Good book. If you like it get his next one, Fabric of the Cosmos. I thought it was much better then Elegent Universe, though they are both still superb books.
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
My morality tells me that if she's not hurting anyone then leave her alone. It's hippocritical for you to call what she buys frivolous and say her money is better spent on other things when you and everyone else in every other first world country does the same thing, albeit to a lesser extent.
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 1
You could literally save peoples lives with the money you'd get from selling your computer, yet you haven't done that yet;)
The point that was made above is that it's all relative. There are plenty of people in this world who think you and I are greedy for what we have. If you choose to look down on others then you have to accpet the criticisms of those who look down you. It would be illogical to expect everyone on the earth to lower their standings to a common level.
People understand that any similarity in behavior between the clone and the original pet is coincidental
Is it? Obviously upbringing is the major factor in an animals behavior patterns. But hasn't it been shown that genetics do play a part? Anyone know what percentage each plays in the behavior of cats? Or for humans? I would think that in the case of two cats with the same owner brought up in the same manner and in the same enviornment, the effect of genetics on behavior would be more noticable.
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That line of logic can be applied to every convenience that we have beyond the basic necessities.
Homosexuality was lumped in along with 3 other examples of dangers to the human race that we have overcome. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seemed to me like he was saying homosexuality is a problem that needs to be overcome.
Homosexuality - There are theories that nature uses homosexuality to help control population sizes. The basic theory is that when a population reaches a size that can no longer be naturally supported by the environment that homosexual tendencies become more prevelant. Of course it could just be that the percentage of gay people hasn't changed, it's just that there are more now since the overall population is growing.
It's good to know you've got a scientific basis for your homophobia...
I suppose that depends on the level of the math class. For upper classes such as calculus and beyond I can agree to that. But at the lower levels such as algebra and trig students should be doing that themselves.
I do see your point. My frustration comes from the fact that I see a lot of students prefer to learn how to make the calculator give them the answer, instead of learning to get the answer themselves and using the calculator to help. They're learning how to use a calculator, not how to do math. Taking the calculator away is the easies solution I can see to that problem. I should be more specific though. When I say calculator I'm referring to graphing calculators that are algebra and calculus capable. They make calculators that can solve differential equations now. That's great from a technology standpoint, but from an educational perspective it's aggrivating to see students with the an attitude that they shouldn't have to learn to do something that a calculator can do for them.
I understood all the deeper theory precisely because I was forced to see it all take form step by step. Learning theory with a calculator is magic math. You just see that it works and have to trust that it does, and that's not how you develop a deep understanding.
Amen. A lot of the teachers at the school I go to and work at are being pressured to allow students to use calculators in their classes. Now I've never taken statistics so I can't say anything about it. But I've had algebra through calcs 1, 2, and 3, along with linear algebra and differential equations and I've never been allowed to use a calculator and I'm much better off for it.
Do you deny that society in it's current state considers coma patients to be human? Certainly the current definition of human should reflect the current beliefs of who and what are to be included in that definition.
Past and future definitions of a word have no consequence in a debate taking place in the present and concerning the present. It's a red herring at best. The point is that his definition of the word doesn't mesh with the current ideals, it doesn't mesh with the past ones either. It's just flawed.
History doesn't have a thing to do about it. It's pointing out a flaw in his argument. His argument leads to conclusions that, by my judgement and by the current social attitudes towards the issue, are wrong.
My point is that we don't have to resort to obfuscating the definition of human to effectively argue against those fundamentialist assertions. The fallacy doesn't lie with people believing that the definition of human involves a biological concept, that is a correct belief. The fallacy is when you don't differentiate between what it means to be human and what it means to be a human. Skin cells are human, but a piece of skin is not a human.
And the context of the debate doesn't change whether little grey men are considered human or not. They aren't. Humans are not the only species with a right to life, we don't have to lump little grey men into the human catagory. That's something like saying the only way black people will have equal rights is if we start calling them white.
To try and sum this up a little clearer. I agree with HalfFlat in that I think it's sociological concerns that dictate whether a form of life (i.e. humans, dogs, little grey men) have certain rights. What I don't agree with is the idea that we have to classify something as human before it can get those rights or the thought that because something has those rights it should automatically be considered human.
That's absurd, by that logic nothing can ever be said to be human cause then we could just "redefine the law" to make them not human. The point is that people in comas should and are considered human, but his definition doesn't include those people, therefore his definition is flawed.
Take a premature infant, for example, and leave them to fend for themselves. Most will not be self-sustaining either.
That point is entirely irrelevent. We're talking about whether a baby of snot as a lifeform has the capability of sustaining itself. Enviornmental concerns are of no consequence to a biological discussion, it's about capability. A child has the capability to grow into an adult and reproduce, it is a living organism. Snot is not a living organism, it cannot grow into bigger snot and make little snot babies.
That they might not integrate 'well' is a different (though related) question. That they participate and have other human qualities ascribed to them means they count.
'Human' is a biological trait that is independant of any type of social interaction or behavior that that organism may or may not engage in. Coma patients are human, people lost on a desert island are human, babies that were raised by animals are human.
Yes. And many other animals form societies, and culture too (in the sense that it is community local and passed on independently of genetics.) Perhaps we should reconsider whether being cruel to other animals is acceptable behaviour, ethically speaking?
You're dodging the point. Dogs and cats are self concious. They form bonds with their owners, participate in social interactions, have empathy toward their ownders, but they are not human. They are canines and felines. Human is not an all encompassing word that describes every organism in the universe capable of social interaction or feelings. It's a biological description of a single type of organism.
