Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Knight Templar on September 23, 2002, 06:11:29 pm
-
I had an idea. I was in class (biology strangely) the other day and we had a class debate. I hadn't remember how much i enjoy that untill then , and sadly my English teacher is an incompotent fool, so i doubt we will have any debates with her, other than Trying to excuse homework :) , Anyways, more to the point i say we make a debate thread. Some where along the lines of these parameters.
=============================
- A set topic is chosen or brought up, if it is suitable, it becomes the topic.
- Either A) Set teams, you get 3 - 6 hours from the posting of the topic to decide what team you will play for or
B) Free-for-all. This may be prefreble, but most free-for-all's end in OT or Flame wars.
- All debates end in 1 (or 2 :confused: ) week(s). This should be ample time to argue your point and So on. A Time limit also allows for closing arguements and such. It also allows for new topics to be brought up uninterupted.
- no personal flaming we are here to get our ideas across and debate, not flame or diss' .
=============================
I have a few questions for you now.
1) Admins, could you please watch this thread closely, a flame thread would kill this and would be a huge let down.
2) How should topics be chosen? Whoever throws one out there the quickest after one ends? Vote? Admin chosen? I'm open to anything really.
3) how should teams be chosen, if we decide to have them? Would teams be too complicated?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
That is all i can come up with i believe for now. Please people, get back to me on this. Once the variables are kicked out, i have an idea for debate. LEt's make this work :)
-
CPS, Kellan or Myself will win, you realise?
-
;7
now all we need is a topic... :p
-
:ha: Su - Thep is a Lawyer in Training i believe and i am an aspiring one. :) that's good though, as long as the sides are semi balanced
-
now all we need is a topic...
I can't wait :D
-
I'm no lawyer but I argue all the time anyway. :D
-
i can go ahead and throw out here the topic that we used in Biology :
Stem Cell Research
for and against it. If you aren't familiar with the topic. then see a Pyschayatrist (http://www.aaas.org/spp/sfrl/projects/stem/main.htm) ;) I think that link covers most of it.
Basically the idea is it could save a lot of human lives and suffering, but the moral delima is that it is taking away life from unborn baby's, essentially never letting them be born.
Sound like a good topic?
-
Stem cell researched has been banned by the government. You can't change the government, so whats there to debate? How about the hot issue reguarding toxic wallpaper glue.
-
.........
well the debate in my class (i don't know what i think about my teacher yet) was that wether it would be worth it or not, morally/ethicaly,and logically to go through with it. It wasn't a matter of wether or not we could change the fact (Bush = Moron)
Besides nobody said we had to use it. Just throwing out an idea like i said.
Banned by the government
you mean banned by bush. He wouldn't want to lose the catholic vote now, would he?
-
stem cell and genetics research is something we categorically MUST do.
It can pave the way for total cures to genetic conditions, replacement organs.
and you can bet your bottom currency that the "govornment" bans it while practising their own research...just under control of a few "trusted" individuals
-
Yeah, there is no real reason not to go ahead with stem cell research; I suppose there are significant financial considerations, but the potential benefits are fairly high.
-
I agree, stem cells could help us as a race by leeps and bounds. It's the closest thing that we have to curing a varity of incureable problems at hand (Brain Damage and liver damage just to name some off the top of my head) Not to meantion replacements for lost organs, as said before. I beleive it's the next step foward in Medical Technology and advancement.
hmmm this won't be much of a debate if this keeps up :D, somebody find some dedicated republicans and haul em' in here ;)
-
Whether Archspace is better than Nodewars
:nervous:
Oops. :ha:
-
Even if it had no practical benefits, it is still well worth it just for the advancement of theory.
How about HLP vs. VW? :D
-
Originally posted by wEvil
CPS, Kellan or Myself will win, you realise?
:doubt: *me mumbles*
On stem cell research, pretty much everything they said up above. The only reason people would consider not doing it because of outdated religious "beliefs" (I don't think the bible ever explicitly states that alteration of humans is bad though, can't be 100% sure though) or because somehow it's not "correct" to alter humans. All this is bull**** as humans have been scrweing their bodies over since long ago and altering the course of many species... (dogs for example) Note: Thre reason I presented the altering of species thing is largely because alot of religious argument is on the line of "you shouldn't become gods" :rolleyes: anyway, why would a god who didn't want us to be mini-gods let us do it? (so far we havne't seen any divine lightning strike a laboratory have we?)
how about a new subject?
-
I don't know what we "should" or "should not" be doing, but the fact is that we can, so screw that. :D
-
altering humans has nothing to do with it. it's the killing of the unborn babies that's the problem.
