A Thought Experiment on Abortion
quibbler
that thinking is antithetical to the anti-abortion credo of blind
assertion and foot-stomping, but indulge me). Suppose that there were a
disease or disorder that caused a woman to become pregnant with several
dozen embryos. Unfortunately, most women wouldn't know this was
happening for at least a month or more, by which time all of these would
have implanted. Even more unfortunately, it is impossible for a mother's
body to sustain or give birth to 20-30 children (dodecatuplets anyone?)
However, since there is no effective technology to salvage implanted
embryos without them dying, the choice is either to abort some of them,
or to permit the dodecatuplets to kill the mother's body and then die
themselves. Oh, and before any mouth-breathing fucknut observes, "golly
gee, this is one of them there hi-poh-thet-i-kuls, so that means it ain't
really real, tee hee", it is entirely possible that 20 ova could get
released, fertilized and potentially be implanted all by natural means.
So what should people do in such a situation? What if this were a
disorder that suddenly spread to thousands or millions of women all
around the world?
How about extending the scenario. What if cancer cells formed around a
zygote, but kept it viable. According to "life-begins-at-misconception"
morons, the woman couldn't have the tumor removed because there was a
"human life" inside of it. It wouldn't matter whether that human life
could survive or not, according to them. It wouldn't even matter if it
were conscious. It only matters that it's a zygote and therefore
worshipped as the false idol/gold calf of the pro-preggers movement.
Naturally, fundies and extremist Roman Craplics don't give a shit about
the actual issue here. This is just an opportunity for them to attempt
to cram their theocratic agendas down the throats (or up the vaginas) of
everyone they can. But I still want to hear the cowardly little god-
fellating fucktards bluster and bay and try to defend their moronic
position. I would prefer that they at least pretend to use reason or
evidence, but I know that both are likely beyond their limited
capacities.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
zzpat
Even more unfortunately, it is impossible for a mother's
> body to sustain or give birth to 20-30 children (dodecatuplets anyone?)
> However, since there is no effective technology to salvage implanted
> embryos without them dying, the choice is either to abort some of them,
> or to permit the dodecatuplets to kill the mother's body and then die
> themselves. Oh, and before any mouth-breathing fucknut observes, "golly
You can't use logic, reason, or hypothesis with right to life nuts. They
think they're right no matter how many times they're idiocy is exposed.
"Life begins at conception" is an extremist point of view. There are
living cells at conception but the brain doesn't start working until
around the 28th week. Without a functioning brain it's not human since
our brains make us distinctively human.
Since we all agree life ends when the brain stops working, we can just
as easily agree life begins when the brain starts working but when you
try to use a fact with a 'right to lifer' they go ballistic with emote.
--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/
yar...@aol.com
Imaginary problems are easy to solve...just use your imagination to
make them go away. I have no problem with killing off imaginary
unborns...be they imaginary embryos, imaginary zygotes, or an
imaginary fetus. It's snuffing out real kids that bothers me.
It is easy to bend fantasy stories into fitting your particular view,
but reality is not quite as maliable.
Isn't it time you graduated from play-doh debates to serious ones?
Lucifer
Ok...how about this one. There's 7 fetuses. Do you selectively abort
some to ensure the survival of the rest? The pregnancy, if carried to
term, will result in a "child2 that will die within hours of the
birth. Is it ok to abort?
--
Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
and General Purpose Igor
The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
of Doom
Convicted by Earthquack
"Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"
yar...@aol.com
Do you usually make decisions based on exceptions rather than the
rule?
The situation of septuplets is an exceptional one.
How do you know for 100% sure that child2 will die? There have been
instances when tests during pregnancy revealed abnromalities that
resulted in a perfectly healthy baby.
So, the question here is to what extent should I trust your search and
destroy assessment that child2 will die at all? Since you are most
likely not a fortune teller, not that I would llisten to such a
charlatain to start with, why not simply do as much as medically
possible and then let nature take its course....assuming the mother's
life is not in danger?
I trust fortune tellers to pick my pockets, not tell my future or
anyone elses for that matter.
William Wingstedt
Sometimes, the course of nature is for a mother to decide she does not
want to carry a fetus to full term.
yar...@aol.com
wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 10:59:22 -0700, "yarr...@aol.com"
Sometimes, the course of nature is for the mother to decide to
murder her husband. So, what's your point?
>
>
>
>
>
> >I trust fortune tellers to pick my pockets, not tell my future or
> >anyone elses for that matter.
>
> >> --
>
> >> Lucifer the Unsubtle, EAC Librarian of Dark Tomes of Excessive Evil
> >> and General Purpose Igor
>
> >> The Anti-Theist, BAAWA Lowly Evilmeister and tamer of the Demon Duck
> >> of Doom
>
> >> Convicted by Earthquack
>
> >> "Don't worry, I won't bite.......hard"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
skyeyes
Usually, when that happens, she can plead the Texas Defense: he
needed killin'.
;->
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
yar...@aol.com
I could have sworn that was the Jerry Springer Show Defense.
:)
>
> Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> skyeyes at dakotacom dot net- Hide quoted text -
Spartakus
> Lucifer <wyrdol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Ok...how about this one. There's 7 fetuses. Do you selectively abort
> > some to ensure the survival of the rest? The pregnancy, if carried to
> > term, will result in a "child2 that will die within hours of the
> > birth. Is it ok to abort?
> Do you usually make decisions based on exceptions rather than the
> rule? The situation of septuplets is an exceptional one.
>
> How do you know for 100% sure that child2 will die?
Lucifer's scenario is based on an actual incident. A few years ago, a
woman who was carrying septuplets was urged to have surgery to abort
some of the fetuses so that others would have a better chance of
survival. She refused and they all died.
> There have been instances when tests during pregnancy revealed
> abnromalities that resulted in a perfectly healthy baby.
