I hate the "debate" over embryonic stem cells!

[Monkeytool]

Again, if you are right, then the point is mute (illicit your non control and lets end it) because their is always only 1 outcome. If I am right then there is a reason for having this discussion, but you are still not fit to speak on it.

So like I said
[/thread]

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: Monkeytool
Again, if you are right, then the point is mute (illicit your non control and lets end it) because their is always only 1 outcome. If I am right then there is a reason for having this discussion, but you are still not fit to speak on it.

So like I said
[/thread]

HA. There is many possible outcomes. Only an extremely simple reaction has only one outcome.

but you are still not fit to speak on it.

Only someone who lacks merit would say that. Since neither one of us has explained our own argument thoroughly enough, nothing of worth has been established. Our argument of vilition of course.

Again, if you are right, then the point is mute (illicit your non control and lets end it) because their is always only 1 outcome.

At a precise section of a series of reactions, you can isolate an outcome, yes. This doesn't mean we didn't have control over that reaction.

 

[Monkeytool]

Understand what I am saying, in the equation of everything that happens in this world and universe, every minute difference would be considered and the equation would account for every similar reaction happening in a different manner. It would account for the placement of every atom and forsee every reaction happening just as they do. So when you followed it from beggining (big bang is it? or whatever you believe) to end, the outcome, no matter how many times you ran it through in a simulater, would always achieve the same step by steps results, and the same final outcome. Thus removing any notion of choice, control, and will or intention, it would remove every bit of our "humanity" and therefore render us, the rocks, the embryos the chunk of dirt floating in space, of equal non existant value. All would be worthless, pointless and meaningless. This one outcome, one reaction, one equation is what you believe in, I am merely showing you a perspective of it that is all encompassing. It's easy to find value in the little things but in your case that is false and pointless.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: Monkeytool
Understand what I am saying, in the equation of everything that happens in this world and universe, every minute difference would be considered and the equation would account for every similar reaction happening in a different manner. It would account for the placement of every atom and forsee every reaction happening just as they do. So when you followed it from beggining (big bang is it? or whatever you believe) to end, the outcome, no matter how many times you ran it through in a simulater, would always achieve the same step by steps results, and the same final outcome. Thus removing any notion of choice, control, and will or intention, it would remove every bit of our "humanity" and therefore render us, the rocks, the embryos the chunk of dirt floating in space, of equal non existant value. All would be worthless, pointless and meaningless. This one outcome, one reaction, one equation is what you believe in, I am merely showing you a perspective of it that is all encompassing. It's easy to find value in the little things but in your case that is false and pointless.

And, how do we not influence the outcome again? We are, after all, a part of the universe. We can't break the laws of physics... we can change the course of events and create a new outcome.... (there is no final outcome by the way)

Anyways. We are talking about ESC Research.

Monkey, you're just reducing the issue down to something it's not, and this is completely off topic.

 

[Monkeytool]

You are contradicting yourself. If you believe we can change things then believe you illicit control from outside the phyical world in the reaction. It seems you don't understand your own beliefs.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: Monkeytool
You are contradicting yourself. If you believe we can change things then believe you illicit control from outside the phyical world in the reaction. It seems you don't understand your own beliefs.

HAHAHA!! HOW AM I CONTRADICTING MYSELF!!! We our those reactions... we (a bunch of reactions) can change reactions around us.

 

[Monkeytool]

Like I said, my point is how can we have a conversation about ECS, your viewpoint doesn't allow the topic to be logical. You are placing different values on things randomly and it makes no sense.

 

[Monkeytool]

Originally posted by: Monkeytool
So in this series of reactions, you contend there is a subset that can control its outcome??

Just say yes or no.

And for you to place a value on science and not value embroys is not logical because both have no true value in your system of beliefs. Cognitive thought isn't even possible, it is all circumstance, until you believe you have control, then you can talk about why things might have different values, but it is probably best to develop a logical sense of purpose first.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: Monkeytool
Like I said, my point is how can we have a conversation about ECS, your viewpoint doesn't allow the topic to be logical. You are placing different values on things randomly and it makes no sense.

How am I placing different values on things randomly?

 

[Dofuss3000]

Anyways.... you don't get it. All we are is a bunch of extremely complex reactions. It doesn't matter if we think we have free choice or not because those very thoughts are governed by reactions! The idea of purpose is a bunch of reactions. So it doesn't matter if we think free will exists or not because all of our thoughts are just chemical reactions.... Purpose (reactions) drives us (reactions) to do certain things. You can argue that there is no purpose! Reactions are just happening. Those reactions create the idea of purpose.

