Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

From: Kevin Aylward (salesEXTRACT_at_anasoft.co.uk)
Date: 01/25/05 

Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:17:21 GMT

John Fields wrote:

>
>>> Truthfully, Kevin, I don't see why you have such a problem with
>>> "respect". It's as though you think that there's a limited ampout
>>> of respect in the universe and if it's afforded to anything/anyone
>>> other than yourself your supply of it will be diminished.
>>
>> We can't "respect" *every* entity. That is, consider every entities
>> "views". This is trivially obvious. So, yes , there is a limited
>> amount of respect.
>>
>> It makes no sense to respect the feelings of a brick. Its don't have
>> any.
>
> ---
> No one said a brick has feelings or that it made any sense to respect
> its non-existent feelings, but your refutation implies that it was
> [said].

It was implied. You want to respect the feelings of an inanimate bit of
DNA. That is, something that cant, and can never feel because DNA is not
conscious.

>That's intellectually dishonest, Kevin, and disingenuous, and
> indicates that you're not interested in the discussion for any purpose
> other than to win an argument. Either that or... well, you figure it
> out.

The issue is that you don't understand the *implications* of your
arguments. This is typically with the religious, e.g not realising an
"all powerful god" is logically self contradictory, hence a false idea.

>
>>> ---
>>> What I've been saying all along, and which you don't seem to be able
>>> to draw the distinction between, is that the respect isn't for the
>>> vessel itself, it's for its contents. In a sense, "If you don't
>>> want to waste the wine, don't break the bottle." That then implies
>>> that if you don't want to waste the wine you have to care for
>>> (respect) the integrity of the bottle.
>>
>> This isn't issue, the issue is defining what the wine actually is.
>> When does something actually become wine?. When it is a grape on a
>> tree? when its just started to be squashed by sweaty feet in a
>> barrel?. After 1 hour of fermentation?
>>
>> That is the issue which you can't seem to appreciate.
>
> ---
> No, the real issue seems to be that _you_ either can't understand
> analogy or you continually keep trying to move your end of the field
> farther and farther away from the ball.

No, the issue is that your understanding of these issues is too
simplistic.

>
> But, on the chance that you're making honest mistakes I'll explain it
> to you, again, but this time in terms of grapes.
>
> 1. If you want wine, dont raze the vineyard.
>
> 2. If you want Champagne, don't break the bottle before the
> fermentation is done.
>
> You see, it's really very simple. If you want wine, then you have to
> respect the process, since breaking it anywhere between the vine and
> the wine will result in... well, not wine.

No. we don't "respect" the process for its own sake. The process isn't
conscious.

> ---
>
>
>>>> difficult to draw the line between even organic and inorganic
>>>> chemistry. For example, methane, ethane etc is found all other the
>>>> solar system with no hint of life.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> So what? Organic chemistry is simply the chemistry of
>>> carbon-containing compounds.
>>
>> I meant with reference to "life" chemistry and non "life" chemistry.
>> That is some chemistry is claimed to require "life" for its
>> production. Peronsally, I am in favour of
>> http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Energy.html
>
> ---
> So now you want to steer this discussion into a debate about whether
> petroleum was created biologically or not?

No. I am simply highlighting the difficulty in deciding what physical
objects are considered "life" objects.

>What on Earth does that
> have to do with the subject at hand, or is it merely another attempt,
> on your part, to steer the discussion away from the subject at hand?
> ---

Again, the issue is that I am, with all due respect, way ahead of your.
It is getting increasingly clear that your are operating on a much lower
wavelength.

What is and what is not "organic" matter, as in matter *only* associated
with "life", is fundamental to the discussion of what sort of life
matter should have respect.

You just cant see the big picture here.

> ---
>
>> properties that inanimate systems do not have. It is certainly
>> possible to construct a self-replicating entity with non
>> biologically components. So, there is no way to distinguish DNA,
>> from a physical point of view form other physical entity
>
> ---
> That's not true. I can easily write a program which replicates
> itself, (and mutates, if that's my intent) yet it will be totally
> different from a self-replicating strand of DNA.
>
> In addition, it's certainly easy enough to differentiate, on a purely
> physical level, the difference between a strand of DNA and, say, a
> strand of thread, so your argument is invalid.