So you like playing Pascal's Wager with people's lives?
yar...@aol.com
> "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Lucifer <wyrdol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Ok...how about this one. There's 7 fetuses. Do you selectively abort
> > > some to ensure the survival of the rest? The pregnancy, if carried to
> > > term, will result in a "child2 that will die within hours of the
> > > birth. Is it ok to abort?
> > Do you usually make decisions based on exceptions rather than the
> > rule? The situation of septuplets is an exceptional one.
>
> > How do you know for 100% sure that child2 will die?
>
> Lucifer's scenario is based on an actual incident. A few years ago, a
> woman who was carrying septuplets was urged to have surgery to abort
> some of the fetuses so that others would have a better chance of
> survival. She refused and they all died.
That is a very sad story. But how sure is anyone that the same
wouldn't have happened even if they aborted some of them? We don't
know.
What we do know is that she made a choice that no one could have known
was the wrong one(that's the important difference). For that, she
cannot be held accountable in any sense of the word.
>
> > There have been instances when tests during pregnancy revealed
> > abnromalities that resulted in a perfectly healthy baby.
>
> So you like playing Pascal's Wager with people's lives?
This is an extremely rare and sad occurance. Do you usually make a
rule on the basis of something that is highly improbable? Do we have
only laws on the books for things that are highly unlikely to happen
or is it that the highly likely things are covered? Which way is
better for most everybody? Think about it.
Free Lunch
"yar...@aol.com" <yar...@aol.com> wrote in
<1182564547....@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jun 22, 9:39 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > Lucifer <wyrdol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > Ok...how about this one. There's 7 fetuses. Do you selectively abort
>> > > some to ensure the survival of the rest? The pregnancy, if carried to
>> > > term, will result in a "child2 that will die within hours of the
>> > > birth. Is it ok to abort?
>> > Do you usually make decisions based on exceptions rather than the
>> > rule? The situation of septuplets is an exceptional one.
>>
>> > How do you know for 100% sure that child2 will die?
>>
>> Lucifer's scenario is based on an actual incident. A few years ago, a
>> woman who was carrying septuplets was urged to have surgery to abort
>> some of the fetuses so that others would have a better chance of
>> survival. She refused and they all died.
>
>That is a very sad story. But how sure is anyone that the same
>wouldn't have happened even if they aborted some of them? We don't
>know.
We know with a high degree of confidence that her decision caused the
miscarriages.
>What we do know is that she made a choice that no one could have known
>was the wrong one(that's the important difference). For that, she
>cannot be held accountable in any sense of the word.
Yes, she could have. That is what health professionals have learned.
Don't worship ignorance and superstition.
>> > There have been instances when tests during pregnancy revealed
>> > abnromalities that resulted in a perfectly healthy baby.
>>
>> So you like playing Pascal's Wager with people's lives?
>
> This is an extremely rare and sad occurance. Do you usually make a
>rule on the basis of something that is highly improbable? Do we have
>only laws on the books for things that are highly unlikely to happen
>or is it that the highly likely things are covered? Which way is
>better for most everybody? Think about it.
You are wrong.
quibbler
yar...@aol.com says...
You're obviously too stupid to understand the purpose of hypothetical.
The nature of your idiotic comment was already handled in the original
post, you time-wasting retard.
William Wingstedt
A fetus is recognized as self by the mother until it is rejected at
birth. What people do to themselves is none of your business.
A mother murdering her husband involves someone other than herself.
What's your point?
Mike Duffy
news:af0p73da8kkedqldv...@4ax.com:
>
> We know with a high degree of confidence that her decision caused the
> miscarriages.
So, she made a good choice, because this way she decreased the probability
in subsequent generations for humans to have a propensity to instantiate
unsuportable multiple pregnancies.
Spartakus
> Spartakus<sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > "yarr...@aol.com" <yarr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > Lucifer <wyrdol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Ok...how about this one. There's 7 fetuses. Do you selectively abort
> > > > some to ensure the survival of the rest? The pregnancy, if carried to
> > > > term, will result in a "child2 that will die within hours of the
> > > > birth. Is it ok to abort?
> > > Do you usually make decisions based on exceptions rather than the
> > > rule? The situation of septuplets is an exceptional one.
> > >
> > > How do you know for 100% sure that child2 will die?
> > Lucifer's scenario is based on an actual incident. A few years ago, a
> > woman who was carrying septuplets was urged to have surgery to abort
> > some of the fetuses so that others would have a better chance of
> > survival. She refused and they all died.
> That is a very sad story. But how sure is anyone that the same
> wouldn't have happened even if they aborted some of them? We don't
> know.
The doctors looked at the *facts*, and urged the woman to do the same
as they advised her to cull her preborn litter. If you want to be
epistemologically precise, when we say that something is a fact, what
we really mean is that its probability is extremely high - high enough
that we are not bothered by doubt about it and can use the information
with confidence.
At least it could have been said that the woman did something to save
some of her "unborn children". You are arguing a fallacy - argumentum
ad ignorantiam. Iow, you are basing your argument on the premise that
no one can know for certain which of all possible outcomes of a
decision will happen. Well, welcome to Real Life[tm].
Liberalism's A Sickness
Jesus Keerist, where did this hysterical leftard assclown come from?
This braindead, Catholic-bashing imbecile has more "what ifs" and
"suppose[s]) in his little black bag than Al Goreleone has global-
warming scenarios. And like the goofy one, Al Goreleone, he probably
figures he's some sort of genius.
Liberalism's A Sickness
> You're obviously too stupid to understand the purpose of hypothetical.
> The nature of your idiotic comment was already handled in the original
> post, you time-wasting retard.
The "purpose" of hypothetical arguments, especially with leftists, is
to set up straw men, albeit of the imaginary variety.
