Wrong/Right (98)
felixis99: maybe. I am not planning any research, thank you. I find these types of suggestions for others to be a bit presumptive (as though I need a recommendation) Thanks for the suggestion though. Perhaps I would suggest that there are more important topical matters that could occupy ones time and mind? lol
It is not conciousness unless someone realizes it. Whether it exists within or outside of our minds doesn;t really matter to me. Once again, we are off topic here (first warning)
It is not conciousness unless someone realizes it. Whether it exists within or outside of our minds doesn;t really matter to me. Once again, we are off topic here (first warning)
You are right, these kind of discussions are more suited to the religion and philosophy forum, which I must admit interest me more than most.
It has more to do with learning, something we never stop doing...well most of us...
------ This thread is Archived ------
felixis99: again it looks like you might be happier in the religious forums, sugar.
This discourse looks more like the pot calling the kettle black to me.....with comments meant to demean. I would suggest addressing further responses elsewhere. You and I simply are not going to agree....at least I am not going to agree with much of anything you have said and I do not wish to debate. Thank you.
I am tempted to ignore or ban you but I resist that path. Though, so as not to be rude, I will take this moment to explain my suggestion that you address your comments to others, and possible find another thread. I am not sure why you continue to be attracted to mine.
Perhaps someone else will comment and discuss with you.
This discourse looks more like the pot calling the kettle black to me.....with comments meant to demean. I would suggest addressing further responses elsewhere. You and I simply are not going to agree....at least I am not going to agree with much of anything you have said and I do not wish to debate. Thank you.
I am tempted to ignore or ban you but I resist that path. Though, so as not to be rude, I will take this moment to explain my suggestion that you address your comments to others, and possible find another thread. I am not sure why you continue to be attracted to mine.
Perhaps someone else will comment and discuss with you.
Actually, I was attracted to the debate of right/wrong of the thread, since it it titled as such. Nothing having to do with you personally, though you've chosen several times to make it personal complete with threats to ban, now standing at four times.
Logically, any debate about right/wrong would include it's origins and practices as well as the human condition. It appears in retrospect that the thread is more about others re-affirming your situational ideals rather than a broader scope of right//wrong.
I thought early on that the thread would only succeed where others agree with you and it seems such is the case, since you reprimand, reproach and personalize those whose commentary doesn't suit your own ideals. However, it is 'your' thread and you may control it as you wish.
------ This thread is Archived ------
In response to: Do think we always have a choice? Has there been a time when you did do the right thing because you felt you did not have a choice? Is that excusable?
Of course it's too close to Christmas for remorse to make any difference.
I'm still getting that lump of coal
but it will look pretty under the tree
------ This thread is Archived ------
felixis99: maybe. I am not planning any research, thank you. I find these types of suggestions for others to be a bit presumptive (as though I need a recommendation) Thanks for the suggestion though. Perhaps I would suggest that there are more important topical matters that could occupy ones time and mind? lol
It is not conciousness unless someone realizes it. Whether it exists within or outside of our minds doesn;t really matter to me. Once again, we are off topic here (first warning)
It is not conciousness unless someone realizes it. Whether it exists within or outside of our minds doesn;t really matter to me. Once again, we are off topic here (first warning)
hiya felix
interesting thread...thankyou
right <------->wrong....choices....
determinism aside (if that's even possible....
)in a discussion regarding 'right' and 'wrong', and choices we perceive we have made...my belief in what is right or wrong continually changes as i change. so 'right' and 'wrong' become kind of 'iffy'...
we assign these values based on the information we have at the time, and when the information we have used to form this opinion changes, then sometimes...so does our verdict based on the new information we have.
i do think when one tells themselves they are 'right' (or even 'wrong' for that matter...) that they have begun striving for themselves and ceased striving for the truth. that they have cut themselves off from opportunities that may present themselves.
and it's for this reason that i try to take the 'right' and 'wrong' judgements out of the equation, and try to place my thoughts on acceptance rather than judgements. acceptance doesn't necessarily mean i like it...i just try to accept what is and go from there. i do ask myself...during the decision making process, 'does this make me feel lighter or heavier'...
responding to your comment, "it is not consciousness until someone realizes it"
a) when you turn your radio off...does the station close?
b) bit of a wave / particle discussion me thinks...
again, thanks for the thread...it's nice to see thought provoking conversations in the forums again...
