Quote:
Exceptions which prove the rule.
Common misquote. It's supposed to be "the exception that tests the rule."
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Vermont Legislature Legalizes Gay Marriage
Vermont Legislature Legalizes Gay MarriageFollow
Common misquote. It's supposed to be "the exception that tests the rule."
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Nope, sorry, there are no all or nothings in biology. The human genetic code is not black and white; it is not even analogous to binary code because it's in base 4 instead of base 2.
And we're talking about biology, while you're talking about philosophy. The latter is subordinate to the former when it comes to determining free will. You may think you're making a choice from a range of options, but your choice is heavily influenced by biological conditions. Humans do have the unique capability of overriding these instincts sometimes, but you can't always ignore them.
Biology says: I'm hungry.
Free will says: I can eat now or later, as I have food available.
Ovveride of biology (the unique human function) says: It is not lunch time. I will eat later, despite being hungry now.
Not eating is not an option, because then you die. Your free will is heavily influenced by what your bio functions are telling you. You can defer it for a bit, and override it, but it's still affecting your decisions whether you want it to or not.
And we're talking about biology, while you're talking about philosophy. The latter is subordinate to the former when it comes to determining free will. You may think you're making a choice from a range of options, but your choice is heavily influenced by biological conditions. Humans do have the unique capability of overriding these instincts sometimes, but you can't always ignore them.
Biology says: I'm hungry.
Free will says: I can eat now or later, as I have food available.
Ovveride of biology (the unique human function) says: It is not lunch time. I will eat later, despite being hungry now.
Not eating is not an option, because then you die. Your free will is heavily influenced by what your bio functions are telling you. You can defer it for a bit, and override it, but it's still affecting your decisions whether you want it to or not.
Quote:
The latter is subordinate to the former when it comes to determining free will. You may think you're making a choice from a range of options, but your choice is heavily influenced by biological conditions.
Which is exactly why compatibilism exists.
Oh right I missed this
Quote:
There's no credible argument that things a child does from the moment it leaves the womb
Children born out of the womb aren't humans yet. They may be biologically, but they aren't human in any meaningful sense of the word.
Edited, Apr 20th 2009 12:29am by Pensive
Samira wrote:
Common misquote.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Rules can't have exceptions in philosophy. Something is universal or it's not. End of story.
Quote:
they aren't human in any meaningful sense of the word.
Except for, you know, being human beings. Yeah.
Edited, Apr 19th 2009 11:53pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
Except for, you know, being human beings. Yeah.
Biologically yes, but they aren't -human-
They don't have the transcendental qualities that are required of them to be humans yet. Then, when they mature, they are granted human-ship at some point in their lives
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
philosophy of mind
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Biologically yes, but they aren't -human-
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#410REDACTED,
Posted: Apr 19 2009 at 9:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I don't recall stating that. Perhaps I expressed myself unclearly. I'm far more likely to have stated that none of those behaviors are in fact, innate in infants; in fact i'm pretty sure that's what I did.
Can you guys stop being ******* so we can get back to the subject of ********
the man makes a good point...
sometimes it's sad how liberal this board is that we have to have huge debates about the tiniest of issues in policy
i'll hear your rebuttal and then its back to ****** time kay?
Or not, pick one, but I'll give up the last word.
Edited, Apr 20th 2009 2:06am by Pensive
sometimes it's sad how liberal this board is that we have to have huge debates about the tiniest of issues in policy
i'll hear your rebuttal and then its back to ****** time kay?
Or not, pick one, but I'll give up the last word.
Edited, Apr 20th 2009 2:06am by Pensive
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
You call them humans for psychological reasons and for moral reasons, but their ontological status simply is not human at all.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I think you hold philosophy too highly Pensive, especially the most abstracted and removed of philosophies.
Quote:
I think you hold philosophy too highly Pensive, especially the most abstracted and removed of philosophies.
Like math and logic right? Or ethics?
Politics? Linguistic analysis?
I'll gladly hold those in an extremely high regard.
Edited, Apr 20th 2009 2:47am by Pensive
If babies aren't humans, your definition of human is false. QED.
No, that's the internet. Hi, you must be new here.
Quote:
the man makes a good point...
sometimes it's sad how liberal this board is that we have to have huge debates about the tiniest of issues in policy
sometimes it's sad how liberal this board is that we have to have huge debates about the tiniest of issues in policy
No, that's the internet. Hi, you must be new here.
Why would you even consider a day old infant to be considered as a person?
Moral, psychological, and legal obligations, not ontological ones. To be a human one must have the proper type of experience that is shared amongst us all; this is a necessary and vital condition. Babies don't perceive things in the same way; I'm not talking about how you look at red and see a slightly darker shade than I do, or looking at a lamp from various angles; there is an absolutely insurmountable gap in the experience of a creature without language compared to a creature with one. Language is only one feature of many that disqualify an infant from being a human.
Moral, psychological, and legal obligations, not ontological ones. To be a human one must have the proper type of experience that is shared amongst us all; this is a necessary and vital condition. Babies don't perceive things in the same way; I'm not talking about how you look at red and see a slightly darker shade than I do, or looking at a lamp from various angles; there is an absolutely insurmountable gap in the experience of a creature without language compared to a creature with one. Language is only one feature of many that disqualify an infant from being a human.
Jophiel wrote:
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
[quote]Not innate to humans then, by definition. Perhaps innate to a preponderantly large amount of people, but not to humans.
No, no, no, no.
Breathing is an innate reflex to all humans. When it stops due to SIDS, or any other reason, that's not an exception, or even a test to the rule. It is the system breaking down. It's the innate, inherent nature of a human body NOT working as intended.
