The "differences" that proportedly "support diversity" are also the things that start wars and drive us apart.
Actually, the thing that starts wars and drives us apart is idiocy(read: irrationality) which inevitably breeds intolerance. The intolerance isn't the problem, the idiocy is; treat the source, not the symptoms. You can be a team while all being different.
If you're smart, you can cut down context switch times by a HUGE amount(the problems come largely from forced TLB flushes when switching address spaces). L4, EROS and some other microkernels have average context switch times of less than 3 microseconds(on a 400MHz machine I believe). The speedup comes from enforcing protection boundaries using segmentation versus the paging tables, so TLB flushes are not necessary(if I understand the technique correctly).
A "work made for hire" is--
(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work...
How about if it's not though? Let's say you have a year long "Design Course" in which you can do any project which has been approved. I was thinking about an operating system and GPL'ing it(since I've always wanted to write one). But if my university has this kind of policy, then I wouldn't even dream of it. It even seems totally unjust: a)firstly, it does not fit your description of "work for hire" and b) they are not telling me what to write, how to write it or anything, they just tell me if it's hard enough. It's an independent project, dreamed up and built by me, but if this is my university's policy, then it applies to everything and I will avoid writing anything useful for them like the plague.
Good question. I could provide my own def'n, but for our purposes I shall simply that the life of an organism is it's life in the medical def'n. Therefore someone in a coma or who has part of their brain destroyed may still be medically alive.
Perhaps you have a problem with extending the 'human being' label to the entire life span of an individual who may no longer even fit the def'n. Very well, I shall amend my previous statement and say an entity shall be protected as a human being for as long as it continues to at least partly fit the description of a human being, or for the duration of it's life, whichever happens first. I expand on this further below in response to your other comments.
Is someone who essentially has his entire brain destroyed in an accident still deserving of human rights?
Why not? If they are still a living human being (according to the def'ns we are discussing), please provide some logical argument why he/she should not have such rights.
With enough technology, it would be possible to replace pretty much every organ in your body with something artificial(even just some simply artificial brain to tell you to keep breathing and what not). Could someone(something?) like that still be said to be human?
Yes, if it once was and if it still contains human remnants(such as cells or organs). If you replaced absolutely everything with a machine such that they have no human cells left, then they no longer fit the def'n at all and can no longer be considered human. (which does not mean they don't deserve the same rights - we are just discussing a classification for a life form here) You can summarize it as follows: if they were once human, are still alive and still fulfill part of the def'n of a human being they may remain under the classification of a human being.
If not, when and why does the change in status occur? Your definition of what is human is extremely lacking.
Allow me to repeat myself again. The definition I reached in my lengthy post was not mine. It was derived from the criteria of the challenger. Even still, it is lacking how exactly? With a little thought it should be quite obvious how to apply the def'n in any situation. I have easily and logically answered all of your challenges in this and previous posts despite the fact that I don't even fully support the particular def'n I derived for the other poster.
But I am made up of human cells. Am I not a human being? So what makes me human? You are saying that a fetus with a brain but not kidneys isn't human...why?
You're kidding right? I wrote a lengthy post deriving in pain-staking detail the logical process that resulted in this conclusion. I'm not going to repeat myself. Go read it again if you're confused.
You seem to think that because you used a definition which can distinguish a clump of cells from a newborn, you have a definition that can distinguish a human from a non-human.
You seem to think I can't. Why not? Provide a counter-example that illustrates a situation where my def'n is meaningless or doesn't make sense and I will gladly revise my definition of a human being and I will fully applaud your success. I don't think you can.
ROTFL. OK, I think we're done here.
Care to explain that? So far I have found few significant logical flaws in her arguments. Please, point out any such flaws she may have made, and I will gladly agree. If you can't provide any logical argument then don't bother responding.
Not my definition. If you read my post, I explicitly stated that I might not agree with the criteria of the challenge. Theoretically, the def'n very well could be arbitrary because of different opinions, values etc. If everyone had beliefs grounded in logic, this would not be the case.
whose kidneys were destroyed by disease
When? Before birth? After? If after, then they were born human. Once you are human, you can logically extend the law to say that you are human for the rest of your life. That does not have to be part of the def'n though.
That's one of your criteria, and it's based on your beliefs of what makes a human human.
No actually it's not. I have no beliefs, I have only proof by logical conclusions.
if so, what would be the logical reason for saying that a fetus with a brain capable of thought but no kidneys isn't human, but an adult with a brain capable of thought but no kidneys is???
The reason is simple: It doesn't fit the def'n. Just as a squirrel is not human, and a fox is not a hippo. I explained why an adult who loses kidneys would still be human above. Keep in mind though, that the conclusion I came to was based on the challenge's criteria. If I were to start from scratch based on my logical morals, I am almost certain I would come to a different conclusion.
What criteria? There was none listed. The poster simply said: here are two different possible views, now you try to logically say why one is right and the other isn't. It would appear that you drew criteria out of thin(i.e. illogical) air.