-
And what is wrong with that? :p
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I don't know what we "should" or "should not" be doing, but the fact is that we can, so screw that. :D
true, but what about stupid things like "nuclear testing in ohio"? Are we going to do that 'cause we can :p (yeah I'm twisting your point and enjoying it so :ha: ) Or, "should" we not? :p
And what is wrong with that :p
again, religious people/dumb people who are too deeply rooted in tradition/humaness to be objective/rational. :p
-
Free will vs. Determinism
*runs*
-
Ya mean fate or no fate? Well assuming god exists what kind of god would play with toys that could only do what they're set to do? :p
(I'll make an actual argument later :p)
-
true, but what about stupid things like "nuclear testing in ohio"? Are we going to do that 'cause we can (yeah I'm twisting your point and enjoying it so ) Or, "should" we not?
Well, why not? :D There is still no reason why we "should" not in the context you are speaking of. There would be consequences, but that means nothing here. The concept of "should" taken in that way has no meaning. :p
Free will vs. Determinism
The absence of one does not imply the other, so neither a deterministic nor a probabilistic universe would have a "free will"; this is pretty easy to show from the holistic principle. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Well, why not? :D There is still no reason why we "should" not in the context you are speaking of. There would be consequences, but that means nothing here. The concept of "should" taken in that way has no meaning. :p
Well assuming the ultimate goal to humanity is to survive then we "should" try to keep humans alive? Wouldn't "should" specify a need/obligation/action of recommendation in terms of advantage/disadvantage? (unless you want to argue that nuclear testing ohio is advantageous to humanity)
Neither one; this is pretty easy to show from the holistic principle. :D (a probabilistic universe without any "free will")
And what would that be? :p (and what exactly is "free will" in this usage anyway? The ability to choose? The ability to choose with no influence? The ability to choose without bias?)
-
Well assuming the ultimate goal to humanity is to survive then we "should" try to keep humans alive? Wouldn't "should" specify a need/obligation/action of recommendation in terms of advantage/disadvantage? (unless you want to argue that nuclear testing ohio is advantageous to humanity)
That is what I mean; you are assuming something extra there. The "should" that was being referred to earlier was taken in a universal sense.
And what would that be? :p (and what exactly is "free will" in this usage anyway? The ability to choose? The ability to choose with no influence? The ability to choose without bias?)
The second "question" is what I had in mind; that is really the only way to define a free will. What would what be? (that sounded funny :D)
-
Originally posted by CP5670
That is what I mean; you are assuming something extra there. The "should" that was being referred to earlier was taken in a universal sense.
ah, okay my bad :p
The second "question" is what I had in mind; that is really the only way to define a free will. What would what be? (that sounded funny :D)
Yeah, in the case it's the second option then there would be no free will... as I always say "free will is a myth" :p (and then people proceed to think I'm insane)
I was reffering to what a holistic principle was in my "what would that be" question.
-
Oh that; that is simply the idea that everything in reality exists in the same system and thus everything is dependent on everything else. It can be summed up by saying that all is ultimately one. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
Oh that; that is simply the idea that everything in reality exists in the same system and thus everything is dependent on everything else. It can be summed up by saying that all is ultimately one. :D
ah, so kinda like the classical "everything is relative" ?
-
About Stem Cell stuff, I agree with Carl - I'm not against genetic engineering per se, but it's the killing unborn babies I have problems with - same as abortion (and let's not get into that one).
Free Will vs. Determinisim is something that many people in "Christian" circles have differring views on, basically, how can Man have free will and yet biblical prophecy be true. To which I answer that that way of thinking about it is restricted by Time. Building on the fact/theory/speculation/hypothesis/hogwash/whatever-you-want-to-call-it that God is outside of Time, He can therefore see our choices at any and every given point in this thing we call Time. He knows what to us is the future simply because He exists outside of Time. We have completely free reign to do whatever we want, but He knows what descision we, from our time-bound perspective, will make in the future.
And I move that we should have a debate on debating itself. :D
-
Originally posted by Carl
altering humans has nothing to do with it. it's the killing of the unborn babies that's the problem.
You can't overcrowd the world well over its carrying capacity just because of the inflexibility of your beleifs.
I can't say that unborn kid will have a bad life, but unwanted children are a greater evil.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
I can't say that unborn kid will have a bad life, but unwanted children are a greater evil.
Ahem... Its usually the parent who turns evil. If you don't want a child use a condom and the pill. If it fails THEN its a problem. If one doesn't take these measures it is their responsibility. Many parents won't take that responsibility though. And that is one more sin of humanity to add to the rest of the sins of our stupid race :p.
But don't blame it on the children.
-
i wasnt blaming the child, i was saying abortion on a non-sentient bundle of cells is in no way a greater evil than the likelyhood of the aforementioned child growing up to be something bad.
-
Originally posted by wEvil
i wasnt blaming the child,
Ok,sorry. I misunderstood you
i was saying abortion on a non-sentient bundle of cells is in no way a greater evil than the likelyhood of the aforementioned child growing up to be something bad.
That is just the problem. WHY do they have to grow up into something bad? I see governments spend BILLIONS on military campaigns, new airplanes, etc. But have we truly forgotten ourselves? Have we truly become so selfish that nobody cares about oneother? If only a fraction of the amount of money went to the unwanted children I just know that many of them would lead a normal life.
