[CODEDOG ND]

Originally posted by CP5670
I
And I'm not the one who's complaining about conquering other nations; quite the contrary, in fact.

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.  

[CP5670]

uh...well I guess I might find some cool fractional calculus formula or something...uhm...

[Kamikaze]

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?

[CP5670]

it's for the advancement of knowledge, who cares the sacrifice? (as long as it's small)

exactly, or even if it is not.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by CP5670


exactly, or even if it is not.

well we don't want to wipe out the human race...

[Carl]

probably not. they need a lot of babies.

[CP5670]

no problem with wiping out some of it, though; they are easy to replace.

[Kamikaze]

true /me thinks we need to invest in human cloning...

Hey there's a new topic: human cloning!

[CP5670]

Ah, that's one thing I am a really big proponent of.

[Bobboau]

OK seeing as these topics always seem to break down to this

what is good and evil / morals

read this
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)

[CP5670]

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.

[Kamikaze]

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

[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.

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?

[Kamikaze]

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...
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

[Bobboau]

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

[CP5670]

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)

[Kamikaze]

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

[CP5670]

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.

[Kamikaze]

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"

[Bobboau]

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

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)