[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would probably concur a sperm probably wants as well
[/quote]
I imagine it does too. It; however, is not a human life, which is where abortion becomes an issue.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would probably concur a sperm probably wants as well
[/quote]
I imagine it does too. It; however, is not a human life, which is where abortion becomes an issue. [/quote]
Sperm is only half a human.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would probably concur a sperm probably wants as well
[/quote]
I imagine it does too. It; however, is not a human life, which is where abortion becomes an issue. [/quote]
I disagree . it is a human life , it is not a person
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I bet the child wants itself. [/quote]
I bet the zygote is incapable of want
[/quote]
How do you know that?[/quote]
I did not state it as a fact
[/quote]
You’re just assumming a zygote is incapable of want?[/quote]
out of curiosity , what makes you think other wise
[/quote]
I think it depends on how you look at it. It’s clear at the cellular level a zygote “wants” itself. If it didn’t it would never develop any further than zygote. Now is a zygote conscious enough to “want” itself in the way a 5 year old or a 95 year old does. I don’t know. My perspective; however, is that science isn’t to the point that was can know, at least as far as I know, so I would not make an assumption that a zygote isn’t capable of “wanting” itself. It’s a dangerous assumption.[/quote]
In order to “want” anything one needs a consciousness.
In order to have a consciousness one needs a brain.
In order to have a brain one must have differentiated neural tissue.
A zygote is a single-celled organism.
Like a bacterium.
Bacteria have no conscious desires.
A sperm is only half a zygote. Like a virus.
It is as foolish to talk about what a sperm or a zygote “wants” as it would be to talk about what the streptococcus bacterium or the influenza virus “wants”.
It is even more foolish to keep equating a sperm, which by itself can never become anything but a sperm, with a zygote, which potentially will develop into a fully-formed human being.
the difference should really be obvious :
sperm can be replicated. A male body produces millions of those cells each day.
Each zygote is absolutely unique.
It is the result of a very long chain of unique events stretching back to the origin of Life on Earth.
Sperm is barely more than a biological waste.
A zygote is nothing less than a miracle.
[quote]kamui wrote:
the difference should really be obvious :
sperm can be replicated. A male body produces millions of those cells each day.
Each zygote is absolutely unique.
It is the result of a very long chain of unique events stretching back to the origin of Life on Earth.
Sperm is barely more than a biological waste.
A zygote is nothing less than a miracle.
[/quote]
Well, I wouldn’t go quite that far.
Considering how many quadrillions of human zygotes have been produced on this planet so far, it’s a bit of an overstatement to call it a miracle, but yes, an order of magnitude more significant than production of spermatozoa.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I bet the child wants itself. [/quote]
I bet the zygote is incapable of want
[/quote]
How do you know that?[/quote]
I did not state it as a fact
[/quote]
You’re just assumming a zygote is incapable of want?[/quote]
out of curiosity , what makes you think other wise
[/quote]
I think it depends on how you look at it. It’s clear at the cellular level a zygote “wants” itself. If it didn’t it would never develop any further than zygote. Now is a zygote conscious enough to “want” itself in the way a 5 year old or a 95 year old does. I don’t know. My perspective; however, is that science isn’t to the point that was can know, at least as far as I know, so I would not make an assumption that a zygote isn’t capable of “wanting” itself. It’s a dangerous assumption.[/quote]
In order to “want” anything one needs a consciousness.
In order to have a consciousness one needs a brain.
In order to have a brain one must have differentiated neural tissue.
A zygote is a single-celled organism.
Like a bacterium.
Bacteria have no conscious desires.
A sperm is only half a zygote. Like a virus.
It is as foolish to talk about what a sperm or a zygote “wants” as it would be to talk about what the streptococcus bacterium or the influenza virus “wants”.
It is even more foolish to keep equating a sperm, which by itself can never become anything but a sperm, with a zygote, which potentially will develop into a fully-formed human being.
[/quote]
I’m not really going to argue with you, as I agree with most of what you wrote and I was stretching a bit. However, it’s my understanding where consciousness comes from has not yet been discovered, correct? Isn’t it entirely possible consciousness is achieved at conception? Also how do you know the influenza virus isn’t conscious, at least on some level, and doesn’t in fact “want”?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would probably concur a sperm probably wants as well
[/quote]
I imagine it does too. It; however, is not a human life, which is where abortion becomes an issue. [/quote]
Sperm is only half a human.
