At what level does life actually begin?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Rigdon1 » Sun Aug 19, 2012 5:31 am

I went and copied a definition of life from dictionary .com
Life: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

and I also grabbed metabolism because I hadn't thought of this part.

Metabolism: the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available.

Ok, so they are trying to say that life begins at an organic level to the exclusion of the building blocks of organic matter due to those three processes.

Something became apparent to me at some point that made me question the definition of life. What I had noticed is that at very basic levels, matter still has needs. I'm no scientist and haven't had any formal education pertaining to matter past high school and the occasional science program so I wont go any deeper than atoms. Still at the atomic level matter may be deficient in some way and in that it "needs" other atoms to be "content". This is represented by elemental instability and it reacting with something else to "satify" itself. That is basically how organic organisms work, just on a higher level. That would be growth through Metabolism.

The power of adaptation to the environment through changes originating internally. The physical change of matter when a solid turns to liquid is an adaptation in one form of definition and the internal structure of the matter is what determined what would happen. the outside force initiated the adaptation, but it didn't create the response.

Reproduction might be a hard one to swing tho. Maybe if you look at it as a chemical process that doesn't have to be contained within the matter itself such as a virus. Instead of the body being the piece of matter itself, the body encompasses what is usually defined as separate. Consider the universe itself as the body and with the right introduction of things it replicates itself. Even organic life has to have external inputs to replicate itself, it doesn't create matter.

This is just something I was thinking about, because one of the most basic rules of life is that it "needs" and I just wanted to throw it out there.
Rigdon1
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 6:58 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Dan~ » Sun Aug 19, 2012 7:24 pm

12. Metallic Generation
The alchemists claim that metals and minerals all grow and develop, and so are life forms, along with plants and animals. Perhaps not life forms in the sense we normally use the phrase, but if we are to define a life form as something which grows and multiplies then we must include metals and minerals in this category.

The alchemists all agree that metals have the same seed, that is to say that they are all of the same species. The different types of metals are just different stages of the same thing, of which gold is the final and complete development. To put it another way: we could say that the different (elementary) metals are stable energy states which a metal moves through in its continued development. However, this development only continues whilst the metal is in its proper environment, which is inside the earth. Once taken out of the ground a metal can only stay at the state in which we found it in. The Stone gives any metal a sudden burst of energy, which will excel it to its preferred and most stable state: gold (or silver with the less-pure White Stone). This is not a far-out notion, in fact lead has already been transmuted to gold in a lab by firing radiation at it (look it up if you don't believe me), which is a similar but massively less efficient version of what the Stone does.

I will include some long quotes from the alchemical books concerning the development of metals and minerals below. This will be helpful to understand the development of metals and get an idea how Nature works in regards to that.

The alchemists wrote a lot about how metals and minerals are generated in the Earth, which they do so as to indirectly teach the reader how to make the Stone, since the Stone is made using very similar natural processes.

However, the alchemists here are talking in theory and from a time when geology had not been well studied. Geology has come a long way in the past few hundred years, but then again, the science of today does not recognize very obvious natural processes, preferring complicated theories of the scientists' own invention. I expect the truth to be somewhere in between these two extremes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the great process of development into silver and gold is constantly going on. This appears from the fact that miners often find solid pieces of pure silver in tin and lead mines, and also from the experience of others who have met with pure gold in metallic veins of iron --- though this latter occurrence is more rarely observed, on account of the great impurity of iron. In some silver mines, again, quantities of solid gold have been discovered, as, for instance, in Serbia; at first, the whole appears to be silver, but in the refiner’s crucible the gold is subsequently separated from the less precious metal. Thus it is the teaching of experience that Nature is continually at work changing other metals into gold, because, though, in a certain sense, they are complete in themselves, they have not yet reached the highest perfection of which they are capable, and to which Nature has destined them --- just as the human embryo and the little children are complete and perfect as far as they go, but have not attained to their ultimate goal of manhood. Gold is found in different forms, either mixed with a coarse rocky substance, or in a solid condition, or amongst the sand in the beds of rivers, being washed out of the mines by water. Golden sand is also found in the deserts of India, where there are no rivers. Silver is never found mixed with the sand of rivers, but mostly in the shape of ore in mines, or like a vein running through a rock. Lead and tin occur mostly in the shape of ore, and sometimes they are mingled with earth. The same facts have become commonly observed with regard to iron and the other metals. When different metals are discovered in the same mine, the less pure of the two will generally have a tendency to ascend and leave what remains more force to develop in the right direction.

[...] The substance of common metals is the same as that of gold; if, then, the form of gold, or the elixir, be added to them, they must become gold. As the common metals become gold and silver by means of a natural process, it is quite possible that the same result should be brought about by means of the alchemist’s art.

The New Pearl of Great Price, by Peter Bonus, 1338 AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the generation of metals is circular, that is, one passes easily from one to another following a circle, the cousin metals having similar properties; it is because of this that silver changes more readily into gold than any other metal.

Compound of Compounds, by Albertus Magnus, 13th Cen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, since Nature is always striving to attain perfection, and to reach the goal set before her by the Creator of all things, she is continually at work upon the qualities of the four elements of each substance; and so stirs up and rouses the inward action of the elements by the accidental heat of the Sun, and by natural warmth, that there arises a kind of vapour or steam in the veins of the earth. This vapour cannot make its way out, but is closed in; in penetrating through fat, earthy, oily, and impure sulphureous substances it attracts to itself more or less of these foreign and external impurities. This is the reason that there are seen in it so great a variety of colours before it attains to purity and its own proper colour.

[...] Nature has to purge away the peculiar characteristics of all other metals before she can make gold; as you may see by the fact that different kinds of metal are found in the same metallic vein.

[...] If, however, this pure quicksilver floats upward in a pure mineral earth, without any gross alloy, it is hardened into the pure and white sulphur of Nature by being subjected to a very moderate degree of gentle heat, and at length assumes the specific form of silver. Like all the other metals it may still be developed into gold, if it remain under the influence of its natural heat. But if the same pure, unalloyed quicksilver be subjected to a higher degree of natural heat, it is transmuted into the pure red sulphur of Nature, and becomes gold without first passing through the stage of silver. In this form it remains, because gold is the highest possible stage of metallic development.