Mike Painter
<snip>
> Sometimes, the course of nature is for a mother to decide she does not
> want to carry a fetus to full term.
>
well before the mother knows she had a fertilized ovum.
Many fundamental Christians believe this damns that "human" to hell for all
eternity.
For those that don't and absolutely believe that they go to a heaven and
that heaven is better than life on earth I wonder what the gripe is.
Of course it is known that sects who believe in rewards in heaven rather
than on earth, change as the income and social status of the members
improves over time. They begin to believe in rewards on earth and then in
heaven.
At which time the poorer members determine they are not hearing the really,
really, really, true gospel and form another church in a store front.
quibbler
You're simply proving that you neither understand what straw men or
hypotheticals are. Hypotheticals are not straw men, nor is that there
purpose. Come back when your simple mind has grasped the
difference.
You are a right-winger because you aren't smart enough to understand
basic distinctions of this type. Get an education.
Liberalism's A Sickness
Get a fucking brain, you stupid cocksucker. I've forgotten more than
you'll ever learn. Your moronic hypotheticals are about as fucking
juvenile as a toddler asking mommy what if the sky should fall and all
the rest of that piddly kid stuff.
Man, you're a dumb fuck. Sounds like you're a "manager" at Burger
Kink. Posing Pie-in-the-sky crap like this is little different than
setting up straw man arguments and picking them off like clay pigeons.
quibbler
<droug...@guerrillamail.net> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 6:54 am, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Jesus Keerist,
There is no reason to believe that any such being ever existed.
> where did this hysterical
Anti-aborts are the hysterical ones. I proposed a scenario that I
quite carefully explained was biologically possible. Therefore, even
though you're too stupid to grasp what a hypothetical is, it's still
something that could happen.
> leftard assclown come from?
Your reichtard nonsense came from a lack of education, whereas my
liberalism came from legitimate, verifiable facts.
> This braindead,
You must get tired of screaming at yourself in the mirror, calling
yourself names like this.
>Catholic-bashing
Why can't you refute even a single point that I make then, you fucking
moron?
> imbecile has more "what ifs"
No, I specifically addressed the tactic that unoriginal fuckwits like
you would attempt to use. You obvious have no clue what a "thought
experiment" is. Therefore you are too stupid to even deserve a
response. Conservatardism is a confession of ignorance and a demand
that others provide you with a free, instant, remedial education,
despite the fact that you lack the ability to benefit from such
knowledge.
>and
> "suppose[s]) in his little black bag than Al Goreleone has global-
> warming scenarios.
Unfortunately you can't refute any of those scenarios with actual
evidence, facts or logical arguments. Nobody can perfectly predict
the future, but, only a dipshit like you would think that this means
we can ignore all the most probable scenarios.
Let me put this in terms that even a total fool like you can
understand. Suppose that there was a 99.99% chance that Al Queda/the
Bush Administration was going to launch another terrorist attack
against a target in the US. Now, in the defective minds of you and
other repugs, this .01% uncertainty justifies ignoring the threat and
just letting it happen. Indeed, Bush ignored massive amounts of
evidence that Al Quaeda was planning an attack because he didn't have
perfect knowledge as to the exact details. That's typical stupid and
typically republican.
> And like the goofy one, Al Goreleone, he probably
> figures he's some sort of genius.
Compared to you nose-pickers, anybody would seem like a genius.
quibbler
To bad you can't do that with your imaginary god, you fucking moron.
> I have no problem with killing off imaginary
> unborns...be they imaginary embryos, imaginary zygotes, or an
> imaginary fetus. It's snuffing out real kids that bothers me.
Real kids are ones who are born, not embryos and zygotes. Population
control is a serious issue and if you don't understand why then you need
to get informed. The population of the world would be over 1 billion
people larger today without abortion. It would be many billions larger
still without contraception.
> It is easy to bend fantasy stories into fitting your particular view,
> but reality is not quite as maliable.
Tell that to your fundie butt-buddies, you looney fucktard. There is
almost no anti-choice person who isn't a religious fanatic, though about
95% of anti-aborts online attempt to deny this when they are first
challenged. Will you be honest about your fanaticism? The odds say no.
Liberalism's A Sickness
Assclown, only another assclown dickhead would attempt to explain to
another moron why only 7,876 angels can dance on the head of a pin. In
the meantime, get back to your glory hole at the truckstop on Fairy
Road.
quibbler
yar...@aol.com says...
> Do you usually make decisions based on exceptions rather than the
> rule?
An exception, contrary to popular belief, can easily invalidate the rest
of the rule. If your rule is that a zygote is a human being, based upon
no empirical evidence whatsoever, then each new challenge to that
asserted rule becomes another nail in its proverbial coffin. Multiple
pregnancy raises questions about the legitimacy of the pro-lie
philosophy, which requires that one risk the lives and health of all the
children (and the mother), rather than having a safe and healthy number
of children which do not require extraordinary medical and taxpayer-
subsidized assistance.
> The situation of septuplets is an exceptional one.
No, the fertility technology means that just about anyone who takes it
could give birth to large numbers of children. It's just that most
people are stupid enough to want to have huge families.
>
> How do you know for 100% sure that child2 will die?
You don't have to know anything 100%, you fucking moron. The
responsible thing is to still play the odds. That's all we can ever
really do, dumbass.
> There have been
> instances when tests during pregnancy revealed abnromalities that
> resulted in a perfectly healthy baby.
I thought you went with the "rules", rather than the exceptions. Are
you changing your tune now?
> So, the question here is to what extent should I trust your search and
> destroy assessment
To the extent that it is best medically valid, expert advice available.
I suppose that you would prefer to just pull things out of your ass.
After all, why shouldn't your ignorant, uninformed opinion be given
equal weight when put up against the consensus of the entire medical
community.