[/quote]
It’s an information carrier. It’s not human.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would probably concur a sperm probably wants as well
[/quote]
I imagine it does too. It; however, is not a human life, which is where abortion becomes an issue. [/quote]
I disagree . it is a human life , it is not a person
[/quote]
Biology fail. Under no circumstance does it qualify as a human life. Go ahead, provide some documentation that proves it’s a ‘human life’. Contain human information does not make it a human life. A human life has it’s own unique DNA structure and must be alive. The sperm does not contain enough DNA nor is the DNA it’s carrying technically alive.
Rinse, repeat.
Please go to some biology teacher and tell them you think a sperm is a human life. Let me know when he gets off the floor from laughing.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m not really going to argue with you, as I agree with most of what you wrote and I was stretching a bit. However, it’s my understanding where consciousness comes from has not yet been discovered, correct? Isn’t it entirely possible consciousness is achieved at conception? Also how do you know the influenza virus isn’t conscious, at least on some level, and doesn’t in fact “want”?[/quote]
No argument, then, but let’s look at the facts as they’re currently understood.
A virus isn’t even biologically “alive”. It cannot reproduce all by itself, it needs to coopt a bacterium to turn it into a factory to produce more viruses. This is not a result of conscious desire, it’s just what it does. Similarly a sperm cell doesn’t “want” to find the ovum, its only programming is “wiggle the flagellum”. It just so happens that wiggling the flagellum will propel it forward, and if enough spermatozoa wiggle their flagella long enough, eventually some of them will reach the ovum. Millions will not.
Think of a sentient artificial intelligence. Doesn’t exist yet, but imagine a brain composed of billions upon billions of silicon circuits, interconnected through trillions of synaptic relays. Conceivably, the workings of such a machine may have what we would recognize as consciousness: the ability not only to recognize other objects and react to them, but an awareness of itself and its place in the universe. None of our present machines can do this, but eventually it will happen. Now, a single circuit in this machine cannot be said to be conscious: it would take the entire mechanism to achieve consciousness, even though the mechanism is composed of billions of these silicon circuits.
A single neuron, a single circuit, a single cell. These things are not self-aware, by any metric used in neurobiology, robotics, or even philosophy. Which is why on the other thread I stayed away from any mention of sentience or consciousness. If a fetus hasn’t even attained the stage of development where it’s nerve cells are being differentiated, then by definition it can’t be said to have even the barest glimmer of consciousness, let alone sentience. It is, however, alive. A zygote doesn’t “want” to do anything. It is programmed by its DNA blueprint to replicate, and each of the resultant cells will keep replicating and re-replicating until the program has completed.
Consciousness is a complex phenomenon, and as you say the jury has still a long way to go before we can say with certainty whether it is a physiological construct or an entirely subjective thing: we recognize consciousness because we are, by our own reckoning, conscious. But for the purposes of this discussion, a bit o caution is in order: once you start introducing consciousness into the discussion, then you will get the counter argument that will say “then it’s still okay to kill it as long as its brain waves are still undetectable on an EEG.” And I don’t think that’s what you want.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m not really going to argue with you, as I agree with most of what you wrote and I was stretching a bit. However, it’s my understanding where consciousness comes from has not yet been discovered, correct? Isn’t it entirely possible consciousness is achieved at conception? Also how do you know the influenza virus isn’t conscious, at least on some level, and doesn’t in fact “want”?[/quote]
No argument, then, but let’s look at the facts as they’re currently understood.
A virus isn’t even biologically “alive”. It cannot reproduce all by itself, it needs to coopt a bacterium to turn it into a factory to produce more viruses. This is not a result of conscious desire, it’s just what it does. Similarly a sperm cell doesn’t “want” to find the ovum, its only programming is “wiggle the flagellum”. It just so happens that wiggling the flagellum will propel it forward, and if enough spermatozoa wiggle their flagella long enough, eventually some of them will reach the ovum. Millions will not.
Think of a sentient artificial intelligence. Doesn’t exist yet, but imagine a brain composed of billions upon billions of silicon circuits, interconnected through trillions of synaptic relays. Conceivably, the workings of such a machine may have what we would recognize as consciousness: the ability not only to recognize other objects and react to them, but an awareness of itself and its place in the universe. None of our present machines can do this, but eventually it will happen. Now, a single circuit in this machine cannot be said to be conscious: it would take the entire mechanism to achieve consciousness, even though the mechanism is composed of billions of these silicon circuits.