[...] Those metals, indeed, which have been torn up by the roots, that is to say, that have been dug up from their own proper soil in the veins of the earth, can no longer proceed in that course of development which they pursued in their native abode; yet, as much as in them lies, they strive to be perfected.

[...] the operation of Nature is progressive, not retrogressive. Hence it is a great mistake to suppose that the work of Nature can be reversed by dissolution in aqua fortis, or by the amalgamation of gold or silver and quicksilver. For if the metal be plunged in a solvent, if water be distilled from it, or if quicksilver be sublimed from it, it still remains the same metal that it was before. The specific properties of a metal cannot be destroyed so as to obtain the first substance.

[...] The metals which we dig up out of the earth are, as it were, torn up by the roots, and, their growth having come to a standstill, they can undergo no further development into gold, but must always retain their present form, unless something is done for them by our Art. Hence we must begin at the point where Nature had to leave off: we must purge away all impurity, and the sulphureous alloy, as Nature herself would have done if her operation had not been accidentally, or violently, disturbed. She would have matured the original substance, and brought it to perfection by gentle heat, and, in a longer or shorter period of time, she would have transmuted it into gold. In this work Nature is ceaselessly occupied while the metals are still in the earth;

[...] First, the earth which was created rich, great, deep, wide, and broad, was, through the daily operation of the Sun's rays, penetrated to her very centre with a fervent, bubbling, vaporous heat. For the earth in herself is cold and saturated with the moisture of water. At length the vapours which were formed in this way in the heart of the earth became so strong and powerful as to seek to force a way out into the open air, and thus, instead of effecting their object, threw up hills and hillocks, or, as it were, bubbles on the face of the earth. And since in those places where mountains were formed the heat of the Sun must have been most powerful, and the earthy moisture rich and most plentiful, it is there that we find the most precious metals. Where the earth remained plain, this steam did not succeed in raising up mountains; it escaped, and the earth, being deprived of its moisture, was hardened into rocks. Where the earth was poor, soft, and thin, it is now covered with sand and little stones, because it never had much moisture, and, having been deprived of the little it possessed, has now become sandy and dry, and incapable of retaining moisture. No earth was changed into rocks that was not rich, viscous, and well saturated with moisture. For when the heat of the Sun has sucked up its moisture, the richness of the earth still makes it cohere, although now it has become hard and dry; and earth that is not yet perfectly hard is even at the present time undergoing a change into hard stones, through the diligent working of Nature. But the steam and the vapours that do not succeed in escaping, remain enclosed in the mountains, and are day by day subjected to the maturing and transmuting influences of the Sun and the planets.

A Tract of Great Price Concerning the Philosophical Stone, by A German Sage, 1423 AD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all things are produced of a liquid air or a vapour, which the elements distil into the centre of the earth by a continual motion, and that as soon as the Archeus has received it, his wisdom sublimes it through the pores, and distributes it to each place, producing different things according to the diverse places in which it is deposited. Some think that each metal has its own seed. But this is a great mistake, for there is only one seed. The sperm which appears in Saturn is the same as that which is found in gold, silver, copper, &c.; their difference is caused by the place, and by the time during which Nature was at work upon them, the procreation of silver being achieved sooner than that of gold, and so with the other metals. The vapour which is sublimed by heat from the centre of the earth, passes either through cold or warm places. If the place be warm and pure, and contain adhering to it a certain fatness of sulphur, the vapour (or Mercury of the Sages) joins itself to its fatness, and sublimes it together with itself. If in the course of its further sublimation this unctuous vapour reaches other places where the earth has already been subtilized, purified, and rendered moist by previous ascending vapours, it fills the pores of this earth, and with it becomes gold. But if this unctuous moisture be carried to impure and cold places, it becomes lead; if the earth be pure and mingled with sulphur, it becomes copper. For the purer the place is, the more beautiful and perfect will the metal be. We must also note that the vapour is constantly ascending, and in its ascent from the earth's centre to its superficies, it purifies the places through which it passes. Hence precious metals are found now where none existed a thousand years ago, for this vapour, by its continual progress, ever subtilizes the crude and impure, and as continually carries away the pure with itself. This is the circulation and reiteration of Nature. All places are being more and more purified: and the purer they become, the nobler are their products.

[...] The substance of stones is the same as that of all other things; and their quality is determined by the purity of the places in which they arise. When the four elements distil their vapour to the centre of the earth, the Archeus of Nature expels and sublimes it in such a manner that it carries with it in its passage through the pores of the earth, all the impurities of these places up to the surface, where they are congealed by the air, all that pure air engenders being congealed by crude air, their ingression being mutual, so that they join one with another, since Nature rejoices in Nature. Thus rocks and stones are gradually built up and generated. Now the larger the pores of the earth, the greater is the quantity of impurities carried upward; and thus the earth is most completely purified under those places where there is a great accumulation of stones or rocks at the surface, and in this manner the procreation of metals becomes easier in these places. This explains the fact that metals are scarcely ever found in plains, but nearly always in the bowels of rocky hills. The plains are often moist with elemental water which attracts to itself the rising vapour, and with it is digested by the rays of the Sun into the rich clay which potters use. In places where the soil' is gross, and the vapour contains neither unctuousness nor sulphur, it produces herbs and grass in the meadows. The precious stones, such as diamonds, rubies, and emeralds, chrysopras, onyx, and carbuncle, are all generated in the same manner as ordinary stones. When the natural vapour is sublimed by itself without sulphur or the unctuosity of which we have spoken, and reaches a place where there is pure salt water (i.e., in very cold places, where our sulphur cannot exist, for could it exist, this effect would be hindered), diamonds are formed. The unctuous sulphur which rises with the vapour cannot move without warmth, and is instantly congealed, when it reaches a slightly cold place, leaving the vapour to continue its upward movement without it.

The New Chemical Light, by Michael Sendivogius, 17th Cen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All philosophers affirm, with one consent, that metals have a seed by which they are increased, and that this seminal quality is the same in all of them
I like http://www.accuradio.com , internet radio.
https://dannerz.itch.io/ -- a new and minimal webside now hosting two of my free game projects.
User avatar
Dan~
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9955
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 8:14 am
Location: May the loving spirit of papa hitler watch over and bless you all.