 

[Dofuss3000]

You are constanting editing your post. All I am saying is, every thought is a reaction, therefore everything is a reaction. We don't go out and kill people (well most of us don't) because those reactions create the thought(s) that killing a human being is wrong.

Edit:

So in this series of reactions, you contend there is a subset that can control its outcome??

Your question is too vague. Reactions create consciousness, the very idea of freewill is a reaction. If you think freewill is independent of reactions then you are obviously wrong. Since that thought is a product of reactions. 😛

 

[Monkeytool]

exactly, and it is all equally pointless, so why do you argue over the value of 1 thing from another!!
I do get it.

I edit to save space and not crap on thier bandwidth more than I have.

Your question is too vague. Reactions create consciousness, the very idea of freewill is a reaction. If you think freewill is independent of reactions then you are obviously wrong. Since that thought is a product of reactions.

reactions don't create conciousness, there is no such thing, perception of it is part of the reaction, not a side product. I am saying that freewill is part of the reaction as well, that is my point. It is all part of the reaction and therefore you should not place different values on different subsets of chemicals.

and how is that too vague? Can any part of the reaction control itself or is it merely following through.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: Monkeytool
exactly, and it is all equally pointless, so why do you argue over the value of 1 thing from another!!
I do get it.

I edit to save space and not crap on thier bandwidth more than I have.

You think it is pointless, I don't. Your thoughts about it are just reactions. Purpose only exists in the since that those reactions created it.

so why do you argue over the value of 1 thing from another!!

Because that is how my reactions are constructed. My ethics and morals are just reactions. My reactions tell me an embryo without a brain isn't human.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Monkeytool

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Monkey, you're just reducing the issue down to something it's not, and this is completely off topic.

In order to even have a discussion about stem cells, you must put value in human life. The source of this value in human life is completely irrelevent. The only thing that matters is what is necessary for definition as human life.

Whether free will exists is completely irrelevent to the stem cell debate. Both sides of the stem cell debate assume only that consciousness exists. If the choices of the consciousness are actually predetermined, it doesn't matter. If our consciousness gives free will, it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what is necessary for definition as human life, and when these criteria come into being.

How can the way in which we arrive at that value not be important. If there is no choice and no meaning then the topic is mute. Of course it is necessary, people just don't like to talk about it. Assuming something that your beliefs contradict to argue about another topic is simply stupid. Seriously if we have no choice doesn't that trump all conversation? Why have a viewpoint on anything, it is not like it matters. If you want to have viewpoints at least believe in something that allows them. Otherwise you are walking in a circle and getting in my way.

what we are talking about here is an ethical issue. you are turning it into a philisophical issue about the meaning of life and the existence of free will

Look at your post, it has nothing to do with stem cell research at all. It has to do with the basis of all things in existence. In any ethical debate, there must be agreement on certain philisophical issues. The existence of free will is irrelevent to ethical debate because it is assumed to exist, as a choice is being made between two alternatives.

If you wish to talk about philisophical issues underlying all issues (you are talking about a core philosophical problem!), I suggest you start another thread.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: totalcommand

Originally posted by: Monkeytool

Originally posted by: totalcommand
Monkey, you're just reducing the issue down to something it's not, and this is completely off topic.

In order to even have a discussion about stem cells, you must put value in human life. The source of this value in human life is completely irrelevent. The only thing that matters is what is necessary for definition as human life.

Whether free will exists is completely irrelevent to the stem cell debate. Both sides of the stem cell debate assume only that consciousness exists. If the choices of the consciousness are actually predetermined, it doesn't matter. If our consciousness gives free will, it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what is necessary for definition as human life, and when these criteria come into being.

How can the way in which we arrive at that value not be important. If there is no choice and no meaning then the topic is mute. Of course it is necessary, people just don't like to talk about it. Assuming something that your beliefs contradict to argue about another topic is simply stupid. Seriously if we have no choice doesn't that trump all conversation? Why have a viewpoint on anything, it is not like it matters. If you want to have viewpoints at least believe in something that allows them. Otherwise you are walking in a circle and getting in my way.

what we are talking about here is an ethical issue. you are turning it into a philisophical issue about the meaning of life and the existence of free will

Look at your post, it has nothing to do with stem cell research at all. It has to do with the basis of all things in existence. In any ethical debate, there must be agreement on certain philisophical issues. The existence of free will is irrelevent to ethical debate because it is assumed to exist, as a choice is being made between two alternatives.

