Whats the Harm...

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Spirit resides in everything, including seemingly lifeless things like rocks. We know now that at a quantum level there are all sorts of quantum particles behaving weirdly.
It is clear to me that the most important "souls" ( 'part of Spirit that resides within humans' ), are human souls. We have most to learn from each other and this knowledge may just ...[text shortened]... in a far out dimension some superior being is 'treading lightly' when they 'walk' on us.

Quantum field theory says souls don't exist.

So stop using 'quantum' as some magic word that lets you justify any claim you want to make.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Quantum field theory says souls don't exist.

So stop using 'quantum' as some magic word that lets you justify any claim you want to make.

Quantum theory postulates that even inert objects to the naked eye vibrate in an unpredictable and unpredictable fashion when magnified. How much of quantum have we discovered? It may be called something completely different when we fully understand it's meaning. It may be a paradigm shifting discovery, then again it may not.
But I believe there is a connection between what some call a 'soul' and the quantum energy fields that surround our bodies.
I cant prove a soul exists because the actual method used for ascertaining such a thing defeats the purpose from the get go. Just like how SETI wont find bugger all looking the way they do for other life.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Quantum theory postulates that even inert objects to the naked eye vibrate in an unpredictable and unpredictable fashion when magnified. How much of quantum have we discovered? It may be called something completely different when we fully understand it's meaning. It may be a paradigm shifting discovery, then again it may not.
But I believe there is a c ...[text shortened]... m the get go. Just like how SETI wont find bugger all looking the way they do for other life.

I studied physics and I can tell you that there are no "quantum energy fields that surround our bodies."

You are talking complete nonsense and dressing it up in sciency language to make it sound better.

Originally posted by vivify
So you're too exhausted to answer my question, but not too exhausted to post questions about fictional characters?

And my example about a human being in a vegetative state, who can't feel, think, and thus has no mind, and is only a pulled-plug away from death, and the morality of doing whatever you want to such a human, due to your assertion that a perso ...[text shortened]... e---with a question about the morality of fictional characters. Shall I use "sad" here?

Sorry, you're not the only one who gets to ask questions here. Answer the question: What would your account be? What is your explanation of the moral equality that would obtain between humans and Vulcans? It can't be species membership, so it has to be something else. What is it?

Originally posted by vivify

But you do have an example (though I'm not sure you understand what, if anything, your example shows). At least that's something! Of course, your example presumes something I never claimed.

Never claimed? You claimed "personhood" is based on things like having a mind, and the ability to feel. I can easily quote where you said this, and wh ...[text shortened]... u haven't justified your position, you remain owned.

We're waiting.

No, I never claimed that our moral deliberations regarding appropriate treatment of an entity derive solely from the moral status of that entity, whether it is a person, etc. If you think otherwise, then cite where I said so.

Yes, I do think that a human organism needs to be a person in order to be the object of respect. In your case, it is not S that is the object of respect, it is the former person that used to embody S. That’s why there is a moral difference between S and a lab-grown ‘S’ that had never housed a person. Presumably, the person that had embodies S would have preferred not to have his body treated in such a manner. People are like that. But if that person had not cared about the treatment of his body after his personhood was extinguished (after, in a real sense, the death of the actual person), then it changes the morality of the situation. This is what the kinky-couple case shows. You see, my account can explain why the moral situation in your example changes in these alternate cases. Yours cannot. That, again, indicates the bankruptcy of your account. You can’t even explain variations on your own example!

Since you’re an idiot, and won’t be able to think up objections on your own, I’ll help you. If you were smarter, you’d say “But wait, there is no actual person being respected in the example above, only a former person.” If you did say this, I’d say “Well done!”. But here is the response: We already are committed to norms of respecting former persons. This is what happens with advance directives, dying wishes, wills and testaments, etc. When we ask ourselves what somebody would have wanted, we’re acting respectfully towards a former person. What’s really going on is that the norms of respect that govern the relationships between persons end up obligating us to those persons in a variety of ways. These obligations are maintained even after the death of that person. It’s as if I make a promise to you during your life. My promise doesn’t suddenly stop binding me when you die. It’s an interesting feature of respect, but it makes sense. I have all sorts of interests in things that will continue after my death: Family, friends, charities, etc. Respect has to do, conceptually, with the autonomy of others; their ability to set and pursue their own interests and ends. These norms allow us to cooperate with each other and plan long-term for the pursuit of things that will continue on without us.