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Suzera » Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:52 pm

The line is really undefinable in an objective way. It's arbitrary. Personally I don't find there to be a meaningful distinction between life and non-life other than by definitional convenience for some utility purpose such as determining whether CPR is useful.
Suzera
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:53 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Mr Reasonable » Wed Aug 22, 2012 4:55 pm

I think life begins when the kid is old enough to vote.
You see...a pimp's love is very different from that of a square.
Dating a stripper is like eating a noisy bag of chips in church. Everyone looks at you in disgust, but deep down they want some too.

What exactly is logic? -Magnus Anderson

Support the innocence project on AmazonSmile instead of Turd's African savior biker dude.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/
User avatar
Mr Reasonable
resident contrarian
 
Posts: 25292
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2007 8:54 am
Location: pimping a hole straight through the stratosphere itself

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:22 pm

In my epistemology life isn't an issue of either life or non-life. Life is much like intelligence. Something doesn't either have intelligence or not. It comes in a multitude of degrees and variations in type.

The ultimate defining characteristic of life is that seeks its own survival or its "self-harmony". And by "seek", I mean that it, by whatever means, identifies harmful from helpful, avoids the harmful, and approaches the helpful. But this characteristic also comes in degrees of just "how alive" something is. Growth and reproduction are merely a couple of the varied methods used to more secure survival.

To say that something must be growing or reproducing in order to be called "living" is far too narrow. A person who cannot reproduce or grow any further is still alive by too many other standards. If you don't think so, just poke some old woman in the eye and see if she reveals characteristics of being alive (first make sure she has nether mase nor gun).

A rock could be said to have a degree of intelligence or of life that happens to be near zero. Something that very quickly adapts to changes in the immediate and also eminent environment towards its own survival and even more so toward its own longevity (probability of distant survival) can be said to have a high degree of life and/or intelligence.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Peter Kropotkin » Wed Aug 22, 2012 5:40 pm

clearly this issue has a political aspect as extreme politicians are trying to define
life at conception and thus any abortion becomes murder.
This radical viewpoint seems to fly in the face of common sense whereas
how can a collection of cells which has no ability to survive on its own
be called "life". This idea of life being so valuable it needs protection
at conception means that "LIFE", all life deserves this protection and
I haven't heard any politician on any side demand the U.S. goes
vegan. So to demand human life as to be so special as to get this
designation instead of all life seems to me as to egotistical and self centered.

Life seems to me to be the point whereas the fetus is capable of surviving on its own
without medical help. Medical advances has come so far as to bring down the date
of where a fetus can survive and thus change the game.

Now when does life began? Not at conception, but at a point much later.

Kropotkin
"Those who sacrifice liberty for security
wind up with neither."
"Ben Franklin"
Peter Kropotkin
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6613
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 1:47 am
Location: blue state

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Aug 22, 2012 6:41 pm

Peter Kropotkin wrote:clearly this issue has a political aspect as extreme politicians are trying to define
life at conception and thus any abortion becomes murder.
This radical viewpoint seems to fly in the face of common sense whereas
how can a collection of cells which has no ability to survive on its own
be called "life". This idea of life being so valuable it needs protection
at conception means that "LIFE", all life deserves this protection and
I haven't heard any politician on any side demand the U.S. goes
vegan. So to demand human life as to be so special as to get this
designation instead of all life seems to me as to egotistical and self centered.

Life seems to me to be the point whereas the fetus is capable of surviving on its own
without medical help. Medical advances has come so far as to bring down the date
of where a fetus can survive and thus change the game.

Now when does life began? Not at conception, but at a point much later.

Kropotkin

You appear to be guilty of your accusation.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Suzera » Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:09 pm

James S Saint wrote:The ultimate defining characteristic of life is that seeks its own survival or its "self-harmony". And by "seek", I mean that it, by whatever means, identifies harmful from helpful, avoids the harmful, and approaches the helpful. But this characteristic also comes in degrees of just "how alive" something is. Growth and reproduction are merely a couple of the varied methods used to more secure survival.

How do you account for addiction that causes self-pain? What about suicide?
Suzera
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:53 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:26 pm

Suzera wrote:
James S Saint wrote:The ultimate defining characteristic of life is that seeks its own survival or its "self-harmony". And by "seek", I mean that it, by whatever means, identifies harmful from helpful, avoids the harmful, and approaches the helpful. But this characteristic also comes in degrees of just "how alive" something is. Growth and reproduction are merely a couple of the varied methods used to more secure survival.

How do you account for addiction that causes self-pain? What about suicide?

The complexity required to handle reality in today's world often leads to misperceptions within a fragmented mind that cause it to habitually engage in self-defeating behavior. In many circles such people are actually said to be "the walking dead" because they have been identified as people who are not actually doing what life would require and are thus "not living" or "effectively dead", yet still have autonomic fractions of their being keeping them animate. It is just a matter of where you draw the line and give up on yourself or other people.

As I said, life comes in degrees.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Suzera » Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:02 pm

James S Saint wrote:The complexity required to handle reality in today's world often leads to misperceptions within a fragmented mind that cause it to habitually engage in self-defeating behavior. In many circles such people are actually said to be "the walking dead" because they have been identified as people who are not actually doing what life would require and are thus "not living" or "effectively dead", yet still have autonomic fractions of their being keeping them animate. It is just a matter of where you draw the line and give up on yourself or other people.

As I said, life comes in degrees.

Would you consider such a being to be in a state of anti-life since they desire death? Would they be less alive than rocks? Would they become more alive once their heart stops beating and their brain ceases function (barring afterlife explanations that is)?
Suzera
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:53 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Aug 22, 2012 10:13 pm

Suzera wrote:
James S Saint wrote:The complexity required to handle reality in today's world often leads to misperceptions within a fragmented mind that cause it to habitually engage in self-defeating behavior. In many circles such people are actually said to be "the walking dead" because they have been identified as people who are not actually doing what life would require and are thus "not living" or "effectively dead", yet still have autonomic fractions of their being keeping them animate. It is just a matter of where you draw the line and give up on yourself or other people.