> that child2 will die at all?
Perhaps because doctors have legitimate medical facts on their side
about what is likely to happen, based upon experience with millions of
similar cases. What do you have. Nothing but hot-air and horseshit.
> Since you are most
> likely not a fortune teller,
One doesn't have to be a fortune-teller, dumbass. One only has to pay
attention to the facts.
> not that I would llisten to such a
> charlatain to start with, why not simply do as much as medically
> possible
Because you are not entitled to burden society with your idiot children.
> and then let nature take its course....assuming the mother's
> life is not in danger?
Which it is.
>
> I trust fortune tellers to pick my pockets, not tell my future or
> anyone elses for that matter.
Scientists are far more able to actually predict future outcomes than
any fortune-teller. Each one of their theories has proven far more
reliable than the nonsense of soothsayers, especially of the religious
variety. I trust that priests, being a form of fortune-teller
themselves, will also pick people's pockets. Medicine has cured more
people than all the faith-healing phonies in history.
>
>
Liberalism's A Sickness
system is science-based, then any monstrous experiment on human beings
becomes acceptable - nay, a welcome alternative. We have only to look
to what Mengele did. And I can assure you his thinking during the
Third Reich was not an isolated mindset, and the Nazi death camps bear
mute testimony to that.
People like Quibbler are the most monstrous people in the world. They
scare the living shit out of us.
Free Lunch
Liberalism's A Sickness <drou...@guerrillamail.net> wrote in
<1182641898.0...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
The Nazi faith is science is like Stalin's faith in Lysenkoism or
reactionary 'Christian' faith in Creationism or the neocons faith in
themselves. They had an agenda that they tried to push their agenda
forward with the trappings of science. None had anything to do with
science.
Andres64
> to cram their theocratic agendas down the throats (or up the vaginas) of
> everyone they can. But I still want to hear the cowardly little god-
> fellating fucktards bluster and bay and try to defend their moronic
> position. I would prefer that they at least pretend to use reason or
> evidence, but I know that both are likely beyond their limited
> capacities.
I've seen similar examples about saving frozen embryos vs a person,
but I can't find them. Does anybody know?
Sergius Bacchus
"Liberalism's A Sickness" <drou...@guerrillamail.net> wrote in message
news:1182638051.9...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> get back to your glory hole at the truckstop on Fairy
> Road.
Everyone who disagrees with you is gay? Go fuck yourself.
Liberalism's A Sickness
> "Liberalism's A Sickness" <droug...@guerrillamail.net> wrote in messagenews:1182638051.9...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > get back to your glory hole at the truckstop on Fairy
> > Road.
>
> Everyone who disagrees with you is gay? Go fuck yourself.
Not necessarily, but when it comes to Usenet libtards, the odds are
overwhelmingly in my favor.
Ray Fischer
>The Nazis also had great faith in science.
While you have great faith in superstition and ignorance.
By the way, that computer you're using? Science.
> If one's entire value
>system is science-based,
As opposed to your value system based upon hate and intolerance?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
quibbler
drou...@guerrillamail.net says...
> The Nazis also had great faith in science.
No faith was required. Nazi science was sound, but they had rigid,
irrational leadership in the form of a crazy, catholic, racist named
Hitler. Plenty of people besides the Nazis, such as the Americans, also
put their trust in science and it won them the war, as well as the peace.
If you want to call science a "religion" then it is still a better
religion than any other one out there. It has delivered more promises
than all the lying religions of history combined. Naturally, it's not
perfect, so you dismiss it out-of-hand and cling to superstitious
religious claptrap with a far worse track record. I will also admit that
all the developments of science have the potential of being used for ill,
as well as good, but the task of figuring out how to responsibly regulate
such behavior is a strictly human affair.
> If one's entire value
> system is science-based,
I never said that. You obviously don't understand the distinction
between values and ethics or even between science and technology. A huge
part of your problem seems to be that you don't know jack shit about
anything of substance. Sure, many of the positive results of science
accord with our values, which is why we find it useful, but that is a
very different issue than the nonsense that you raise.
> then any monstrous experiment on human beings
> becomes acceptable
Your assertion, to quoth Mitt Romney, is a "non sequitur". Just because
one desires scientific knowledge doesn't mean that any means are
acceptable to obtain it. Indeed, what we have found is that scientists
can engineer mice with chunks of human DNA, so that they can test drugs
on mice and get an idea about how humans will respond. A similar effort
is underway to allow scientists to test different drugs on stem-cells and
cloned human cells, rather than working with live adult human beings.
> - nay, a welcome alternative.
Please explain how you have reached your moronic conclusion. How does
the desire for scientific advancement necessarily lead one to prefer "any
means necessary", in your view. If there is more than one way to obtain
scientific data, your luddite invocations of the Frankensteinian monster
of science hardly convince us that scientists will always take some
sinister route.
> We have only to look
> to what Mengele did.
It does not follow that if Mengele did something wrong that all
scientists will necessarily follow his lead, despite their desire to
advance science.
> And I can assure you his thinking during the
> Third Reich was not an isolated mindset,
Given your previous track record of abject stupidity, it's not clear that
we should trust your assessment of anything. Even the Nazis might have
accidentally gotten some things right, despite being authoritarian,
religious, racist, anti-intellectuals with a chip on their shoulder.
Really you have a lot in common with them.
> and the Nazi death camps bear
> mute testimony to that.
They are a testiment to a thousand years of christian, anti-semetic
bigotry and hatred, spewed from most of the xian pulpits in Europe.
>
> People like Quibbler are the most monstrous people in the world.
Yet again, you clearly have no basis for your ridiculous claims.
> They
> scare the living shit out of us.
You're a moron and a coward to boot then.