So, again, it is respect for the person that used to embody S that constrains our behavior towards S. But if that person had wanted his body used, then the situation would be different. Or if S had never housed a person, the situation would again be different. My account explains this, and your account doesn’t. That’s probably because you’re an amateur and aren’t used to thinking about things like this. But that’s OK! If you pay attention, you’ll probably get better! You’re dim now, but may be educable.

Originally posted by sumydid
Remember though, that God gave man dominion over the Earth and all its animals, plants, and resources. Also remember that--though it is not addressed specifically--it can safely be assumed that plants and animals are not infused with a soul. On the other hand, when considering the hypothetical "Vulcan,": (a) We were not given dominion over extra-te ...[text shortened]... d inherently have their fate and lifespan determined by God Himself -- not us human creatures.

I've asked you this before, months ago, but you never answered. This time I expect an answer: What is the relationship between souls and our psychological properties? Is our autonomy a function of having a soul? Is our consciousness a function of having a soul? Is our capacity to suffer a function of having a soul? If so, then you are just using 'soul' the way I use 'person' but you throw in God-stuff too. If not, then what do souls do? What about us do they explain? Why are they important with regard to morality if they have no effect on our ability to flourish, or be free, or to be harmed? Here's a way of getting at these questions via a thought-experiment: Suppose, hypothetically, you and I switched souls. Yours ended up in my body and mine in yours. When we woke up, would we notice any difference? Because if souls and minds are totally distinct, and what we notice is a function of our minds, then we wouldn't notice the switch. But if souls and minds are not distinct, then maybe we would notice a difference. But, if that's the case, then I bett that under investigation your account of soul is just going to collapse to my account of personhood.

In any case, I'm glad to see that you admit that moral status is not a function of species membership. On your view it's a matter of having a soul!

Here's a question: If souls are implanted via Divine Turkey-Baster or whatever at conception, what happens with monozygotic twins? Since they split after conception, does each twin end up with half a soul (is that why they're so creepy)? Or does one get the soul while the other doesn't (would we be able to tell which was which?). Or does God know in advance which zygotes will split, and supply those with two complete souls? If so, is it twice as morally bad to take a morning after pill if you are carrying a zygote with twin souls?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Some would argue ... [text shortened]... of clinics and such)?

I want to address all of your points as you did mine because you have misrepresented and confused the post. I have used an italic and bold to indicate what I have originally said, I have used a quote to indicate your response to my original post, and regular text to respond to your comments.

Some would argue that in all of our beginnings we had no minds and therefore were not human, do you believe this to be true?

No, I know it to be true.
What makes us people, what makes us something other than an object, are our minds.
As we don't start with a mind we thus don't start as humans.
We start as something that MIGHT someday become a human.

What is your definition of a mind? Is it is something that is capable of reasoning or is a mind that is able to keep the body alive through it's functioning? What about people that have lost their minds, people in vegetative states, people whose minds will never develop into a fully functioning adult and will remain as a child or infant? Do these stop being human because their minds stop working? You seem pretty sure of yourself on this? Do you believe science could change your opinion in the future through some discovery or do you believe we know all there is to know about this?


We are all made up of mind body and spirit ...

No we are not.
There is no such thing as spirit (souls/life force/afterlives/ghosts/ect), this is a scientific fact.

Ok, I will take this as your position.


...Science can prove the body, it can prove the mind, but it cannot prove the spirit but that does not change the fact we have one ...

Actually yes it can. Don't know why you think it can't.
There is a host of stuff in Biology and medicine that shows this, but Physics is all you need.

Well I guess science has a problem here. So which is it, do you believe we have a spirit or don't you, your two previous statements contradict each other? In one you say "There is no such thing as spirit (souls/life force/afterlives/ghosts/ect), this is a scientific fact.", here you say biology and medicine show this, and all we need is Physics. Please clarify what you mean.


... and I think we all know this to be the truth deep within us if we dare be honest with ourselves. ....

Then you are deluded, and rather insulting.
We do not 'all know this'. And it's demonstrably not true.

You know, I believe you are right... I stand corrected. I apologize if you took this as an insult, it was not meant to be that way. Maybe we don't all know we have a spirit. You have showed me something important, thank you.