Breathing is the only section of the nervous system that is also under immediate conscious control. We can take over our own breathing patterns in a way that we can't do with our heart beat, digestion, blood circulation, pupil dilation, sweating, etc.
Allegory wrote:
I think you hold philosophy too highly Pensive, especially the most abstracted and removed of philosophies.
Take a deep calming breath Pensive. You know I love you as a friend, and what I'm about to say doesn't change that. It is said with great affection.
I think he just gets savagely monofocussed. And needs a broader general education. And expresses himself arrogantly or hostilely sometimes, when it's not appropriate.
I think Pensive's "Infants aren't human" is not only one of the best Straw Men ever produced on this forum, but if it doesn't follow him around like Brown Duck's old "Homosexuality is Unnatural" then there is no justice.
Well I'm not going to get anxious over something when I'm completely right about it; I just obviously have not made my frame of reference clear enough, which is, of course, my fault.
"human" has plenty of definitions. The one most commonly known to me excludes infants from it; it excludes any entity without the capacity of perception and understanding. This should not be difficult to understand. A "human" has a very specific type of existence. It is a spatio-temporal existence for starters, and it is also an existence in which the human projects reality onto the world in such a way as to create patterns and purpose. It's an existence that you have to gain.
You can never know what it is like to be a bat (ie. Nagel)
The exact same is true for infants. Their phenomenal um.. world is simply so different from mine or yours that to classify them as the same type of existence would be foolish.
In biology? Sure, call it whatever you want to; I didn't realize the context of the argument was biological. Was it? I'll go read it again.
I've always thought that you were far too pragmatic myself. It's to be expected.
In any case you can't just dive into the world of noumena and expect to come out with knowledge. You need procedure, method, epistemic grounding, and philosophy does all of those things. It enables other disciplines to function at all.
"human" has plenty of definitions. The one most commonly known to me excludes infants from it; it excludes any entity without the capacity of perception and understanding. This should not be difficult to understand. A "human" has a very specific type of existence. It is a spatio-temporal existence for starters, and it is also an existence in which the human projects reality onto the world in such a way as to create patterns and purpose. It's an existence that you have to gain.
You can never know what it is like to be a bat (ie. Nagel)
The exact same is true for infants. Their phenomenal um.. world is simply so different from mine or yours that to classify them as the same type of existence would be foolish.
In biology? Sure, call it whatever you want to; I didn't realize the context of the argument was biological. Was it? I'll go read it again.
Quote:
I think you hold philosophy too highly Pensive, especially the most abstracted and removed of philosophies.
I've always thought that you were far too pragmatic myself. It's to be expected.
In any case you can't just dive into the world of noumena and expect to come out with knowledge. You need procedure, method, epistemic grounding, and philosophy does all of those things. It enables other disciplines to function at all.
Upon a third reading of page 8, I conclude that not only was there no established context for the discussion, but that psychological (bsphil), transcendental (myself), biological(catwho), and even ethical (gbaji, jophiel, and varrus) contexts were all being conflated and misunderstood.
If this is not the case will someone explain where the context was clearly established?
If it is correct will someone explain why only the transcendental position is regarded as a pariah?
***
I think Pensive's "Infants aren't human" is not only one of the best Straw Men ever produced on this forum, but if it doesn't follow him around like Brown Duck's old "Homosexuality is Unnatural" then there is no justice.
Were you here when not leaving marks meant it wasn't rape?
Edited, Apr 20th 2009 7:23am by Pensive
If this is not the case will someone explain where the context was clearly established?
If it is correct will someone explain why only the transcendental position is regarded as a pariah?
***
Quote:
I think Pensive's "Infants aren't human" is not only one of the best Straw Men ever produced on this forum, but if it doesn't follow him around like Brown Duck's old "Homosexuality is Unnatural" then there is no justice.
Were you here when not leaving marks meant it wasn't rape?
Edited, Apr 20th 2009 7:23am by Pensive
Still means that.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Pensive wrote:
It's like comparing the experience of a housefly to that of a rottweiler. You can't meaningfully say anything about them.
This might have a tiny bit of merit if houseflies "at some point" became rottweilers in the normal course of things.
You haven't spent a lot of time around different infants, have you? They have personalities; what's more, by the time they have the words to express them, they have strong opinions. You might not see it; but that does not mean it isn't true.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
You haven't spent a lot of time around different infants, have you? They have personalities; what's more, by the time they have the words to express them, they have strong opinions. You might not see it; but that does not mean it isn't true.
Suppose we should clarify what an infant is, but I'm not sure how to begin.
Regardless
I'm not disputing that infants have personalities and strong opinions; merely asserting that the model of their minds are inconceivable to us at at least some point in time before they develop into a human.
I don't know where the line is; it seems just as foolish to place it at birth as at conception though.
***
I would rather like it if someone answered my question however. I was not aware that everyone was speaking in an entirely biological context.
Edited, Apr 20th 2009 8:12am by Pensive
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Why would you even consider a day old infant to be considered as a person?
Quote:
Babies don't perceive things in the same way; I'm not talking about how you look at red and see a slightly darker shade than I do, or looking at a lamp from various angles; there is an absolutely insurmountable gap in the experience of a creature without language compared to a creature with one.
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
"human" has plenty of definitions. The one most commonly known to me excludes infants from it
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Quote:
This doesn't mean that infants aren't human, it means that humans start with a different, and evolving, perception of their world.
but when humans are defined entirely by their consciousnesses (which they are; if you reduce experience down to it's components) the content and structure of that consciousness is extremely relevant when holding infants in accord as human or not
Recent Visitors: 298
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (298)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Vermont Legislature Legalizes Gay Marriage
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC