?
Quote
Also, when is it okay to kill an animal?
Perhaps only if you have to choose between a human life and an animal life.
Quote
Where is the line? Mammal, bird, reptile, worm, bacteria, plant? Nature does not have a line, so where do you draw yours?
LOL! Too bad they didn't put that "plants are also alive" argument in the video (as if it justified killing humans). Well, animal rights advocates tend to stress the word "sentient" a lot, so I suppose the sentience could be the line.
A former Flat Earther.
This is my story, which I'd encourage every Flat Earther to read:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67051.0

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Atheism
« Reply #402 on: June 09, 2016, 02:16:52 AM »
A lot of people are not sentient due to brain damage. babies do not identify self till quite some time. . .   Does that make them good to eat?
 But even sentience is a line that was drawn by people from a human perspective, it's again a human line. Nature does not care.

And animal psychology won't tell you what they find moral or good. They can only describe behaviour. They can't tell you if the cat feels morally conflicted for eating the mouse.

 This is all a moral argument. Not that I am against moral arguments at all. I just understand that moral arguments are self perspective arguments. And different people have different perspectives.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

FalseProphet

  • 3696
  • Life is just a tale
Re: Atheism
« Reply #403 on: June 09, 2016, 03:37:38 AM »
I sometimes feel pity for people's pets for the way they are treated. Like birds in a cage. Or even cats spending a whole bored life in an apartement. Better for them being killed and eaten.

Re: Atheism
« Reply #404 on: June 09, 2016, 04:43:37 AM »
Well, animal rights advocates tend to stress the word "sentient" a lot, so I suppose the sentience could be the line.
Most people draw the line at the same species.

Which animals are sentient?  Presumably I can still kill flies?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

FlatEarthDenial

  • 303
  • FE is anti-science.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #405 on: June 09, 2016, 01:07:37 PM »
Quote
A lot of people are not sentient due to brain damage.
If a person is in coma and it's very unlikely it will ever become conscious again, it's good to kill it.
Quote
babies do not identify self till quite some time. . .
Doesn't mean they aren't sentient.
Quote
Does that make them good to eat?
No, and for the same reason not every plant is good to be eaten.
Quote
But even sentience is a line that was drawn by people from a human perspective, it's again a human line. Nature does not care.
I am not sure. Sentient beings, with maybe few exceptions (suicides), value their own life. That's not just a human perspective.
Quote
And animal psychology won't tell you what they find moral or good. They can only describe behaviour. They can't tell you if the cat feels morally conflicted for eating the mouse.
You know that psychology also studies the motivations behind the behaviors, right?
Quote
This is all a moral argument. Not that I am against moral arguments at all. I just understand that moral arguments are self perspective arguments. And different people have different perspectives.
Look, I don't care if it would be possible for us to eat meat without causing suffering in some imaginary situation. It's not possible, and it probably won't be possible any time soon (though I admit I am terrible at predicting the future). I am not doing that, and I am going to criticize people who do.
Quote
Better for them being killed and eaten.
Killing an animal takes away all the suffering from their lives, but it also takes away all the pleasures from their lives. Do you think it's right to kill a slave to relieve it of suffering?
Quote
Which animals are sentient?
It's very hard to tell now. The vast majority of scientists agree that all the birds, all the mammals and octopuses are sentient. There are also many studies showing that fishes, or even insects, are sentient, though I have to admit I haven't looked at the other side (if there is one).
A former Flat Earther.
This is my story, which I'd encourage every Flat Earther to read:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67051.0

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Atheism
« Reply #406 on: June 10, 2016, 02:13:31 AM »
There's a thread already on veganism. Nevertheless,

The vast majority of scientists agree that all the birds, all the mammals and octopuses are sentient. There are also many studies showing that fishes, or even insects, are sentient, though I have to admit I haven't looked at the other side (if there is one).