You and many others present on this forum use science as your basis for truth as to what makes something true or not, legitimate or not...
it is your moral compass, it is in many ways your religion.

In no way is science a religion, this is a really stupid argument.
Science is the study of the natural world, the reality we live in, by objective and rigorous methods designed to counter and eliminate/correct for any biases.
In science nothing is worshipped and nothing taken of faith. It is not a religion or anything like a religion.

I never said anything about science being a religion, I suggested science is used as a basis for truth as to what makes something true or not, legitimate or not... it is a moral compass. There is a difference.

Wikipedia 'Religion'; Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

When I suggested science in some ways is your (or others in this forum) religion, it is in this manner that I meant it.


GF, I cannot give you an argument that will satisfy you to your liking. From what I have seen throughout the different forums, this is almost never possible, IMO. My observation is that you generally take a US vs. THEM approach (science vs. faith/religion) on things when faith is concerned… as do many others.
If something cannot be 'proven' by the means of science, it becomes invalid or untrue. Science cannot explain everything and it won’t.
I hope this satisfies your request for argument on this topic.

Of course it doesn't.
If something can't be explained by science then it can't be explained. Pretty much by definition.
Nothing can be, or ever has been, explained via faith.

I knew it wouldn't, I guess this is where we agree to disagree.

However the point of this discussion wasn't to try to convince you not to believe, although that would be nice.
But to point out that your ENTIRE basis for wanting to ban all abortions is founded in your religious beliefs.
Beliefs that are both demonstrably false, but (ridiculously) more importantly are not in any way shape or form universal.
It is illegal (unconstitutional) in the USA to impose religious laws or impose anyone else's religion on anyone else.

Maybe you should read my 1st post when I entered this thread because you have misrepresented me. On page 9 '17 Nov '12 23:34,I in no way said anything about banning all abortions, I stated "Abortions for the purpose of convenience (or inconvenience) should not be permitted." My faith does not cause me to believe that unborn life is human, I can believe that without faith. Let me add this, many people do believe that the unborn life is a human, with no faith whatsoever. I would even say there are people that call themselves scientists that believe unborn life is a human. Faith is not always a factor, you should understand this.

Furthermore, nobody is imposing any religious laws on anyone, it is you making that statement. This is a tactic that liberals use to frighten people that their 'right' maybe taken away. Don't you think people can have a negative view about abortion and hold no faith? Come on man, I know you’re not that black and white?

Much as it would be great for everyone to come to their senses and not believe in evil non-existent gods, I don't see that happening any time soon.
However you don't get to make laws based on the existence of your god, in the same way that nobody else gets to make laws based on their gods.
So can you accept that while you may not like abortion.
You don't get to impose your religion on anyone else by banning it (either legally or practically by forcing the closure of clinics and such)?

Why are non-existent gods evil, sort of a contradiction, no? I don't believe in them.

I don't like abortion, I am not imposing anything on anybody, I am pointing out that the majority of abortion in the US is for convenience, and convenience is not a reason for terminating a life, IMO. I said "In the US, over 50 million abortions have been performed since 1973. When you look at these numbers it is a bit sobering to think that this much life has been extinguished"

Rest assured, I will vote for life and against abortion that is for the purpose of convenience.

How anybody could defend the termination of so much life so easily is beyond me, I don't get it... but maybe I now do.

Originally posted by kd2acz
I want to address all of your points as you did mine because you have misrepresented and confused the post. I have used an italic and bold to indicate what I have originally said, I have used a quote to indicate your response to my original post, and regular text to respond to your comments.

[b]Some would argue that in all of our beginnings we had no m easily is beyond me, I don't get it... but maybe I now do.[/b]

I will give a more in depth answer later, but there is one quick point on which I was
apparently unclear and I can clear up....

You said that "...Science can prove the body, it can prove the mind, but it cannot
prove the spirit but that does not change the fact we have one..."

To which I replied "Actually yes it can. Don't know why you think it can't."

What I meant, and was apparently unclear, was that science can prove or disprove
the existence of 'spirit'. And in fact has disproved it's existence.

Which is not in contradiction to my previous statement.

I hope this clears that up for you.

Originally posted by bbarr
Sorry, you're not the only one who gets to ask questions here. Answer the question: What would your account be? What is your explanation of the moral equality that would obtain between humans and Vulcans? It can't be species membership, so it has to be something else. [b]What is it?[/b]

So you insist on debating the moral status of fictional characters? Wow.

