More “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

[0pheliA]

The tests I am referring to test for all four.

[Vater Araignee]

So what you are trying to tell me is someone miraculously managed to communicate with multiple squids that witnessed the same event to find out that indeed their recollection is subjective.

How impressive, I wont bother stating what I find impressive, but impressive none the less.

[Nymada del Sol]

So what you are trying to tell me is someone miraculously managed to communicate with multiple squids that witnessed the same event to find out that indeed their recollection is subjective.

How impressive, I wont bother stating what I find impressive, but impressive none the less.

What does subjectivity have to do with it?

[Vater Araignee]

What does subjectivity have to do with it?

It is what makes the human or sentient mind different from instinct/programming.

There are many different computer programs out there that pass the tests just as well if not better than any animal, yet none of them display subjectivity and are therefor not sentient.

Adding to that, because we can communicate so well with computers we will most likely encounter a sentient computer before we can prove the sentience of a living earthbound species.

Now it may just be that once we have a sentient, it in turn will prove the sentience of many species, but currently there is no proof.

[Nymada del Sol]

It is what makes the human or sentient mind different from instinct/programming.

There are many different computer programs out there that pass the tests just as well if not better than any animal, yet none of them display subjectivity and are therefor not sentient.

Adding to that, because we can communicate so well with computers we will most likely encounter a sentient computer before we can prove the sentience of a living earthbound species.

Now it may just be that once we have a sentient, it in turn will prove the sentience of many species, but currently there is no proof.

Science disagrees.

[Vater Araignee]

Science disagrees.

No it doesn't but wishful thinking by some scientists do.

[torn asunder]

So what you are trying to tell me is someone miraculously managed to communicate with multiple squids that witnessed the same event to find out that indeed their recollection is subjective.

How impressive, I wont bother stating what I find impressive, but impressive none the less.

it seems you're requiring sentience to be determined by communication with human language, then? i see no need for that.

Chimps understand others' needs...

Chimps understand who's who playing video games.

Chimps decipher what others are thinking.

are you saying that evidence of the above doesn't show sentience? i think you need to reconsider.

sentience [ˈsɛnʃəns], sentiency

n

1. the state or quality of being sentient; awareness

2. sense perception not involving intelligence or mental perception; feeling

[Nymada del Sol]

No it doesn't but wishful thinking by some scientists do.

And you know better than scientists?

[0pheliA]

it seems you're requiring sentience to be determined by communication with human language, then? i see no need for that.

Chimps understand others' needs...

Chimps understand who's who playing video games.

Chimps decipher what others are thinking.

are you saying that evidence of the above doesn't show sentience? i think you need to reconsider.

My internet is being crappy tonight and I am having trouble connecting to a lot of sites, or I could post similar links showing other animals that are able to communicate. Cuttlefish, Octopus, Dolphins. All three are proving to be able to communicate and learn language (though the inability to sign or use any other form of easily recognizable form of human communication is a barrier in these studies.) Parrots and relatives come close to passing similar testing, however it seems more to be specific exceptional individuals as opposed to the entire species. Out of thousands of parrots you may get one in captivity that advanced. However the implications are pretty staggering, because if you get a few together you could breed for it.

[Vater Araignee]

it seems you're requiring sentience to be determined by communication with human language, then? i see no need for that.

Reading concepts into my posts that don't exist?

[Vater Araignee]

And you know better than scientists?

What I know is that many scientists have been wrong. There have been many reasons for being wrong but the number one reason is they wanted their theory to be correct.

Did you know that NOAA debunked all of the doom and gloom global warming models, by pointing out there has been no significant rise in average temperatures since 98?

I'm skeptical of all priests, it doesn't matter if they wear black and wave religious icons or white and wave test tubes.

[torn asunder]

Reading concepts into my posts that don't exist?

how would you explain this then?

So what you are trying to tell me is someone miraculously managed to communicate with multiple squids that witnessed the same event to find out that indeed their recollection is subjective.

and then try to argue this point, if you could (excerpt taken from a previous link i posted).

In recent years, research has revealed just how much chimpanzees — humanity's closest living relatives — have in common with us. They can hunt with spears, play with improvised dolls and mourn their dead.

any creature who is able to mourn a dead companion (or other member of their "group"), or even play with improvised dolls, to me, *must* have their own subjective view of the world, or else they wouldn't be able to conceive of their own individuality, the individuality of the one whom they're mourning, nor even have the ability to externalize another persona enough to create a personality for a doll.

[Nymada del Sol]

What I know is that many scientists have been wrong. There have been many reasons for being wrong but the number one reason is they wanted their theory to be correct.

Did you know that NOAA debunked all of the doom and gloom global warming models, by pointing out there has been no significant rise in average temperatures since 98?

I'm skeptical of all priests, it doesn't matter if they wear black and wave religious icons or white and wave test tubes.

I heard that a lot of those scientists were paid off by big oil. One of the worst things to happen to science is profit.

When science is led by profit, then scientists look the other way when facts get in the way of profit of their capitalist masters.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Nymada del Sol

[Troy Spiral (13)]

any creature who is able to mourn a dead companion (or other member of their "group"), or even play with improvised dolls, to me, *must* have their own subjective view of the world, or else they wouldn't be able to conceive of their own individuality, the individuality of the one whom they're mourning, nor even have the ability to externalize another persona enough to create a personality for a doll.

I you would just have to take this part on faith as "mournful like behavior" may be very different (maybe even not at all) what you and I would consider mourning. Only a small percentage f animals are self-aware as far as we can tell, while a wide-range of animals exhibit mourning like behavior. We as humans are experts at projecting our own ways of viewing the world onto everything from atoms to elephants , and we have a built in thing called "conformation bias" (assuming that the idea we start with is true and look for evidence not to challenge our view but to confirm it) which, while good for survival, is a hardwired habit, very hard to break, that distorts our veiw of "objective reality". (if such a thing exists)

That isn't to say your point is wrong, I'd just say its still a very open question.

[SaGa]

i think the labeling is to black and white. if im pro-life does that mean the second the sperm touches the egg suddenly its a human being. but at the same token. if im pro-abortion, how far and for what reasons am i. after-birth abortion is the fringe of this, and i have heard of upto age 3 being spoken of

now to take the question to its effects on society in 30 years. which should be taken into account. because politicians and scientists and philosophers who pick sides are picking there sides based of projected data. not specificly on ethics alone. or are basing there whole choice, on the writings of pre-20th century philosophers,

we have the over-population arguments.

the more perfect human society arguments through genetic selecting,

and this one gets into what some call conspiracy theory, its a soft kill to cull the population of those that are poor, and this ties into the scientific eugenic racist trends. that never died from the early 20th century. ie margret sanger...

we also have the other effect of the nations that do participate in abortion will have less children then the nations that dont. a japan type syndrome could happen where to little bodies for the workforce, to many elderly....

i think the reasons to be pro-life or pro-choice or inbetween, goes beyond good and evil and beyond simple personal ethics. hmmm do we have the listings of the pro-life and pro-choice stats , based on education, race, gender, economic data, not if someones right or left wing.