Well, read the challenge again. He explicitly stated two possible conclusions. Conclusion 1 was a fetus is a human, Conclusion 2 was a fetus is no more a human being than a human cell. That logically implies that human cells are not human beings. That's where one criteria derived from: human cells != human being. According to the law, a newborn is a human being and so is protected. Therefore, newborn == human being. Consequently, somewhere between embryo(human cell) and newborn, human cells become a human being. Where is the illogic in this?
Wow, congrats. I don't think anyone in human history has been able to give a logical from the ground up definition of morality. Wonderful that you were able to...
Oh no, I am by no means the first(as I found out awhile ago). Many people have done the same to lesser or even greater degrees. Ayn Rand is one such person.
Your flaw is in thinking that your definition of what is human is logical.
I derived it for you right there. Point out my mistake.
Some Christians say that the fetus/embryo is human the moment conception occurs.
I'm sorry, but one of the criteria is that human cells are not human beings. An embryo is a single cell, therefore it does not qualify.
If their religious beliefs are correct, then that is the logical answer.
This is something I find very amusing. You have backwards reasoning. If something is logical, then it is correct. If it is correct, then of course it's logical - it has to be otherwise it would not be correct. If you find something which is not correct but appears logical you have made an error. If you find something correct that does not seem logical you have made an error.
1) beings that cannot survive by themselves, but could with help. examples: patient with failed kidneys on a dialysis machine. patient with failed heart with an artificial heart. patient with failed lungs with an iron lung or something of the sort.
They had these vital organs to start with, but they failed during the course of their life. I think this could easily fit with the def'n I gave for a human.
2) some sort of freak chimp that is as smart/sentient/conscious as a human(I won't even get into normal chimps, which are probably on the level of small children, and which I have huge reservations about using in medical research)
3) a computer with human-level intelligence
4) some being from another planet with human-level intelligence
Perhaps they are entitled to the same or similar rights, but they are not human. My only purpose was to define human and to logically prove whether a fetus was human.
5) related to #1, a human fetus that, even if it cannnot sustain itself outside the womb, has human-like brainwaves, and can survive inside the womb
Human-like is not necessarily human.
some other people might add exceptions to the list that I don't agree with, or say some of mine are invalid. I don't think I or anyone else can give a completely logical reason for saying: this one is human, this one is not.
I could provide you with a logical reason. Like my previous post, I started with the challenges' criteria and I came to a logical conclusion. If I started with your criteria I would probably come to a different conclusion. The only problem I have with all of this is that it's essentially pointless because you have poorly defined morals. That's not to say you don't have morals, because I'm sure you do; I'm saying they are poorly defined in that you don't know exactly where any particular one comes from, you don't know why you believe in it and you probably can't provide many(if any) logical reasons why you should believe in it. In short, they are not morals or beliefs grounded in logic, they come from many (sometimes) conflicting things your parents, realtives and friends have told you while raising you.
On the other hand, if you started from scratch and logically defined all of your morals from a logical foundation there would be none of this confusion and it would be quite clear what a human being is, what would be a proper course of action etc. It's what I did, and it's quite nice IMO.:-) I would comment on your other points, but I really want to shut off this computer.;-)
I don't understand your thought process here. How are we gods if we manage to wipe out the human race? Are you saying that countermanding a Bible prophecy would make you a god?
They are called nuclear weapons. We have more than enough of them to obliterate the Earth. I'm not saying say it will happen, I'm saying it could happen. We are not dealing with Bible prophecies here, we are dealing with cause and effect(ie. logic).
Well, I've put some thought into this and here's what I came up with. Firstly, your analysis of the problem is very poor. Secondly, if you had done even a decent analysis, you'd realize there is no contradiction in your example. If you think about it for a minute, the fact of whether a fetus is human or not depends completely on your definition of what is human. Choosing a particular definition must inevitably lead to a conclusion that a fetus is either human or not. End of story, that's it. Allow me to illustrate. As an example, I define a human being as follows:
A human is a living entity that thinks and acts of it's own accord and is capable of reflecting on it's own nature.
or some such thing. I made this up in about 10 seconds, but it's secondary to the point as you shall soon see. Given this definition of a human being, does a fetus fit in? No. Why? Because a fetus is incapable of reflecting on it's own nature. It has no consciousness, only awareness. Consequently, a fetus should not be protected as a human being under the law.
Now this served as an example evaluation. Had I chosen a slightly different definition of human being, the process would have resulted in a different conclusion. There is no logical way I can reach a contradictory result. Say I define a human as follows:
A human is any living entity which has the genetic composition of a human and can think and act of it's own accord.
Now should a fetus be protected? Yes. A fetus has the proper genetic composition, can act(as pregnant women can attest to the kicking) and can even think in limited ways since they respond to stimuli. See? No contradiction.