Sergius Bacchus
The odds are that anyone who obsesses about gay people to that degree
created the glory holes at the truckstops on Fairy Road, and that is
apparently in your favor.
quibbler
drou...@guerrillamail.net says...
> On Jun 23, 3:02 pm, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 23, 10:59 am, Liberalism's A Sickness
> >
> > <droug...@guerrillamail.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 22, 7:41 pm, quibbler <quibbler...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > You're obviously too stupid to understand the purpose of hypothetical.
> > > > The nature of your idiotic comment was already handled in the original
> > > > post, you time-wasting retard.
> >
> > > The "purpose" of hypothetical arguments, especially with leftists, is
> > > to set up straw men, albeit of the imaginary variety.
> >
> > You're simply proving that you neither understand what straw men or
> > hypotheticals are. Hypotheticals are not straw men, nor is that there
> > purpose. Come back when your simple mind has grasped the
> > difference.
> > You are a right-winger because you aren't smart enough to understand
> > basic distinctions of this type. Get an education.
>
> Get a fucking brain,
I have a brain, which is why I understand what a hypothetical is and you
don't. Try using your head for something other than a cum-dumpster for a
change.
> you stupid cocksucker.
reichtards seem to be the ones who secretly love to slurp cock and take
it up their repressed keisters.
> I've forgotten more than
> you'll ever learn.
No, I learn more in five minutes than you've ever learned in your life.
You have nothing to forget because you don't know shit. You've already
proven yourself to be an utter ignoramus. If you want to reverse that
judgment then actually attempt to argue any point about abortion, stem
cell research, religion or catholicism in particular. You can't actually
defend your positions on any of them, to all appearances.
> Your moronic hypotheticals are about as fucking
> juvenile as a toddler asking mommy what if the sky should fall
No, you fucking dipshit, it is quite possible that a woman could have
several dozen zygotes inside her. There is nothing impossible or
unrealistic about that whatsoever. So you've proven that you don't know
jack shit about biology or celestial mechanics with your idiotic
comparison.
> Man, you're a dumb fuck.
You've failed to refute even a single point that I've made because you're
too stupid to handle the task. Feel free to present any evidence or
argument supporting your position or contradicting mine, but you have yet
to do so.
> Sounds like you're a "manager" at Burger
> Kink.
Sounds like you're projecting there bubba.
> Posing Pie-in-the-sky crap
Explain what is "pie-in-the-sky" about a woman carrying a large number of
zygotes. You're too stupid to understand that. You're also too stupid
to understand where phrases like "pie-in-the-sky" come from. Hint, it's
not complementary toward religion. Look up "The Preacher and the Slave"
by Joe Hill. "You'll get pie in the sky, when you die".
> like this is little different than
> setting up straw man arguments
The only straw men here have been your misrepresentations of what
hypotheticals are used for. You're full of that and full of shit.
> and picking them off like clay pigeons.
Holy mixed metaphors, batman. You're not in any position to talk about
straw men or clay pigeons, since you're too stupid to understand that
liberalism is a result of superior education and conservatism is a
disease associated with ignorance and the inability to learn or try new
things.
quibbler
drou...@guerrillamail.net says...
> On Jun 23, 8:41 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > Liberalism's A Sickness <droug...@guerrillamail.net> wrote:
> >
> > >The Nazis also had great faith in science.
> >
> > While you have great faith in superstition and ignorance.
> >
> > By the way, that computer you're using? Science.
>
Nope. No god would design a single pipe for both breathing and eating
when he could have designed two totally separate pipes. No god would
have designed a single coronary artery so that blockage there would cut
off the supply of oxygen to the heart muscles. Indeed, no arteries
should be necessary at all, since the heart pumps gallons in excess of
1000 gallons per day. No god would have designed a blind spot in the
eye, where the optic nerves pass in front of the retina. No god would
have designed flightless birds and blind cave fish with skin that has
grown over otherwise workable eyes. Nature is a giant, atomic computer
and all the myriad, self-sustaining systems which exist were the product
of its rapid interactions in local environments. Things had to be
somehow and this is how they turned out.
> Try duplicating THAT!
It's trivial to point out how a much better syste could have been
designed. God could have given us photosynthetic hair, so that we didn't
need to kill other organisms to live. We only use about 5% of the energy
in our food. What's up with that? Couldn't your sky fairy god do better
than 5% efficiency?
We could better recycle our respiration and our urine. We could have far
sharper eyes and ears and noses, like other animals do. Almost half of
people have to wear glasses or have other vision correction. We could
have retractable claws for defense, like cats. We could ahve other
natural protections like armadillos, or porcupines or turtles.
We could have a lumbar spine that wasn't prone to pinched disks. We
could have heads that were more cone shaped, so that we could more easily
pass through the birth canal. Almost any design would make more sense
than the one that humans actually have. No self-respecting designer
would claim responsibility for the mess that is the human body.
quibbler
andr...@excite.com says...
> I've seen similar examples about saving frozen embryos vs a person,
> but I can't find them. Does anybody know?
Yes and I actually got a pro-lie moron to say that she would rather save
the bucket of 100 fertilized ova than the child because she would be
protecting a greater amount of "life". These people really are looney to
the extreme.
Ray Fischer
>>
>> >The Nazis also had great faith in science.
>>
>> While you have great faith in superstition and ignorance.
>>
>> By the way, that computer you're using? Science.
>
I already have two children and there weren't no threesome involved.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mike Painter
> On Jun 23, 8:41 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Liberalism's A Sickness <droug...@guerrillamail.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The Nazis also had great faith in science.
>>
>> While you have great faith in superstition and ignorance.
>>
>> By the way, that computer you're using? Science.
>
life, it is hardly a difficult thing to do.
If I thought a god created my body, I would have a few questions about my
asthma in particular and many other really stupid features in it.