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
I beleive it's the next step foward in Medical Technology and advancement.
Painfully off what little single topic we have here, but I believe that medicine will soon evolve into the use of genetically modified viruses, designed to fix problems instead of cause them. I mean, think about what they do - they go in, modify a cell on the genetic level, then make that cell replicate. So what if that cell that they modified went from, say, cancerous to healthy? Or from a cell with, say, parkinsons or Alzheimers to healthy? If we could do it well enogh, the possibilities are endless...
-
Originally posted by wEvil
...i was saying abortion on a non-sentient bundle of cells is in no way a greater evil...
Bad choice of definition there - humans only achieve self-sentience after a few months, if not years.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Bad choice of definition there - humans only achieve self-sentience after a few months, if not years.
Self-sentience is retarded. Isolating yourself from the natural order just means that once you're dead, you're twice as ****ed as if you'd remained at one with nature.
Isolationist retards.
*feels no need to explain himself or his reasoning to you heathenous, unnatural, unenlightened hypocrits*
*gives everyone the finger and walks off*
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Bad choice of definition there - humans only achieve self-sentience after a few months, if not years.
That has not been scientifically proven. I believe that every animal including humans are sentient from the day thay are born. Human babies will yell if screamed against, etc... And in my eyes show signs of self sentient. They know they are here... alive...
Its a matter of standards... What do you see as self-sentient? Many people think many different things. :p
-
Even if they are "sentient," what difference does that make? :p
-
ok...well, how about when they learn some basic arithmetic then?
:ha:
-
I'm going to take the stance of it should be illegal. Why? I'll make an example of CP. Lets say they found a way to take your spine and cure the king from some fatal illness. And deeming you not important to society they told you they were going to have to kill you and take your spine. Would you have a problem with that? I think so.
Q) Well we are talking about the unborn here!
So? If it has the potential to become a functional person there is something wrong. These so called 'fetuses' could be the man/woman that discovers a cure for cancer, light-speed travel, or a number of things. I find it oddly distrubing that abunch of people claiming something over in some far away country is immoral and unjust when they perfectly agree with killing the unborn, or could be pro-choice for that matter.
Abortion?
Same thing. Hey, you have to pay the coinsquences for your actions here.
Q) Well what if they were raped!
So? It's not your fault(unless your the raper), but it's like falling and breaking your arm. You still have to wear the cast. And you can give children up for adoption that seems far better than killing them.
-
I think I would, but I would probably not be able to do anything about it, and thus my opinion would not matter. What I think is of no importance whatsoever from the society's point of view, where we are interested in the whole alone. (i.e. I would try to resist, but they are equally "right" in going about their objective) Simple as that. :D
Also, the dirt on the ground has the potential to become a person as well; does that mean we cannot experiment with it?
And I'm not the one who's complaining about conquering other nations; quite the contrary, in fact. :p :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
I
And I'm not the one who's complaining about conquering other nations; quite the contrary, in fact. :p :D
I didn't say you were. I just picked the logically most useful to society out of the 4 or 5 people that are in this thread to use as an example. :p
-
uh...well I guess I might find some cool fractional calculus formula or something...uhm... :nervous:
-
Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
I'm going to take the stance of it should be illegal. Why? I'll make an example of CP. Lets say they found a way to take your spine and cure the king from some fatal illness. And deeming you not important to society they told you they were going to have to kill you and take your spine. Would you have a problem with that? I think so.
Q) Well we are talking about the unborn here!
So? If it has the potential to become a functional person there is something wrong. These so called 'fetuses' could be the man/woman that discovers a cure for cancer, light-speed travel, or a number of things. I find it oddly distrubing that abunch of people claiming something over in some far away country is immoral and unjust when they perfectly agree with killing the unborn, or could be pro-choice for that matter.
I for one am not willing to destroy a promising bit of research when the risk is a slight possibility of spawning an einstein/feynman etc. - it's for the advancement of knowledge, who cares the sacrifice? (as long as it's small)
Oh and if stemcell research works we'll be saving more lives no? We can prevent all those nasty wierd cell diseases, that'll make more geniuses than saving babies no?
-
it's for the advancement of knowledge, who cares the sacrifice? (as long as it's small)
exactly, or even if it is not. :D
-
Originally posted by CP5670
exactly, or even if it is not. :D
well we don't want to wipe out the human race... ;)
-
probably not. they need a lot of babies.
-
no problem with wiping out some of it, though; they are easy to replace. :D
-
true :D /me thinks we need to invest in human cloning...
Hey there's a new topic: human cloning!
-
Ah, that's one thing I am a really big proponent of. ;7
-
OK seeing as these topics always seem to break down to this
what is good and evil / morals
read this (http://www.mit.edu/~pinker/discover.html)
I haven't read it all the way threw but I think this guy is just about my exact point of veiw (I was tring to find this months discover article(wich I have read), but this is by the same guy)
-
That guy has some interesting points, but I'm not sure what exactly he is trying to say. Is it that all of our actions serve to propagate genes alone? (and that makes little sense anyway, since evolution takes its path and the genes eventually come to an end) I think that the only problem with his thing is that he is assuming that everything must have an absolute purpose, but this is a really major flaw.