As I said, life comes in degrees.

Would you consider such a being to be in a state of anti-life since they desire death? Would they be less alive than rocks? Would they become more alive once their heart stops beating and their brain ceases function (barring afterlife explanations that is)?

An interesting epistemological thought. Hmmm...

"Negative life"?
The word "Evil" comes to mind because it is an intentional reverse spelling of "live" so as to indicate a behavior opposed to life. I would have to say that a rock is less evil than someone trying to kill or die. The Catholics answered this one with the whole "limbo" and "purgatory" wherein the decision is made whether the person is to be counted as a living being or a "evil"ing being and thus "sent to" either Heaven or Hell. But the question is more of how to classify the state in an epistemological database.

The problem that I see is that a person in such a state is not merely a single functioning mental process. The mind is a maze of parallel processes that are partially dependent. Thus merely because one portion of a mind has chosen suicide for the entire person, the rest of the mind most probably hasn't. If the entire mind makes such a decision, the person would just die on the spot.. simply stop breathing.

But how do you classify such a fragmented state of thought?
How about, "Broken". :mrgreen:

I couldn't say that the entire person was in a state of negative living. So all in all, I suspect it would end up being merely a very, very complex form of a rock, going neither way with full intent rather than the rock going neither way with no intent.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Suzera » Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:11 pm

James S Saint wrote:"Negative life"?
The word "Evil" comes to mind because it is an intentional reverse spelling of "live" so as to indicate a behavior opposed to life. I would have to say that a rock is less evil than someone trying to kill or die. The Catholics answered this one with the whole "limbo" and "purgatory" wherein the decision is made whether the person is to be counted as a living being or a "evil"ing being and thus "sent to" either Heaven or Hell. But the question is more of how to classify the state in an epistemological database.

If you mean to imply moral judgement (which you seem to with the religion reference), people seeking suicide generally do so to end their own suffering or seek to alleviate the burden of themselves on others. By most standards, this would not make them immoral, at least in their intent as persons. How would you reconcile this desire to help others or end their own suffering with being morally deserving of punishment?
The problem that I see is that a person in such a state is not merely a single functioning mental process. The mind is a maze of parallel processes that are partially dependent. Thus merely because one portion of a mind has chosen suicide for the entire person, the rest of the mind most probably hasn't. If the entire mind makes such a decision, the person would just die on the spot.. simply stop breathing.

Babies with anacephaly have just a brainstem and an open skull. It is highly questionable as to whether they would count as people and generally die within a month, but the brainstem does work enough to have them continue breathing and their heart beating. They have no memory, no ability to decide, no capacity for logic, no ability to sense or perceive and more. This makes it seem apparent that the mind is not required to breathe, circulate blood and other required bodily functions. Additionally, I highly doubt you, in your mind, use your mind to tell your body to continue breathing for every breath you take. I would venture to guess it just happens without your consent, even though you could stop it if you chose. If one chooses in their mind to hold their breath, at some point the mind would cut out to unconsciousness and the body would resume breathing on its own, then eventually the mind would return in consciousness.

For reference, I am not technically a mind/brain nor a mind/body dualist, but I do see "mind" as a useful conceptual abstraction.
But how do you classify such a fragmented state of thought?
How about, "Broken". :mrgreen:

I use "suicidal" or "suicide ideation".
I couldn't say that the entire person was in a state of negative living. So all in all, I suspect it would end up being merely a very, very complex form of a rock, going neither way with full intent rather than the rock going neither way with no intent.

This still leaves the problem with the last question I asked. What about when their action leads to ceasing the functions of their brain? They have to have been said to go one way at some point through that, even if only briefly. As well, it would seem to also retroactively change all the previous directed activity that lead to death to be judged as "going that way" which seems to be a somewhat violation of causality.
Suzera
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:53 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby James S Saint » Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:39 pm

Suzera wrote:If you mean to imply moral judgement (which you seem to with the religion reference), people seeking suicide generally do so to end their own suffering or seek to alleviate the burden of themselves on others. By most standards, this would not make them immoral, at least in their intent as persons. How would you reconcile this desire to help others or end their own suffering with being morally deserving of punishment?

Firstly, the issue wasn't one of being right or wrong, but rather merely how to classify it. Secondly, your notion that punishment has anything to do with the Catholic assessment is in error. They speak of unavoidable consequences, not of impugning someone for doing something disfavored. God's judgment might appear as punishment oriented to you, but from their stance, it has nothing to do with punishments but rather of what happens considering that God is controlling the situation of your life. In the case of Muslims and Judists, they actually go out and enforce what they have considered God's will. Catholics rarely do that, but rather merely stop helping you avoid trouble if they see something needs to be done by them, "excommunication". But I don't think they excommunicate attempted suicides (I don't think).

Suzera wrote:Babies with anacephaly have just a brainstem and an open skull. It is highly questionable as to whether they would count as people and generally die within a month, but the brainstem does work enough to have them continue breathing and their heart beating. They have no memory, no ability to decide, no capacity for logic, no ability to sense or perceive and more. This makes it seem apparent that the mind is not required to breathe, circulate blood and other required bodily functions. Additionally, I highly doubt you, in your mind, use your mind to tell your body to continue breathing for every breath you take. I would venture to guess it just happens without your consent, even though you could stop it if you chose. If one chooses in their mind to hold their breath, at some point the mind would cut out to unconsciousness and the body would resume breathing on its own, then eventually the mind would return in consciousness.

That is just an issue of semantics. Being an intelligence designer, I consider any and every algorithm used throughout a being as part of its "mind". You are speaking more of merely the "conscious mind" or "cognitive mind" (which I spoke of separately).

Suzera wrote:This still leaves the problem with the last question I asked. What about when their action leads to ceasing the functions of their brain? They have to have been said to go one way at some point through that, even if only briefly. As well, it would seem to also retroactively change all the previous directed activity that lead to death to be judged as "going that way" which seems to be a somewhat violation of causality.

That is like saying that if the governor of your State decides to kill everyone in your State, then causality has been reversed because you voted for the nut.

