What are your views on abortion?

there is something called emergent properties too

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If awareness only required chemical reactions, these chemical reactions would have to be able to be observed. The only way that matter can observe other matter is through chemical reactions.

The emergent property in this cases would then require knowledge of all behavior of every subsystem. Not possible to be a common emergent property, which for most programs are just bugs. Just the appearance of fee will would have no bearing on our evolution so it would be difficult to make the case that we could evolve this trait even if we knew what caused it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Originally posted by okinrus
If awareness only required chemical reactions, these chemical reactions would have to be able to be observed.
Yes, they are obserable. That's what the brain is there for. Unfortunately, most people don't like having probres stuck in their head. With rats this is not a problem though.

The only way that matter can observe other matter is through chemical reactions.
Well, no. Light also can transmit observation. 'Observation' can be as simple as matter being heated up. In our case 'observation' is itself a complex set of chemical reactions.

The emergent property in this cases would then require knowledge of all behavior of every subsystem.
No. Why would it? There are tons of emergent properties in physics. They were there even before we realized what caused them.

Not possible to be a common emergent property, which for most programs are just bugs.
We are talking biology here.

Just the appearance of fee will would have no bearing on our evolution so it would be difficult to make the case that we could evolve this trait even if we knew what caused it.
You are making a claim that we have more free will then other living beings. This is unfounded. We are simply more intelligent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Light can transmit information. For example optical fibers transmit sequences of light beams. But, as far as i know, the only way that matter can observe energy is to produce a chemical or nuclear reaction.

I'm not sure what you mean. Emergent properties in software are interdependancies between two subsystems. Basically the whole is greater than the part. The problem is that our awareness requires knowledge of many subsystems. We see objects and react to them all while observing our reaction.

Yes we have more freewill than other living beings. Apple trees grow apples and slugs are confined to the ground. I have to ask what do you mean by intelligence? Is the perception of the lie known as free will more intelligent than a plant? For a plant at least reflects the reality that it has.

Your philosophy does not tell us why we should not kill babies any more than killing unborn babies. If it cannot tell us this much, it's irresponsible for abortionist to apply it to unborn children.

 

okinrus im not understanding your argumet of "observation." also i dont think you properly undersntad what emergent properties really means

 

I'm using this definition but if you want to give another one...
http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife/emergence.html

 

ok well that definition doesnt seem to match the things you, unless maybe you interrupted that in some sort of way to match a religious conception. emergent properties do not require something out side of this realm

 

Babies are human and alive on their own right. Fetuses are neither.
Babies can observe/interact. Fetuses can not.
Babies have all (or most) of the features/body parts that all other humans do. Fetuses do not.
Babies are social. Fetuses are not.

Very simply, your philosophy does not tell us why we should not kill fetuses and more then we kill ants/cows/trees/etc. It it cannot tell us this much, it's irresponsible for religious zealots to take away the rights of another.

 

okinrus i dont understnad why you think observing is so crucial. are you going to tell me taht if every human died that the universe would just stop existing because you werent here to observe it/

 

A fetus is alive and is human. The fetus is supported by the mother just as the baby will be.

Fetus' in latter stages can certainly interact. This is not conclusive proof either because there are plenty of people in comas who act even less than the fetus. And guess what, we can afford to spend millions of dollars on them to have surgery and live.

Our arm and legs are developed solely by our genetic code. Because a new-born baby has the same genetic code as when a fetus, it's plausible to consider the fetus having all it's body parts.

I don't think this matters.

As I said before, animals have different souls. But look at it this way. You've already admitted that you do not understand how the brain works. It's only fitting that other humans would submit to destroying what they do not understand. The brain has a memory capacity many times larger than the largest computers. It's simply not understandable. I have my own theory and it is simply less risky than yours.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=443276

No, but if the universe died and there was no observance of it, we can treat it logically as never happening. Life is the obervance of life.

 

Pro-abortion?

Originally posted by one_raven
----------
What about the potential father?
----------
(NOBODY is FOR abortion, but it may be needed in certain situations. A man can spill his semen anytime and any place. His natural procreative mechanisms allow him to impregnant any number of women per day/per hour. A woman's procreative mechanisms are limited to once every nine months. Therefore, it should be the woman's decision to determine what she does with the contents of HER uterus.)

 

Originally posted by okinrus
A fetus is alive and is human. The fetus is supported by the mother just as the baby will be.
No. A fetus is 'supported' just like a tumor. A baby is supported through the mothers choice. She can choose to breast feed him, bottle feed, or give him up.

Fetus' in latter stages can certainly interact.
How many times must I remind you that we are not talking about later term fetuses?

And guess what, we can afford to spend millions of dollars on them to have surgery and live.
And guess what.... we also pull the plug on alot of them.