I'd also want to know why it likes some other animals better.
Newk Indofman
"Liberalism's A Sickness" <drou...@guerrillamail.net> wrote in message
news:1182700170.8...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >The Nazis also had great faith in science.
>>
>> While you have great faith in superstition and ignorance.
>>
>> By the way, that computer you're using? Science.
>
If "GOD" created the human body, then "GOD" is obviously incompetent.
Between our bodies' susceptibilities to sickness, decay and disease, there
are the added problems of genetic deformities and other such abnormalities.
Why would anyone want to duplicate THAT?
yar...@aol.com
Equivocation.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net
Ghod
news:1182800916.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Might I recommend a dictionary? It is quite clear that you have need
of one.
t1gercat
> In article <1182641898.099080.214...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> droug...@guerrillamail.net says...
Well said, Quibbler. Science is always attacked by those who don't
have the guts or intelligence to do the hard work necessary to learn
it, by those who want to escape into the fantasy world of the
"spirit," or by those who want to exploit the confusion and ignorance
of others so that they can dominate them. In all of this blather about
Nazis and science, one salient point hasn't been addressed. Nazism was
not about science. It was about the myth of racial superiority, a myth
supported by its own legends, scriptures, rituals and general mumbo-
jumbo.
Scientists were put to work by the Nazis to solve problems or develop
weapons. They ran the gamut from crazies like Mengele to brilliant
engineers like Van Braun. The scientists weren't the murderers,
however. That dirty work was left to thugs and sociopaths. Engineers
were involved in helping develop the systems, but the statements of
work and the direction to kill came from ignorant Nazi thugs, not from
the scientists or engineers themselves. In any event, the marginal but
destructive uses to which science was put under the Nazis were not
central to their program. The cult of Nazism, with its lies and
legends and mythical nonsense was at its center.
I've read this crap about Nazis and science before. It's funny, but
the same flakes who like to invoke Nazis when any talk of science is
begun, always neglect to mention the much more important link between
Nazis and industrialists. It was industry that willingly, even
eagerly, served the Nazis, in an obscene sybiotic realtionship in
which the Nazis used industrial products, yet supplied slave labor and
various benefits. And, it was all for profit. Even the SS ran the
death camps for profit, carefully figuring the optimal amount of
calories that could be obtained from a man versus how much he'd
consume, selling the products of the inmates, and, finally, selling
the bodily refuse -- rendered fat, hair, and whatever -- for
industrial use.
All religions, in the end, are about power and profit. All religions
want to suffuse people in self-induced neuroses from which they
surrender some self control to the religion. All religions want money
and control, and all religions want individuals either to abjure
science and rationality or to confine them in a mental compartment
whose walls keep the religious compulsions intack.
yar...@aol.com
> <yarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
I'm pretty sure the spelling is right on that...as to the
definition...unless Ray claims that he drew up the blueprints and then
proceeded to make his two kids from available materials according to
those blueprints, resulting in two sentient, free-willed(i.e. free
moral agents) individuals capable through existing mechanisms to
produce offsprings and their offsprings for thousands upon thosuands
of years...I used the "right word" and the idea that is carried by
that word is prefectly appropriate for this occasion.
As to my need for a dictionary...I am always willing to listen to
reasonable suggestions.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Osprey
"t1gercat" <wexfo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182810305....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Does Science explain everything?
Answer: No
Is it possible there is a spiritual world beyond our grasp of understanding?
Answer: Yes
Are religions about power and profit?
Answer: Many are without a doubt, and even in the bible it says there will
be those who are trying to spread the word of God, who will be corrupt.
Is there a difference between faith in God and religion?
Answer: That's easy...of course there is a difference. Show us in the bible
where God endorsed any type of religion.
The fact of the matter is, man created religion and many different
religions. The bible makes no reference at all to any religion. Man
screwed up, there is a big difference between religion and faith in God.
Another fact is, there are many in the scientific community who understand
the separation in science and faith in God, and many who have a faith in God
and are scientist.
Science doesn't explain everything.
Ray Fischer
> "Ghod" <g...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>> > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> > > A Sickness <droug...@guerrillamail.net> wrote:
>> > > > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> > > >> Liberalism's A Sickness <droug...@guerrillamail.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > >> >The Nazis also had great faith in science.
>>
>> > > >> While you have great faith in superstition and ignorance.
>>
>> > > >> By the way, that computer you're using? Science.
>>
>> > > >BTW, that "body" you're living in - GOD! Try duplicating THAT!
>>
>> > > I already have two children and there weren't no threesome
>> involved.
>>
>> > Equivocation.
>>
>> Might I recommend a dictionary? It is quite clear that you have need
>> of one.
>
>I'm pretty sure the spelling is right on that...as to the
>definition...unless Ray claims that he drew up the blueprints and then
>proceeded to make his two kids from available materials according to
Tell us, hypocrite: How does an inability to duplicate a human body
indicate the existance of God?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Does religion? Hell no. It doesn't explain much of anything.
>Is it possible there is a spiritual world beyond our grasp of understanding?
>Answer: Yes
Is it likely? No.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
osprey
> Osprey <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >"t1gercat" <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
You're too narrow minded and short-sighted to understand.
>
> >Is it possible there is a spiritual world beyond our grasp of understanding?
> >Answer: Yes
>
> Is it likely? No.
Again, you're too narrow minded and short-sighted to understand.
Yes, it's very likely.
IAAH
"Likely" implies that you have some kind of compelling
yet unconfirmed evidence about that.
Or is that just a personal opinion?
>
>
>
Osprey
"IAAH" <ia...@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:remdnfBceoI8tRzb...@giganews.com...
Why does it matter to you?
Actually yes, I have personally had an experience that has given me even
greater reason to believe there is life after death.