A single neuron, a single circuit, a single cell. These things are not self-aware, by any metric used in neurobiology, robotics, or even philosophy. Which is why on the other thread I stayed away from any mention of sentience or consciousness. If a fetus hasn’t even attained the stage of development where it’s nerve cells are being differentiated, then by definition it can’t be said to have even the barest glimmer of consciousness, let alone sentience. It is, however, alive. A zygote doesn’t “want” to do anything. It is programmed by its DNA blueprint to replicate, and each of the resultant cells will keep replicating and re-replicating until the program has completed.
Consciousness is a complex phenomenon, and as you say the jury has still a long way to go before we can say with certainty whether it is a physiological construct or an entirely subjective thing: we recognize consciousness because we are, by our own reckoning, conscious. But for the purposes of this discussion, a bit o caution is in order: once you start introducing consciousness into the discussion, then you will get the counter argument that will say “then it’s still okay to kill it as long as its brain waves are still undetectable on an EEG.” And I don’t think that’s what you want.
[/quote]
I’m not saying your wrong, but I’d like to see more support for your stance.
How do you know this:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
This is not a result of conscious desire, it’s just what it does. [/quote]
Is true? How do you know it doesn’t act out of some “want.” It obviously is driven to replicate. Is that it?
Your AI statements sounds great, but again how do you know “consciousness” will ever be achieved? Perhaps consciousness is entirely independent of brain tissue. That’s not with current neurology, but then again, the location of the conscious has yet to be discovered.
This:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
A single neuron, a single circuit, a single cell. These things are not self-aware, by any metric used in neurobiology, robotics, or even philosophy. [/quote]
Does not necessarily mean there is no conscious to speak of. Like I said, we haven’t reach a point of knowing for certain if a consciousness isn’t there, which is why I would lean towards a conservative assumption of yes vs. no because of the ramifications of assuming there is no consciousness.
As far as your last sentence goes, it’s just a conversation; at this point many think a fetus is just a parasite. So I’m not too concerned about crossing the consciousness bridge just yet.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I bet the child wants itself. [/quote]
I bet the zygote is incapable of want
[/quote]
How do you know that?[/quote]
I did not state it as a fact
[/quote]
You’re just assumming a zygote is incapable of want?[/quote]
out of curiosity , what makes you think other wise
[/quote]
I think it depends on how you look at it. It’s clear at the cellular level a zygote “wants” itself. If it didn’t it would never develop any further than zygote. Now is a zygote conscious enough to “want” itself in the way a 5 year old or a 95 year old does. I don’t know. My perspective; however, is that science isn’t to the point that was can know, at least as far as I know, so I would not make an assumption that a zygote isn’t capable of “wanting” itself. It’s a dangerous assumption.[/quote]
In order to “want” anything one needs a consciousness.
In order to have a consciousness one needs a brain.
In order to have a brain one must have differentiated neural tissue.
A zygote is a single-celled organism.
Like a bacterium.
Bacteria have no conscious desires.
A sperm is only half a zygote. Like a virus.
It is as foolish to talk about what a sperm or a zygote “wants” as it would be to talk about what the streptococcus bacterium or the influenza virus “wants”.
It is even more foolish to keep equating a sperm, which by itself can never become anything but a sperm, with a zygote, which potentially will develop into a fully-formed human being.
[/quote]
I personally agree with the first part but it is easier to argue with irrelevent arguments by agreement
The second part is factual , a sperm is alive and human if it is an alive human sperm
Your point is it is not a person
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m not really going to argue with you, as I agree with most of what you wrote and I was stretching a bit. However, it’s my understanding where consciousness comes from has not yet been discovered, correct? Isn’t it entirely possible consciousness is achieved at conception? Also how do you know the influenza virus isn’t conscious, at least on some level, and doesn’t in fact “want”?[/quote]
No argument, then, but let’s look at the facts as they’re currently understood.
A virus isn’t even biologically “alive”. It cannot reproduce all by itself, it needs to coopt a bacterium to turn it into a factory to produce more viruses. This is not a result of conscious desire, it’s just what it does. Similarly a sperm cell doesn’t “want” to find the ovum, its only programming is “wiggle the flagellum”. It just so happens that wiggling the flagellum will propel it forward, and if enough spermatozoa wiggle their flagella long enough, eventually some of them will reach the ovum. Millions will not.
Think of a sentient artificial intelligence. Doesn’t exist yet, but imagine a brain composed of billions upon billions of silicon circuits, interconnected through trillions of synaptic relays. Conceivably, the workings of such a machine may have what we would recognize as consciousness: the ability not only to recognize other objects and react to them, but an awareness of itself and its place in the universe. None of our present machines can do this, but eventually it will happen. Now, a single circuit in this machine cannot be said to be conscious: it would take the entire mechanism to achieve consciousness, even though the mechanism is composed of billions of these silicon circuits.
