Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

From: John Fields (jfields_at_austininstruments.com)
Date: 01/26/05 

Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:23:56 -0600

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 08:17:21 GMT, "Kevin Aylward"
<salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

>John Fields wrote:

>> ---
>> 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.

---
Yes, I know. That's why I wrote: ..."your refutation implies"...
immediately above. I'm beginning to see that part of your problem is
your short attention span.
---

>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. 

---
No, Kevin, I don't.  For the umpteenth time, what I believe commands
respect is the strand of DNA _itself_, the molecules which comprise
it, the atoms which comprise the molecules, the subatomic particles
and forces which bind the particles, and on and on down (or up) the
chain.
---
>>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. 
---
Really?  Then be so kind as to explain the implications to me, if you
would.
---
>This is typically with the religious, e.g not realising an 
>"all powerful god" is logically self contradictory, hence a false idea.
---
It seems to me that the concept of an omnipotent god is much more
logically coherent than the concept of an impotent god, and it also
seems to me that you're starting to grasp for straws.  That is, you
can't rationally defend your position, so you start trying to change
the focus of the argument by throwing *** into the game.
---
>> ---
>> 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.
---
Kevinism.  Since you're the "ultimate authority", it's either too
simplistic, or too complicated, or too different from the way you'd
like it to be to be valid, huh?
---
>> 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.
---
Speak for youself. _I_ respect the process whether it meets your
definition of "conscious" or not because,  without the process, what
you define as consciousness cannot come about.
---
>> ---
>> 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.
---
To what end? We are not discussing what may happen to the bodies of
living organisms after they die.
---
 
>>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.
---
You'd like it to be but, in fact, the issue is something you can't
deal with, so you resort to insults and diversionary tactics in an
attempt to skirt it. 
---
 
>It is getting increasingly clear that your are operating on a much lower 
>wavelength.
---
At the moment, yes.  Shorter wavelengths are often only line-of-sight
and I'm trying to get you past that.
---
>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.
---
On the contrary, _you_ don't seem to be able to see the trees for the
forest!  
The forest being life and the trees being its constituents, its easy
to see that if you respect life, then you must also respect the trees
since without them, there would be no life.  Expanding on that
concept, if we look at matter which is supporting life we find that
the periodic table is full of trees which not only support life they
do a myriad of other jobs as well, so why shouldn't they be respected?
Your problem is that you've already stated that an organism which, in
your view, isn't conscious doesn't deserve respect and, of course,
since you're infallible there's no way you can be wrong about it. 
---
>>> 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.
---
I don't think that's possible.  You pretend to a lofty, ivory tower
intellect, but when push comes to shove and you're confronted with
basics you're all over the place with "Oh, that's not what I meant."
or "You must have misunderstood." 
---
>Sure, we can differentiate on some arbitrary physics basis, but the 
>point is about the concepts involved.
---
See what I mean?  You make a concrete statement like: 
"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."
Which I refute, and all of a sudden it's not about the statement any
more, it's about the "concepts involved" or  whatever else you can
dream up to keep from having to admit that you were wrong. 
Of course the possibility exists that you meant something altogether
different from what you said, in which case you were wrong in not
wording it properly.  But then, of course, Kevinism raises its ugly
head and it becomes everybody's job but yours to make sure your
meaning is understood.
---
    
>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. 
---
Is that supposed to be a question?
---
>Why should one collection of molecules have 
>priority to another, as certainly, in principle, the constructed 
>mechanical replicator could also be conscious.
---
Is that also supposed to be a question?  If it is, there's supposed to
be a question mark at the end of it so I don't have to go back over it
again and again to figure out what it is you're trying to say.  Have a
little common courtesy, Kevin, and if you expect an answer rewrite the
question properly.
---
>>> 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.
---
That's just a copout for your wanting to be judge, jury and
executioner of everything you don't agree with.
Today it's two months after conception because it has no "feelings",
tomorrow it's a few hours after it's born because it can't speak, the
day after that it'll be because it doesn't believe in Kevin.
---
 
>> 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.
---
It's even simpler than that, in that if you respect the consciousness,
then you should respect the life which allowed it to become conscious.
No life, no consciousness.
---
>> 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*.
---
Oh, my... since it's something _I_ invented it _must_ be wrong?
Sounds like Kevinism again or, at the very least, NIH.
 
