One-Issue Voters Make Me Sick

[Whaleboy]

They are people, Q^3, and as such, should not be experimented upon without their prior consent.

BK: Gay rights activist

[Ben Kenobi]

An admitted innaccuracy, and the best one can do is work on other questions and so forth that can help address this. In the end there will be error, but it is much better than having *nothing* to go on.

True, but such errors, must also be considered. This problem may cause your own assessment, to gage some people with less pleasure than they ought to be shown with.

You are ignoring all the people that wouldn't agree with the accepted belief system. A pluralistic society allows everyone to practice their own beliefs, hence there is no belief oppression.

I'm not talking about oppression. I'm talking about the positive support provided for the beliefs of the orthodox in such a society.

It is, quite frankly, a rather ignorant question (and I suspect you are fully aware of this). Studies of the brain have clearly shown emotion centers and given other insights into how the brain works.

I suggest you refrain from labelling such a question as ignorant. If it is indeed an ignorant question, you now have a chance to illuminate an ignorant bumpkin with your prodigious philosophy.

Insights into emotion centres, doesn't really yield insights into happiness. Is it right to say that with only certain parts of the brain activated, such will produce happiness. If we continued to stimulate such parts of the brain, could we ensure perpetual happiness.

This is the point that I am trying to make. Happiness does not equate with brain chemistry. Changes in brain chemistry have unpredictable results.

So to suggest that the brain might have nothing to do with happiness, or even any other emotion, is quite ridiculous.

I'm not even saying that. I'm asking you why you believe the brain to influence perceptions of happiness.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you consider the differences between an egg (and presumably an embryo) to be one of species too?

They are of an entirely different source than one of species. The differences are primarily those of nature. The unborn child is a distinct combination of sperm and egg, retaining the characteristics of both, including that of species.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Removal of all religious influence upon government = oppression of believers.

[Whaleboy]

Understood, so the embryo is defined by that genetic material and its source?

[Whaleboy]

Odin: Don't tell me he actually said that? BK... what is your basis for that statement?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The absence of religion is the same as the establishment of religion.

I strongly disagree -- absence of government-sanctioned religion allows for freedom of religious expression while establishment of a religion by a government sets the stage for a theocratic government.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yet she is not a bacterium. She is human in the sense that she is of the same species as you or I, from the moment of conception onwards.

Ah, yes. However, functionally it's no different from a bacterium - or perhaps more precisely, an amoeba, since it has organelles and all.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
An egg is in no way an "unborn child".

Yes it is

In the same sense that a seed is a tree

[Kuciwalker]

My problem with BK's logic is that personhood is now completely defined based on the sequence of nucleotides in a cell. Clearly, sentient non-humans are not "people".

[Whaleboy]

Agreed, he needs to explain why a specific sequence of chromosomes means we should treat it differently.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It isn't?

I thought you believed them to be precisely the same!

True, there are differences, but species classification is not one of them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Agreed, he needs to explain why a specific sequence of chromosomes means we should treat it differently.

No he doesn't. It's one of his fundamental assumptions.

We happen to base our judgements on sentience.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
True, but such errors, must also be considered. This problem may cause your own assessment, to gage some people with less pleasure than they ought to be shown with.

And they can be considered and amended to as best as possible. It is still better to have data with some errors compared to no data at all.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm not talking about oppression. I'm talking about the positive support provided for the beliefs of the orthodox in such a society.

Oh, my mistake, I thought we were talking about everyone in the country. Apparently you only care about the people that follow the orthodox religion and everyone else can be miserable.

For me, everyone counts.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I suggest you refrain from labelling such a question as ignorant. If it is indeed an ignorant question, you now have a chance to illuminate an ignorant bumpkin with your prodigious philosophy.

Insights into emotion centres, doesn't really yield insights into happiness. Is it right to say that with only certain parts of the brain activated, such will produce happiness. If we continued to stimulate such parts of the brain, could we ensure perpetual happiness.

This is the point that I am trying to make. Happiness does not equate with brain chemistry. Changes in brain chemistry have unpredictable results.

The various states of happiness do indeed correspond with various brain-states. Understanding the brain more can lead to an understanding of how happy people are in a much more direct fashion. They can also lead to a better understanding of what factors really cause people to be happy. This would lead to objective measurements of happiness (that will get better and more nuanced over time), and how these objective measures relate to various questions one can ask on surveys (purhaps a battery of many questions will yeild a very, very high accuracy on these tests).


Right now our knowledge is relatively primitive, but it will improve. When it does, we'll have a much better understanding of how happiness and emotions work, and what environement (sociological and the like) influence the various states.

-Drachasor

[Q Classic]

They are people, Q^3, and as such, should not be experimented upon without their prior consent.

and the sarchasm becomes evident.