Conversation
Notices
-
@vriska @Moon @fluffy @shmibs Abortion denies the baby's bodily autonomy
-
@cirnog @vriska @Moon @fluffy separate the fetus from mother so it can have autonomyusing baby is anyways a little misleading when abortion is typically amorphous lump of discharge via pills
-
@cirnog @Moon @fluffy @vriska (in modern-medicine context; of course infant abandonment has been a common thing since forever in humans, though strangely not in chimpanzees? read the other day suggests so at least, interesting
-
@cirnog @vriska @Aether @Moon @fluffy dunno you're robot, but i'm an animal. we are squishy and soft and vulnerable and made from parts that don't always get along...or at the least am executing on an animal as substratelife doesn't begin at conception; it's already there. life began like 4bya ("if not longer" says panspermia man with the wacky hair). germline cells just periodically grow themselves mech suits as a convoluted self-propagation strategy, and we're apparently some kind of os that gets generated in turn for maintaining high-level goal consistencyand foetus is not really a "scientific word" but a special more colloquial one used for humans in later-stage gestation. try embryo insteadand discharge yes, humans and other animals discharge bits of themselves all the time. your pee is yellow because of old bloodif you want to disagree then dehumanising is still anyways the wrong term to use. a human zygote is obviously human, just like a human epithelial cell or a HeLa cell or whatever is human. and by that point it's arguably already a child as well, when fertilised. a single cell is also not yet hosting a person though, should also be obvious. would argue here a human embryo still isn't hosting a person even at the point just before it's born, since it still hasn't grown like 75% of its brain, but it's good to err on the side of caution and shift the cut-off line back a ways. for the same reason, being cautious, will never here kill a pig or so, given the pig has got a much more salient conscious experience going on than does a newborn infant human"one is not born but rather becomes a person" is a reasonable summing-up, though when counting the one as "human" sometimes two can become a person (chimerism / organ donations...) or one become two people (split brains...). been caring here for 甥っ子 who's currently in the person-becoming process (turns 1 in a few days!) and it's kind of magical to see. i hope he grows up well ^^
-
@Aether @Moon @fluffy @shmibs @vriska They didn't even call the baby cells, they said "discharge". imagine reducing human life to some kind of excrement
-
@cirnog @Moon @fluffy @shmibs @vriska phrases like "ambiguous lump of cells" immediately reveal the bad faith from which pro-abortionists argue. They cannot even conceive of a good argument for your own cause that doesn't immediately expose you as being full of shit.
-
@Aether @Moon @fluffy @shmibs @vriska Interesting how the only time someone uses scientific terms for a person's development is when they want to kill kids by calling them fetuses, or fuck kids by calling it hebephilia.
-
@cirnog @shmibs @Moon @fluffy @vriska
-
@shmibs @Moon @fluffy @vriska Cool we're humans not animals, that's why we don't eat our own shit for instance.
-
@shmibs @Aether @Moon @fluffy @vriska Human life begins at conception and a human is a person. Being overly reductionist isn't a valid excuse for murder and you're stupid to think it is.
-
@cirnog @vriska @Aether @Moon @fluffy a human is not a person. my grandfather was eaten up and disappeared by alzheimer's a while before the body that had been hosting him died
-
@cirnog @vriska @Aether @Moon @fluffy a person is (or at least is tied to directly, however you care to phrase it, dependent on personal attempts to encapsulate inexplicables) a certain pattern of computation. in a human body, that pattern occurs, or is most densely situated in, a subset of the brain. and so, unlike in other localised diseases or injuries, when bits of that pattern are disrupted or disappear so too do bits of the person. he was not there any more, not matter how we tried to reach himso too in a perinatal infant. there is no person in the human yet because the brain still needs to quadruple in size and prune lots and lots of cells before it can self-arrange into a shape that can execute one
-
@shmibs @Aether @Moon @fluffy @vriska Person and human are synonyms they mean the same thing, your grandad didn't stop being a person just because he has a disease anymore than someone with cancer cystic fibrosis stops being a person.
-
@cirnog @vriska @Aether @Moon @fluffy to prove that the brain is a universal computer, try emulating a turing machine
-
@shmibs @Aether @Moon @fluffy @vriska>a person is a certain pattern of computation. The brain is not a computer so this is wrong and so is everything else you said. It's not healthy to deal with the grief of losing your grandad by dehumanizing him and using that to justify murder. I'd tell you to get help but you were probably already "helped" by a therapist who gave you these bad ideas.
-
@cirnog @vriska @Aether @Moon @fluffy what does died mean if not halted?
-
@shmibs @Aether @Moon @fluffy @vriska To prove the brain is not a computer, try turning yours off and then back on again. Oh no you died but a computer didn't, guess you're different after all.
-
@shmibs @Aether @Moon @fluffy @vriska You can't come back from the dead but you can restart a halted program duh
-
@cirnog @vriska @Aether @Moon @fluffy and why can't you come back from the dead? and why can you come back from sleep or a coma?human designed computers can only be restarted because they were designed that way
-
@cirnog @vriska @Aether @Moon @fluffy if a soul is a thing that can be with a body and physically interact with it then it is another physical piece of the body. if you believe in souls then to remove a soul from the rest of the body would be to break that body, so that it can not execute a person any morehuman designed computers can't be turned back on either if you break them
-
@shmibs @Aether @Moon @fluffy @vriska The soul leaves the body when you die, the soul stays with the body when you sleep, the computer has no soul at all.
-
@shmibs @Aether @Moon @fluffy @vriska >if a soul is a thing that can be with a body and physically interact with it then it is another physical piece of the body.No it's not lol, a soul is non-physical by definition end of story.> if you believe in souls then to remove a soul from the rest of the body would be to break that body,Removing the soul kills the body, removing the software from a computer does not destroy the hardware. Your brain is not a computer, your soul is not a program on a computer.>human designed computers can't be turned back on either if you break themBroken things are broken big whoop
-
@cirnog @vriska @Aether @Moon @fluffy if a soul is non-physical then it cannot interact with physical things like bodies. if it can interact with physical things like bodies then it is physical. this is a tautology
-
@cirnog that is the definition of physicality
-
@shmibs @Aether @Moon @fluffy @vriska No it's not lol that's not how spirits work lol
-
@cirnog the laws of logic are physical. mathematics is a physical pattern of computation executing inside human brains
-
@shmibs The laws of logic are not physical and yet they interact with the physical world, the laws of physics are not themselves physical but they interact with the physical world.Spirits are not physical but they interact with the physical world, your soul is not physical but it interacts with the physical world.
-
@shmibs What's the physical address of the law of non-contradiction? I want latitude and longitude coordinates to go see the law of conservation of angular mommentum. Where can I buy a microscope that lets me directly see modus ponens?Since you say laws are physical you should be able to give me physical locations and details of them.
-
@cirnog it's in my brain and in yours and in many others and in books and on hard disks and so on, though encoded via different codecs in each case
-
@cirnog if our brains and the books disappeared then the laws would disappearformal logic, like zmf set theory or type theory or whatever else, is a mathematical model, which is to say a lossy compression of real-world phenomena that people use for the purpose of predicting that real world.humans, people, mathematical models, aeroplanes, muons etc are names for open dynamical systems, subsets of the larger total systems we call universe. what that larger system is or why it operates the way it does is in turn a fundamental unknowable
-
@shmibs If our brains and those books disappeared would the laws stop working? If you kill yourself really hard do all the laws disappear?You do understand that your mental understanding of physical laws is different from the laws themselves right?
-
@cirnog digits, +, and = only have meaning in the context of people interpreting them. there is no form of 2+2 and there is no form of the chair. pythagoreanism died with the irrationals, or at least ought to have done. plato is incoherent
-
@shmibs >if our brains and the books disappeared then the laws would disappearNo they wouldn't, committing genocide doesn't magically make 2 + 2 = 67Stop being stupid.
-
@shmibs Mathematical truths exist regardless of the symbols used to describe them, nobody is talking about plato.
-
@cirnog you are parroting platonism right now
-
@cirnog plato invented platonism, and it was later adopted by the christian church and poisoned all of western thought
-
@shmibs plato didn't invent truth retard
-
@shmibs cool opinions, has nothing do with what we're talking about, that laws exist outside of your small head
-
@cirnog "laws exist outside of your head" is platonism
-
@cirnog one can believe stuff exists without believing in transcendental abstract concepts. people only believe in the latter because they are taught to, in physics and maths classes and so on
-
@shmibs It's everything that isn't solipsism
-
@cirnog platonism is the claim that they do exist, not anything about howand it is an incoherent claim (the transcendental part2+2 = 4 within the context of peano because it is defined that way. the physical computational model is arranged so as to produce certain outputs when given certain inputs
-
@shmibs No retard, abstract concepts exist because ending all life on earth doesn't make 2 + 2 = (anything of than 4), so the laws can't just exist in your head. Exactly how they exist is irrelevant, which is why nobody's talking about plato.
-
@cirnog "2", "apple", and "hand" are models that people made up for predicting things. they don't exist outside our heads
-
@shmibs Nigger if I have 2 apples in one hand and 2 apples in the other, I have 4 apples, regardless of how many people are alive. A toddler understands this better than you
-
@shmibs Solipsism is false because it makes you say retarded shit like this.
