7 dic 2004
"The universe must be such to admit the creation of observers within it."
--Physicist Brandon Carter--
Now, that's a pretty quote. Nice. But i was thinking about it, and i turned it around, you know, inverse implications and the like. What if the universe was not such to allow observers within it? Would a universe like that then be said to not exist at all?
I don't like that one bit. Nope.
The point being that even non-sentient things are worth having around.
Though those among the sentient are more fun, if only for things like Softer World, Spanish accents, and peanut butter candy. But it must be noted that nothing among conscious life could exist without the sub/unconscious framework.
But therein lies another problem: i think it is morally wrong (and fundamentally dualistic) for us to view the unconscious as a 'framework' or the 'bedrock' or whatever on which our higher-more-advanced-and-supremely-beautiful-mental-mynds reside (because the obvious extension of this is that the unconscious does not matter, andcan be has been exploited). Dualism's foundations are from categorizing the conscious away from the unconscious, and these things fundamentally cannot be considered separate. Consciousness is a very specialized type of unconsciousness.
Consciousness arizes from lots (okay, i have no idea how many) of unconscious activities--both simultaneously in our brain/nervous system and for billions of years in time--that have formed a unique way of gaining information from each other. We choose to call ourselves conscious; the naming of the 'fact' created the fact. No other previous lifeform had had the need to name itself. They all just were.
Even if they didn't know it, they were.
Since i'm on the topic, does a blog without readers exist at all?
You could tell me what you think, or by your silence i'll suppose i don't exist.
i like that beginning quote a lot as it relates to physics, but not to anything else. As if they could be kept separate.
End Rant, Reason #452.07 Why Dualism Sucks ¶ 15:46
--Physicist Brandon Carter--
Now, that's a pretty quote. Nice. But i was thinking about it, and i turned it around, you know, inverse implications and the like. What if the universe was not such to allow observers within it? Would a universe like that then be said to not exist at all?
I don't like that one bit. Nope.
The point being that even non-sentient things are worth having around.
Though those among the sentient are more fun, if only for things like Softer World, Spanish accents, and peanut butter candy. But it must be noted that nothing among conscious life could exist without the sub/unconscious framework.
But therein lies another problem: i think it is morally wrong (and fundamentally dualistic) for us to view the unconscious as a 'framework' or the 'bedrock' or whatever on which our higher-more-advanced-and-supremely-beautiful-mental-mynds reside (because the obvious extension of this is that the unconscious does not matter, and
Consciousness arizes from lots (okay, i have no idea how many) of unconscious activities--both simultaneously in our brain/nervous system and for billions of years in time--that have formed a unique way of gaining information from each other. We choose to call ourselves conscious; the naming of the 'fact' created the fact. No other previous lifeform had had the need to name itself. They all just were.
Even if they didn't know it, they were.
Since i'm on the topic, does a blog without readers exist at all?
You could tell me what you think, or by your silence i'll suppose i don't exist.
i like that beginning quote a lot as it relates to physics, but not to anything else. As if they could be kept separate.
End Rant, Reason #452.07 Why Dualism Sucks ¶ 15:46
Comments:
<< Home
Okay, then. If you disagree with the exploitation of the non-sentient-yet-living, then are you pro-life? Do you oppose embryonic stem cell research? Those cells are both living and non-sentient.
yeah, i am pro-life actually.
personally.
but i'm pro-choice politically.
i realize that's a very, very fine line i've drawn.
and i do realize that dividing the personal from the political is VERY dualistic, but i haven't found a way to resolve this practically. (hence, i am a huge failure by my own standards.)
Abortion must be legal as it will happen anyway, moral or not. And pracically, overpopulation is a much bigger problem. Too many humans leads to degradion of 'nature' leads to degradion of each human's quality of life. Diminishing returns.
personally.
but i'm pro-choice politically.
i realize that's a very, very fine line i've drawn.
and i do realize that dividing the personal from the political is VERY dualistic, but i haven't found a way to resolve this practically. (hence, i am a huge failure by my own standards.)
Abortion must be legal as it will happen anyway, moral or not. And pracically, overpopulation is a much bigger problem. Too many humans leads to degradion of 'nature' leads to degradion of each human's quality of life. Diminishing returns.
well, i haven't thought that much about it, but i think it's okay.
my problem with people being dualistic is that it gives us an excuse to not act with respect towards other things. i don't think any researchers are 'abusing' stem cells by studying them, so it's alright to do.
and i guess stem cell research could be considered abuse as the cells in question will never get to reach their full potential as living sentient beings....
my problem with people being dualistic is that it gives us an excuse to not act with respect towards other things. i don't think any researchers are 'abusing' stem cells by studying them, so it's alright to do.
and i guess stem cell research could be considered abuse as the cells in question will never get to reach their full potential as living sentient beings....
Embryonic stem cells tend to be taken from cultures that were prepared to do some fertility implanting, but were not going to be used for whatever reason. Which means, whammo, to the G-Men with the Big Hungry Truck come pickup day. Which means they're not getting ANY potential out of them.
With the research, at least some of their potential may blossom.
I also believe that the appearance of consciousness is a pretty good yardstick for how much Importance (rather than Value) something has. Kinda.
And man, don't get me started on Consciousness.
With the research, at least some of their potential may blossom.
I also believe that the appearance of consciousness is a pretty good yardstick for how much Importance (rather than Value) something has. Kinda.
And man, don't get me started on Consciousness.
See, I'm with Evan on this one. Not having consciousness is a pretty good indicator of whether or not something is a higher life form. Also, my pushing with the stem cell thing is only due to the fact that I just finished writing an immense research paper on the topic... so now I'm interested. Perhaps when you're back for Winter Break we can have a discussion on the subject. I know I'd love to.
then i disagree. there is [to me] no such thing as higher or lower, lifeforms or otherwise. as far as life goes, everything that exists has proven itself good enough to exist, and thus is valuable. i can't off the top of my head think of a good way to say the same thing about the non-living world, but i take that as more evidence of my egocentrism as one who happens to be alive.
Saying something is a lower life form and saying that it's useless are two different things entirely. I never said those cells are useless. I just don't think that there should be any ethical dilemma over their experimental use.
part two: agreed. i don't see an ethical problem with stem cell research either.
part one: the point is that most people do not/cannot draw the distinction. lessor=worthless, in the vernacular. always.
Publicar un comentario
part one: the point is that most people do not/cannot draw the distinction. lessor=worthless, in the vernacular. always.
<< Home