If you wish to talk about philisophical issues underlying all issues (you are talking about a core philosophical problem!), I suggest you start another thread.

I completely agree.



Edit:

Monkeytool,

If you want to start another thread, then please do so and tell me where it is.

 

[Monkeytool]

Originally posted by: totalcommand
what we are talking about here is an ethical issue. you are turning it into a philisophical issue about the meaning of life and the existence of free will

Look at your post, it has nothing to do with stem cell research at all. It has to do with the basis of all things in existence. In any ethical debate, there must be agreement on certain philisophical issues. The existence of free will is irrelevent to ethical debate because it is assumed to exist, as a choice is being made between two alternatives.

If you wish to talk about philisophical issues underlying all issues (you are talking about a core philosophical problem!), I suggest you start another thread.

Actually the thread was started like this

Topic Title: I hate the "debate" over embryonic stem cells!
Topic Summary:

God Damnit.... Literally. Why can't people take their heads out of their asses when it comes to this, and many other, issue(s)?

Can people grow up and stop believing in silly fantasies about God and the Soul?

I honestly believe my response fits, but in order to maintain order I don't mind continuing this elsewhere, start a thread and PM me, I didn't intend this certainly, but to talk about this, I think it is important to unravel someones beliefs if they don't fit the topic, like you said free must exist to have a discussion on ethics which is why I pointed out logical mistake in this thread.

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: Monkeytool

Originally posted by: totalcommand
what we are talking about here is an ethical issue. you are turning it into a philisophical issue about the meaning of life and the existence of free will

Look at your post, it has nothing to do with stem cell research at all. It has to do with the basis of all things in existence. In any ethical debate, there must be agreement on certain philisophical issues. The existence of free will is irrelevent to ethical debate because it is assumed to exist, as a choice is being made between two alternatives.

If you wish to talk about philisophical issues underlying all issues (you are talking about a core philosophical problem!), I suggest you start another thread.

Actually the thread was started like this

Topic Title: I hate the "debate" over embryonic stem cells!
Topic Summary:

God Damnit.... Literally. Why can't people take their heads out of their asses when it comes to this, and many other, issue(s)?

Can people grow up and stop believing in silly fantasies about God and the Soul?

I honestly believe my response fits, but in order to maintain order I don't mind continuing this elsewhere, start a thread and PM me, I didn't intend this certainly, but to talk about this, I think it is important to unravel someones beliefs if they don't fit the topic, like you said free must exist to have a discussion on ethics which is why I pointed out logical mistake in this thread.

Only if you want to start the thread, I am writing e-mails to professors at UCSD. I want to visit their physics and bioengineering departments soon so I can see how I will direct my education. (I plan on transfering into UCSD in 1 to 2 years).

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: Monkeytool

Originally posted by: totalcommand
what we are talking about here is an ethical issue. you are turning it into a philisophical issue about the meaning of life and the existence of free will

Look at your post, it has nothing to do with stem cell research at all. It has to do with the basis of all things in existence. In any ethical debate, there must be agreement on certain philisophical issues. The existence of free will is irrelevent to ethical debate because it is assumed to exist, as a choice is being made between two alternatives.

If you wish to talk about philisophical issues underlying all issues (you are talking about a core philosophical problem!), I suggest you start another thread.

Actually the thread was started like this

Topic Title: I hate the "debate" over embryonic stem cells!
Topic Summary:

God Damnit.... Literally. Why can't people take their heads out of their asses when it comes to this, and many other, issue(s)?

Can people grow up and stop believing in silly fantasies about God and the Soul?

I honestly believe my response fits, but in order to maintain order I don't mind continuing this elsewhere, start a thread and PM me, I didn't intend this certainly, but to talk about this, I think it is important to unravel someones beliefs if they don't fit the topic, like you said free must exist to have a discussion on ethics which is why I pointed out logical mistake in this thread.

Only if you want to start the thread, I am writing e-mails to professors at UCSD. I want to visit their physics and bioengineering departments soon so I can see how I will direct my education. (I plan on transfering into UCSD in 1 to 2 years).

Awww man I just got finished reading the thread. DON'T LEAVE NOW. I'm ready to weigh in on the issue...crap. :disgust:

 

[newParadigm]

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I guess the problem is how/when you consider it the formation of life.

Those in favor of stem cell research do not believe an embryo is alive. It is just a grouping of cells. The problem is, those cells have the potential to become life. If we were talking about doing research on a fetus, I could see the problem. But fertilized eggs / embryos do not bother me because of at that point it is just a grouping of cells and not something that is alive, or at least any more alive than hair, skin, etc.

