Originally posted by FMFNot true. The long reply it would take to correct you citing chapter and verse is so long I will just ask you where you got your information that
That's interesting. However, correct me if I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that the God you talk about, approximately 1,400 years ago, indicated quite emphatically that he wanted the original traditions and beliefs of Abraham, Moses, Jesus (and other prophets) restored, and that Jews and Christians had distorted the revelations He had given to thes ...[text shortened]... other superstitions and belief systems, be exempt from the kind of punishment you mention?
"God...approximatley 1,400 years ago, indicated quite emphatically that he wanted the original traditions and beliefs of Abraham, Moses, Jesus(and other prophets) restored...". It wasn't from the Bible.
I hope you see this message. I didn't see yours till I went back looking for something.
Originally posted by rhemalogosThank you. However, it seems that we do not agree on the same definition of soul. Soul, as I believe in it, cannot exist without a brain - thus, certain stages of embryonic development do not have souls - at least as I define it.
Retrovirus, I am glad you believe that humans have souls. Can we stay on subject? The unborn baby in a mother's womb has a soul and the soul comes in union with the unborn at conception. Therefore, abortion is murder, the killing of an innocent human being.
Saying that all things go, in the name of art, is henious.
Saying that all things go, in the name of art, is henious
With that I agree.
Regarding my question - that is, the one about souls and non human life-forms : while it might seem to you some what "off topic" I assure you I am trying to make a point with it.
1 edit
Originally posted by rhemalogosYou seem to state these "axioms" (if I may call them that), and has yet didn't provide neither evidence nor reason for me to accept it.
[...] Does an unborn have a soul? Yes. Does ensoulment take place at birth? Yes.
Our senses, and our senses "extended" by technology, are unable to observe everthing. Science is limited.
[...]
Originally posted by rhemalogos
Does the soul exist apart from the body? We are getting off
subject.
and later on:
[...] The brain is only matter without the vitalizing union with the mind.
It seems to me that these two points are intertwined :
If the soul have no "parts" that exist outside of the body, then it must exist wholly in the brain, than it cannot exist without it - meaning that you cannot be ensouled (whatever that means) without it. If so, killing an embryo before it develops a functioning brain will not harm any "ensouled" being.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe article most definitely does say that memories are physical traces in the brain.
That's a fascinating article -- thanks. But I didn't see anything about physical traces in the brain. In fact the article seems to contradict the "memory 'trace' concept, some static, permanent, distinct storage form that each experience leaves in the organism" (Colville-Stewart 1975:402).
The brain is a complicated organ and should not be directly compared to a typical PC. Memories are not stored in distinct files as that is a highly inefficient method. A PC has a single processor (or a few more nowadays) whereas the brain is a massively parallel processing system. Similarly memories are stored not as a direct record but rather in terms of other memories and concepts. For example if you see a yellow triangle the brain will store the fact that you saw a yellow triangle by creating links to the concepts 'yellow' and 'triangle'.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadShow me where it says that, and that physical traces have been found, and you can rest your case. I interpret it differently: that memories are (re)generated by neural cliques, but there is no 'memory copy' stored in the brain. Rather, memories come into being according to circumstance and stimulus.
The article most definitely does say that memories are physical traces in the brain.
Presumably the concepts 'yellow' and 'triangle' must be stored somewhere?
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI seem to remember an experiment where parts of the brain were stimulated and specific memories were triggered. Perhaps this had something to do with the "split brain" experiments? I'll see if I can find something on the Net.
Show me where it says that, and that physical traces have been found, and you can rest your case. I interpret it differently: that memories are (re)generated by neural cliques, but there is no 'memory copy' stored in the brain. Rather, memories come into being according to circumstance and stimulus.
Presumably the concepts 'yellow' and 'triangle' must be stored somewhere?
Originally posted by no1marauderYou declare personhood to be an illusory concept. I simply disagree. I do agree that the concept of personhood is slippery and problematic. Nonetheless, I maintain it remains essential for making judgments about the morality of abortion.
One can't lose a right once they have it.
Since I already stated I don't agree with the personhood argument, you may "suspect" that I half-agree with you but you are wrong. "Personhood" is an illusionary concept.
You are committing the Fallacy of Composition as regards the word "viable". Is this instance, a "non-viable ...[text shortened]... an average human being to call it such. This is pointless in my view.
I also still claim that concept of viability doesn't do the job you want it to do. Viability has the advantage, when defined operationally in the way you define it, of clarity; but only at the cost of insufficiency. This is because merely happening to be inside someone else's body, or happening to be dependent on someone else's body, is not sufficient grounds in itself for lacking rights. If so, having rights would solely be a matter of an entity's causal relations or spatial position, and not a matter also of its developmental status. However, it is perfectly coherent to suppose that X could be causally dependent on Y, and that X could be inside Y, and still possess rights in virtue of its adequate developmental status.