The fact that a part of your mind can circumvent the efforts of other parts, has nothing to do with any of this. In effect, one governing part of the person got tricked into murdering the rest of the person.

But "life began" as soon as any part of the whole was striving toward survival, very successfully or not.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Suzera » Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:24 am

James S Saint wrote:Firstly, the issue wasn't one of being right or wrong, but rather merely how to classify it. Secondly, your notion that punishment has anything to do with the Catholic assessment is in error. They speak of unavoidable consequences, not of impugning someone for doing something disfavored. God's judgment might appear as punishment oriented to you, but from their stance, it has nothing to do with punishments but rather of what happens considering that God is controlling the situation of your life. In the case of Muslims and Judists, they actually go out and enforce what they have considered God's will. Catholics rarely do that, but rather merely stop helping you avoid trouble if they see something needs to be done by them, "excommunication". But I don't think they excommunicate attempted suicides (I don't think).

Unless you're going to argue that Catholic "hell" does not involve suffering or a deliberate withholding of pleasure, either of those things are by definition a punishment when done in response to an action as a rule.
That is just an issue of semantics. Being an intelligence designer, I consider any and every algorithm used throughout a being as part of its "mind". You are speaking more of merely the "conscious mind" or "cognitive mind" (which I spoke of separately).

Noted.
Suzera wrote:This still leaves the problem with the last question I asked. What about when their action leads to ceasing the functions of their brain? They have to have been said to go one way at some point through that, even if only briefly. As well, it would seem to also retroactively change all the previous directed activity that lead to death to be judged as "going that way" which seems to be a somewhat violation of causality.

That is like saying that if the governor of your State decides to kill everyone in your State, then causality has been reversed because you voted for the nut.

The fact that a part of your mind can circumvent the efforts of other parts, has nothing to do with any of this. In effect, one governing part of the person got tricked into murdering the rest of the person.

If someone commits suicide, they have actually gone "that way" towards death in contradiction to your statement that they aren't going either direction. The actions leading up to it now seem suddenly like steps along that path to death merely by the fact that they actually did it.

It seems more like you're talking about everyone voting for this governor that says they will kill everyone, but even though this prospective governor is saying that and obviously has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons behind him that he talks about using on everyone, he's not really advocating for killing everyone because no person could possibly do that. Then it happens. However, this analogy is about someone's own suicide in real life which happens many times a year, so you do not get the benefit of mistaken first time naivete to explain what you are currently asserting.
Suzera
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:53 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 23, 2012 12:52 am

Suzera wrote:
James S Saint wrote:Firstly, the issue wasn't one of being right or wrong, but rather merely how to classify it. Secondly, your notion that punishment has anything to do with the Catholic assessment is in error. They speak of unavoidable consequences, not of impugning someone for doing something disfavored. God's judgment might appear as punishment oriented to you, but from their stance, it has nothing to do with punishments but rather of what happens considering that God is controlling the situation of your life. In the case of Muslims and Judists, they actually go out and enforce what they have considered God's will. Catholics rarely do that, but rather merely stop helping you avoid trouble if they see something needs to be done by them, "excommunication". But I don't think they excommunicate attempted suicides (I don't think).

Unless you're going to argue that Catholic "hell" does not involve suffering or a deliberate withholding of pleasure, either of those things are by definition a punishment when done in response to an action as a rule.

If I tell you that "if you don't come inside, you are going to suffer" and then you don't come inside and you do suffer, is that your definition of punishment? It happened that I knew that it was about to rain. You didn't listen. You suffered. That is all the Catholic Church has ever been saying.

Suzera wrote:If someone commits suicide, they have actually gone "that way" towards death in contradiction to your statement that they aren't going either direction.

I was speaking of the person in mid decision, not the one who has made the decision successfully. It is much like any government that is being taken over by one faction (much like your USA government). Until the total take over is completed, the final decision hasn't really been made. It is "in process".

Suzera wrote:It seems more like you're talking about everyone voting for this governor that says they will kill everyone, but even though this prospective governor is saying that and obviously has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons behind him that he talks about using on everyone, he's not really advocating for killing everyone because no person could possibly do that. Then it happens. However, this analogy is about someone's own suicide in real life which happens many times a year, so you do not get the benefit of mistaken first time naivete to explain what you are currently asserting.

You don't vote for the guy who says it. You vote for the guy when he seems rational. But you don't hear every thought he has. Once you "feel" him actually enacting the slaughter, you realize that you don't like the decision that he made that you were not aware of and you try to prevent him... too late (again much like your new USA governance).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Tralix » Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:24 am

James S Saint wrote:In my epistemology life isn't an issue of either life or non-life. Life is much like intelligence. Something doesn't either have intelligence or not. It comes in a multitude of degrees and variations in type.

The ultimate defining characteristic of life is that seeks its own survival or its "self-harmony". And by "seek", I mean that it, by whatever means, identifies harmful from helpful, avoids the harmful, and approaches the helpful. But this characteristic also comes in degrees of just "how alive" something is. Growth and reproduction are merely a couple of the varied methods used to more secure survival.

To say that something must be growing or reproducing in order to be called "living" is far too narrow. A person who cannot reproduce or grow any further is still alive by too many other standards. If you don't think so, just poke some old woman in the eye and see if she reveals characteristics of being alive (first make sure she has nether mase nor gun).

A rock could be said to have a degree of intelligence or of life that happens to be near zero. Something that very quickly adapts to changes in the immediate and also eminent environment towards its own survival and even more so toward its own longevity (probability of distant survival) can be said to have a high degree of life and/or intelligence.