Because a new-born baby has the same genetic code as when a fetus, it's plausible to consider the fetus having all it's body parts.
A tumor also has the same genetic material, and it is not plausible to consider it as having feet.. or being human.

I don't think this matters.
'Being social' is the only reason we don't kill each other when we are hunger. It is the basis of all your 'morals'.

As I said before, animals have different souls.
So you put up an unsubstantiated claim that animals have different soulds, but try and shoot down my comment that fetuses don't have human souls either? Hypocritical much?
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=443276
lmao. He completely ignores new technologies such as parrallel processing which will make this much easier and 'brain like'.

No, but if the universe died and there was no observance of it, we can treat it logically as never happening
Using your logic (or lack thereof)... if a fetus is aborted and we never see a baby, we can treat it as logically never exisiting.

 

i think that the argument of comparing an aborted fetus to a person in a coma is ridiculous. way back earlier in this thread i discussed how my mom was in a coma. she was virtually brain dead. she was in a coma for 3 months with no signs of ever coming out. we pulled the plug without hesitance. dont see a problem with a pulling the plug. it is selfish of the family to maintain the person in that state for prolonged periods.

furthermore, the major difference between pulling the plug and and abortion is the fact that one is a person and the other isnot. one has shown demonstratably human characteristics and a history. a chance is given to salvage a life that is living. a fetus is a simple system of chemical processes. it leeches off the mother. she has a right to choose her own life over that of a parasite.

to say that the universe doesnt exist without an observer is so absurd i cant even comprehend the thought. okinrus your logic is flawed if you say existence depends on observation. following another logic, saying something isnt observed means that it doesnt exist, therefore it can not be discovered. further, nothing can ever be discovered or changed. the universe would be stagnant and entropy would be zero. okinrus you jsut turned the laws of physics totally upside down. good job.

saying that the universe doesnt exist without us to observe is so vain it is crazy. if the universe required us to observe to exist then no life could have ever formed. the universe wouldnt be there for us to inhabit so we couldnt exist without a domain. and even if everyone died, the processes of the universe would still proceed as normal. the probabilities would govern every physicsal interaction. on some distant planet a chemical reaction would occur forming an amino acid. he building blocks of life are by probability coming together countless times in the vast expanse of a universe we live in.

okinrus you really need to think through the consequences of your words before you state them

 

I'm not really talking about people brain dead in a coma.

Oftentimes the person out of a coma is almost another person. My friend as well was in a coma, and after the coma he had to learn how to do basic schoolwork again. That's pretty sad though.

You misunderstand what I mean by observer. What I'm basically saying is without observance of something, we can treat that something as something that does not exist. Everything that we know exists has been observed.

Parallel processing has pretty long tradition. The article is, however, talking about memory capacity and this should not effect any speed gained by parallel processing. The brain's memory capacity is 10^8,432 while the computer's is 10^12.

I was treating an observer has matter itself. Of course we do see the baby, the photos were shown in the beginning of this thread.

 

what units are you measuring in? where does this figure come from? A computer can have for all intents and purposes infinite memmory capacity and i find the margin by which your figure finds the human brain to be superior in memmory to be dubious at best.

 

okinrus every thing we know exists has not been observed. how about dark matter? or dark energy? or electrons? there are no closed systems in this universe. every event that happens has a cascading efect on all other events. so you cannot say that events else where that we dont see have no effect any where and there fore can be treated as if they dont exist. for instance earth has a specific orbit, if all the other planets were removed from the solar system earth would no longer have that orbit. those planets effects were having and effect on us even though we didnt know the planets are there.

i dont understand your argument of the coma then if you arent talking about what i said

 

Bytes but I'm not a medical doctor so I don't know how accurate the calculation of the brain's memory is. Physical computer memory is of course finite and computer learning systems would probably take it to it's limit.

These have been observed sort of. I don't think they have an existance apart from their observation unless if your a religious physicist.

Besides the universe...

I think your misunderstanding my usage of observer is not necessarly a human being. There's nothing really special about us as we are predetermined and made up of ordinary matter. Bascially every event that is recieved is an event observed. Because the speed of information travels at the speed of light, we could treat parts of the universe closed because they are not aware of the existance of events really far away.

 

There's nothing really special about us
Abortion is is then!

 

okinrus information may be travelling at the speed of light, but assuming the universe began as a point your observer theory is irrelevent. if the universe began as a singularity and expanded outward from there, then everything is related and teh stage has been set by these interactions for all future interactions. once again there is no closed system in the universe.

 

Ah, but just because the universe starts at a point doesn't mean we can see everything. Parts of the universe may have (and probably did) only start to emit radiation after they were out of our light cone.

But I agree, that doesn't make a closed system. Just a partially unobservable system.