You seem to be missing the distinction between human and humanity. A human is a being with human DNA. Skin cells are human skin cells, but they're not human. Your definition involving the capacity for humane actions/being part of society/etc. just doesn't hold. As has been pointed out above, people in comas may be forgotten but they certainly are human with all the rights and freedoms that that entails. People with anti-social disorders aren't capable of humaneness or participating in society but are still human. There are many species of apes that are capable of social interaction with humans, capable of humane feelings. What if a more advanced lifeform were to visit earth? They would more then likely be capable of all the humaneness that we are, but little grey men can't be considered human.
Human is a biological quality, humanity is a sociological quality. You are confusing the two.
Slashdot Mirror
Good book. If you like it get his next one, Fabric of the Cosmos. I thought it was much better then Elegent Universe, though they are both still superb books.
My morality tells me that if she's not hurting anyone then leave her alone. It's hippocritical for you to call what she buys frivolous and say her money is better spent on other things when you and everyone else in every other first world country does the same thing, albeit to a lesser extent.
The point that was made above is that it's all relative. There are plenty of people in this world who think you and I are greedy for what we have. If you choose to look down on others then you have to accpet the criticisms of those who look down you. It would be illogical to expect everyone on the earth to lower their standings to a common level.
I don't see you donating your computer to the salvation army. You've got a fridge and a microwave too right? And a TV?
Is it? Obviously upbringing is the major factor in an animals behavior patterns. But hasn't it been shown that genetics do play a part? Anyone know what percentage each plays in the behavior of cats? Or for humans? I would think that in the case of two cats with the same owner brought up in the same manner and in the same enviornment, the effect of genetics on behavior would be more noticable.
Do you own a microwave?
You would have to speed up cesium-133 to lengthen the day.
Homosexuality was lumped in along with 3 other examples of dangers to the human race that we have overcome. Maybe I misunderstood, but it seemed to me like he was saying homosexuality is a problem that needs to be overcome.
It's good to know you've got a scientific basis for your homophobia...
I suppose that depends on the level of the math class. For upper classes such as calculus and beyond I can agree to that. But at the lower levels such as algebra and trig students should be doing that themselves.
I do see your point. My frustration comes from the fact that I see a lot of students prefer to learn how to make the calculator give them the answer, instead of learning to get the answer themselves and using the calculator to help. They're learning how to use a calculator, not how to do math. Taking the calculator away is the easies solution I can see to that problem. I should be more specific though. When I say calculator I'm referring to graphing calculators that are algebra and calculus capable. They make calculators that can solve differential equations now. That's great from a technology standpoint, but from an educational perspective it's aggrivating to see students with the an attitude that they shouldn't have to learn to do something that a calculator can do for them.
I understood all the deeper theory precisely because I was forced to see it all take form step by step. Learning theory with a calculator is magic math. You just see that it works and have to trust that it does, and that's not how you develop a deep understanding.
Amen. A lot of the teachers at the school I go to and work at are being pressured to allow students to use calculators in their classes. Now I've never taken statistics so I can't say anything about it. But I've had algebra through calcs 1, 2, and 3, along with linear algebra and differential equations and I've never been allowed to use a calculator and I'm much better off for it.
Well then technically all life on this planet is fusion powered... but that distinction's not too helpfull is it?
Haha, guess the casino's gonna need to rewrite their rules now.
Do you deny that society in it's current state considers coma patients to be human? Certainly the current definition of human should reflect the current beliefs of who and what are to be included in that definition.
Past and future definitions of a word have no consequence in a debate taking place in the present and concerning the present. It's a red herring at best. The point is that his definition of the word doesn't mesh with the current ideals, it doesn't mesh with the past ones either. It's just flawed.
History doesn't have a thing to do about it. It's pointing out a flaw in his argument. His argument leads to conclusions that, by my judgement and by the current social attitudes towards the issue, are wrong.
And the context of the debate doesn't change whether little grey men are considered human or not. They aren't. Humans are not the only species with a right to life, we don't have to lump little grey men into the human catagory. That's something like saying the only way black people will have equal rights is if we start calling them white.
To try and sum this up a little clearer. I agree with HalfFlat in that I think it's sociological concerns that dictate whether a form of life (i.e. humans, dogs, little grey men) have certain rights. What I don't agree with is the idea that we have to classify something as human before it can get those rights or the thought that because something has those rights it should automatically be considered human.
That's absurd, by that logic nothing can ever be said to be human cause then we could just "redefine the law" to make them not human. The point is that people in comas should and are considered human, but his definition doesn't include those people, therefore his definition is flawed.
That point is entirely irrelevent. We're talking about whether a baby of snot as a lifeform has the capability of sustaining itself. Enviornmental concerns are of no consequence to a biological discussion, it's about capability. A child has the capability to grow into an adult and reproduce, it is a living organism. Snot is not a living organism, it cannot grow into bigger snot and make little snot babies.
That they might not integrate 'well' is a different (though related) question. That they participate and have other human qualities ascribed to them means they count.
'Human' is a biological trait that is independant of any type of social interaction or behavior that that organism may or may not engage in. Coma patients are human, people lost on a desert island are human, babies that were raised by animals are human.
Yes. And many other animals form societies, and culture too (in the sense that it is community local and passed on independently of genetics.) Perhaps we should reconsider whether being cruel to other animals is acceptable behaviour, ethically speaking?
You're dodging the point. Dogs and cats are self concious. They form bonds with their owners, participate in social interactions, have empathy toward their ownders, but they are not human. They are canines and felines. Human is not an all encompassing word that describes every organism in the universe capable of social interaction or feelings. It's a biological description of a single type of organism.
Human is a biological quality, humanity is a sociological quality. You are confusing the two.
That type of thought is way to logical to be wasted on christianity.
It's not surprising at all. It's just sad.