What an odd thing to post? Evolution has no care for harmony, it is a single thing that only seeks change if it wins. Life is a horrible thing to view in evolution, it mangles, it kills, it destroys anything that does not promote more life more efficiently, it can't be moral it can't have a care for anything but something that is better by an arbitrary constant we call more able to adapt. If you look at life in evolutionary terms and not without the veneer of moral human terms we call a reason, it's "barbabric", hostile and utterly devoid of care. Most species on Earth will die, in fact almost all of them have every species life and continuance on earth has been destroyed by the planet earth and its cycles and it keeps doing it. One extinction after another, 99%. the 50%, then 80% it kills evolution kills. This planet has produced us, and all we do is place moral value on something that has none. It does not care if you are good, evil or in between, it will kill you in a blink of time you exist, not because it cares, but because you are better suited to adapt, if you can't you die. If that means us, as humans then we all die. The driving force of life is only to produce more life, morals are redundant. You will die soon if you cannot adapt to the plain fact that is evolution, whatever you think it matters not, you will die if you do not adapt. Earth is one of the most uncaring hostile environments you will ever see, but it is alive. Take note of that. Earth is not heaven or harmony, Earth is a stock fired sure way of seeing the complete disregard nature has for your feelings...
"Nothing is possible until something is impossible."

James S Saint.

"He that cannot obey cannot command."

Benjamin Franklin.

"If you ever actually ask a question about the topic itself, I'll be glad to give it consideration. But it is more than obvious that the topic is not your interest."

St James.
User avatar
Tralix
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1318
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:38 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:48 am

Tralix wrote:
James S Saint wrote:In my epistemology life isn't an issue of either life or non-life. Life is much like intelligence. Something doesn't either have intelligence or not. It comes in a multitude of degrees and variations in type.

The ultimate defining characteristic of life is that seeks its own survival or its "self-harmony". And by "seek", I mean that it, by whatever means, identifies harmful from helpful, avoids the harmful, and approaches the helpful. But this characteristic also comes in degrees of just "how alive" something is. Growth and reproduction are merely a couple of the varied methods used to more secure survival.


What an odd thing to post? Evolution has no care for harmony, it is a single thing that only seeks change if it wins.

What do you suppose the term, "self-harmony" means?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Tetralix » Thu Aug 23, 2012 5:40 pm

Tralix wrote:What an odd thing to post? Evolution has no care for harmony, it is a single thing that only seeks change if it wins. Life is a horrible thing to view in evolution, it mangles, it kills, it destroys anything that does not promote more life more efficiently, it can't be moral it can't have a care for anything but something that is better by an arbitrary constant we call more able to adapt. If you look at life in evolutionary terms and not without the veneer of moral human terms we call a reason, it's "barbabric", hostile and utterly devoid of care. Most species on Earth will die, in fact almost all of them have every species life and continuance on earth has been destroyed by the planet earth and its cycles and it keeps doing it. One extinction after another, 99%. the 50%, then 80% it kills evolution kills.
This planet has produced us, and all we do is place moral value on something that has none. It does not care if you are good, evil or in between, it will kill you in a blink of time you exist, not because it cares, but because you are better suited to adapt, if you can't you die. If that means us, as humans then we all die. The driving force of life is only to produce more life, morals are redundant. You will die soon if you cannot adapt to the plain fact that is evolution, whatever you think it matters not, you will die if you do not adapt. Earth is one of the most uncaring hostile environments you will ever see, but it is alive. Take note of that. Earth is not heaven or harmony, Earth is a stock fired sure way of seeing the complete disregard nature has for your feelings...


Evolution has no intention or will of it's own at all. It is needed because in this reality there is no such thing as a perfect creature, the universe is always changing, living things need to adapt to it in order to survive like you said yourself. The changes in creatures are totally random tho with no further meaning behind those mutations. Ultimately it is the changing universe and other living things that decide the coarse of evolution. It are living things and the surroundings (things like climate change, meteor impacts etc.) that kills species not evolution itself.

Altough species often go extinct, new species evolve from and thanks too the old ones as well, we could not be here without the epic struggles of all our ancestors who evolved from now extinct species. This process can be traced back to our first ancestor, who might be the ancestor of every living being today on earth. I think there is great glory and yes harmony in that fact.
By letting it go it all gets done. The world is won by those who let it go. But when you try and try. The world is beyond the winning.
Lao Tzu
Tetralix
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:26 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Suzera » Thu Aug 23, 2012 6:33 pm

James S Saint wrote:If I tell you that "if you don't come inside, you are going to suffer" and then you don't come inside and you do suffer, is that your definition of punishment? It happened that I knew that it was about to rain. You didn't listen. You suffered. That is all the Catholic Church has ever been saying.

God is an intentional being though and not a mere force of nature, yes? Catholics are saying something along the lines of "if you don't come inside, God is going to come by and make you suffer because God doesn't like being people outside at this particular time". In this case "being outside at a particular time" is "suicide". If one goes to the afterlife and finds an intentional being ordaining suffering for doing an action, is that not a punishment by that intentional being for that action?
I was speaking of the person in mid decision, not the one who has made the decision successfully. It is much like any government that is being taken over by one faction (much like your USA government). Until the total take over is completed, the final decision hasn't really been made. It is "in process".

However, it still remains that someone that does do so would not be in a middling neutral way, contra to your previous statement, and would differentiate them from a rock in some manner, even if only for one moment.
Suzera wrote:It seems more like you're talking about everyone voting for this governor that says they will kill everyone, but even though this prospective governor is saying that and obviously has a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons behind him that he talks about using on everyone, he's not really advocating for killing everyone because no person could possibly do that. Then it happens. However, this analogy is about someone's own suicide in real life which happens many times a year, so you do not get the benefit of mistaken first time naivete to explain what you are currently asserting.

You don't vote for the guy who says it. You vote for the guy when he seems rational. But you don't hear every thought he has. Once you "feel" him actually enacting the slaughter, you realize that you don't like the decision that he made that you were not aware of and you try to prevent him... too late (again much like your new USA governance).

In this case, by way of analogy, you are voting for the guy openly saying he will kill everyone while showing his means to do so and just simply believing that this is not actually the case. Then he does so. Many parts of the mind aside from just intent cooperate to realize the goal of that intent in the world.
Suzera
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:53 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby James S Saint » Thu Aug 23, 2012 7:25 pm

Suzera wrote:God is an intentional being though and not a mere force of nature, yes?

Those aren't the only options.
God is not a "force of nature", depending on what you are calling "nature".
God is intentional in the sense that God doesn't change direction and cannot be changed.
But God is NOT intentional in the sense of ignoring a situation unless someone does something naughty and then deciding to go punish that particular person.