No, I will not share it with you, so don't waste your time.
IAAH
Ah, so it is merely personal opinion without evidence.
As I thought.
Osprey
Once again, you lie...
You don't "think".
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 25, 11:01 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Osprey <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >"t1gercat" <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> want to suffuse people in self-induced neuroses from which they
>> >> surrender some self control to the religion. All religions want money
>> >> and control, and all religions want individuals either to abjure
>> >> science and rationality or to confine them in a mental compartment
>> >> whose walls keep the religious compulsions intack.
>>
>> >Does Science explain everything?
>> >Answer: No
>>
>> Does religion? Hell no. It doesn't explain much of anything.
>
>You're too narrow minded and short-sighted to understand.
And so Asshole Heishman declares victory and runs away, as usual.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
firel...@hotmail.com
> Is there a difference between faith in God and religion?
> Answer: That's easy...of course there is a difference. Show us in the bible
> where God endorsed any type of religion.
>
I'd say that all the places in the Bible where god
supposedly said "worship me in this fashion"
were endorsements of religion. Have priests
who do this, sacrifice this and that, keep this
day and that day, etc. Yes, mostly old
testament, but the OT's part of the Bible.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Osprey
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:468149c9$0$14104$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Lets discuss the question I asked you in another thread, just today, where
you cut out the question and ran away.
Shall we?
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
>
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Science doesn't explain everything.
>
and religion explains nothing.
Osprey
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:6hv283pd60dd90na0...@4ax.com...
if you're short-sighted and unable to open up your mind...you will think
like that.
Ray Fischer
>>>On Jun 25, 11:01 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> Osprey <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>> >"t1gercat" <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> >> All religions, in the end, are about power and profit. All religions
>>>> >> want to suffuse people in self-induced neuroses from which they
>>>> >> surrender some self control to the religion. All religions want money
>>>> >> and control, and all religions want individuals either to abjure
>>>> >> science and rationality or to confine them in a mental compartment
>>>> >> whose walls keep the religious compulsions intack.
>>>>
>>>> >Does Science explain everything?
>>>> >Answer: No
>>>>
>>>> Does religion? Hell no. It doesn't explain much of anything.
>>>
>>>You're too narrow minded and short-sighted to understand.
>>
>> And so Asshole Heishman declares victory and runs away, as usual.
>
>Lets discuss the question I asked you in another thread, just today, where
>you cut out the question and ran away.
>
>Shall we?
Here's a clue, moron: I'm not going to waste my time an every inane,
irrelevant, and stupid question you come up with. And, of course,
you're going to declare victory yet again rather than admit that
you're in way over your head.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>Science doesn't explain everything.
>>>
>> and religion explains nothing.
>
>if you're short-sighted and unable to open up your mind
...you'll end up ignorant, fearful, and religious.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
osprey
> >> osprey <noneedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>On Jun 25, 11:01 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >>>> Osprey <NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >"t1gercat" <wexford1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>> >> All religions, in the end, are about power and profit. All religions
> >>>> >> want to suffuse people in self-induced neuroses from which they
> >>>> >> surrender some self control to the religion. All religions want money
> >>>> >> and control, and all religions want individuals either to abjure
> >>>> >> science and rationality or to confine them in a mental compartment
> >>>> >> whose walls keep the religious compulsions intack.
>
> >>>> >Does Science explain everything?
> >>>> >Answer: No
>
> >>>> Does religion? Hell no. It doesn't explain much of anything.
>
> >>>You're too narrow minded and short-sighted to understand.
>
> >> And so Asshole Heishman declares victory and runs away, as usual.
>
> >Lets discuss the question I asked you in another thread, just today, where
> >you cut out the question and ran away.
>
> >Shall we?
>
> Here's a clue, moron: I'm not going to waste my time an every inane,
> irrelevant, and stupid question you come up with.
What is so stupid about asking you if you would help and/or support a
woman who wants to get an abortion?
osprey
> >> "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com>
> >>>Science doesn't explain everything.
>
> >> and religion explains nothing.
>
> >if you're short-sighted and unable to open up your mind
>
> ...you'll end up ignorant, fearful, and religious.
Oh, you mean like you!
yar...@aol.com
The subject is "Equivocation", not the indication of the existence
of God. Stop shifting the subject away from the discussion.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net - Hide quoted text -
Ray Fischer
It's stupid because it is not relevant. Do you support freedom of the
press by buying everybody their own computers and printing press?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Osprey
It is relevant, because it shows you to be aliar when you claim to care
about people.
It's a fact, you don't care about anyone else except yourself...don't run,
don't lie..it's been proven.
james g. keegan jr.
"Osprey" <NoNeed...@mail.com> wrote:
> "Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
> news:46831db5$0$14085$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> > It's stupid because it is not relevant.
>
> It is relevant, because it shows you to be aliar when you claim to care
> about people.
your statement is a lie, by your own words.
"Your statement is to be considered a lie until you
can prove it to be true."
"osprey" in <1161104485.981302.246...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
--
get real. like jesus would ever own a gun or vote republican.
Ray Fischer
I don't claim to care about people, you dumbshit asshole. That's you
hallucinating from those drugs you've been taking.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
osprey
We both know you don't care about anyone but yourself. This little
charade you like to put on, caring about the welfare of women; we both
know it's a lie..you don't care.
Drugs??? What drugs are you claiming I am supposed to be taking???
Ray Fischer
We know that you're a liar and a coward, asshole, and every time you
embarrass yourself you start lying about other people.
> This little
>charade you like to put on, caring about the welfare of women;
I don't give a shit about women, you stupid dumbshit. And you really
need to lay of the drugs, moron, because if you get caught it'll mean
the end of your career.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
osprey
Where is the lie? You state below you don't care about women.