There is one point of his that I really like though:
...the modern mind is adapted to the Stone Age, not the computer age...
This is the same thing that Koestler talked about and I quite agree with it. Notice all the things this guy said about the strange actions of humans and their incompatibility with the other things that humans do (heck, the whole concept of enjoyment is an old stone-age relic); this is the product of an attempted advance of nature over the primitive animal brain, where the characteristics all change at their own rates.
-
That was quite amusing, it had interesting parts to it...
So conclusively genes make brains so that they are "advantageous" to the spreading of genes, but why would a gene actually "want" that?
In fact, can a gene actually be programmed to create a mind that serves itself better?
Does it evolve somehow into something that can create self-serving machines?
and on a differnt note, even if our brains our still stone-aged we're developing at a slow rate (unless we develop evolutionary speed ups) so we might as well just enjoy this since we can ;)
-
the basic point is that humans have many many inherint behavors that we are born with, includeing things like; happy, sad, angery, wright, wrong, good, evil, like me, not like me.
therefore, good and evil wright and wrong, morals, do exsist, but only as concepts in the living minds of all humans (wich we are), and (most importantly) they are not something learned culturaly.
these concepts are a major evolutionary advantage that even thought they were developed for a stone age world, are still just as usefull today becase the world we live in is still inhabeted by humans who all still have these sets of rules, and when everyone works with these rules the human race survives better.
We still use the same basic socal structure today as we did 2 million years ago
you cannot remove these concepts from our minds without a major gene level alteration into somehting that is in no way (other than perhaps outward apearance) recognisable as human(not makeing a moral jugement on wether this is "good" or "bad" just stateing the fact), and you might as well try starting from scratch, maybe a computer,
who needs messy animals at all,
but then again, why bother?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the basic point is that humans have many many inherint behavors that we are born with, includeing things like; happy, sad, angery, wright, wrong, good, evil, like me, not like me.
therefore, good and evil wright and wrong, morals, do exsist, but only as concepts in the living minds of all humans (wich we are), and (most importantly) they are not something learned culturaly.
So are these inherent behavior actually shown to be genetic? I can accept fear as a genetic thing but good and evil?
And also, what is the point of the guy telling us they exist (good, evil, etc.) it doesn't actually affect me - I don't care if it's builtin or not, I'll still ignore those primitive goods and bads.
(so the information doesn't actually show me anything or convince me of anything or whatever, and also are these "morals" the morals that we talk about often in here? i.e. cloning is bad, stem cells are bad, blah blah blah)
you cannot remove these concepts from our minds without a major gene level alteration into somehting that is in no way (other than perhaps outward apearance) recognisable as human(not makeing a moral jugement on wether this is "good" or "bad" just stateing the fact), and you might as well try starting from scratch, maybe a computer,
who needs messy animals at all,
but then again, why bother?
because we don't want to be human... :D
But even if we can't take them out, we can try to ignore them :)
/me suddenly wonders if he's making sense or babbling :p
-
genes don't "want" anything, they are inanimant, however what is meant here is that in an evolutionary system, anything that gives an organism more healthy offspring than others of it's kind that are themselves likely to do the same is what is "wanted"
wanted being the thing that the system selects for.
strictly speaking the overiding goal of evolution is sex, well no, procreation (wich in many animals and plants sex is the most important part to geting the proces started), but if there is an animal that protects it's young it (the spieces) is more likely to survive than the one (the spieces) that doesn't
so in humans the evolutionary goal of procreation has developed an intracate and robust socal structure wich provides a means by wich people find mates and protect there young and each other
-
the basic point is that humans have many many inherint behavors that we are born with, includeing things like; happy, sad, angery, wright, wrong, good, evil, like me, not like me.
therefore, good and evil wright and wrong, morals, do exsist, but only as concepts in the living minds of all humans (wich we are), and (most importantly) they are not something learned culturaly.
these concepts are a major evolutionary advantage that even thought they were developed for a stone age world, are still just as usefull today becase the world we live in is still inhabeted by humans who all still have these sets of rules, and when everyone works with these rules the human race survives better.
We still use the same basic socal structure today as we did 2 million years ago
I see. But then why stop there? Perhaps there are also other concepts that are embedded into the brain from the beginning. You can introduce just about everything we have today into the mix as well, and then we get all kinds of inconsistencies. If you have ethics, why not also, say, the ability to kill each other? Are these a "major evolutionary advantage" that contribute to the survival of the species? (which is impossible anyway; see below)
Besides, speaking from a universal point of view, it makes little sense that any species would try to gear itself to survival, or that they are all doing a pretty bad job of it, because the genes and species are constantly evolving into new forms no matter how hard the genes "try" to stop this progress.