Obviously those that think it is wrong, think otherwise. They view the embryo as alive because it has the potential for life. My question is do you charge a woman that has a miscarriage with involuntary murder because her body killed a living thing, i.e. an embryo? Of course not. From their (those against stem cell research) point of view the scientists are killing a living thing and they consider it murder, but they don?t consider having a miscarriage as murder. Obviously this point is a bit extreme, but if you look at it from a basic level the only difference is intent. The woman that had the miscarriage had the intent of allowing the embryo to develop into a fetus, whereas doing research on an embryo they did not have any intent on letting it develop.

I consider an embryo/fetus alive if it can survive outside the body of the mother w/o special feeding tubes respirators etc...

My opinion doesn't really matter though, the point at which something becoems 'alive' is when it becoems capable of indepedent thought.

~new

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Dofuss3000

Originally posted by: Monkeytool

Originally posted by: totalcommand
what we are talking about here is an ethical issue. you are turning it into a philisophical issue about the meaning of life and the existence of free will

Look at your post, it has nothing to do with stem cell research at all. It has to do with the basis of all things in existence. In any ethical debate, there must be agreement on certain philisophical issues. The existence of free will is irrelevent to ethical debate because it is assumed to exist, as a choice is being made between two alternatives.

If you wish to talk about philisophical issues underlying all issues (you are talking about a core philosophical problem!), I suggest you start another thread.

Actually the thread was started like this

Topic Title: I hate the "debate" over embryonic stem cells!
Topic Summary:

God Damnit.... Literally. Why can't people take their heads out of their asses when it comes to this, and many other, issue(s)?

Can people grow up and stop believing in silly fantasies about God and the Soul?

I honestly believe my response fits, but in order to maintain order I don't mind continuing this elsewhere, start a thread and PM me, I didn't intend this certainly, but to talk about this, I think it is important to unravel someones beliefs if they don't fit the topic, like you said free must exist to have a discussion on ethics which is why I pointed out logical mistake in this thread.

Only if you want to start the thread, I am writing e-mails to professors at UCSD. I want to visit their physics and bioengineering departments soon so I can see how I will direct my education. (I plan on transfering into UCSD in 1 to 2 years).

Awww man I just got finished reading the thread. DON'T LEAVE NOW. I'm ready to weigh in on the issue...crap. :disgust:

Just read your post.... I am still around. 😛

 

[newParadigm]

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I guess the problem is how/when you consider it the formation of life.

Those in favor of stem cell research do not believe an embryo is alive. It is just a grouping of cells. The problem is, those cells have the potential to become life. If we were talking about doing research on a fetus, I could see the problem. But fertilized eggs / embryos do not bother me because of at that point it is just a grouping of cells and not something that is alive, or at least any more alive than hair, skin, etc.

This is a good summary of the issue.

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
My question is do you charge a woman that has a miscarriage with involuntary murder because her body killed a living thing, i.e. an embryo? Of course not. From their (those against stem cell research) point of view the scientists are killing a living thing and they consider it murder, but they don?t consider having a miscarriage as murder. Obviously this point is a bit extreme, but if you look at it from a basic level the only difference is intent. The woman that had the miscarriage had the intent of allowing the embryo to develop into a fetus, whereas doing research on an embryo they did not have any intent on letting it develop.

We don't consider it murder, but some consider it a death of a person and are very grieved by miscarriages when they happen.

A lot of the arguement is in potential, you are very correct in this. But it isn't just the potential that the group of cells will develop into a fully functional human, it is the fact that unless we intervene to the negative the cells will become a fully functioning human being, undeniably alive even to the greatest skeptics. It is this interference in which we choose to actively stop the life that otherwise has the potential to become a full functioning person that I object to.

Some people are against using aborted fetuses for stem cells research, and many skeptics will quickly label them as opposed to science, progress and medical health advances, but they are purposely missing the point. The real arguement is that it will encourage people to have abortions if they were told the fetus goes to a worthy cause. You can see how some would object to this line of thought, almost as if it is attempting to justify something morally wrong (abortion) with something morally right (advancing health research). Personally, I don't know exactly how I feel on this issue, it is definately a complex one when you start talking specifics.

But isnt stem cell research done on test tube created embryo's which would NOT have the potential to develop into a baby, unless put into the womb of a woman, hence, if they were left in the tub,e they would eventually die, so....they don't really have potential.