------ This thread is Archived ------
Testing the waters......
------ This thread is Archived ------
BB_snickers: There are several articles online. Problematic in reconciling with science is that determinism is mostly considered a philosophy despite factual scientific proof. I suspect that this is because of the nature of morals being questioned. Realistically however one has to accept that things will happen deterministically regardless of any moral objection to the contrary.
One of several. -
… Especially since thoughts are derived from and after any occurrence. That .03 seconds of lagging awareness speaks volumes.
How much of our own bodies is actually doing what it does without our observation, much less our intervention to point things like cellular change in the direction we'd prefer? How much time in personal awareness is lacking there? Considerably more than .03 seconds.
One of several. -
… Especially since thoughts are derived from and after any occurrence. That .03 seconds of lagging awareness speaks volumes.
How much of our own bodies is actually doing what it does without our observation, much less our intervention to point things like cellular change in the direction we'd prefer? How much time in personal awareness is lacking there? Considerably more than .03 seconds.
I do acknowledge that Free Will is a philosophical way to see how we make decisions and for Determinism the scientific evidences are not totally convincing.
The 3/100 sec proof… is it enough to prove determinism?
What about the margin of error?
Has the above experiments being proved on other species besides humans?
There was a time in earth that were not humans and the universe did exist and the earth was going around and the moon was shining..the universe can go on with out human life.
Isn’t the 3/100 sec human brain action before human body action an evidence for determinism oan anthropocentric point of view, egocentric perhaps.
BB_snickers: …
Species without brains are part of life. Air particles blowing in the wind for example. One could debate consciousness of almost anything and that would indeed be philosophic. Does consciousness require a brain? I don't think so, but again a philosophic debate.
I'm sure you've heard of the butterfly principle. Being part of the design is really no different than our own place in life. With our brain we can find ways to subvert natural phenomenon but that doesn't make any less part of the design. Then comes the question in determinism "are our thoughts really our own?"
.....
How the overall life design works would take more posts and longer posts than I usually do. Essentially it all relies on the play of dimensional polarity in time space with space time. Once again theory, philosophy only…..
BB_snickers: ….Technically there is no start or end, big bangs or otherwise. Trying to root that sort of ideology in infinity is endless. . One can root such things in one's relative perspective (on earth) and we do in order to 'move about' in spacial ways by attributing ends and starts to events but that becomes a localized behavior which is neither universal nor individualistic..
Determinism need not necessarily be imprinted on the entire universe. Because it is here on this planet, doesn't equate to everywhere.
Yes, octopi are subject to the same terms I suspect, as are atoms and all other particles, though an octopus is a conglomeration of unified particles, cells, chemistry etc. all conspiring to present the nature of an octopus.
Determinism need not necessarily be imprinted on the entire universe. Because it is here on this planet, doesn't equate to everywhere.
Yes, octopi are subject to the same terms I suspect, as are atoms and all other particles, though an octopus is a conglomeration of unified particles, cells, chemistry etc. all conspiring to present the nature of an octopus.
Species without brains are part of life. Air particles blowing in the wind for example. One could debate consciousness of almost anything and that would indeed be philosophic. Does consciousness require a brain? I don't think so, but again a philosophic debate.
I'm sure you've heard of the butterfly principle. Being part of the design is really no different than our own place in life. With our brain we can find ways to subvert natural phenomenon but that doesn't make any less part of the design. Then comes the question in determinism "are our thoughts really our own?"
.....
How the overall life design works would take more posts and longer posts than I usually do. Essentially it all relies on the play of dimensional polarity in time space with space time. Once again theory, philosophy only…..