In the end, everything and nothing is recognizable as "human" anyway, because there is no clear definition of "human," so the nearest rocks are just as human as we are. In one sense, whatever we do will ensure that we remain "human," and in another sense, anything we do will ensure that we lose our "humanity." (see that argument I had with levyathan a while ago; it was on the same subject)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
genes don't "want" anything, they are inanimant, however whwanted being the thing that the system selects for.
strictly speaking the overiding goal of evolution is sex, well no, procreation (wich in many animals and plants sex is the most important part to geting the proces started), but if there is an animal that protects it's young it (the spieces) is more likely to survive than the one (the spieces) that doesn't
so in humans the evolutionary goal of procreation has developed an intracate and robust socal structure wich provides a means by wich people find mates and protect there young and each other
Hmmm, interesting... what about the developement of religion? Is that all in the genes "master plan" or is that some kind of random element that's not supposed to be there? And if so, why do virtually all cultures devlop religion?
/me finds it odd
-
I think these contradictions are coming up because a problematic distinction is being made between one species and another, along with their surroundings; all of these things are one and the same, and this concept of "survival" as a universal purpose/objective has little meaning.
Anyway I'm going to sleep now; keep up with that arguing. :D
-
Besides, speaking from a universal point of view, it makes little sense that any species would try to gear itself to survival, or that they are all doing a pretty bad job of it, because the genes and species are constantly evolving into new forms no matter how hard the genes "try" to stop this progress.
But the genes don't actually "try" to do anything... rather it happens that certain mutations (coincidentally or otherwise) survived while otheres didn't. It's merely a die or live kind of thing and the gene's "wants" have nothing to do with it.
So the creation of emotions/ethics/etc. was actually just another acccidental mutation that seems like the gene "trying" to fasion our minds in screwy ways.[/quote]
In the end, everything and nothing is recognizable as "human" anyway, because there is no clear definition of "human," so the nearest rocks are just as human as we are. In one sense, whatever we do will ensure that we remain "human," and in another sense, anything we do will ensure that we lose our "humanity." (see that argument I had with levyathan a while ago; it was on the same subject) [/B]
I'm too lazy a sum up of it? Anyway, the only reason we call ourselves "human" is because we have this obsession with defining certain "steps" of the ladder with names and such. For all we care we can be Momnificonsnians... so the definition of human would be a step on the differentiation of "things"
-
don't you just love being a post behind:)
I want to be human
why, becase i do
what is the deepest reason for this aparently ilogical disire?
becase humans have an instinctive like of humanity, it is classified as a "good" thing, bacase if it wasn't we would be repulsed but potental mates, and our offspring (if we somehow had them), so there is no genetic advantage to wanting to be inhuman, wereas there is a maor advantage to wanting to be human, so there is no instinctave drive for me to be non-human, and a major instinctave drive for me to want to be human
I always find it hard to find the words just before I type :rolleyes:
I see. But then why stop there? Perhaps there are also other concepts that are embedded into the brain from the beginning. You can introduce just about everything we have today into the mix as well, and then we get all kinds of inconsistencies. If you have ethics, why not, say, the ability to do math?
the ability to do math does have evedence for it being genetic, if our minds wern't disigned to do it we wouldn't be able to, now certanly some things are cultural, but things that are fairly universal and promote survival can be assumed to be genetic.
give me a fairly universal concept nearly all humans have that isn't genetic
Besides, speaking from a universal point of view, it makes little sense that any species would try to gear itself to survival, or that they are all doing a pretty bad job of it, because the genes and species are constantly evolving into new forms no matter how hard the genes "try" to stop this progress.
it makes perfict sence that a species would be driven to survive, that is the thesis point of evolution, are you saying evolution doesn't make sence?
actualy i have no idea what you're trying to say here, so I'll just let you refraise it
In the end, everything and nothing is recognizable as "human" anyway, because there is no clear definition of "human," so the nearest rocks are just as human as we are.
there are ways you can classify objects, how about geneticaly, or by the structure of there brain, rocks don't have brains, or genes(unless the rock has something growing on it, but then that isn't the genes of that rock)
humans classified
living_thing.cellular_life.multi_cellular.animal.vertibrate.ma mal.primate.(insert large amount statistical genetic data that defines a human seperate from a chimpansee)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
it makes perfict sence that a species would be driven to survive, that is the thesis point of evolution, are you saying evolution doesn't make sence?
actualy i have no idea what you're trying to say here, so I'll just let you refraise it
Species have no "drive" to survive, it's a simple "jyakunikukyoushyoku" relation (Weak Meat, Strong Eat) where the ones who turn out best win and the others get eaten... There is no "drive" involved... at least not necessarily. (sometimes our minds are fasihoned to win, but that isn't a "drive" in my opinion. Also many evolutionary traits are physical...)
-
] Originally posted by Kamikaze
Hmmm, interesting... what about the developement of religion? Is that all in the genes "master plan" or is that some kind of random element that's not supposed to be there? And if so, why do virtually all cultures devlop religion?