A single neuron, a single circuit, a single cell. These things are not self-aware, by any metric used in neurobiology, robotics, or even philosophy. Which is why on the other thread I stayed away from any mention of sentience or consciousness. If a fetus hasn’t even attained the stage of development where it’s nerve cells are being differentiated, then by definition it can’t be said to have even the barest glimmer of consciousness, let alone sentience. It is, however, alive. A zygote doesn’t “want” to do anything. It is programmed by its DNA blueprint to replicate, and each of the resultant cells will keep replicating and re-replicating until the program has completed.
Consciousness is a complex phenomenon, and as you say the jury has still a long way to go before we can say with certainty whether it is a physiological construct or an entirely subjective thing: we recognize consciousness because we are, by our own reckoning, conscious. But for the purposes of this discussion, a bit o caution is in order: once you start introducing consciousness into the discussion, then you will get the counter argument that will say “then it’s still okay to kill it as long as its brain waves are still undetectable on an EEG.” And I don’t think that’s what you want.
[/quote]
There is no way to measure consciousness as it is a metaphysical entity. Registering brain waves and all that other hoo-ha is just a measure of activity which may or may not be the result of consciousness. There is no way to know if something is or is not conscious. We can’t even know if people are conscious, they can tell us and we can choose to believe it, but we cannot know.
Since you cannot know that anything is conscious, it’s not a useful criteria for determining anything. It’s not a complex mechanism, it’s a simple one, trying to measure it is complex because you are trying to measure a metaphysical phenomena using empirical data which is a complex thing to do because you cannot measure the thing itself, only it’s effects. And that is if you are even close to knowing what the effects are and if they can be accurately be tied to being caused by consciousness.
For someone who keeps posting from a dictionary to not understand that “alive and human” doesn’t mean the same thing as “living human” is astonishing. Even more astonishing is when that poster calls others ridiculous and stupid, all while ignoring questions he can’t answer…
We can be sure that consciousness needs a brain.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the difference should really be obvious :
sperm can be replicated. A male body produces millions of those cells each day.
Each zygote is absolutely unique.
It is the result of a very long chain of unique events stretching back to the origin of Life on Earth.
Sperm is barely more than a biological waste.
A zygote is nothing less than a miracle.
[/quote]
Well, I wouldn’t go quite that far.
Considering how many quadrillions of human zygotes have been produced on this planet so far, it’s a bit of an overstatement to call it a miracle, but yes, an order of magnitude more significant than production of spermatozoa. [/quote]
It is not an overstatement to call it a miracle simply because it happens frequently. The miracle part is that putting the parts together in an appropriate environment results in something unique and autonomous. While we can understand the process of the transition, we do not know what makes it alive.
You can assemble all the parts of a human, and make all the chemicals flow and have electrochemical reactions take place and yet it does not live. It’s the life part that’s the miracle. And not only that it’s alive, but that it’s a new unique life unlike the host or the fertilizer that can never be replicated again.
That is unless you can explain the exact mechanism of life itself and then it’s not a miracle.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
We can be sure that consciousness needs a brain.[/quote]
How?
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
We can be sure that consciousness needs a brain.[/quote]
How?[/quote]
Because that’s the only form of consciousness we know. There is no need to assume any other form of consciousness, except when screenwriting sci-fi.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
For someone who keeps posting from a dictionary to not understand that “alive and human” doesn’t mean the same thing as “living human” is astonishing. Even more astonishing is when that poster calls others ridiculous and stupid, all while ignoring questions he can’t answer…
[/quote]
a sperm in a living human being it is not a person
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
We can be sure that consciousness needs a brain.[/quote]
How?[/quote]
Because that’s the only form of consciousness we know. There is no need to assume any other form of consciousness, except when screenwriting sci-fi.[/quote]
I don’t understand your first line. We know we are conscious (based on our definition of consciousness), but we do not know where it comes from. Science has yet to prove consciousness comes from the brain. We assume it does, and it probably does, but we don’t know this for a fact. I am not assuming other forms of consciousness exist. I’m leaving the door open for their existence. We don’t know if or at what level a virus is “conscious” to act as if that is irrelevant is too closed minded for me personally.
So because it’s all we know, that makes it so? A couple hundred years ago we “knew” the earth was flat.