Perhaps then, you were asking "what defines a human being?" Well that's a MUCH more difficult question to answer. Let's ponder this together shall we? I will use what I believe to be your criteria for what constitutes a human being(though I may not share your opinion). We are searching for the simplest(read:shortest) definition that fits your criteria of human while simultaneously excluding everything else. You believe a newborn is a human being, but human cells are not. Somewhere between fertilization and birth a collection of growing cells becomes a human being. So now we must find a set of criteria for determining what this point might be.
Is a squirrel a human? I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say no. So only a life form with a human genetic composition can be classified as human. That's requirement 1. This category is too broad though; cells easily fit here but you've already stated that simple human cells are not a human being(and I agree). Therefore, we must find a general dividing line to separate human cells and human beings. How about this: a human being is an entity composed of human cells. That's the tightest definition you can use; it effectively cuts off only human cells from being a human. This is requirement 2.
But what about a human liver? It's an entity composed of human cells and has human genetic composition, but clearly it's not a human being. So we must narrow our definition further. Here's my next suggestion: a human being must have the basic anatomical features of a human being necessary for sustaining its life. By necessary anatomical features I mean stuff you couldn't live a day or two without, ie. organs such as heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, brain, etc. Not necessarily feet, hands,eyes, ears or other non-essentials. Therefore, people born with physical deformities are still human. If they were born without an essential organ they would no longer be alive. So now we have eliminated organs and cells with a tight definition of a human being:
A human being:
a) has human genetic composition
b) is an entity composed of human cells
c) must have the basic anatomical features(organs) of a human being necessary for sustaining its life
This definition is sound because it is general and simple enough to encompass all human beings, yet is just tight enough to include only human beings according to your criteria(newborn == human, cells != human). Now let's see if we can apply it. I did some quick research and it appears that after 14 weeks a fetus has functioning lungs, heart and most other necessary organs. It also says that after about 20 weeks, the baby can live outside the womb. This is the point of guaranteed, minimal, necessary anatomical development. In conclusion, according to the determined definition of a human being, a fetus becomes a human being between 14th and the 20th week of pregnancy(I would have to do much more research to narrow this further) Theoretically, this point moves with the pace of fetal development, so if the fetus matures faster, it will attain human status sooner.
There, was that so hard?:-) With further thought I'm sure I could reduce this argument even further and make it tighter, but I think that: a) I've proven my point, and b) I've spent enough time doing this.
I want you to think about your position for a minute. Man has the ability to eliminate every single life form on this planet including himself. Can nature recover from that? No. Therefore Nature cannot self-correct any damage Man can do. It's as simple as that.
That is clearly false. Eliminating the top of the food chain would result in the proliferation of the species in the second link of the food chain. This in turn could upset any necessary balance that supports the food chain many links below.
Yes of course. But then second links' food supply goes low as their population increases and they start dying of starvation until the population and food supply balances out. It's not a catastrophic occurrence; it happens in nature all the time.
So you are saying that relieving Nature of a single species does not impact Nature because Nature is not dependent upon a certain species? How does that jive with your position that destroying species one by one, as Man is wont to do, will destroy Nature?
Excellent point. Destroy one species and nature will most likely adapt in it's absence. One species is usually not so important to the overall system that it would collapse in its absence; life and nature has alot of built-in redundancy. But obviously, the more you destroy, the more likely it'll be the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.
Also, humans are at the top of the food chain if you hadn't noticed. Nothing depends on us for food or sustenance, or... anything for that matter. Being at the top of the chain means that eliminating you would have the least impact on the overall system.
You've just demonstrated why so-called "pure logic" is difficult to use as a good basis for making decisions.
I have never encountered any situation where so-called "pure logic" has not provided the best solution to a problem/issue. If you come across a situation where you have two contradicting solutions to the same problem, you have made an error(unless you can provide me with a counter-example).
Both of you have "logical" arguments that come to very different conclusions, opposite conclusions actually
If our conclusions are different, there are two possible reasons: a) one of us is wrong, or b) we are trying to accomplish different things. In a case like this where the argument has no direction(ie. we are not trying to accomplish anything), one of us is wrong. In this case, I am right.:-)
One of you is no more "right" than the other, but you both think the other is wrong.
No, I am right.:-) (see my response to him if you'd like to see why) He has put forth the argument that humans can obliterate nature if they like and replace all this land with farms for our own purposes. He hasn't stated it as clearly or bluntly, but that's what his argument boils down to.
Just to add my own $0.02, you'd be hard pressed to say that farms are not nature.
Of course they are. They are an imitation of a stripped-bare nature based solely on our needs. Due to our limited understanding of how nature actually works, farms are severely lacking in what is actually needed for a sustainable existence. That's why he's wrong.
They're just a small part of nature contained but still subject to the larger overall system that includes sunlight, rain, soil, and many other things that are hard (or impossible) to replicate on a large enough scale to feed everyone.
Impossible to currently replicate especially since we don't fully understand even 10 percent of it. That's why it's unsustainable, and that's why he's wrong.
Actually, that is completely incorrect, logically.