/me finds it odd [/B]
it is posable that there is a genetic preposition for humans to develop religon, it does fill in many conceptual needs, like a perpose, it's hard to da anything if you don't have any reason to do anything.
if religon gives an you more healthy offspring that are themselves likely to do the same than others, then yes it would be selected by natural selection
and the fact that many religons liked to kill people that are not part of that religon than being part of that religon would prove benifisal in the long run
__________________
the "concept of "survival" as a universal purpose/objective" is not erronius becase if this wasn't the overideing goal than we wouldn't be here haveing this discusion, in evolution things don't have consus awareness that they are trying to have childeren, this is the concept you must be running under to make jugements about evolutionary systems becase it is the overideing goal in an evolutionary system, nobody rationaly thought it up but when things start replicateing themselves imprefictly the ones that survive the best are going to be the ones that will make the next generation. it isn't in the grand sceem of things important but it is the goal
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
the "concept of "survival" as a universal purpose/objective"
but there is no "universal purpouse/objective" when it comes to genetics because it's not a matter of purpouse/objective as genes don't do that - it's just a coincidental he dies, I live thing.
And when it comes to humans we don't really have it as a "purpouse" more of a genetical obligation which I wouldn't call a purpouse.
edit: i'm going to sleep too so someone take my spot till tommorow :p
-
when I say "drive" I am meaning that those that don't die
evolution is a system, it has a goal
the goal, is to survive and make more offsping that are going to survive and have more offsping that are going to suvive and.........
dirve doesn't have the instruction placed any were, nothing is thinking "ok in order to survive" or "I want to reproduce", but thouse that don't are removed from relivence
[edit]I am felling the dirve to sleep as well
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I am felling the dirve to sleep as well
ROFL!
-
it makes perfict sence that a species would be driven to survive, that is the thesis point of evolution, are you saying evolution doesn't make sence?
actualy i have no idea what you're trying to say here, so I'll just let you refraise it
No, I am saying that "survive" does not make any sense in the way you are using it there; see below.
the "concept of "survival" as a universal purpose/objective" is not erronius becase if this wasn't the overideing goal than we wouldn't be here haveing this discusion, in evolution things don't have consus awareness that they are trying to have childeren, this is the concept you must be running under to make jugements about evolutionary systems becase it is the overideing goal in an evolutionary system, nobody rationaly thought it up but when things start replicateing themselves imprefictly the ones that survive the best are going to be the ones that will make the next generation. it isn't in the grand sceem of things important but it is the goal
I have already talked about this exact subject elsewhere, so I will just copy/paste from another thread: :D
See my original post on this sub-topic for more information on this part. You see, going by one definition of "survival" in which we talk of the existence of the individual particles, we would survive regardless of what we did. (conservation of energy) Going by the other definition, in which we define a state of complete stasis in the relative positions of the particles, we would die out, once again in spite of anything we try, since we cannot completely stop the change. There can be nothing in between the two that does not rely on perceptual, non-absolute distinctions, and thus is useless for our purposes.
the ability to do math does have evedence for it being genetic, if our minds wern't disigned to do it we wouldn't be able to, now certanly some things are cultural, but things that are fairly universal and promote survival can be assumed to be genetic.
give me a fairly universal concept nearly all humans have that isn't genetic
Just because we can do it does not necessarily mean that it is directly coded in our genes. That is where cultural influence comes in. Here is one: jealousy. This is seen everywhere, and yet it is not exactly "promoting survival." (of the entire society)
I say that the individual human only starts off with that which will allow for the prolonged survival of that individual only, and since the human has a discrete point where it ceases to survive (death), this actually has some meaning. (for a species, no such point exists)
there are ways you can classify objects, how about geneticaly, or by the structure of there brain, rocks don't have brains, or genes(unless the rock has something growing on it, but then that isn't the genes of that rock)
humans classified
living_thing.cellular_life.multi_cellular.animal.vertibrate.ma mal.primate.(insert large amount statistical genetic data that defines a human seperate from a chimpansee)
Well, no we cannot; as Leibniz said, "nature does nothing in leaps." In other words, everything, at least in terms of ideas, is fully continuous; between any two species, no matter how closely related, one can find another species in between. The classifications only exist for our own purposes of deduction. In a universal way, we cannot say that all species between the human/chimpanzee barrier fall into one of the two categories, because you will always have something exactly in the middle. This is the concept of ideal continuity.