As a teenager I do remember reading Zaratustra (Spanish) and I believed he had a mix of the both: there is a path (determinism yet I did not have concept of it, perhaps neither do I now) but the choices we make have to come from somewhere inside ourselves and I liked that approach and still do.
A computer has its hardware and its software but with some programs it can behave erratically.
Does the computer choose to behave erratically?
"are our thoughts really our own?"
and the scientific proof for determinism is not strong enough to me and I do understand the Free Will concept as a philosophical one.
------ This thread is Archived ------
jono7: hiya felix
interesting thread...thankyou
right <------->wrong....choices....
determinism aside (if that's even possible.... )
in a discussion regarding 'right' and 'wrong', and choices we perceive we have made...my belief in what is right or wrong continually changes as i change. so 'right' and 'wrong' become kind of 'iffy'...
we assign these values based on the information we have at the time, and when the information we have used to form this opinion changes, then sometimes...so does our verdict based on the new information we have.
i do think when one tells themselves they are 'right' (or even 'wrong' for that matter...) that they have begun striving for themselves and ceased striving for the truth. that they have cut themselves off from opportunities that may present themselves.
and it's for this reason that i try to take the 'right' and 'wrong' judgements out of the equation, and try to place my thoughts on acceptance rather than judgements. acceptance doesn't necessarily mean i like it...i just try to accept what is and go from there. i do ask myself...during the decision making process, 'does this make me feel lighter or heavier'...
responding to your comment, "it is not consciousness until someone realizes it"
a) when you turn your radio off...does the station close?
b) bit of a wave / particle discussion me thinks...
again, thanks for the thread...it's nice to see thought provoking conversations in the forums again...
interesting thread...thankyou
right <------->wrong....choices....
determinism aside (if that's even possible.... )
in a discussion regarding 'right' and 'wrong', and choices we perceive we have made...my belief in what is right or wrong continually changes as i change. so 'right' and 'wrong' become kind of 'iffy'...
we assign these values based on the information we have at the time, and when the information we have used to form this opinion changes, then sometimes...so does our verdict based on the new information we have.
i do think when one tells themselves they are 'right' (or even 'wrong' for that matter...) that they have begun striving for themselves and ceased striving for the truth. that they have cut themselves off from opportunities that may present themselves.
and it's for this reason that i try to take the 'right' and 'wrong' judgements out of the equation, and try to place my thoughts on acceptance rather than judgements. acceptance doesn't necessarily mean i like it...i just try to accept what is and go from there. i do ask myself...during the decision making process, 'does this make me feel lighter or heavier'...
responding to your comment, "it is not consciousness until someone realizes it"
a) when you turn your radio off...does the station close?
b) bit of a wave / particle discussion me thinks...
again, thanks for the thread...it's nice to see thought provoking conversations in the forums again...
thank you. I don't see the radio station as a parallel. The radio station does not have conciousness, only the listeners (who do not need it to be concious). but yes, the topic is choices not conciousness.
I do agree that right/wrong only explains some choices. I think I mentioned somewhere else that I view the choices more as a continuum of best to least adequate choice of what is available in the circumstances....even to the point where sometimes there really is not a choice that will provide a solution..only the best choice that can be made in the circumstances. Were that we always had the means and circumstances to make the best choices (whatever those might be) to provide our solutions, promote our growth, increase our happiness. Alas, sometimes a choice is as simple as what must I do to survive. Then, wrong and right have far less import, jmho
------ This thread is Archived ------
lifeisadream: I do acknowledge that Free Will is a philosophical way to see how we make decisions and for Determinism the scientific evidences are not totally convincing.
The 3/100 sec proof… is it enough to prove determinism?
The 3/100 sec proof… is it enough to prove determinism?
Me thinks it is more than adequate. Free will would require an exact in the moment ability to choose. When you can only become aware of what you are doing 'after the fact' the proof is consistent with not in the moment of choosing.