God is The Rule that never changes and applies to all situations at all times (much like the weather in the analogy).
The Church is merely informing people of the consequences of The Rule that always applies to all things at all times ("omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent").

Now if you think of God as a magical person, as the Mormons do, you have a case of a punishing dictator. But that has never been what any Scripture has actually been about. They merely didn't make that distinction because most people in those days didn't care unless there was a dictator involved and probably couldn't conceive of a universal "Rule" (even one of nature). That willingness to use the mindset of the common people because it yielded more coherence of society was one of the faults (out of several) that has led to today's contentions.

Suzera wrote:
I was speaking of the person in mid decision, not the one who has made the decision successfully. It is much like any government that is being taken over by one faction (much like your USA government). Until the total take over is completed, the final decision hasn't really been made. It is "in process".

However, it still remains that someone that does do so would not be in a middling neutral way, contra to your previous statement, and would differentiate them from a rock in some manner, even if only for one moment.

I can't translate what you are saying there.

Suzera wrote:It seems more like you're talking about everyone voting for this governor that says they will kill everyone, but even though this prospective governor is saying that

No. Of course I'm not talking about the person who said that he was going to go kill everyone. Who would ever get into office that way?

You are not born with the notion that you are going to kill yourself. You are born with the inherent urge to attempt to stay alive. But during that process (after all of the "governors" have been placed into office ("brain has matured")), fragmentation of decision making occurs as well as semi-isolated decision making and misinformation. That is why it is analogous to a society. Most of the people in a society have no idea at all of what their governance is thinking or planning. They are busy merely living their own lives holding "good faith" that their governors are trying to be good people (sad mistake).

By the time they discover that their governors were plotting the murder of their entire people, perhaps due to a foreign allegiance, it is too late to stop it. But that doesn't mean that they willingly go along with it at any time. They are merely trapped.

With a suicide, the exact same scenario takes place. The vast majority of the living fragmented components within any single person very seriously objects to the intent to murder the entire body. But they have lost their right to have a vote due to the cleverness of the governor, that "conscious mind". A little too much aspirin and the game is over. The vast majority had no say in the matter.

If China's governance chose to annihilate all of China, they wouldn't tell anyone. They would just arrange that it happens without any way for the people to escape (again, much like the USA governance). But don't you think that you might see that as murder rather than a suicide? If you think in terms of the entire nation as merely a single entity, it would be suicide. But reality is that it is not merely a single entity, but a collective. Every single person is that same way, a collective effort, being governed.

So the thought is that even if the governor within a person decides to kill the entire person, it is still murder of the majority. The Catholics have been right about that (not that they handle it well). And that governor, due to the de-monolithic nature of the decision was referred to as a "demon" "possessing" the person - the exact same thing as a dictator usurping control, "taking possession", of a nation.

That governor is not where life began for that entity (in either a person or nation) and is not the only life that gets killed in the suicide. If the governor decides to merely remove himself from life/office, then no one objects. That would be merely a dictator deciding to leave office. But that is not the same as an actual suicide or the intentional destruction of a nation.

In addition, do you consider it a justified suicide (changing of the effort to stay alive) if it was a decision based on misinformation or deceit?
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Suzera » Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:37 pm

James S Saint wrote:Those aren't the only options.
God is not a "force of nature", depending on what you are calling "nature".
God is intentional in the sense that God doesn't change direction and cannot be changed.
But God is NOT intentional in the sense of ignoring a situation unless someone does something naughty and then deciding to go punish that particular person.

God is The Rule that never changes and applies to all situations at all times (much like the weather in the analogy).
The Church is merely informing people of the consequences of The Rule that always applies to all things at all times ("omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent").

Now if you think of God as a magical person, as the Mormons do, you have a case of a punishing dictator. But that has never been what any Scripture has actually been about. They merely didn't make that distinction because most people in those days didn't care unless there was a dictator involved and probably couldn't conceive of a universal "Rule" (even one of nature). That willingness to use the mindset of the common people because it yielded more coherence of society was one of the faults (out of several) that has led to today's contentions.

This seems like God either is or is indistinguishable from a force or law of natural process.
I can't translate what you are saying there.

You previously said this:
I couldn't say that the entire person was in a state of negative living. So all in all, I suspect it would end up being merely a very, very complex form of a rock, going neither way with full intent rather than the rock going neither way with no intent.

Someone that actually carries out the act would have gone a way, and thus be different from your neutral rock, correct?
No. Of course I'm not talking about the person who said that he was going to go kill everyone. Who would ever get into office that way?

That's part of why I am posing that to you. It seems equivalent to something you are stating.
But during that process (after all of the "governors" have been placed into office ("brain has matured")), fragmentation of decision making occurs as well as semi-isolated decision making and misinformation.

What is this misinformation?
That is why it is analogous to a society. Most of the people in a society have no idea at all of what their governance is thinking or planning. They are busy merely living their own lives holding "good faith" that their governors are trying to be good people (sad mistake).

By the time they discover that their governors were plotting the murder of their entire people, perhaps due to a foreign allegiance, it is too late to stop it. But that doesn't mean that they willingly go along with it at any time. They are merely trapped.

With a suicide, the exact same scenario takes place. The vast majority of the living fragmented components within any single person very seriously objects to the intent to murder the entire body. But they have lost their right to have a vote due to the cleverness of the governor, that "conscious mind". A little too much aspirin and the game is over. The vast majority had no say in the matter.

If China's governance chose to annihilate all of China, they wouldn't tell anyone. They would just arrange that it happens without any way for the people to escape (again, much like the USA governance). But don't you think that you might see that as murder rather than a suicide? If you think in terms of the entire nation as merely a single entity, it would be suicide. But reality is that it is not merely a single entity, but a collective. Every single person is that same way, a collective effort, being governed.

So the thought is that even if the governor within a person decides to kill the entire person, it is still murder of the majority. The Catholics have been right about that (not that they handle it well). And that governor, due to the de-monolithic nature of the decision was referred to as a "demon" "possessing" the person - the exact same thing as a dictator usurping control, "taking possession", of a nation.