I'm afraid not.
Logic dictates that you plan the destruction of the ecosystem in an area and plant massive farms. This will enhance greatly your species' ability to survive.
So are you telling me you can precisely predict the exact impact of exterminating a species(or many species by your logic) of plant and animal life? If you can, there's a Nobel prize waiting for you. The fact of the matter is, we know very little of the cycles that continually renew the minerals in the earth and the keep the air fresh to breath or about what animals contribute what parts to this renewal. You kill some bacteria and upset the nitrogen cycle, plants die. If plants die you may upset the oxygen cycle. Once all this starts happening, you may affect climate change because of changing atmospheric compositions. Animals will start dying because of the little plant life there is and differing levels of oxygen in the air. Humans wouldn't be able to eat since meat would run out quick, they wouldn't be able to plant since plants wouldn't grow. The only thing they could do is die. This scenario wouldn't happen overnight, but it would happen given a sufficient disturbance. Sure life may adapt, then again, it may not. Are to willing to bet your life and all your kids' lives on our ignorance of how the ecosystem actually works?
Assuming a life form is worthless simply because it appears to have no significant impact is the sign of short-sighted ignorance. Acting on ignorance is not only illogical, it's mad. Doing any such thing as you propose on a massive scale is suicide. The blind, ignorant and uncontrolled destruction we pursue nowadays is bad enough.
To preserve plants and animals in a "natural" area is not logical. It leads to the death of many people, not the large farms, which feed many.
Leaving an area alone does not lead to any deaths. Deaths are the result of incompetence in the pursuit of illogical goals(or sometimes even just incompetence in the pursuit of logical ones).
To summarize, humans are not above nature; they are a dependent(at least for the time being).
well if you deny God's existence you could believe that.
The issue of God is irrelevant to this point.
However, for me, Genesis 1:26 applies... I have dominion over everything non-human on the earth.
You seem to be confusing two issues. Dominion over something does not indicate superiority to that thing. Dominion is the ability to exercise control. You are right that Man has dominion over the Earth because we have the capability to completely obliterate it if we wanted to. Or we could be more selective and completely wipe out only one life form. That is dominion if I've ever heard it.
However, you are not superior to nature in that you depend on nature to sustain you. Nature on the other hand, does not depend on your existence. If you depend on something you are not superior to it - especially if it does not depend on you. If you don't give back to nature what you take from it, then you will eventually exhaust it's resources and you will die. Humans are different from other creatures in that we have the capacity to recognize our dominion and that we can cause our own destruction. It's unfortunate most people don't realize this.
Unfortunately, you are not superior to nature. If you really believed in Ayn Rand's philosophy, you would follow two of the basic premises: a) reality is what it is, and b) logic is the only absolute. Logic dictates that if you drive many animals to extinction and greatly upset the cycle of nature, you will eliminate your own means of survival. The reality is that you will die. You are not superior to nature, as much as you'd like to believe; that is the reality.
Silicon is just too cheap and abundant to give up on right now
Exactly. And by the time we're finished with this obsession of ours with faster computing(since physics will stop us at some point), we'll start seeing better computing. I think we'll start to see more special purpose cpu's and hardware for pervasive computing and the focus will be become less on innovation and the next greatest thing(since we all tire of it some time) and more towards integration. Computing will be truly pervasive and really will make things easier this time(read: paper office).
But if you make money fast by winning the suit, that means you can't win the suit because you did make money fast! But if you can't win the suit then you can't make make money fast so then you win the suit and make money fast! But if you make money fast by winning the suit, that means you can't win the suit because you did make money fast! But if you can't win the suit then you can't make make money fast so then you win the suit and make money fast!But if you make money fast by winning the suit, that means you can't win the suit because you did make money fast! But if you can't win the suit then you can't make make money fast so then you win the suit and make money fast!...
Notice how all the good news is against spammers though? Nobody actually likes the guys, so that's why everyone is united against them. I bet spammers even hate themselves. They probably even have shower stalls built into their offices to wash off the dirty feeling a few times a day.:-)
btw, has anyone thought of users that do not wish for the meta tags to be in place, but cannot include a big bulk of programming code to turn it off because they have limited space on their page?
Meta tags aren't that large. The following example is a common one you should have in all html pages:
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
That's 73 chars == 73 bytes. Not exactly alot, and I doubt Microsoft's meta tag would be much bigger than that, so space isn't that big a deal.
While Microsoft claims that they care about the individual's needs they seem to overlook the irony in their argument...
That's called marketing, certainly something MS is good at.:-)
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Re:The problem with Napster and the RIAA
on
Napster Going Legit
·
· Score: 1
Here's what I meant to say:
Yes there is. It's called ethics. The users and the RIAA are all seriously lacking in the aformentioned quality. -----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
I don't agree with that. Did Einstein's thought experiments prove nothing? They resulted in the theory of relativity(I know, not perfect, but sufficiently illustrative that I think you get my point). You just have to use metaphors properly. If you don't, then they're useless. The previous posters' metaphor was inaccurate and so it logically led him to the wrong conclusion. He also made some logical flaws in his argument which also exacerbated the problem. The metaphor is never the problem, it's always the reasoning.