We are merely observers in this case. If one understands the play between space/time and time/space there are ways to 'create' your life as you wish. A connection with higher self is required to get ahead of the curve.
lifeisadream: What about the margin of error?
Has the above experiments being proved on other species besides humans?
Has the above experiments being proved on other species besides humans?
There is no error. The margin, or time differential serves creation. The 0.03 second lapse is not the only finding of scientists. There is a full 8 second lapse in brain activity and awareness of it when it comes to things like epiphanies. Determinism and hence life, works entirely because of those lapses.
Yes the universe can go on without human life. Consciousness is essentially analogous with a wireless connection with all that is. An analogy would be sending a wireless signal to another receiver across country. Depending on the environmental conditions (air quality, interference etc), it would take say 0.03 seconds for that signal to arrive at it's destination. Sound waves, particle waves do not instantly arrive, though consciousness is much quicker than electrically patterned connections.
lifeisadream:
Isn’t the 3/100 sec human brain action before human body action an evidence for determinism oan anthropocentric point of view, egocentric perhaps.
Isn’t the 3/100 sec human brain action before human body action an evidence for determinism oan anthropocentric point of view, egocentric perhaps.
In the sense that humans observe their own consciousness yes I guess it could be construed that way. That humans believe their consciousness to be separate unconnected from others would further support your assertion. A knowledge and practice of one's connection with 'all things', helps to offset the egotistical self with an awareness of collective oneness. The purpose of meditation and strengthened awareness. (which goes beyond simple knowledge)
lifeisadream:
As a teenager I do remember reading Zaratustra (Spanish) and I believed he had a mix of the both: there is a path ...choices we make have to come from somewhere inside ourselves and I liked that approach and still do.
As a teenager I do remember reading Zaratustra (Spanish) and I believed he had a mix of the both: there is a path ...choices we make have to come from somewhere inside ourselves and I liked that approach and still do.
As difficult as it is in these inadequate bodies and lowlife brains, it is indeed possible to master determinism, though awareness of how to affect creation and be totally aware of every molecule in creation of one's will is a task that humans could never fully control.
lifeisadream:
A computer has its hardware and its software but with some programs it can behave erratically.
Does the computer choose to behave erratically?
A computer has its hardware and its software but with some programs it can behave erratically.
Does the computer choose to behave erratically?
I think if the programmer had been fully aware of the entirety of consequences, deterioration factors, etc, he could indeed avoid anything erratic. Again the problem in creating willfully is being totally aware of every possible action and interaction and every particle that comes into the same space of that creation. Not an easy task. In fact your computer analogy supports the lack of free will based on inability to be 'ahead' of and manage all consequences before they materialize.
lifeisadream:
and the scientific proof for determinism is not strong enough to me and I do understand the Free Will concept as a philosophical one.
and the scientific proof for determinism is not strong enough to me and I do understand the Free Will concept as a philosophical one.
I see it as a distraction or a supporter of the illusion that addresses the notions of right/wrong, up/down, love/hate and the rest of duality that give humans an observation of their path and hence an experience of life. The experience of life is far more valuable than the illusion of being right or wrong me thinks.
------ This thread is Archived ------
lifeisadream: I do acknowledge that Free Will is a philosophical way to see how we make decisions and for Determinism the scientific evidences are not totally convincing.
The 3/100 sec proof… is it enough to prove determinism?
The 3/100 sec proof… is it enough to prove determinism?
Me thinks it is more than adequate. Free will would require an exact in the moment ability to choose. When you can only become aware of what you are doing 'after the fact' the proof is consistent with not being in the moment of choosing.
We are merely observers in this case. If one understands the play between space/time and time/space there are ways to 'create' your life as you wish. A connection with higher self is required to get ahead of the curve.
lifeisadream: What about the margin of error?
Has the above experiments being proved on other species besides humans?
Has the above experiments being proved on other species besides humans?
There is no error. The margin, or time differential serves creation. The 0.03 second lapse is not the only finding of scientists. There is a full 8 second lapse in brain activity and awareness of it when it comes to things like epiphanies. Determinism and hence life, works entirely because of those lapses.