-
I am not talking about survival of the individual more than the survival of the species, though the survival of the individual up to reproduction is nesicary for the survial of the species, after reproduction the survival of the individual is only important to insure the survival of the offspring (and for more chances to reproduce), though humans carry this secondary function further than most other animals (but not to an exceptional degree).
how are non absolute diferences useless, there the only way to make jugements in the real world, relitivly few absolute truths exsist outside of theory (relitive to the non-absolute), I know you being a math person you don't like dealing with things that can be quantifyed but you must acsept there is a clear if not absolute diference between a rock and a human
Just because we can do it does not necessarily mean that it is directly coded in our genes. That is where cultural influence comes in. Here is one: jealousy. This is seen everywhere, and yet it is not exactly "promoting survival." (of the entire society)
it isn't necisary but the fact that a dog can't do math sugests there is a genetic factor
jealousy; a feeling that someone else has something that you should have, and the desire to obtain it or to cause that other idividual to lose posesion of it, often regardless of cost,
baised on primarily on greed, and to a lesser extent the sence of justice (it isn't fair that they have it and I don't)
yes this is an anti-socal instinct, but it is baised on clearly neicary instincts (greed)
jealousy would make a person more likely to be relitivly sucseful than other people ether by driveing them to do beter or by driving them to bring down rivals, wich is how it is still around despite its negitive efects.
however it is detromental to the socal construct wich is central to the survival human race, so it is classifyed as beeing a "bad" thing and socaly looked down apon, becase the socal rules inherant in our instinctive socal structure deem this behavor bad, becase over the melinia those groupes of people that alowed greed to overcome generosity were less succesful that those who didn't
I say that the individual human only starts off with that which will allow for the prolonged survival of that individual only, and since the human has a discrete point where it ceases to survive (death), this actually has some meaning. (for a species, no such point exists)
so would it not have meaning for there to also be instincts that promote a groupe of closly related people, much like the cells in a body all have rules to work together
I have to quit now, be back later
-
I am not talking about survival of the individual more than the survival of the species, though the survival of the individual up to reproduction is nesicary for the survial of the species, after reproduction the survival of the individual is only important to insure the survival of the offspring (and for more chances to reproduce), though humans carry this secondary function further than most other animals (but not to an exceptional degree).
But we know that this is in fact not what the individual strives for; even that article you linked to said that.
how are non absolute diferences useless, there the only way to make jugements in the real world, relitivly few absolute truths exsist outside of theory (relitive to the non-absolute), I know you being a math person you don't like dealing with things that can be quantifyed but you must acsept there is a clear if not absolute diference between a rock and a human
And which is? I will accept that there is a difference between a rock and a human, but not a discrete difference. In other words, you will always be able to find something exactly halfway between the two that can be classified as neither more rock nor more human. Do the same with this new object and the human, and we will have something else in between once again. Continue this process forever, and you get ideal continuity.
Non-absolute differences are fine when they are the only such distinction available, but here we can think of an infinite number of equally good distinctions; therefore, they are all meaningless.
it isn't necisary but the fact that a dog can't do math sugests there is a genetic factor
jealousy; a feeling that someone else has something that you should have, and the desire to obtain it or to cause that other idividual to lose posesion of it, often regardless of cost,
baised on primarily on greed, and to a lesser extent the sence of justice (it isn't fair that they have it and I don't)
yes this is an anti-socal instinct, but it is baised on clearly neicary instincts (greed)
jealousy would make a person more likely to be relitivly sucseful than other people ether by driveing them to do beter or by driving them to bring down rivals, wich is how it is still around despite its negitive efects.
however it is detromental to the socal construct wich is central to the survival human race, so it is classifyed as beeing a "bad" thing and socaly looked down apon, becase the socal rules inherant in our instinctive socal structure deem this behavor bad, becase over the melinia those groupes of people that alowed greed to overcome generosity were less succesful that those who didn't
It is so, but then why is it that the majoirty of individual people still go by it anyway? It seems to me that you are trying to say why jealousy is not good for the society, and I will agree with you on there, but that is beside the point; the question is whether or not people start off with it or learn it in the course of their lives, and whethere or not people automatically do what is best for the society.
so would it not have meaning for there to also be instincts that promote a groupe of closly related people, much like the cells in a body all have rules to work together
Not instincts in the way you are speaking of there; thinking in one way, everything could be said to be an instinct by the very fact that we are doing it.
I think we need to define "instinct" more precisely here before going on. Is it what humans have in their minds at birth or what they gain through experience? (both can be instinctual)
-
Nyuck, everyone seems to be ignoring my arguments :p
/me went to school today and argued with religoius people...
Here's one: Why does a god let us masturbate... and if we were created in god's image, does he masturbate? (this was actually brought up :p)
-
What did they say to that? :D
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Nyuck, everyone seems to be ignoring my arguments :p
/me went to school today and argued with religoius people...