Citation needed.
In any case, sentience is part, but not the whole, of intelligence (I actually think that it might be possible for something to be inteligent, yet not sentient. A hivemind would be an example). Consciousness is much more important, and all animals that have been proven to have it to a high degree are animals which are not eaten by western society. Dogs aren't one of them, by the way.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

FlatEarthDenial

  • 303
  • FE is anti-science.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #407 on: June 10, 2016, 12:45:49 PM »
There's a thread already on veganism. Nevertheless,

The vast majority of scientists agree that all the birds, all the mammals and octopuses are sentient. There are also many studies showing that fishes, or even insects, are sentient, though I have to admit I haven't looked at the other side (if there is one).

Citation needed.
In any case, sentience is part, but not the whole, of intelligence (I actually think that it might be possible for something to be inteligent, yet not sentient. A hivemind would be an example). Consciousness is much more important, and all animals that have been proven to have it to a high degree are animals which are not eaten by western society. Dogs aren't one of them, by the way.
Don't you think that scientists who made the Cambridge declaration on consciousness knew way better than you do?
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
What you are saying makes no sense to me, and it probably wouldn't make much sense to a scientist either.
In my opinion, every who thinks animals aren't sentient is delusional. Why would they sleep if they didn't feel tiredness? Why would they drink if they didn't feel thirst? Why would they eat if they didn't feel hunger? Why would they try to escape if they didn't feel fear and pain? Why would they play if they didn't feel happiness?
A former Flat Earther.
This is my story, which I'd encourage every Flat Earther to read:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67051.0

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Atheism
« Reply #408 on: June 10, 2016, 08:07:54 PM »
There's a thread already on veganism. Nevertheless,

The vast majority of scientists agree that all the birds, all the mammals and octopuses are sentient. There are also many studies showing that fishes, or even insects, are sentient, though I have to admit I haven't looked at the other side (if there is one).

Citation needed.
In any case, sentience is part, but not the whole, of intelligence (I actually think that it might be possible for something to be inteligent, yet not sentient. A hivemind would be an example). Consciousness is much more important, and all animals that have been proven to have it to a high degree are animals which are not eaten by western society. Dogs aren't one of them, by the way.
Don't you think that scientists who made the Cambridge declaration on consciousness knew way better than you do?
Asuming your interpretation of that document is correct (which I cant check at the moment, from my phone), aparently no. Sentience, self-consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness, etc. are all different terms, and are independent of one and other ( to a point).

Quote
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
What you are saying makes no sense to me,
I understand. Explain your confusion and I'll give you my best explanation.

Quote
and it probably wouldn't make much sense to a scientist either.
I beg to differ, but in any case, a scientist's opinion on this is mostly irrelevant, since those terms are epistemological, not empirical.

Quote
In my opinion, every who thinks animals aren't sentient is delusional. Why would they sleep if they didn't feel tiredness? Why would they drink if they didn't feel thirst? Why would they eat if they didn't feel hunger? Why would they try to escape if they didn't feel fear and pain? Why would they play if they didn't feel happiness?

I can build a robot that avoids light. Why would it avoid light if it didnt felt fear? And once again: sentience is not intelligence, and I feel no moral quarrel with eating sentient beings, as long as suffering is minimized.
And just so you know, plants, all of them (that I know of) are sentient in the sense you are extending the word to mean.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

