[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[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]
What is your definition of a living human being and a person?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[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]
Please fix the typo in here so it becomes English.
I would like to respond.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Science does not have to prove that consciousness stems from the brain. It’s the only conceivable alternative and if you disagree you should be able to propose an alternative. Otherwise it is sci-fi, entertainment, pipedreams.
We didn’t suddenly get an insight that the earth is round. It was proposed and proved. Knowledge of that is pretty old, though, more than a couple of hundred years.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
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.
[/quote]
Science does not have to prove that consciousness stems from the brain. It’s the only conceivable alternative and if you disagree you should be able to propose an alternative. Otherwise it is sci-fi, entertainment, pipedreams.
We didn’t suddenly get an insight that the earth is round. It was proposed and proved. Knowledge of that is pretty old, though, more than a couple of hundred years. [/quote]
According to who is it the only conceivable alternative? You are assuming it comes from the brain. It’s not a bad assumption. It’s a logical assumption, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. I’m not exactly in a position to offer alternatives, but consciousness could be located in a number of place. It could be a part of out DNA or RNA. It could be a part of each individual cell of our body. It could be a function of the brain stem or within each neuron. It could be an attribute attributed to us and controlled by a creator, if you believe that sort of thing. There are other possibilites aside from, it’s a function of the brain because we have no other explanation.
Like I said earlier, I’m not saying you are wrong, but I’m not just going to take your word for it either, whether you think it’s a pipe dream or not. “Sci Fi” often becomes science fact.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
According to who is it the only conceivable alternative? You are assuming it comes from the brain. It’s not a bad assumption. It’s a logical assumption, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. I’m not exactly in a position to offer alternatives, but consciousness could be located in a number of place. It could be a part of out DNA or RNA. It could be a part of each individual cell of our body. It could be a function of the brain stem or within each neuron. It could be an attribute attributed to us and controlled by a creator, if you believe that sort of thing. There are other possibilites aside from, it’s a function of the brain because we have no other explanation.
Like I said earlier, I’m not saying you are wrong, but I’m not just going to take your word for it either, whether you think it’s a pipe dream or not. “Sci Fi” often becomes science fact. [/quote]
Fair enough, but in that case we are not talking about science. I didn’t mention Sci Fi, entertainment and pipe dreams in a pejorative sense, but as something that is not science. As far as I know there is no evidence that would demand assuming that consciousness wouldn’t stem from the brain. The fact that it has proven difficult to define does not point in that direction.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
According to who is it the only conceivable alternative? You are assuming it comes from the brain. It’s not a bad assumption. It’s a logical assumption, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. I’m not exactly in a position to offer alternatives, but consciousness could be located in a number of place. It could be a part of out DNA or RNA. It could be a part of each individual cell of our body. It could be a function of the brain stem or within each neuron. It could be an attribute attributed to us and controlled by a creator, if you believe that sort of thing. There are other possibilites aside from, it’s a function of the brain because we have no other explanation.
Like I said earlier, I’m not saying you are wrong, but I’m not just going to take your word for it either, whether you think it’s a pipe dream or not. “Sci Fi” often becomes science fact. [/quote]
Fair enough, but in that case we are not talking about science. I didn’t mention Sci Fi, entertainment and pipe dreams in a pejorative sense, but as something that is not science. As far as I know there is no evidence that would demand assuming that consciousness wouldn’t stem from the brain. The fact that it has proven difficult to define does not point in that direction.[/quote]
it is actually an interesting concept . Even going back to the sperm what drives it ? even though the whole notion is not relevant
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[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]
Please fix the typo in here so it becomes English.
I would like to respond.
[/quote]
bump, still ignoring…
if you define each word you will find a human , living sperm by definition is a living human being
I am not claiming it is a person .
be·ing
ˈbēiNG/
1.
present participle of be.
noun
noun: being; plural noun: beings
1.
existence.
Beans you act as though your questions have relevance , I am sorry I find them to be borderline stupid . I think you are being disingenuous . That is why I am ignoring you
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
if you define each word you will find a human , living sperm by definition is a living human being
I am not claiming it is a person .
be·ing
ˈbēiNG/
1.
present participle of be.
noun
noun: being; plural noun: beings
1.
existence.
[/quote]
You’re going to ride this fail to the bitter end, huh?
Webster
per·son noun ˈpər-sən\
: a human being
Webster says they are the same thing.
sperm noun ˈspərm\
: a cell that is produced by the male sexual organs and that combines with the female’s egg in reproduction
: fluid that is produced by the male sexual organs which contains sperm cells
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Beans you act as though your questions have relevance , I am sorry I find them to be borderline stupid . I think you are being disingenuous . That is why I am ignoring you[/quote]
You are the one calling a sperm a living human being, and then calling me stupid?
What color is the sky in your world?
And you don’t find my questions stupid, you simply can’t answer them. Because if they were stupid, you could answer them.
You can run from it all you want man, but the truth is, you can’t answer the questions. Not a single one you’ve avoided, over and over.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
if you define each word you will find a human , living sperm by definition is a living human being
[/quote]
You have to be just tossing shit against the wall at this point and hoping it sticks. You can’t even be serious with this utter bullshit.
Please post some sort of evidence that anyone outside of yourself thinks a sperm is a living human being. lol.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Beans you act as though your questions have relevance , I am sorry I find them to be borderline stupid . I think you are being disingenuous . That is why I am ignoring you[/quote]
Not to speak for beans, but your efforts to show that a sperm is a human life is way beyond the borderline of stupid. And he is asking sound questions and you are avoiding them.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
if you define each word you will find a human , living sperm by definition is a living human being
[/quote]
So every single one of us has killed literally billions of living human beings in our lives?
I doubt very much that you believe this.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
A couple hundred years ago we “knew” the earth was flat.
[/quote]
No, we (that is, educated people) knew that the earth was a sphere in the 6th century BC.
[quote]pat wrote:
[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]
Well, call it whatever you like. I use the words “miracle” and “miraculous” to refer to something unprecedented and incomprehensible by natural explanations. I can’t explain a man modifying the physical density of his body so that he is able to walk on water, or changing the molecular composition of water so that it becomes wine. If these events actually took place, and were verified by impartial third parties to have taken place, then I would have to concede miracle status. However, meiosis occurs in every organism that reproduces sexually, and mitosis occurs in every eukaryotic cell. Fertilization of sperm and egg is a well-understood process, and can be (and often is) performed without fanfare in a laboratory. We can clone any animal on the planet, including people, and can produce DNA strands with a 3D printer. Miracles? Okay, if you want to call them that. I call it biology.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
A couple hundred years ago we “knew” the earth was flat.
[/quote]
No, we (that is, educated people) knew that the earth was a sphere in the 6th century BC. [/quote]
You guys takes things way to literally. I did not literally mean 200 years ago. It’s a figure of speech.
Nice subtle insult by the way, you educated folks are so clever.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
A couple hundred years ago we “knew” the earth was flat.
[/quote]
No, we (that is, educated people) knew that the earth was a sphere in the 6th century BC. [/quote]
You guys takes things way to literally. I did not literally mean 200 years ago. It’s a figure of speech.
Nice subtle insult by the way, you educated folks are so clever. [/quote]
Yeah, couple hundred years, couple millennia. Who’s counting?
And you give me far too much credit. I didn’t think I was being subtle at all.
So much full retard in this thread