Thump...Thump...Thump...as he hits his head on the wall.

Oh dear oh dear... this is getting completely pointless. Again, with all
due respect, its clear that you are conceptualising this at a way, way
lower level then me.

Sure, we can differentiate on some arbitrary physics basis, but the
point is about the concepts involved.

What is the actual argument that one can use to decide that the DNA
replicator should be respected where as a constructed mechanical
replicator should not be. Why should one collection of molecules have
priority to another, as certainly, in principle, the constructed
mechanical replicator could also be conscious.

> ---
>
>> Its just an arbitrary definition based on
>> *preconceived* ideas of what "life" *should* be.
>
> ---
> Actually, no. What _you're_ trying to ram down everybody's throats is
> that life can't be consided life before the onset of consciousness,

Yep. That is, before something first becomes conscious, it is an
inanimate object with zero feelings. Something that can't feel, is not
aware, cant possible, rationally be given respect as if it does feel.

> whatever your reasons for trying to do that might be.

It makes logical sense. We can all, essentially, agree that conscious
objects , e.g. feel pain, therefore respect for conscious objects is
trivially obvious. For inanimate collections of chemicals no such
argument can be made. Its that simple.

> In the real
> world, AIUI, a _new_ life starts when half of the the egg's, and half
> of the sperm's DNA spiral around each other and start assembling a new
> individual.

No it doesn't. This is an arbitrary definition *invented* by *you*. Its
a definition that cant be supported by any logical arguments. Any
argument you have made in support of this daft idea, I have shown can be
equally applied to entities that you agree is not life. e.g. a
mechanical replicator.

> ---
>
>>>> essentially, agree on in the sense that if a foetus is conscious,
>>>> killing it should be a no no.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> My position is that if a fetus is alive, killing it should be a
>>> no-no.
>>
>> Yes, I know your position. You have provide no rational argument as
>> to why you take this view.
>
> ---
> "Rational" to you, Kevin, means anything that you agree with, so you
> don't have to confront yourself with the possibility of your being
> wrong. "Kevinism"...

No. I mean a rational argument.

> ---
>
>>> YMMV, but that's also been argued to death, so why keep bringing it
>>> up?
>>
>> The point is that we are discussing what constitutes a definition of
>> "life" in the sense that we should respect its views for its own
>> sake.
>
> ---
> It's "views"? I wasn't aware that "life" had views...

I'm glad you agree. Basic, simplistic definitions of life don't have
views, therefore why on earth do you want to respect such life. *Until*
"life" has some sort of view, its views are indeed irrelevant.

This is exactly why we need a definition of "special life" that accounts
for objects that should be respected for its own sake. All "life" can't
possible qualify for this respect.

> ---
>
>
>>> ---
>>> The meaning can vary as context changes, so if you don't wish to be
>>> misunderstood it's incumbent on _you_ to make your meaning clear in
>>> the context in which you're currently using it. By doing that (and
>>> I might add, taking a little more care with your punctuation,
>>> grammar, and spelling) the amount of unnecessary verbiage will
>>> certainly decline. It's all a question of courtesy, Kevin, in that
>>> if I have to continuously backtrack to try to glean meaning from
>>> what you've written, then you're causing me to waste my precious
>>> time. But perhaps that doesn't matter, since, in what seems to be
>>> your view no one is as important as you are and what matters is
>>> that you be the least inconvenienced.
>>
>> Your argument here is complete nonsense. It was perfectly obvious the
>> context I was using in "caring about bacteria". It is *so* trivial
>> that we obviously have to care about bacteria in the sense of say,
>> not being made ill by it or other such mundane matters, that this
>> meaning simply don't require being specifically pointed out. Dah....
>>
>> One cant go defining every little sentence in a debate. One must
>> assume that the reader has some modicum of common sense. Thinking
>> that I could ignore something like bacteria completly, is daft.
>
> ---
> Kevinism again.
>
> You demand that everyone define _their_ terms explicitly in order to
> keep you from being confused, yet _you_ think it's perfectly
> acceptable for you to be able to carelessly paint with a broad brush.

No, I expect that there is some modicum of common sense. This means that
certain things are taken as read.

Quite frankly, this is one of those...