FlatEarthDenial

  • 303
  • FE is anti-science.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #409 on: June 11, 2016, 02:20:20 AM »
Quote
Sentience, self-consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness, etc. are all different terms, and are independent of one and other ( to a point).
Consciousness implies sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience and to feel, wakefulness, sense of selfhood, and the mind. Have you even read about consciousness on Wikipedia before making such meaningless and baseless assertions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Quote
I beg to differ, but in any case, a scientist's opinion on this is mostly irrelevant, since those terms are epistemological, not empirical.
Maybe, but you can empirically study them. That's what neuroscience does. And you also empirically measure knowledge when you make an exam in school.
Quote
I can build a robot that avoids light. Why would it avoid light if it didnt felt fear?
First of all, nobody has ever demonstrated that robots can behave like sentient animals. Not even close. That only exists in science fiction. Real robots can't even walk like animals, yet alone do something more complicated. Secondly, even if they did, that wouldn't mean they are conscious. Ever heard of the Chinese room thought experiment?
Quote
I feel no moral quarrel with eating sentient beings, as long as suffering is minimized.
And why do you think it is?
Quote
And just so you know, plants, all of them (that I know of) are sentient in the sense you are extending the word to mean.
First of all, it takes much more plants to feel a meat-eater than to feed a vegetarian, because most of the plants we grow go to the farmed animals to eat.
Secondly, the claims of plant sentience are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. They are nonsense, they are like saying that in CERN there is a machine that ionizes thoughts into someone's coffee. Everyone who knows anything about the subject knows that's not a possibility.
Yes, plants do react to light, water and chemicals in the ground, but the perception doesn't occur. A perception would require a brain. If you claim there is a perception, determine the absolute and differential limen of it. Determine the types of adaptations of it. Prove that they are able to recognize and locate things around themselves. And good luck with having your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal!
« Last Edit: June 11, 2016, 02:51:42 AM by FlatEarthDenial »
A former Flat Earther.
This is my story, which I'd encourage every Flat Earther to read:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67051.0

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Atheism
« Reply #410 on: June 11, 2016, 08:56:04 AM »
Quote
Sentience, self-consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness, etc. are all different terms, and are independent of one and other ( to a point).
Consciousness implies sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience and to feel, wakefulness, sense of selfhood, and the mind. Have you even read about consciousness on Wikipedia before making such meaningless and baseless assertions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Consciousness implies sentience, but sentience does not imply consciousness. Have you read what implies mean before making such meaningless and baseless assertions?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional

Quote
Quote
I beg to differ, but in any case, a scientist's opinion on this is mostly irrelevant, since those terms are epistemological, not empirical.
Maybe, but you can empirically study them. That's what neuroscience does. And you also empirically measure knowledge when you make an exam in school.
I've never said otherwise. Most life that I can think of is sentient to the point you are using the word. Knowledge does not require intelligence.

Quote
Quote
I can build a robot that avoids light. Why would it avoid light if it didnt felt fear?
First of all, nobody has ever demonstrated that robots can behave like sentient animals.
Now you are moving the goalpost from sentient being to sentient animals. You are begging the question. You have to prove why is being a sentient animal diferent from being a sentient plant in terms of sentience.

Quote
Not even close. That only exists in science fiction.
I beg to differ, but whatever

Quote
Real robots can't even walk like animals, yet alone do something more complicated.
That's not true, since movement is unconsciously wired. Nor relevant, since machines can use wheels and treads, which are much more efficient means of transportation. In any case, here's artificial animaloid movement. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
And lets not get into the world of Boids and swarm intelligence.
In any case, that's not important since we were talking about intelligence, not movement.

Quote
Secondly, even if they did, that wouldn't mean they are conscious. Ever heard of the Chinese room thought experiment?
The chinese room thought experiment proves that, empirically, intelligence is not special. A mouse can be trained to be the Chinese for that experiment. Does that mean the Mouse is intelligent? Or that it isnt? External experiments of capability are useless for intelligence testing. Nowadays, intelligence is defined mostly in terms of both capabilities, and learning process. In that sense, Artificial Neural Networks are a primitive form of "true" artificial intelligence. If you don't like the idea that a machine can become intelligent without aide, you can always enter the world of Symbolic intelligence. I warn you, though. Abandon all sanity thou who shalt study it.

Quote
Quote
I feel no moral quarrel with eating sentient beings, as long as suffering is minimized.
And why do you think it is?
Because plants are sentient too. Why do you feel no moral quarrel with eating plants? Why are you a MURDERER?