>
> > This little
> >charade you like to put on, caring about the welfare of women;
>
> I don't give a shit about women,
I know you don't..that's evident.
you stupid dumbshit. And you really
> need to lay of the drugs, moron, because if you get caught it'll mean
> the end of your career.
You better start coughing up some evidence and contact someone to
report your accussations.
Oh wait, you can't do that because you're "LYING".
Oh boy are you getting even more pathetic by the moment. I never
thought you could reach any lower...boy was I wrong. You have sunk to
a new low.
yar...@aol.com
> "Liberalism's A Sickness" <droug...@guerrillamail.net> wrote in messagenews:1182700170.8...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 23, 8:41 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Liberalism's A Sickness <droug...@guerrillamail.net> wrote:
>
> >> >The Nazis also had great faith in science.
>
> >> While you have great faith in superstition and ignorance.
>
> >> By the way, that computer you're using? Science.
>
> > BTW, that "body" you're living in - GOD! Try duplicating THAT!
>
> Between our bodies' susceptibilities to sickness, decay and disease, there
> are the added problems of genetic deformities and other such abnormalities.
> Why would anyone want to duplicate THAT?
To build something more important.
Ray Fischer
In what you wrote, dumbshit.
> You state below you don't care about women.
"People" is not synonymous with "women", dumbshit.
>> > This little
>> >charade you like to put on, caring about the welfare of women;
>>
>> I don't give a shit about women,
>
>I know you don't..that's evident.
I care about liberty. Something which you hate.
>> you stupid dumbshit. And you really
>> need to lay of the drugs, moron, because if you get caught it'll mean
>> the end of your career.
>
>You better start coughing up some evidence and contact someone to
Piss off, you stupid hypocrite.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Osprey
Yea, I figured that would be your response..:o)
Coward!!!
yar...@aol.com
> In article <1182646205.842999.298...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> andres...@excite.com says...
>
> > I've seen similar examples about saving frozen embryos vs a person,
> > but I can't find them. Does anybody know?
>
> Yes and I actually got a pro-lie moron to say that she would rather save
> the bucket of 100 fertilized ova than the child because she would be
> protecting a greater amount of "life". These people really are looney to
> the extreme.
And if she were to say that she would rather save 100 people rather
than one, you wouldn't think she was looney. Which brings us to the
question of just what is a person. Care to take a stab at the
definition of a person? Clue: It isn't--- Born, alive, human. When you
bring a life into this world, you are responsible for it and unless
the mother is on planet mars, that life in the womb is in this world.
So, why are you promoting irresponsible motherhood? Perhaps you need
to go on the Jerry Springer show and give all thos irresponsible
parents they drag on the show a big public pat on the back for a job
well done.
James Norris
> "Liberalism's A Sickness" <droug...@guerrillamail.net> wrote in messagenews:1182638051.9...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > get back to your glory hole at the truckstop on Fairy
> > Road.
>
> Everyone who disagrees with you is gay? Go fuck yourself.
On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Design for a Conscious Mechanoid
>
> > [Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious'
> > posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is
> > conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a
> > problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a
> > dictionary.]
>
> > Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots.
> > Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at
> > random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and
> > incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original
> > component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact
> > with the environment, and watch what happens.
>
> > Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course.
> > They might replace one of their vital components (the computer
> > program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately
> > stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a
> > while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original
> > structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed
> > mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore
> > robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which
> > was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are
> > interested in.
>
> > The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all
> > their constituent components, including their original computer
> > hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like
> > ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so
> > they might be conscious, as we are.
>
> > A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this
> > could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the
> > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could
> > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought.
> > For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is
> > the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters
> > producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left
> > them long enough, they would eventually do it!
>
> > Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of
> > determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the
> > design above, the construction allows the possibility that
> > consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non-
> > conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a
> > wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands
> > held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality
> > contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged
> > elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment
> > apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up.
> > Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now
> > conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than
> > it was to begin with.
>
> > James Norris
>
> > > > > I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist
> > > > > "reasoning"?
>
> > > > No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor
> > > > computer-based.
>
> > > > > I especially liked the bit:
>
> > > > > "A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and
> > > > > this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the
> > > > > elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could
> > > > > easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought."
>
> > > > > You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on
> > > > > which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether
> > > > > one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the
> > > > > experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could
> > > > > anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave.
>
> > > > The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how
> > > > the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism.
> > > > I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human
> > > > beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my
> > > > suggestion is so laughable.
>
> > > > > Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective
> > > > > experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything
> > > > > or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist
> > > > > perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether
> > > > > something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a
> > > > > few of them here are having problems coming to terms with.
>
> > > > I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a
> > > > problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but
> > > > anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't.
>
> > > > > Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and
> > > > > an absolute nutter.
>
> > > > An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that
> > > > they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose.
>
> > > > The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical
> > > > example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being
> > > > might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in
> > > > reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million
> > > > typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare
> > > > would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the
> > > > salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it
> > > > amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and
> > > > memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool.
>
> > > The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something
> > > was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it
> > > was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was
> > > the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour
> > > expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have
> > > been influenced by their existance).
>
> > You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts.
> > The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about
> > consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces
> > behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding
> > of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness,
> > which you should look into as they might help you express your
> > argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The
> > 'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in
> > the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various
> > other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed
> > behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries
> > to satisfy.
>
> > > Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes
> > > played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar
> > > thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as
> > > I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the
> > > concept, or have you got competition?
>
> No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the
> example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity
> is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in
> the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary
> complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic
> bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the
> theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from
> millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you
> think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth
> considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever
> - perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting
> in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to
> provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be
> rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious
> awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you
> suggest?
Discuss.
Jim