Slashdot Mirror
The "differences" that proportedly "support diversity" are also the things that start wars and drive us apart.
Actually, the thing that starts wars and drives us apart is idiocy(read: irrationality) which inevitably breeds intolerance. The intolerance isn't the problem, the idiocy is; treat the source, not the symptoms. You can be a team while all being different.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
If you're smart, you can cut down context switch times by a HUGE amount(the problems come largely from forced TLB flushes when switching address spaces). L4, EROS and some other microkernels have average context switch times of less than 3 microseconds(on a 400MHz machine I believe). The speedup comes from enforcing protection boundaries using segmentation versus the paging tables, so TLB flushes are not necessary(if I understand the technique correctly).
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
A "work made for hire" is--
(2) a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to a collective work...
How about if it's not though? Let's say you have a year long "Design Course" in which you can do any project which has been approved. I was thinking about an operating system and GPL'ing it(since I've always wanted to write one). But if my university has this kind of policy, then I wouldn't even dream of it. It even seems totally unjust: a)firstly, it does not fit your description of "work for hire" and b) they are not telling me what to write, how to write it or anything, they just tell me if it's hard enough. It's an independent project, dreamed up and built by me, but if this is my university's policy, then it applies to everything and I will avoid writing anything useful for them like the plague.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
And why is that exactly? What is life?
Good question. I could provide my own def'n, but for our purposes I shall simply that the life of an organism is it's life in the medical def'n. Therefore someone in a coma or who has part of their brain destroyed may still be medically alive.
Perhaps you have a problem with extending the 'human being' label to the entire life span of an individual who may no longer even fit the def'n. Very well, I shall amend my previous statement and say an entity shall be protected as a human being for as long as it continues to at least partly fit the description of a human being, or for the duration of it's life, whichever happens first. I expand on this further below in response to your other comments.
Is someone who essentially has his entire brain destroyed in an accident still deserving of human rights?
Why not? If they are still a living human being (according to the def'ns we are discussing), please provide some logical argument why he/she should not have such rights.
With enough technology, it would be possible to replace pretty much every organ in your body with something artificial(even just some simply artificial brain to tell you to keep breathing and what not). Could someone(something?) like that still be said to be human?
Yes, if it once was and if it still contains human remnants(such as cells or organs). If you replaced absolutely everything with a machine such that they have no human cells left, then they no longer fit the def'n at all and can no longer be considered human. (which does not mean they don't deserve the same rights - we are just discussing a classification for a life form here) You can summarize it as follows: if they were once human, are still alive and still fulfill part of the def'n of a human being they may remain under the classification of a human being.
If not, when and why does the change in status occur? Your definition of what is human is extremely lacking.
Allow me to repeat myself again. The definition I reached in my lengthy post was not mine. It was derived from the criteria of the challenger. Even still, it is lacking how exactly? With a little thought it should be quite obvious how to apply the def'n in any situation. I have easily and logically answered all of your challenges in this and previous posts despite the fact that I don't even fully support the particular def'n I derived for the other poster.
But I am made up of human cells. Am I not a human being? So what makes me human? You are saying that a fetus with a brain but not kidneys isn't human...why?
You're kidding right? I wrote a lengthy post deriving in pain-staking detail the logical process that resulted in this conclusion. I'm not going to repeat myself. Go read it again if you're confused.
You seem to think that because you used a definition which can distinguish a clump of cells from a newborn, you have a definition that can distinguish a human from a non-human.
You seem to think I can't. Why not? Provide a counter-example that illustrates a situation where my def'n is meaningless or doesn't make sense and I will gladly revise my definition of a human being and I will fully applaud your success. I don't think you can.
ROTFL. OK, I think we're done here.
Care to explain that? So far I have found few significant logical flaws in her arguments. Please, point out any such flaws she may have made, and I will gladly agree. If you can't provide any logical argument then don't bother responding.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Your definition for a human being is arbitrary.
Not my definition. If you read my post, I explicitly stated that I might not agree with the criteria of the challenge. Theoretically, the def'n very well could be arbitrary because of different opinions, values etc. If everyone had beliefs grounded in logic, this would not be the case.
whose kidneys were destroyed by disease
When? Before birth? After? If after, then they were born human. Once you are human, you can logically extend the law to say that you are human for the rest of your life. That does not have to be part of the def'n though.
That's one of your criteria, and it's based on your beliefs of what makes a human human.
No actually it's not. I have no beliefs, I have only proof by logical conclusions.
if so, what would be the logical reason for saying that a fetus with a brain capable of thought but no kidneys isn't human, but an adult with a brain capable of thought but no kidneys is???