Quote
Quote
And just so you know, plants, all of them (that I know of) are sentient in the sense you are extending the word to mean.
First of all, it takes much more plants to feel a meat-eater than to feed a vegetarian, because most of the plants we grow go to the farmed animals to eat.
It takes roughly the same amount, ignoring animal activity losses. Animals act as energy converters, in that they take energy we cannot use, transforming it into energy we can use. Thanks to this process, we can feed much more people than we could by vegetarian diets. Unless you want to erradicate grass fields from the planet. Someone should run the numbers on that. I know that without fertilization, the entire surface of the earth could support 1 billion people. I don't know how much people could be fed without meat (ignoring medical disadvantages of vegan alimentation)

Quote
Secondly, the claims of plant sentience are considered pseudoscience by the scientific community.
Too bad, I can prove it to you. " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Again, you are confusing sentience and intelligence. Plants are sentient, not self-aware. I don't eat self-aware beings.

Quote
They are nonsense, they are like saying that in CERN there is a machine that ionizes thoughts into someone's coffee. Everyone who knows anything about the subject knows that's not a possibility.
Yes, plants do react to light, water and chemicals in the ground, but the perception doesn't occur. A perception would require a brain.
Prove it. You seem to be like one of those people who say that animals obviously aren't intelligent because they don't talk. Perceptions do not require a brain, just a processor. Plants have processor systems.

Quote
If you claim there is a perception, determine the absolute and differential limen of it.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-185X.1979.tb00870.x/abstract
Hell, they can even be drugged
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031938472900662

Quote
Determine the types of adaptations of it.
What do you mean? The adaptation provides protection to the plant from water, excesive sunlight, etc. Is this what you mean? I'm not a biologist, I'm simply quoting the expert's opinion.

Quote
Prove that they are able to recognize and locate things around themselves.
That's not required for sentience. A comatose human isn't able to do that, yet it's sentient, on your definition.

Quote
And good luck with having your paper published in a peer-reviewed journal!
I just linked you two papers published on respected, peer-reviewed journals. You can find sensibility data on Mimosa's fast plant response everywhere. You can even see the effects of drugs on its sensitivity. Just as some people dismiss animals as inferior, since they can't talk, you seem to discriminate against plants, just because they aren't furry.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

FlatEarthDenial

  • 303
  • FE is anti-science.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #411 on: June 11, 2016, 10:29:17 PM »
Quote
Consciousness implies sentience, but sentience does not imply consciousness. Have you read what implies mean before making such meaningless and baseless assertions?
It [The consciousness] has been defined [in psychology] as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
And it's a scientific consensus, confirmed by over 2500 studies, that animals are conscious, namely the Cambridge declaration of consciousness.
Quote
That's not true, since movement is unconsciously wired.
You can't walk if you aren't conscious.
Quote
In any case, here's artificial animaloid movement.
It's a well-known thing that scientists are able to make a robotic leg that works in a way analogous to the legs of tetrapods, but aren't able to make a machine that controls them. That's the most widely known example of Moravec's paradox.
Quote
The chinese room thought experiment proves that, empirically, intelligence is not special. A mouse can be trained to be the Chinese for that experiment. Does that mean the Mouse is intelligent? Or that it isnt? External experiments of capability are useless for intelligence testing. Nowadays, intelligence is defined mostly in terms of both capabilities, and learning process. In that sense, Artificial Neural Networks are a primitive form of "true" artificial intelligence. If you don't like the idea that a machine can become intelligent without aide, you can always enter the world of Symbolic intelligence. I warn you, though. Abandon all sanity thou who shalt study it.
I have no bright idea what you are talking about. Alan Turing supposed that a Turing-complete machine that's able to pass the Turing test, namely being able to behave as if it were conscious for a few minutes by following a set of rules, can be considered conscious. The Chinese room thought experiment proves that the Turing test is total nonsense.
Quote
Animals act as energy converters, in that they take energy we cannot use, transforming it into energy we can use.
Most of those animals are fed with soy and grains. Why couldn't we use them ourselves?
Quote
I know that without fertilization, the entire surface of the earth could support 1 billion people.
Who is against fertilization? First of all, natural fertilizers can, and mostly are today, be made from plants. Secondly, synthetic fertilizers are much less damaging to the environment than animal agriculture is.
Quote
Too bad, I can prove it to you.
How does the permeability of the cell walls changing with pressure prove that a plant is sentient?!
Quote
Plants have processor systems.
And that processor system is…
Quote
Hell, they can even be drugged.
That's certainly not the way you determine whether something is sentient. If it were, the studies of the plant sentience wouldn't be considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. Well, since you only gave me an abstract, I can just guess why. Which type of drug was used? They say "There is a close similarity in the effects of drugs on the sensitivity to mechanical stimulation in the sensitive plant Mimosa and the protozoan Spirostomum", not that those same drugs affect sentient beings (humans, mice…) in the similar manner. And there is nothing about the perception there!
Quote
What do you mean? The adaptation provides protection to the plant from water, excesive sunlight, etc. Is this what you mean? I'm not a biologist, I'm simply quoting the expert's opinion.
I meant, the adaptation of the perception, that is, that the perceived intensity of a stimulant is (slightly) decreasing with time, which is one of the basic properties of the perception.
Quote
A comatose human isn't able to do that, yet it's sentient, on your definition.
No, it's not sentient. Sentient is defined as having the power of perception by the senses. Being able to recognize and locate things around themselves is one of the basic properties of the perception. In fact, that's even how perception is defined on Wikipedia (understanding of the environment).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
« Last Edit: June 11, 2016, 10:48:59 PM by FlatEarthDenial »
A former Flat Earther.
This is my story, which I'd encourage every Flat Earther to read:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67051.0