~new

 

[Dofuss3000]

Originally posted by: newParadime

Originally posted by: Trevelyan

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
I guess the problem is how/when you consider it the formation of life.

Those in favor of stem cell research do not believe an embryo is alive. It is just a grouping of cells. The problem is, those cells have the potential to become life. If we were talking about doing research on a fetus, I could see the problem. But fertilized eggs / embryos do not bother me because of at that point it is just a grouping of cells and not something that is alive, or at least any more alive than hair, skin, etc.

This is a good summary of the issue.

Originally posted by: ECUHITMAN
My question is do you charge a woman that has a miscarriage with involuntary murder because her body killed a living thing, i.e. an embryo? Of course not. From their (those against stem cell research) point of view the scientists are killing a living thing and they consider it murder, but they don?t consider having a miscarriage as murder. Obviously this point is a bit extreme, but if you look at it from a basic level the only difference is intent. The woman that had the miscarriage had the intent of allowing the embryo to develop into a fetus, whereas doing research on an embryo they did not have any intent on letting it develop.

We don't consider it murder, but some consider it a death of a person and are very grieved by miscarriages when they happen.

A lot of the arguement is in potential, you are very correct in this. But it isn't just the potential that the group of cells will develop into a fully functional human, it is the fact that unless we intervene to the negative the cells will become a fully functioning human being, undeniably alive even to the greatest skeptics. It is this interference in which we choose to actively stop the life that otherwise has the potential to become a full functioning person that I object to.

Some people are against using aborted fetuses for stem cells research, and many skeptics will quickly label them as opposed to science, progress and medical health advances, but they are purposely missing the point. The real arguement is that it will encourage people to have abortions if they were told the fetus goes to a worthy cause. You can see how some would object to this line of thought, almost as if it is attempting to justify something morally wrong (abortion) with something morally right (advancing health research). Personally, I don't know exactly how I feel on this issue, it is definately a complex one when you start talking specifics.

But isnt stem cell research done on test tube created embryo's which would NOT have the potential to develop into a baby, unless put into the womb of a woman, hence, if they were left in the tub,e they would eventually die, so....they don't really have potential.


~new

You are correct.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: Monkeytool
So in this series of reactions, you contend there is a subset the can control its outcome??

No, but he doesn't have to. If I understand you correctly, then you're saying that if we knew the exact position and velocity of every particle in the universe (currently it is impossible to know the exact position and velocity of ANY particle) then we would be able to calculate the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at any given point in the future or past, thus the idea of free will is moot (not mute).

The thing that you're skating around is that this may very well be the case. If I raise my hand and snap my fingers, you might say that I chose to do so, that before I actually carried out the action the probability of my choosing to raise my hand and snap my fingers or not was 50/50. Someone with ALL of the data regarding the situation would say that there was only one possible outcome, and in hindsight I would realize that as well.

 

[SlitheryDee]

Originally posted by: newParadime
But isnt stem cell research done on test tube created embryo's which would NOT have the potential to develop into a baby, unless put into the womb of a woman, hence, if they were left in the tub,e they would eventually die, so....they don't really have potential.


~new

Well...given the proper environment, they could grow to maturity. You might say that creating an embryo with no intention of allowing it to survive is a crime in and of itself. If you create the environment (the tube) and the embryo then you are responsible for any moral issues that might apply.

Don't get me wrong, I support stem cell research. I just don't think that this argument is sufficient to excuse it in the eyes of those who oppose it.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee

Originally posted by: Monkeytool
So in this series of reactions, you contend there is a subset the can control its outcome??

No, but he doesn't have to. If I understand you correctly, then you're saying that if we knew the exact position and velocity of every particle in the universe (currently it is impossible to know the exact position and velocity of ANY particle) then we would be able to calculate the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at any given point in the future or past, thus the idea of free will is moot (not mute).

The thing that you're skating around is that this may very well be the case. If I raise my hand and snap my fingers, you might say that I chose to do so, that before I actually carried out the action the probability of my choosing to raise my hand and snap my fingers or not was 50/50. Someone with ALL of the data regarding the situation would say that there was only one possible outcome, and in hindsight I would realize that as well.

I can also relate this as to why the idea of a omniscient god still invalidates free will. A omniscient god would have perfect knowledge of the future. All we would be doing would be doing in a way would be "connecting the dots". We would be bound by what god knows we are going to do.

Now, if you had a non-omniscient god and Chaos Theory is true... Like theres a 50/50 change I'll do my homework.... Then I do have free will.