Thump...Thump...Thump...hit head on the wall.. Like, how could anyone be
so misguided to really believe that anyone could be so daft as to think
that, for example, that not caring about bacteria in the *slightest*,
was part of the meaning of the above. Its a complete non-starter. It
only shows that you are thinking on this at way, way, lower level then
the what this discussion is aimed at.

I'm, still sitting here wondering, how you could even contemplate such a
daft idea... It again tells me that this discussion is pointless. We are
on different wavelengths.

>>>>
>>>> You have gave no valid reason whatsoever. I applied your *same*
>>>> argument to declare that we should respect an electron. My argument
>>>> requires no such daft idea. An electron isn't conscious.
>>>
>>> ---
>>> Apples and oranges.
>>
>> Your argument can be applied to both apples and oranges, that's why
>> is useless.
>
> ---
> Au contraire! The more universal an argument, the more useful it can
> be.
>
> Certainly you _must_ agree that Einstein's work, which applies to both
> apples and oranges and eclipses Newton's apples-only views, is more
> useful than Newton's, no?

Oh dear... again, your completely out of it. You completly misunderstand
why this means your argument fails. The fact the same argument has been
applied to what you consider "life" and what you consider "non life",
yet has the *same* outcome, means that the argument *cannot* be used as
an argument for what constitutes life and non life.

> ---
>
>>> You really haven't figured it out yet?
>>> ---
>>>
>>>
>>>> Here we go again. This is all so vague.
>>>>
>>>> PLEASE DEFINE LIFE
>>>

>>
>> This is what shows, with all due respect, that you are out of your
>> depth. I am only now just starting to twig on to this.
>>
>> The *fundamental* issue here is that is the very *definition* of
>> what "life" should be classified as. It is what this debate is all
>> about. Dah...Dah...Dah...
>
> ---
> Hardly. As I posted earlier:
>
> "So far, the discussion has largely been about the respect for
> biological life, the distinction between a living and a non-living
> aggregation of chemicals, and the necessity for life to be a precursor
> to sentience."
>
> Had you disagreed, I would have expected to have heard about it before
> now.
> ---
>
>> No one knows what "life" is.
>
> ---
> Then it's disingenuous of you to have asked me for a definition of it
> unless, in truth, you were inquiring sincerely.

Nonsense. I want to know what *your* definition of life is, irrespective
of any absolute definitions. I presented mine, that is conventional
definitions "life" are simply irrelevant. They are too broad to have
practical meaning, that is, they cant be used to identify (ID) what
might be considered "real life", i.e conscious entities. Sure, its my
definition, but do you want to disagree that all conscious entities
should at least be considered for respect? So I am half way there with
the definition of "meaningful life".

> ---
>
>> It is specifically this that I am
>> addressing by making the distinction of consciousness.
>
> ---
> No, it isn't. What you're trying to do is _prove_ that life before
> consciousness is unimportant enough that terminating it is a non-issue
> and, therefore, no responsibility needs to be taken for having
> terminated that life .

No, I am giving an argument what this should indeed be the case.

>You _can't_ prove it,

Of course it cant be proved. I am simply making arguments in support of
the view.

> therefore the issue of
> responsibility needs to be dealt with, therefore you're on the horns
> of a dilemma.

Nope. There is no dilemma. I see no argument that can justify DNA should
be given special status. Sure, I cant produce a conscious entity made
from non DNA to show that DNA is insufficient as a decider for "life",
but there is extensive evidence that this is the case. e.g. neural
research on how the brain functions.

> ---
>
>> It is simply
>> incredible that you consider this issue a "soapbox".
>
> ---
> Well, I thought about having used "soapbox" after I posted it and came
> to the conclusion that "giving you another opportunity to grandstand"
> would have been more apropos.
> ---
>
>> This tells me that
>> this discussion is completely pointless. You don't even know what it
>> is you are discussing.
>
> ---
> Ah, Kevinism again. Anything you can't understand or that you
> disagree with must be invalid.

No. There comes a point when one realises that that someone has
insufficient background to understand the points being made.

>As for the discussion, it _does_ seem
> to have run its course, so unless you have some parting shots,
> goodbye, Kevin.

Yep.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

Quantcast