The reason is simple: It doesn't fit the def'n. Just as a squirrel is not human, and a fox is not a hippo. I explained why an adult who loses kidneys would still be human above. Keep in mind though, that the conclusion I came to was based on the challenge's criteria. If I were to start from scratch based on my logical morals, I am almost certain I would come to a different conclusion.
What criteria? There was none listed. The poster simply said: here are two different possible views, now you try to logically say why one is right and the other isn't. It would appear that you drew criteria out of thin(i.e. illogical) air.
Well, read the challenge again. He explicitly stated two possible conclusions. Conclusion 1 was a fetus is a human, Conclusion 2 was a fetus is no more a human being than a human cell. That logically implies that human cells are not human beings. That's where one criteria derived from: human cells != human being. According to the law, a newborn is a human being and so is protected. Therefore, newborn == human being. Consequently, somewhere between embryo(human cell) and newborn, human cells become a human being. Where is the illogic in this?
Wow, congrats. I don't think anyone in human history has been able to give a logical from the ground up definition of morality. Wonderful that you were able to...
Oh no, I am by no means the first(as I found out awhile ago). Many people have done the same to lesser or even greater degrees. Ayn Rand is one such person.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
I'm saying to assume we can wipe ourselves out is to make ourselves gods in our own eyes... anything you put above God is a god (note the little 'g')
How? How is the ability to wipe out your own race putting anything above God? We have the ability to wipe ourselves out right now.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Your flaw is in thinking that your definition of what is human is logical.
:-) I would comment on your other points, but I really want to shut off this computer. ;-)
I derived it for you right there. Point out my mistake.
Some Christians say that the fetus/embryo is human the moment conception occurs.
I'm sorry, but one of the criteria is that human cells are not human beings. An embryo is a single cell, therefore it does not qualify.
If their religious beliefs are correct, then that is the logical answer.
This is something I find very amusing. You have backwards reasoning. If something is logical, then it is correct. If it is correct, then of course it's logical - it has to be otherwise it would not be correct. If you find something which is not correct but appears logical you have made an error. If you find something correct that does not seem logical you have made an error.
1) beings that cannot survive by themselves, but could with help. examples: patient with failed kidneys on a dialysis machine. patient with failed heart with an artificial heart. patient with failed lungs with an iron lung or something of the sort.
They had these vital organs to start with, but they failed during the course of their life. I think this could easily fit with the def'n I gave for a human.
2) some sort of freak chimp that is as smart/sentient/conscious as a human(I won't even get into normal chimps, which are probably on the level of small children, and which I have huge reservations about using in medical research)
3) a computer with human-level intelligence
4) some being from another planet with human-level intelligence
Perhaps they are entitled to the same or similar rights, but they are not human. My only purpose was to define human and to logically prove whether a fetus was human.
5) related to #1, a human fetus that, even if it cannnot sustain itself outside the womb, has human-like brainwaves, and can survive inside the womb
Human-like is not necessarily human.
some other people might add exceptions to the list that I don't agree with, or say some of mine are invalid. I don't think I or anyone else can give a completely logical reason for saying: this one is human, this one is not.
I could provide you with a logical reason. Like my previous post, I started with the challenges' criteria and I came to a logical conclusion. If I started with your criteria I would probably come to a different conclusion. The only problem I have with all of this is that it's essentially pointless because you have poorly defined morals. That's not to say you don't have morals, because I'm sure you do; I'm saying they are poorly defined in that you don't know exactly where any particular one comes from, you don't know why you believe in it and you probably can't provide many(if any) logical reasons why you should believe in it. In short, they are not morals or beliefs grounded in logic, they come from many (sometimes) conflicting things your parents, realtives and friends have told you while raising you.
On the other hand, if you started from scratch and logically defined all of your morals from a logical foundation there would be none of this confusion and it would be quite clear what a human being is, what would be a proper course of action etc. It's what I did, and it's quite nice IMO.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
I don't understand your thought process here. How are we gods if we manage to wipe out the human race? Are you saying that countermanding a Bible prophecy would make you a god?
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
They are called nuclear weapons. We have more than enough of them to obliterate the Earth. I'm not saying say it will happen, I'm saying it could happen. We are not dealing with Bible prophecies here, we are dealing with cause and effect(ie. logic).
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Furthermore, think about removing beams from a bridge. You can only remove so many before it collapses(or think about Jenga for that matter ;-)
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Now this served as an example evaluation. Had I chosen a slightly different definition of human being, the process would have resulted in a different conclusion. There is no logical way I can reach a contradictory result. Say I define a human as follows: Now should a fetus be protected? Yes. A fetus has the proper genetic composition, can act(as pregnant women can attest to the kicking) and can even think in limited ways since they respond to stimuli. See? No contradiction.
Perhaps then, you were asking "what defines a human being?" Well that's a MUCH more difficult question to answer. Let's ponder this together shall we? I will use what I believe to be your criteria for what constitutes a human being(though I may not share your opinion). We are searching for the simplest(read:shortest) definition that fits your criteria of human while simultaneously excluding everything else. You believe a newborn is a human being, but human cells are not. Somewhere between fertilization and birth a collection of growing cells becomes a human being. So now we must find a set of criteria for determining what this point might be.
