The Fate of Aborted Fetuses

[Elok]

While this is a pretty popular idea right now, the paucity of data makes it not much more than speculation.

More speculative than the idea that we are purely deterministic? I thought consciousness was still pretty much a big circle with a "?" on it, in our diagram of the mind, with all attempts at explanation having serious flaws. But I admit you know waaaay more about this stuff than I do. Probably because you're waaaaay more interested in it.

[kentonio]

Wouldn't expect you to. Just trying to shift the conversation away from you hitting Kid over the head repeatedly with the same argument.

Oh gosh, well it's a darn shame that our conversation didn't reach up to your demanding standards and I'm sure we're all extremely sorry that your precious time was wasted by being forced to read our ramblings.

I guess I should be grateful that this thread hasn't devolved into yet another damn abortion discussion.

Indeed, we let you down but thankfully we didn't completely disgrace ourselves. Thanks for your understanding.

Anyway, his full reasoning, or something close to it, can be found in Anathem--it's long, mind you, and dense, but it's a fascinating read. I don't really recall the details, but the rationale is that he finds it hard to believe our brains are constantly constructing as detailed a perceptual set as the idea of a "computer" would imply, and his solution is that our consciousness might be a set of superimposed quantum states from all the parallel-world versions of ourselves. Or something. It's been more than a year since I read the book, I think, and I mostly remember all this because of the incredibly trippy ending.

If Anathem is too obtuse or time-consuming for you, at least read The Diamond Age. I've read those two, Crypto, Reamde and Snow Crash, and Diamond Age is definitely my favorite. Full of delightfully goofy Stephensonian digressions and cyber/steampunk whimsy.

Long, dense and time consuming? Well that would surely be far too demanding for my simple mind. Perhaps you have a link to a comic book version, or at least something with pictures and simple words?

[Ban Kenobi]

Do you hear yourself? You can't program a computer to disobey. If you program it to disobey it will obey.

Then how could a god design a disobedient creation? If disobedient by design, it's still obeying its design.

[Elok]

I meant no offense--by the last bit, at least. Anathem is one of those books where every third word is a made-up in-universe term, more often than not a made-up term for something with a clear real-world analog--he just drowns the book in jargon for atmospheric purposes. So, not everyone's cup of tea. I know I had to work pretty hard to get into it at first.

Now, there's no excuse for arguing with Kid for this long after it's clear you're speaking two different languages. All offense meant there.

XPost

[kentonio]

Now, there's no excuse for arguing with Kid for this long after it's clear you're speaking two different languages. All offense meant there.

Trying to get someone to grasp a concept that you think they're missing is not the same thing as 'hitting someone over the head repeatedly with the same argument'. I can think of few things more tedious than just repeating the same thing so that each time you can wallow in smugness about it.

Two people speaking different languages does not mean they can never communicate, it just makes for a slower process as you try to find common similarities you can work from.

[Ban Kenobi]

More speculative than the idea that we are purely deterministic? I thought consciousness was still pretty much a big circle with a "?" on it, in our diagram of the mind, with all attempts at explanation having serious flaws. But I admit you know waaaay more about this stuff than I do. Probably because you're waaaaay more interested in it.

It's certainly impossible to distinguish at this point. That's why it's such a poor argument for Kidicious to claim that free will is "supernatural" in character.

[Kidlicious]

Then how could a god design a disobedient creation? If disobedient by design, it's still obeying its design.

God is the creator.

[Kidlicious]

It's certainly impossible to distinguish at this point. That's why it's such a poor argument for Kidicious to claim that free will is "supernatural" in character.

I merely suggested that it is incredible to claim that we don't have true free will, that we aren't selves.

[Ban Kenobi]

God is the creator.

How does "humans can act in ways that are contradictory to God's will" follow from "God created humans"?

I merely suggested that it is incredible to claim that we don't have true free will, that we aren't selves.

But claiming that our choices are supernatural miracles not bound by the laws of nature isn't incredible?

[Kidlicious]

How does "humans can act in ways that are contradictory to God's will" follow from "God created humans"?

You put too much effort into figuring out what you are when you are becoming something. Your true nature is becoming, not being.

But claiming that our choices are supernatural miracles not bound by the laws of nature isn't incredible?

How else would you have free will?

[Ban Kenobi]

You put too much effort into figuring out what you are when you are becoming something. Your true nature is becoming, not being.

To "become" something is to change from a state of not being something to a state of being something. There is no becoming without being.

How else would you have free will?

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

[Kidlicious]

To "become" something is to change from a state of not being something to a state of being something. There is no becoming without being.

You have a physical and a spiritual nature. You are obsessed with your physical nature.

[Kidlicious]

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

How can you be responsible for your behavior and have individual rights if your behavior is determined by the physical world?

[Ban Kenobi]

You have a physical and a spiritual nature. You are obsessed with your physical nature.

Should I be obsessed with a spiritual nature that can't even be proven to exist?

How can you be responsible for your behavior and have individual rights if your behavior is determined by the physical world?

You are responsible for your behavior because your behavior stems from your character and not some unobservable, unpredictable, mysterious supernatural force. Even if supernatural forces did shape human behavior, why would we have good reason to hold people responsible for them?

As for individual rights, I don't see how that concept is relevant to the matter of why people behave the way they do.

[Kidlicious]

Should I be obsessed with a spiritual nature that can't even be proven to exist?

What I'm saying is that there's no proof of your physical nature either because there is no proof that you exist. [Quote]

You are responsible for your behavior because your behavior stems from your character and not some unobservable, unpredictable, mysterious supernatural force. Even if supernatural forces did shape human behavior, why would we have good reason to hold people responsible for them?

As for individual rights, I don't see how that concept is relevant to the matter of why people behave the way they do.

If I'm not a self what does it matter if I have individual rights or not? Why aren't the universal needs the only concern? And why punish me if I'm not an individual? You are just punishing the universe. What's the point of that?