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Atheism
« Reply #412 on: June 13, 2016, 06:42:50 AM »
@flat earth denial: Walking is obviously possible without being conscious; people can do it when they are asleep.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Atheism
« Reply #413 on: June 13, 2016, 03:44:50 PM »
Quote
Consciousness implies sentience, but sentience does not imply consciousness. Have you read what implies mean before making such meaningless and baseless assertions?
It [The consciousness] has been defined [in psychology] as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
And it's a scientific consensus, confirmed by over 2500 studies, that animals are conscious, namely the Cambridge declaration of consciousness.
Thanks for agreeing with me that sentience doesn't imply consciousness. Took you a while. In any case, your definition intentionally misses "self-awareness", because you know most animals don't have self-awareness. With that skewed definition, lets see if a recursive neural network is conscious.

  • sentience (The ability to feel or perceive subjetively): Clearly. Primitive artificial neurons were called Perceptrons for a reason. Their working is subjective, and dependent on the experience of the system. What's true for RNN1.m may not be true for RNN2.m. Just like in real brain tissue
  • awareness (the ability to directly know and perceive): From the previous definition, a sentient being is clearly aware as well.
  • subjectivity (it that possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires): The subjectivity of neural networks is well known. Given that RNNs are aware of their own state (but could hardly be considered self-aware), are aware of their input vectors, and their knowdlege is training-dependent, they are subjective
  • the ability to experience or to feel:I'm noticing a trend here, to be honest. Are you sure you didn't mix these up? Is it possible for something aware not to have the ability to experience? Same with subjective beings, and specially sentient beings. In any case, I just dont feel like repeating myself.
  • wakefulness: I can't find a non organic-centric definition of this word. Even worse, wikipedia's definition requires the being on evaluation to be CONSCIOUS to be considered wakeful. Recursive definitions ain't so great. In any case, not all beings have a sleeping state. Seems to be superfluous, really, or perhaps maliciously placed to avoid anything non-animal to be considered conscious.
  • having a sense of selfhood: Yup, they literally take themselves as an input. They couldn't have a more through sense of themselves
  • the executive control system of the mind: Sure.

So either you ask PETA to raid my department everytime I format my hard drive, or you could consider that definition to be Greek philosophy levels of undefined useless word salad. I suggest the second, but I have to admit interest on that.