Is a squirrel a human? I'm sure you'll agree with me when I say no. So only a life form with a human genetic composition can be classified as human. That's requirement 1. This category is too broad though; cells easily fit here but you've already stated that simple human cells are not a human being(and I agree). Therefore, we must find a general dividing line to separate human cells and human beings. How about this: a human being is an entity composed of human cells. That's the tightest definition you can use; it effectively cuts off only human cells from being a human. This is requirement 2.
But what about a human liver? It's an entity composed of human cells and has human genetic composition, but clearly it's not a human being. So we must narrow our definition further. Here's my next suggestion: a human being must have the basic anatomical features of a human being necessary for sustaining its life. By necessary anatomical features I mean stuff you couldn't live a day or two without, ie. organs such as heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, brain, etc. Not necessarily feet, hands,eyes, ears or other non-essentials. Therefore, people born with physical deformities are still human. If they were born without an essential organ they would no longer be alive. So now we have eliminated organs and cells with a tight definition of a human being: This definition is sound because it is general and simple enough to encompass all human beings, yet is just tight enough to include only human beings according to your criteria(newborn == human, cells != human). Now let's see if we can apply it. I did some quick research and it appears that after 14 weeks a fetus has functioning lungs, heart and most other necessary organs. It also says that after about 20 weeks, the baby can live outside the womb. This is the point of guaranteed, minimal, necessary anatomical development. In conclusion, according to the determined definition of a human being, a fetus becomes a human being between 14th and the 20th week of pregnancy(I would have to do much more research to narrow this further) Theoretically, this point moves with the pace of fetal development, so if the fetus matures faster, it will attain human status sooner.
There, was that so hard?
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
it comes down to values and beliefs. And those aren't based on logic.
:-)
So please tell me, if they are not based on logic, what are they based on?
My response to the fetus challenge is coming...
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
I want you to think about your position for a minute. Man has the ability to eliminate every single life form on this planet including himself. Can nature recover from that? No. Therefore Nature cannot self-correct any damage Man can do. It's as simple as that.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
That is clearly false. Eliminating the top of the food chain would result in the proliferation of the species in the second link of the food chain. This in turn could upset any necessary balance that supports the food chain many links below.
Yes of course. But then second links' food supply goes low as their population increases and they start dying of starvation until the population and food supply balances out. It's not a catastrophic occurrence; it happens in nature all the time.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
So you are saying that relieving Nature of a single species does not impact Nature because Nature is not dependent upon a certain species? How does that jive with your position that destroying species one by one, as Man is wont to do, will destroy Nature?
Excellent point. Destroy one species and nature will most likely adapt in it's absence. One species is usually not so important to the overall system that it would collapse in its absence; life and nature has alot of built-in redundancy. But obviously, the more you destroy, the more likely it'll be the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak.
Also, humans are at the top of the food chain if you hadn't noticed. Nothing depends on us for food or sustenance, or... anything for that matter. Being at the top of the chain means that eliminating you would have the least impact on the overall system.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
You've just demonstrated why so-called "pure logic" is difficult to use as a good basis for making decisions.
:-)
:-) (see my response to him if you'd like to see why) He has put forth the argument that humans can obliterate nature if they like and replace all this land with farms for our own purposes. He hasn't stated it as clearly or bluntly, but that's what his argument boils down to.
I have never encountered any situation where so-called "pure logic" has not provided the best solution to a problem/issue. If you come across a situation where you have two contradicting solutions to the same problem, you have made an error(unless you can provide me with a counter-example).
Both of you have "logical" arguments that come to very different conclusions, opposite conclusions actually
If our conclusions are different, there are two possible reasons: a) one of us is wrong, or b) we are trying to accomplish different things. In a case like this where the argument has no direction(ie. we are not trying to accomplish anything), one of us is wrong. In this case, I am right.
One of you is no more "right" than the other, but you both think the other is wrong.
No, I am right.
Just to add my own $0.02, you'd be hard pressed to say that farms are not nature.
Of course they are. They are an imitation of a stripped-bare nature based solely on our needs. Due to our limited understanding of how nature actually works, farms are severely lacking in what is actually needed for a sustainable existence. That's why he's wrong.
They're just a small part of nature contained but still subject to the larger overall system that includes sunlight, rain, soil, and many other things that are hard (or impossible) to replicate on a large enough scale to feed everyone.
Impossible to currently replicate especially since we don't fully understand even 10 percent of it. That's why it's unsustainable, and that's why he's wrong.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Actually, that is completely incorrect, logically.
I'm afraid not.
Logic dictates that you plan the destruction of the ecosystem in an area and plant massive farms. This will enhance greatly your species' ability to survive.