-
@cirnog i'm not a solipsist. stuff necessarily exists outside of me, or else i would not perceive it as inputthat stuff is not composed of "hands" or "apples", though; those are working models inside of me for predicting future inputsask: where is it that "hand" ends and "forearm" begins, and why does that differ between cultures? why do some cultures not distinguish between "foot" and "lower leg" but see them as one entity? these are categorisations inside of us, not things that actually exist "out there"
-
@cirnog i expect you to think, rather than resort to knee-jerking and name-callingor maybe don't expect, but would at least hopethe real world out there does exist, but it seems to be composed of some kind of jittery, amorphous mess at some below subatomic scale. but this detail is too complex for us to understand and model, so we simplify it into lossy concepts like "tree" and "rock"
-
@shmibs You expect me to take you seriously after saying that "hands" aren't real?
-
@shmibs Saying that your hands do not exist because in Japanese the word 足 can mean either foot or leg, is not a compelling argument.Strong reductionism where you start saying that objects don't exist and we can't understand them is incoherent, because we both know you can recognize exactly what hands are when you say they're not real.But what about Loki's wager? how can I cut off his head if I can't say precisely where his neck begins and ends? Well I grab my axe and cut his head off simple as.If you actually believed what you say, then you would've starved to death due to not knowing what food is.
-
@cirnog objects do exist, but only inside the minds of people. they are predictive models, like i said before, and pretty effective models at that. lossy compressions of a thing are not the thing itself, but they are still usefulmany chaotic systems still exhibit trends. stephen wolfram is a bit insufferable, but his phrasing, computational reducibility, is a useful one
-
@shitfucker @vriska @Aether @cirnog @Moon @fluffy don't personally enjoy killing anything and would rather avoid it whenever possible, but if a human scored low enough on some reasonable intelligence test, say below the level of a mouse?, and it was not due to some temporary incapacitated state, then i think that would be a decent indication of the human not hosting a person?
-
@shmibs @cirnog @Aether @Moon @fluffy @vriska Interesting idea. Would that justify killing individuals who score too low on an IQ test?
-
@shmibs @Aether @Moon @cirnog @fluffy @vriska Why draw the line at a mouse? Pigs and cows are smarter than mice and we eat them
-
@shitfucker @vriska @Aether @cirnog @Moon @fluffy i don't eat them
-
@shmibs >objects do exist, but only inside the minds of people.Again if you believed this you would've already starved to death because food only exists in your mind so you can't even eat it.People like you can say they believe objects don't exist, but every action you take betrays their reality. Likewise randomly saying computer jargon is not an argument, but it's very indicative of confusion.
-
@cirnog i just said that i do believe objects exist. they are models in my headand i rely on those models because they're pretty accurate for predicting stuff
-
@cirnog you're either not reading or not comprehending; not anything else can say to elucidate probably
-
@shmibs >objects exist>they are in my headWe're back to solipsism. I'd ask you to be consistent but that's impossible with ideas this incoherent so I don't blame you.
-
@shitfucker @vriska @Aether @cirnog @Moon @fluffy because it's imprudent to do so. the line between person and non-person is rather a wuzzy gradient, so it's good to err on the side of caution and avoid accidentally killing people. personally i prefer setting the bar pretty low, which means not killing pigs or human children nearing the end of gestation
-
@shmibs @Aether @Moon @cirnog @fluffy @vriska you missed my point. What determines the reasonable measure of intelligence and why can't we raise it arbitrarily high?
-
@shitfuckerpeople do that already, in killing and eating cows and pigs and chickens etci have personal sense of morality and behave according to it. in cases when other people feel differently, response here is according to the degree and also, can't deny, to personal attachment. so that when people are killing and eating pigs i might say something to try convincing them they shouldn't, but if people tried to kill and eat my nephew i would try to prevent it physically however possible, including being stabbed or shot or whateverand this sort of moral imperative is the only reason engage in a discussion like this about abortion with strangers, because making it illegal directly hurts people, through forced mothers being injured or not-quite mothers dying, but also through producing more cases of child abuse and neglect
-
@shmibs @Aether @Moon @cirnog @fluffy @vriska It's great that you have that preference, but what if somebody decides to enforce the standard but sets the bar right above your level of intelligence?
-
@shitfucker "should" is something each individual has an independent standard for, and each person does typically try to influence the standards of others. and without personal attachment there's not really any motivator. i like people being alive and so dislike their being killed. just cannot personally help being partial in that and liking my loved one being alive most of all / not wanting him killed most of all. admitting that partiality feels weird though, because social animal -> cheating is punished -> develop sense of guilt
-
@shmibs if personal attachment is valid here, then why bring intelligence into it at all? Maybe I really like a rock being in a spot; should I be able to violently defend the rock's position based on how I feel about it?
-
@shitfucker not a clear answer maybe though; "i don't like people dying" is the personal motivator and "intensity of conscious experience" the measuring stick for what counts as people. other people can and sometimes do have different personal motivators, but being the same species we at least tend to be similar, so it's useful to discuss them and share ideas
cirnog
バツ子（痛いの痛いの飛んでけ;;
Aether
All senooken JP Social content and data are available under the