Quote
Quote
That's not true, since movement is unconsciously wired.
You can't walk if you aren't conscious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sleepwalking

Quote
Quote
In any case, here's artificial animaloid movement.
It's a well-known thing that scientists are able to make a robotic leg that works in a way analogous to the legs of tetrapods, but aren't able to make a machine that controls them. That's the most widely known example of Moravec's paradox.
It's a well known thing that natural selection is able to make a glandulae that works in a way analogous to batteries, but isn't able to make neurones directly control a power plant, you see how ridiculous that argument is? The reason machines and biological systems are separate is because machines use systems biology is not specialized in, and viceversa. Not even that, we CAN control neural tissue.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Neurons aren't magical items with properties that violate the laws of physics, they are processors. We understand how they work, we have for decades. The issue we don't have augmentations and the like is because of simple complexity, just as how we knew how the moon orbited in the 19th century, but had to wait to the 1959 to get there. Nature is incredibly optimized. It has had millions and millions of years to perfect itself to points only now we understand. 60 years ago, perceptrons were the size of a room. Now Google Translate packs Deep Learning neural networks into a battery powered device, gazillions of times more powerful than a MADALINE unit. The AI winter is dead. Summer is coming. And its gonna be great (for me).

Quote
Quote
The chinese room thought experiment proves that, empirically, intelligence is not special. A mouse can be trained to be the Chinese for that experiment. Does that mean the Mouse is intelligent? Or that it isnt? External experiments of capability are useless for intelligence testing. Nowadays, intelligence is defined mostly in terms of both capabilities, and learning process. In that sense, Artificial Neural Networks are a primitive form of "true" artificial intelligence. If you don't like the idea that a machine can become intelligent without aide, you can always enter the world of Symbolic intelligence. I warn you, though. Abandon all sanity thou who shalt study it.
I have no bright idea what you are talking about. Alan Turing supposed that a Turing-complete machine that's able to pass the Turing test, namely being able to behave as if it were conscious for a few minutes by following a set of rules, can be considered conscious. The Chinese room thought experiment proves that the Turing test is total nonsense.
Oh for fucks sake. That's not what the Chinese room proves. As I said, you can train a mouse to be the Chinese. Or a human. Or a machine. It does not matter. What the Chinese room proves is that the solipsism problem is undecidable, in other words, there is no single test, thought, experiment, observation, logical analisys, coin tossing, or any other method to ascertain intelligence. This applies TO EVERYONE. I can only trully know that I AM intelligent. For all that I know, you may all just be programmed robots. The fundamental breakthrough of the Chinese Room is that IT DOESNT MATTER. A machine cannot be proven to be intelligent just as I can't prove you are. The brain is a processor, and it performs computations. A Turing Complete machine CAN emulate the brain. The brain is a restricted turing machine (just as real computers). There is no evidence that the brain is a hypercomputer, before you go to that, and if it were, we could break the laws of physics. I am sorry that this hurts your narrative, but a bunch of stones performing rule 110 is able to do the same computations the brain does, given enough time and stones.

Quote
Quote
Animals act as energy converters, in that they take energy we cannot use, transforming it into energy we can use.
Most of those animals are fed with soy and grains. Why couldn't we use them ourselves?
Where do you live that soy is wasted on cows? Just give 'em hay. On the grain issue, they are fed grain waste, like the exterior of the grain, or simply grains humans don't like eating, like oats and barley (but they do like drinking it!). Have you ever been to a farm before?

Quote
Quote
I know that without fertilization, the entire surface of the earth could support 1 billion people.
Who is against fertilization? First of all, natural fertilizers can, and mostly are today, be made from plants. Secondly, synthetic fertilizers are much less damaging to the environment than animal agriculture is.
It was an example of how much impact these energy conversion systems have. Fertilizer, after all, is just converting non-usable biomass into food for plants. Its just the same as animal feedstock, but I don't have the data on how much human sustainabiliy depends on animal energy conversion, so I put forward a similar example I know the data on, plant energy conversion.