So are you telling me you can precisely predict the exact impact of exterminating a species(or many species by your logic) of plant and animal life? If you can, there's a Nobel prize waiting for you. The fact of the matter is, we know very little of the cycles that continually renew the minerals in the earth and the keep the air fresh to breath or about what animals contribute what parts to this renewal. You kill some bacteria and upset the nitrogen cycle, plants die. If plants die you may upset the oxygen cycle. Once all this starts happening, you may affect climate change because of changing atmospheric compositions. Animals will start dying because of the little plant life there is and differing levels of oxygen in the air. Humans wouldn't be able to eat since meat would run out quick, they wouldn't be able to plant since plants wouldn't grow. The only thing they could do is die. This scenario wouldn't happen overnight, but it would happen given a sufficient disturbance. Sure life may adapt, then again, it may not. Are to willing to bet your life and all your kids' lives on our ignorance of how the ecosystem actually works?
Assuming a life form is worthless simply because it appears to have no significant impact is the sign of short-sighted ignorance. Acting on ignorance is not only illogical, it's mad. Doing any such thing as you propose on a massive scale is suicide. The blind, ignorant and uncontrolled destruction we pursue nowadays is bad enough.
To preserve plants and animals in a "natural" area is not logical. It leads to the death of many people, not the large farms, which feed many.
Leaving an area alone does not lead to any deaths. Deaths are the result of incompetence in the pursuit of illogical goals(or sometimes even just incompetence in the pursuit of logical ones).
To summarize, humans are not above nature; they are a dependent(at least for the time being).
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
well if you deny God's existence you could believe that.
The issue of God is irrelevant to this point.
However, for me, Genesis 1:26 applies... I have dominion over everything non-human on the earth.
You seem to be confusing two issues. Dominion over something does not indicate superiority to that thing. Dominion is the ability to exercise control. You are right that Man has dominion over the Earth because we have the capability to completely obliterate it if we wanted to. Or we could be more selective and completely wipe out only one life form. That is dominion if I've ever heard it.
However, you are not superior to nature in that you depend on nature to sustain you. Nature on the other hand, does not depend on your existence. If you depend on something you are not superior to it - especially if it does not depend on you. If you don't give back to nature what you take from it, then you will eventually exhaust it's resources and you will die. Humans are different from other creatures in that we have the capacity to recognize our dominion and that we can cause our own destruction. It's unfortunate most people don't realize this.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Unfortunately, you are not superior to nature. If you really believed in Ayn Rand's philosophy, you would follow two of the basic premises: a) reality is what it is, and b) logic is the only absolute. Logic dictates that if you drive many animals to extinction and greatly upset the cycle of nature, you will eliminate your own means of survival. The reality is that you will die. You are not superior to nature, as much as you'd like to believe; that is the reality.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Silicon is just too cheap and abundant to give up on right now
Exactly. And by the time we're finished with this obsession of ours with faster computing(since physics will stop us at some point), we'll start seeing better computing. I think we'll start to see more special purpose cpu's and hardware for pervasive computing and the focus will be become less on innovation and the next greatest thing(since we all tire of it some time) and more towards integration. Computing will be truly pervasive and really will make things easier this time(read: paper office).
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
But if you make money fast by winning the suit, that means you can't win the suit because you did make money fast! But if you can't win the suit then you can't make make money fast so then you win the suit and make money fast! But if you make money fast by winning the suit, that means you can't win the suit because you did make money fast! But if you can't win the suit then you can't make make money fast so then you win the suit and make money fast!But if you make money fast by winning the suit, that means you can't win the suit because you did make money fast! But if you can't win the suit then you can't make make money fast so then you win the suit and make money fast! ...
:-D
hehehe... causality paradox...
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Notice how all the good news is against spammers though? Nobody actually likes the guys, so that's why everyone is united against them. I bet spammers even hate themselves. They probably even have shower stalls built into their offices to wash off the dirty feeling a few times a day. :-)
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
dude- you kick ass...
;-)
:-)
Ya, I know.
btw, has anyone thought of users that do not wish for the meta tags to be in place, but cannot include a big bulk of programming code to turn it off because they have limited space on their page?
Meta tags aren't that large. The following example is a common one you should have in all html pages:
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
That's 73 chars == 73 bytes. Not exactly alot, and I doubt Microsoft's meta tag would be much bigger than that, so space isn't that big a deal.
While Microsoft claims that they care about the individual's needs they seem to overlook the irony in their argument...
That's called marketing, certainly something MS is good at.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Here's what I meant to say:
Yes there is. It's called ethics. The users and the RIAA are all seriously lacking in the aformentioned quality.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"
Metaphors suck and prove nothing.
I don't agree with that. Did Einstein's thought experiments prove nothing? They resulted in the theory of relativity(I know, not perfect, but sufficiently illustrative that I think you get my point). You just have to use metaphors properly. If you don't, then they're useless. The previous posters' metaphor was inaccurate and so it logically led him to the wrong conclusion. He also made some logical flaws in his argument which also exacerbated the problem. The metaphor is never the problem, it's always the reasoning.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!"