Said fictional Vulcan acts like a human does; so both it, and it's unborn child, at any stage of development, would deserve moral consideration.

You've been owned on your stupid example.

Originally posted by vivify
So you insist on debating the moral status of fictional characters? Wow.

Said fictional Vulcan acts like a human does; so both it, and it's unborn child, at any stage of development, would deserve moral consideration.

You've been owned on your stupid example.

I don't know why you keep claiming to have 'owned' bbarr.

But I can tell you that you haven't.

If anyone is 'owning' anyone (and this is a really stupid phrase) it is bbarr 'owning' you.

You are just making yourself look stupid.


The use of fictional or extreme circumstances as hypotheticals to test a hypothesis or
position/argument is a well respected and effective tool in debating/contemplating an
issue.

Perhaps more thought and less misplaced scorn would be a good idea on your part.

And certainly less claiming victory when you are both loosing badly and not the judge of who is
winning or losing... If such concepts really apply here.

Originally posted by vivify
So you insist on debating the moral status of fictional characters? Wow.

Said fictional Vulcan acts like a human does; so both it, and it's unborn child, at any stage of development, would deserve moral consideration.

You've been owned on your stupid example.

You have succeeded in making an actual claim! Congratulations!

Here it is (essentially): If an entity acts like a human, then it deserves moral consideration.

The problem, of course, is that now you're tying moral consideration too close to actual behavior. Here is the hilarious part: On your new view, the coma patient S from your original example would not qualify as having moral status. Entities in vegetative states don't really act like humans, do they? They act more like couches or dressers.

Maybe you'd like to try again. I could watch you embarrass yourself all day.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, I never claimed that our moral deliberations regarding appropriate treatment of an entity derive solely from the moral status of that entity, whether it is a person, etc. If you think otherwise, then cite where I said so.

Yes, I do think that a human organism needs to be a person in order to be the object of respect. In your case, it is not S ...[text shortened]... t’s OK! If you pay attention, you’ll probably get better! You’re dim now, but may be educable.

Again, name-calling is a sure sign of anger at getting owned. But don't stop, it makes you feel better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly

"A baby born with anencephaly is usually blind, deaf, unconscious, and unable to feel pain.

One such boy with this condition lived until age three:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57544227/nickolas-coke-boy-born-without-brain-dies-at-3/

"Nickolas Coke, a Colorado boy who survived three years despite being born without a brain, has died."

Seeing how---by YOUR definition---this boy was never a person, was it okay to treat this boy in any dispicable manner, such as sex object? Yes or no, and WHY?

QED.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I will give a more in depth answer later, but there is one quick point on which I was
apparently unclear and I can clear up....

You said that [b]"...Science can prove the body, it can prove the mind, but it cannot
prove the spirit but that does not change the fact we have one..."

To which I replied "Actually yes it can. Don't know why yo ...[text shortened]... s not in contradiction to my previous statement.

I hope this clears that up for you.

If that is what you meant, I am good with it. Thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I studied physics and I can tell you that there are no "quantum energy fields that surround our bodies."

You are talking complete nonsense and dressing it up in sciency language to make it sound better.

You can call it that. Of course you know that I take information from my own view of the world ,as everyone should, as the primary source of reference for our reality. Sometimes people and books and things confirm certain things, sometimes they add to our knowledge, sometimes they are useless.

Now when I try to use sciency language it is only in a bid to try to convey a most difficult point for me to convey, although I do think one should try, however effed up their reality is. After all, truth is the only truly right path.

I'm suggesting that the vocabulary will change. Our language will change as a reflection of ourselves.
For example the word "evolution" at present means a strictly physical occurence, however I contend that this is one of the words that will change organically to include our spiritual evolution as well.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I studied physics and I can tell you that there are no "quantum energy fields that surround our bodies."

You are talking complete nonsense and dressing it up in sciency language to make it sound better.

I find that this is an area that you either are in sync with and realize that me saying "quantum energy fields" is just poetic license to describe something that ordinary words have trouble conveying, or you continue to be pedantic and have only one universal reality that all energy must conform to.
You say this indirectly in your posts.
Whose to say there is not something way out there that completely defies your so called laws of physics.
Whose to say there isn't someone levitating in the room next to you.