Ok, let's say, for the moment, that it _is_ something I invented.
That, in and of itself, doesn't make it incorrect.  Matter of fact,
there are lots of things I've invented which work the way I intended
them to, so your criticism, without further evidence proving my
"invented" definition wrong, is without merit.  
However, since you disagree with my definition, you no doubt have a
favorite definition of your own, which is...???
---
 
>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.
---
I don't believe you can point to where I said that life is prohibited,
in the context in which it was intended, purely because of mechanical
reasons, but how about this to clear up your misconception:   
Aside from the fact that we haven't yet figured out how to make
mechanical replicators which can make make copies of themselves which
can make copies of themselves...  how about this:  Assume that you
have a cookie-cutter replicator which can make copies of its
cookie-cutter self which can make cookie-cutter copies of themselves
and so on, ad infinitum, wouldn't you agree that that's a rudimentary
form of life? 
Biological viruses do _just that_ all the time and I believe they're
afforded the status of being alive.  Why not then afford that status
to other kinds of lifeforms which can do the same thing?
The point I'm trying to get across to you is that if it acts alive,
smells alive, and tastes alive, then more than likely it _is_ alive,
so I don't agree with _your_ premise that just because it's mechanical
it can't be alive. 
My earlier argument(s) applied to the new life created by a sperm and
an egg, with some of the individual characteristics of each being
being incorporated into the new life as a result of the process, not
to the new life due to the cloning mechanism you allude to, where the
only change in the offspring would be due to mutations caused by
external pressures.
However, considering that many "lower" lifeforms propagate by mitosis,
(multiply by dividing) I find it difficult to believe that you have no
respect for the vast quantities of bacteria which are working so hard
to make sure that you stay alive so that you can provide them with
food which they'll use to make sure that you stay alive to provide
them with food which they'll use to make sure that you stay alive to
provide them with food which they'll use ...
---
>>>>> 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.
---
No, you mean an argument which you can defeat.  
If you had meant "rational" you would have, originally, presented
undeniable, quantifiable evidence to support your claims.  Instead,
you chose to puff yourself up as an "authority" and started issuing
edicts as to why your opinions should be considered objective fact. 
Edicts which, BTW, were also merely opinions.
---    
>>>> 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. 
---
I don't. Life has a goal, and that goal is to survive. It doesn't have
"views" other than that if its existence is threatened it will try to
flee from or kill other life which threatens its goal.  You may be
fooled into thinking, or you might try to fool others into thinking
that that's not the case, but if that's the case, then someone's life
other than your own or their own will be calling the shots, while what
you really want is for what you believe in to rule.
You're trying to do the same thing here by using whatever means you
have at hand to try to ensure the survival of what you believe in but,
unfortunately, your logic is flawed.
---
>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.
---
How can it have irrelevant views and no views at the same time?  It's
that kind of sloppy thinking which leads me to believe that all you're
really trying to do is throw words out there for effect, without
worrying too much about what they mean and forcing the reader to do
your job for you.  As for as what it _seems_ you might be trying to
get at, read the reply just before this one.
---
>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.
---
Reducto ad absurdium, you take the position that everything should be
illegal unless it's specifically allowed, which is ridiculous.
---
>> ---
>> 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.
---
That makes no sense, common or otherwise. Which "certain things" are
you talking about, and what do you mean by "taken as read"?  Surely
you must realize that what you write is rarely unambiguous, so "taken
as read" is itself unclear.
--- 
>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.
---
"then the what this discussion is aimed at"? 
Come on, Kevin, I'm getting tired of wasting my time having to wipe
your ass for you.  If you expect me to continue with this discussion
have the courtesy to clean up your writing.  Otherwise, forget it. I'm
tired of having to glean fifth-grade opinions from second-grade
English. 
---
>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.
---
I agree. I have no problem contemplating 'most anything, no matter how
daft _you_ might think it to be, while you seem to be so tightly bound
by your Kevinism that views other than your own are anathema.
---
  
>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.
---
I think you're confused.  Take a little time and explain _exactly_
what you mean.
---
>>> 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. 
---
My definition of life _is_ the conventional definion, as I've stated
before, but you haven't present a definition, you've presented your
opinion that conventional definitions of life are 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. 
---
And there's crux of the problem.  You consider what you're now calling
"real life" to be what conscious entities possess, and I consider real
life to be what all living matter possesses.  A superset of yours.
---
>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".
---
Boy, are you confused... I've never stated that I don't respect
conscious entities, what I _have_ stated is that I respect all life,
whether it fits into what you niggardly consider "meaningful".
---
 
>>> 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.
---
Until you can prove that the taking of life is inconsequential, you
have to accept the responsibility and consequences that accompany the
act. 
---
>>You _can't_ prove it,
>
>Of course it cant be proved. I am simply making arguments in support of 
>the view.
---
See above.
---
>> 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.
---
No DNA, no life.  No life, no brain.
When artificial life is created, _it_ also should be respected.
---
>> ---
>> 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.
---
Perhaps a course in reading comprehension would help you over that
hurdle...
-- 
John Fields