For example, suppose that there were an alien species (perhaps on Krypton) in which, by 16 weeks, the fetus attain a high level of mental development, such that it could think and feel at the level of a human adult, despite still requiring a further six months to be born. It would be much more immoral, in my view, to kill such an alien fetus via abortion at 16 weeks than it would be to kill a regular human fetus via abortion at 16 weeks, despite the fact that both the alien and human fetuses are equally inside the mother, and equally dependent upon the mother for sustenance.
According to your viability criterion, there would be no moral difference in killing the alien and human fetuses. Do you really believe this? Don't you think that personhood (or mental sophistication if you prefer) matters just a bit?
1 edit
Originally posted by rhemalogosYou haven't processed the implications of this argument.
The animating principle causing the zygote to begin growing and assuming a life of its own, inside of mom, is the soul. We know this because of what the zygote eventuyally grows into. A human being with a soul, the soul continuing to be our animating force. The union of soul and body take place at conception.
Twins fighting over one soul? I don't belie ...[text shortened]... ving the skirmish considering what He has done so far with the spiritual and physical universe.
One zygote is ensouled at conception. This means that it has exactly one soul. Right?
Some zygotes then split into cells that eventually become two different human beings: monozygotic twins. Right?
Each of these human beings has a soul. By the hallowed laws of arithmetic, this make two souls altogether. Right?
So, at some point post-conception, the zygote/embyro/fetus/baby must go from having one soul to having two souls. Right?
So: how does this happen if single ensoulment only occurs at conception?
I can see two possibilities, both of which violate established conceptions of souls.
(a) the soul, like a bacterium reproducing asexually, also splits into two.
(b) the original zygote is ensouled with two souls, and knows in advance that twinning will occur.
But then:
(i) does the original zygotic soul die when it splits?
(ii) if you killed a single zygote, could more than one soul go back to heaven?
Answers on a postcard please!
4 edits
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeAs already stated:
You declare personhood to be an illusory concept. I simply disagree. I do agree that the concept of personhood is slippery and problematic. Nonetheless, I maintain it remains essential for making judgments about the morality of abortion.
I also still claim that concept of viability doesn't do the job you want it to do. Viability has the advantage, on't you think that personhood (or mental sophistication if you prefer) matters just a bit?
Natural Rights derive from the nature of reality in this universe, not from a hypothetical other universe.
Or a hypothetical fictional circumstance.
EDIT: However, playing your game, if the germs that caused bad breath were super intelligent, would it be "immoral" for you to use Listerine? Do you also think that if you leave your door unlocked, Stephen Hawking can move into your house and it would be "immoral" to evict him?
Originally posted by RetrovirusOk, I want to hear your point. You ask me "Are souls unique to humans?"...what are we talking about? What do you mean by soul?
Thank you. However, it seems that we do not agree on the same definition of soul. Soul, as I believe in it, cannot exist without a brain - thus, certain stages of embryonic development do not have souls - at least as I define it.
[b]Saying that all things go, in the name of art, is henious
With that I agree.
Regarding my question - that is, the ...[text shortened]... e it might seem to you some what "off topic" I assure you I am trying to make a point with it.[/b]
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeOne zygote exists and, yes, one soul...then dividing there are two zygotes...a second has been created by the division of the first...when is God unable to ensoul the second zygote as it is created instead of believing the two zygotes have to fight over one soul.
You haven't processed the implications of this argument.
One zygote is ensouled at conception. This means that it has exactly one soul. Right?
Some zygotes then split into cells that eventually become two different human beings: monozygotic twins. Right?
Each of these human beings has a soul. By the hallowed laws of arithmetic, this make two so ...[text shortened]... d a single zygote, could more than one soul go back to heaven?
Answers on a postcard please!
1 edit
Originally posted by rhemalogosWhich one is "created"? Do sperm/eggs not have souls as well seeing as they are human cells? How does the sperm/egg fusion "make" a soul? Are you sure you're not making it up as you go along?
One zygote exists and, yes, one soul...then dividing there are two zygotes...a second has been created by the division of the first...when is God unable to ensoul the second zygote as it is created instead of believing the two zygotes have to fight over one soul.
Originally posted by mrstabbyCome on mrstabby...you are much more capable than this...these questions aren't even worth responding to.
Which one is "created"? Do sperm/eggs not have souls as well seeing as they are human cells? How does the sperm/egg fusion "make" a soul? Are you sure you're not making it up as you go along?
1 edit
Originally posted by rhemalogosPsychic mitosis.
One zygote exists and, yes, one soul...then dividing there are two zygotes...a second has been created by the division of the first...when is God unable to ensoul the second zygote as it is created instead of believing the two zygotes have to fight over one soul.
Ever since the Singularity threw up the Universe, every little particle got soul.