Quote
Quote
Too bad, I can prove it to you.
How does the permeability of the cell walls changing with pressure prove that a plant is sentient?!
How does the firing of pain receptors in muscle tissue with overpressure prove an animal is sentient?!

Quote
Quote
Plants have processor systems.
And that processor system is…

Plants don't have central neural systems, but they DO have processing and recepting systems, not unlike insects, for example. In Mimosa Pudica's example, potassium and calcium ion channels act as pressure sensors, creating action potentials transmited throughout the plant, similar to how neurons work.
They may also have memory: http://www.sci-news.com/biology/science-mimosa-plants-memory-01695.html

Quote
Quote
Hell, they can even be drugged.
That's certainly not the way you determine whether something is sentient. If it were, the studies of the plant sentience wouldn't be considered pseudoscience by the scientific community.
Plant intelligence*. You keep confusing the words.

Quote
Well, since you only gave me an abstract, I can just guess why.
You can buy the paper yourself. Or you could pirate it, but you will understand why I don't link that here. Search engines will help you with that.

Quote
Which type of drug was used? They say "There is a close similarity in the effects of drugs on the sensitivity to mechanical stimulation in the sensitive plant Mimosa and the protozoan Spirostomum", not that those same drugs affect sentient beings (humans, mice…) in the similar manner.
Protozoans are sentient.

Quote
And there is nothing about the perception there!
Because perception is an epistemological term, and not a scientific one. Read the paper, I'm sure you'll understand then.

Quote
Quote
What do you mean? The adaptation provides protection to the plant from water, excesive sunlight, etc. Is this
what you mean? I'm not a biologist, I'm simply quoting the expert's opinion.
I meant, the adaptation of the perception, that is, that the perceived intensity of a stimulant is (slightly) decreasing with time, which is one of the basic properties of the perception.
Yep, as I even linked to you, its clear it is even remembered. Ion channels saturate over time, that's how neurons learn in a really small nutshell.

Quote
Quote
A comatose human isn't able to do that, yet it's sentient, on your definition.
No, it's not sentient.
Yes it is. It responds to stimuli. http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/neurologic-disorders/coma-and-impaired-consciousness/vegetative-state-and-minimally-conscious-state

Quote
Sentient is defined as having the power of perception by the senses. Being able to recognize and locate things around themselves is one of the basic properties of the perception. In fact, that's even how perception is defined on Wikipedia (understanding of the environment).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception
Understanding of the enviroment, and locating things around are two different things. Plants clearly show understanding of the enviroment, as do artificial neural networks. They even show Constancy, Grouping, and contrasting. In fact, one of the reasons ANNs were developed was to do grouping work (called in more pure fields "clustering").
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

?

palmerito0

  • 582
  • Why does this forum exist?
Re: Atheism
« Reply #414 on: June 14, 2016, 11:10:03 AM »
That roach the is sick. Impressive how far science has come.
Heiwa on the impossibility of space travel:

There are no toilets up there and sex is also a problem, just to mention a few difficulties.

WHEEEEEEEEEEE

*

FlatEarthDenial

  • 303
  • FE is anti-science.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #415 on: June 16, 2016, 03:23:15 AM »
Yeah, why don't you start killing babies and justify it with some mind-game that "proves" they aren't conscious?
I guess that the reason they didn't include self-awareness in the definition of consciousness is because self-awareness is awareness of ones own consciousness, so that would be a circular definition. Besides, humans become self-aware only when they are 18 months of age. Do you think that younger children can't become unconscious because of an illness? And pigs, who we legally eat, are also self-aware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#Infancy_and_early_childhood
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347209003571
Sleep is not unconsciousness, it is an altered level of consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altered_level_of_consciousness#Definition
And, no, robots can't walk the same way humans, bats, birds and other bipedal walk. Yet they can solve differential equations. And I don't see how it's ridiculous to say that they therefore work in a way quite different than brains do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking#In_robotics
And Turing Test wasn't even intended to measure intelligence, it was intended to determine whether or not machines can think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Weaknesses_of_the_test
As for that your "Just give 'em hay." rhetoric, look, I don't know if cows can be healthy if fed only with hay (probably not), and that's irrelevant. The possibility of improving a system doesn't justify a participation in it now. If you knew that a car you can buy will explode, would you buy it just because you know the factory could do better?
And insects do have brains. Some of them even have pain receptors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Weaknesses_of_the_test
As for the protozoans being sentient, I'd suggest you to watch this video:

If Paramecium has any feelings, then it's a desire to be eaten.
As for that plant memory, I think it's not analogous to the sensory adaptation in animals. So, that plant stops responding to a stimulus of a certain intensity after it's been exposed to it many times. You stop feeling a touch of the clothing if it's long enough. Do you stop feeling that something is touching you if it has touched you many times?
Look, I don't know exactly why studying plant sentience is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, and I don't think I need to know. The idea that grass feels pain when I cut it is just too ridiculous to even think about.
As for that responding to stimuli, there is a difference between a vegetative state, minimally conscious state and a coma. Coma is a complete loss of consciousness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coma
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimally_conscious_state
I couldn't find any source saying that plants show constancy, grouping and contrasting.
Maybe I am wrong, but I think that most of the people who say that plants have feelings don't actually believe that themselves and are just being dishonest.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2016, 03:31:52 AM by FlatEarthDenial »
A former Flat Earther.
This is my story, which I'd encourage every Flat Earther to read:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67051.0

*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Atheism
« Reply #416 on: June 16, 2016, 05:06:16 AM »
Yeah, why don't you start killing babies and justify it with some mind-game that "proves" they aren't conscious?
Ouch, you sank my flotation line. My archnemesis, emotional strawmans! I guess I shall now retreat to my burgercave. In any case, I'm not even going to read the rest of your post. Go to the Veganism thread if you want to discuss veganism.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.

*

FlatEarthDenial

  • 303
  • FE is anti-science.
Re: Atheism
« Reply #417 on: June 16, 2016, 11:48:40 PM »
Yeah, why don't you start killing babies and justify it with some mind-game that "proves" they aren't conscious?
Ouch, you sank my flotation line. My archnemesis, emotional strawmans! I guess I shall now retreat to my burgercave. In any case, I'm not even going to read the rest of your post. Go to the Veganism thread if you want to discuss veganism.
I was making straw mans? Well, if you write so nonsensically, don't be surprised if people misinterpret what you are trying to say! You are spreading misinformation about what consciousness is. Luckily, I checked your statements.

While I don't know much about the field, I think you are also misrepresenting what neural networks are. Basically, you need a whole processor to simulate one neuron, and it takes many many many neurons to create consciousness. Saying that your computer is conscious is therefore ridiculous. Your computer may have more than one CPU, but certainly not millions of them needed to make consciousness. Maybe multi-threading can enable one CPU to simulate more neurons, but certainly not millions of them.
The most complicated artificial neural network ever made was able to only detect cats on images.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2016, 01:53:42 AM by FlatEarthDenial »
A former Flat Earther.
This is my story, which I'd encourage every Flat Earther to read:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67051.0

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Atheism
« Reply #418 on: June 18, 2016, 05:01:00 PM »
I enjoy tracking down animals.
I enjoy killing them.
I enjoy cutting them into pieces.
I enjoy cooking them.
I enjoy eating them.

Pretty sure they don't enjoy it as much as I do.

But then, their participation in the game is pretty much limited
to "ouch" and "dead".





*

Conker

  • 1557
  • Official FES jerk / kneebiter
Re: Atheism
« Reply #419 on: June 19, 2016, 09:31:16 AM »
As I've posted before, I refuse to continue to debate with you. You are a dishonest poster. Stop wasting precious bandwith derailing this thread further.
This is not a joke society.
Quote from: OpenedEyes
You shouldn't be allowed to talk on a free discussion forum.