A refocusing of the analogy then. Using the governor analogy, to commit suicide, the governor would require cooperation from the constituents of the muscles, the lungs, the eyes, the spatial processing, the visual processing, the emotions (after all, the suffering is from emotions), the bones, the blood, the veins, the skin, the memory, and on and on and on. Without all of these great many things acting in concert over time to lead up to the final moment, the suicide would be impossible.
In addition, do you consider it a justified suicide (changing of the effort to stay alive) if it was a decision based on misinformation or deceit?

The person committing suicide is generally doing so in order to try to alleviate their own suffering, so they are generally always justified. If this suffering comes from misinformation or deceit from someone else, it is the person giving that misinformation and deceit that is to blame for the suicide. I will attempt to help end the suffering in another way to spare the life where I possibly can though.
That governor is not where life began for that entity (in either a person or nation) and is not the only life that gets killed in the suicide. If the governor decides to merely remove himself from life/office, then no one objects. That would be merely a dictator deciding to leave office. But that is not the same as an actual suicide or the intentional destruction of a nation.

How do you feel about lemmings and other animals that die because of their migratory patterns overextending their capabilities? How about Armadillos that just happen to jump up to about car bumper height when startled and end up commonly dying to vehicles rather than stay to the ground where they may be passed over instead? What about the many types of spiders that get eaten by their mates?
Suzera
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:53 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Tralix » Thu Aug 23, 2012 11:03 pm

Tetralix wrote:
Tralix wrote:What an odd thing to post? Evolution has no care for harmony, it is a single thing that only seeks change if it wins. Life is a horrible thing to view in evolution, it mangles, it kills, it destroys anything that does not promote more life more efficiently, it can't be moral it can't have a care for anything but something that is better by an arbitrary constant we call more able to adapt. If you look at life in evolutionary terms and not without the veneer of moral human terms we call a reason, it's "barbabric", hostile and utterly devoid of care. Most species on Earth will die, in fact almost all of them have every species life and continuance on earth has been destroyed by the planet earth and its cycles and it keeps doing it. One extinction after another, 99%. the 50%, then 80% it kills evolution kills.
This planet has produced us, and all we do is place moral value on something that has none. It does not care if you are good, evil or in between, it will kill you in a blink of time you exist, not because it cares, but because you are better suited to adapt, if you can't you die. If that means us, as humans then we all die. The driving force of life is only to produce more life, morals are redundant. You will die soon if you cannot adapt to the plain fact that is evolution, whatever you think it matters not, you will die if you do not adapt. Earth is one of the most uncaring hostile environments you will ever see, but it is alive. Take note of that. Earth is not heaven or harmony, Earth is a stock fired sure way of seeing the complete disregard nature has for your feelings...


Evolution has no intention or will of it's own at all. It is needed because in this reality there is no such thing as a perfect creature, the universe is always changing, living things need to adapt to it in order to survive like you said yourself. The changes in creatures are totally random tho with no further meaning behind those mutations. Ultimately it is the changing universe and other living things that decide the coarse of evolution. It are living things and the surroundings (things like climate change, meteor impacts etc.) that kills species not evolution itself.

Altough species often go extinct, new species evolve from and thanks too the old ones as well, we could not be here without the epic struggles of all our ancestors who evolved from now extinct species. This process can be traced back to our first ancestor, who might be the ancestor of every living being today on earth. I think there is great glory and yes harmony in that fact.


Harmony suggests order, suggests teleology, it is an inapt term for evolution. Sure religion places a harmony, and human moral value tries to see reason in the bitter struggle to exist. But we know as a species our existence rested on a knife edge several times where our or are ancestors' numbers were so few we had only chance to exist, why we are alive at all is a matter of numbers, somewhere in the vast cosmos life exists. There is no harmony to that though, it just is. Chance and the rules of the universe dictate life, if there are infinite universes, there is only a brute number crunching machine, that says given eternity some life must exist. There is nothing more to it than that. Enough monkeys, enough type writers and enough time, then and only then in the chaos of entropic concerns will life promulgate. Harmony is a term that has a value, I don't think the universe, or multiverse really has any order or enough to be harmonic.

God has always been a merchant who resides in the gaps in our understanding, we resort to God when we don't have the data to hand to work out everything that makes life. I sometimes wonder as people have said or implied if God is just another monkey on a typewriter number crunching it's way to Shakespeare.
"Nothing is possible until something is impossible."

James S Saint.

"He that cannot obey cannot command."

Benjamin Franklin.

"If you ever actually ask a question about the topic itself, I'll be glad to give it consideration. But it is more than obvious that the topic is not your interest."

St James.
User avatar
Tralix
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1318
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:38 pm

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby ZenKitty » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:17 am

Smears wrote:I think life begins when the kid is old enough to vote.


When does life get to vote, i.e. how old does the kid have to be to vote?
Look at the triangle
Image

What beautiful eyes and mouths she has
Image
User avatar
ZenKitty
Thinker
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:35 am
Location: Omnipresent

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby ZenKitty » Fri Aug 24, 2012 12:25 am

Peter Kropotkin wrote:clearly this issue has a political aspect as extreme politicians are trying to define
life at conception and thus any abortion becomes murder.
This radical viewpoint seems to fly in the face of common sense whereas
how can a collection of cells which has no ability to survive on its own
be called "life".


Your position just as much flies in the face of common sense as well. You pretty much link life to ability to survive on its own. This even means that even abortions that are done legally, in the US, at least would be okay to ignore. You could even kill a 1 year old kid. They are not "life". Nazi's even did experiments with babies, and found that those that were giving all the necessary things like food, water, and protection from the elements, could not survive unless they got attention from humans like touching and etc. They could not even survive with all the necessary things to sustain metabolism and etc. So we could do a Predator v. Alien 2 (Requim), and do what the Predalien did to the babies in the hospital. They are not life and so you can abort it.
Look at the triangle
Image

What beautiful eyes and mouths she has
Image
User avatar
ZenKitty
Thinker
 
Posts: 656
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:35 am
Location: Omnipresent

Re: At what level does life actually begin?

Postby Bill Wiltrack » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am

.



Life begins at the moment of erection.

For that is when a new life is first conceived.



.
Bill Wiltrack
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1164
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:10 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio USA

Next

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users