Here's one: Why does a god let us masturbate... and if we were created in god's image, does he masturbate? (this was actually brought up :p)
Man, I must be omnipotent by now.... :nervous:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
What did they say to that? :D
They said no and that masturbating is bad and since god is perfect he doesn't.. or it might've been the otehr way around: god is perfect, he doesn't masturbate therefore masturbation is bad :p (it was quite a bad counter-argument, all of the religious guys arguments were :p)
And he also resorted to false assumptions: god is perfect, therefore whatever he doesn't do is imperfection... perfection is god and so on. Also it was said that god tests our "faith" (*cough*) so we can become perfect beings (what the hell?)...
my thoughts: it's all his game ;7 (we were assuming god exists.. for the sake of argument)
-
lol...the concept of this "universal perfection" is so ridiculous it's not even funny... :D (after all, he could be perfect at being stupid, or perfect at being imperfect)
-
The person had a very hard time understanding that... you could tell from all the frowns on his face and his conclusion: I'll never convince you anyway so this is pointless :lol: :lol:
-
hehe :D :D
-
Well technically. the parents are killing the unborn children. They are effectivly "Dead" aftert they have been donated to the "cause"
i don't know, is it wrong for the parents to donate stem cells. At one point it was thier "ingridiants" per se. At what point do they lose rights over where it goes? Don't get me wrong, i don't mean that they own their baby and can do anytihng from Drop it form an airplane, to selling it on ebay . But i say they should be able to donate it.
I don't know, this could sound pretty ignorant but i don't really considerate a living thing untill it shows a sign of life. Like moving, eating, or so forth. It's a lil hard to form into words right now. But i am in a "The Knowledge and Benefit" is worth it mood. so :ha:
Edit = By the way, there was a buig on my screen just now, and i wiped it away , effectively killing it. Am i considered a murderer now? I mean i just took a life. It may not have been human, but it was a "living" thing. And yet i feel no remorse at all. It's interesting how humans selfishly rationalize one thing, but critisize another. ... damn hypocritis.. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Well technically. the parents are killing the unborn children. They are effectivly "Dead" aftert they have been donated to the "cause"
Did anyone say otherwise? /me checks
Also is the act of killing for research equally valid as killing for abortion? me thinks so. Actually abortion should be bad and research donation should be allowed :p
i don't know, is it wrong for the parents to donate stem cells. At one point it was thier "ingridiants" per se. At what point do they lose rights over where it goes? Don't get me wrong, i don't mean that they own their baby and can do anytihng from Drop it form an airplane, to selling it on ebay . But i say they should be able to donate it.
[/b]
Interestingly some people say "waht if you were the baby"? Well, in that case I couldn't care could I? hehe :p
By the way, there was a buig on my screen just now, and i wiped it away , effectively killing it. Am i considered a murderer now? I mean i just took a life. It may not have been human, but it was a "living" thing. And yet i feel no remorse at all. It's interesting how humans selfishly rationalize one thing, but critisize another. ... damn hypocritis..
That's because we have all these false "me is better than you" mindsets and these biases usually aren't avoidable :p Anyway, I'm really not going to care about killing things - I kill bacteria every day by using soap. (and of course, predators kill prey. Stomach acids kill certain bacteria, etc. etc.) It's a natural cycle of die and live so there's really nothing to be guilty about.
-
you know, we don't even need embryos. there are stem cells other places in the human body, too. the embryo thing is just so people can justify abortions.
-
an from both a religious and atheist stand point, we are better than that bug.
-
Edit = By the way, there was a buig on my screen just now, and i wiped it away , effectively killing it. Am i considered a murderer now? I mean i just took a life. It may not have been human, but it was a "living" thing. And yet i feel no remorse at all. It's interesting how humans selfishly rationalize one thing, but critisize another. ... damn hypocritis.. :doubt:
That's what I mean when I say that these morals/ethics are completely screwed up. :p Might as well ditch them altogether.
It's a natural cycle of die and live so there's really nothing to be guilty about.
Exactly; even if one does "unethical" things, that is simply a part of the universe.
As for abortion, I say ban it just to discourage sex. :D (and ban all the contraceptive crap out there too :D)
-
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf::lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :ha: :ha:
-
Originally posted by Carl
an from both a religious and atheist stand point, we are better than that bug.
define "better"
Edit = By the way, there was a buig on my screen just now, and i wiped it away , effectively killing it. Am i considered a murderer now? I mean i just took a life. It may not have been human, but it was a "living" thing. And yet i feel no remorse at all. It's interesting how humans selfishly rationalize one thing, but critisize another. ... damn hypocritis..
you didn't consider that bug to be something you cared about, something that was like you, you didn't include it into you're socal groupe, so it is an object for you to use
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Edit = By the way, there was a buig on my screen just now, and i wiped it away , effectively killing it.
DUDE!!!!!! Run for your life!!!!!! Remember what happened in MIB!!!!!! RUUUUUUNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!
:D
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
DUDE!!!!!! Run for your life!!!!!! Remember what happened in MIB!!!!!! RUUUUUUNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!
:lol: :lol:
-
Originally posted by CP5670
As for abortion, I say ban it just to discourage sex. :D (and ban all the contraceptive crap out there too :D)
:wtf:
.....
Got Libido? :D
-
DUDE!!!!!! Run for your life!!!!!! Remember what happened in MIB!!!!!! RUUUUUUNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!
:lol: :lol:
an from both a religious and atheist stand point, we are better than that bug.
tue :D
define "better"
Holier than thou art.