Yes the universe can go on without human life. Consciousness is essentially analogous with a wireless connection with all that is. An analogy would be sending a wireless signal to another receiver across country. Depending on the environmental conditions (air quality, interference etc), it would take say 0.03 seconds for that signal to arrive at it's destination. Sound waves, particle waves do not instantly arrive, though consciousness is much quicker than electrically patterned connections.
lifeisadream:
Isn’t the 3/100 sec human brain action before human body action an evidence for determinism oan anthropocentric point of view, egocentric perhaps.
Isn’t the 3/100 sec human brain action before human body action an evidence for determinism oan anthropocentric point of view, egocentric perhaps.
In the sense that humans observe their own consciousness yes I guess it could be construed that way. That humans believe their consciousness to be separate unconnected from others would further support your assertion. A knowledge and practice of one's connection with 'all things', helps to offset the egotistical self with an awareness of collective oneness. The purpose of meditation and strengthened awareness. (which goes beyond simple knowledge)
lifeisadream:
As a teenager I do remember reading Zaratustra (Spanish) and I believed he had a mix of the both: there is a path ...choices we make have to come from somewhere inside ourselves and I liked that approach and still do.
As a teenager I do remember reading Zaratustra (Spanish) and I believed he had a mix of the both: there is a path ...choices we make have to come from somewhere inside ourselves and I liked that approach and still do.
As difficult as it is in these inadequate bodies and lowlife brains, it is indeed possible to master determinism, though awareness of how to affect creation and be totally aware of every molecule in creation of one's will is a task that humans could never fully control.
lifeisadream:
A computer has its hardware and its software but with some programs it can behave erratically.
Does the computer choose to behave erratically?
A computer has its hardware and its software but with some programs it can behave erratically.
Does the computer choose to behave erratically?
I think if the programmer had been fully aware of the entirety of consequences, deterioration factors, etc, he could indeed avoid anything erratic. Again the problem in creating willfully is being totally aware of every possible action and interaction and every particle that comes into the same space of that creation. Not an easy task. In fact your computer analogy supports the lack of free will based on inability to be 'ahead' of and manage all consequences before they materialize.
lifeisadream:
and the scientific proof for determinism is not strong enough to me and I do understand the Free Will concept as a philosophical one.
and the scientific proof for determinism is not strong enough to me and I do understand the Free Will concept as a philosophical one.
I see it as a distraction or a supporter of the illusion that addresses the notions of right/wrong, up/down, love/hate and the rest of duality that give humans an observation of their path and hence an experience of life. The experience of life is far more valuable than the illusion of being right or wrong me thinks.
------ This thread is Archived ------
felixis99: Do think we always have a choice? Has there been a time when you did do the right thing because you felt you did not have a choice? Is that excusable?
Doing the right thing is the only choice with no excuse.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Well....for right or wrong...we all create our own world by our thoughts, actions & deeds.
Yes..as thinking adults, we have choices.
Yes..as thinking adults, we have choices.
------ This thread is Archived ------
BB_snickers: Good luck!
Thank you!
BB_snickers: Me thinks it is more than adequate. Free will would require an exact in the moment ability to choose. When you can only become aware of what you are doing 'after the fact' the proof is consistent with not in the moment of choosing.
We are merely observers in this case. If one understands the play between space/time and time/space there are ways to 'create' your life as you wish. A connection with higher self is required to get ahead of the curve..
We are merely observers in this case. If one understands the play between space/time and time/space there are ways to 'create' your life as you wish. A connection with higher self is required to get ahead of the curve..
What if we are going backwards instead of forward?
How people/scientists now which direction in time we are going?
Or there is not direction
BB_snickers:
There is no error. The margin, or time differential serves creation. The 0.03 second lapse is not the only finding of scientists. There is a full 8 second lapse in brain activity and awareness of it when it comes to things like epiphanies. Determinism and hence life, works entirely because of those lapses.
Yes the universe can go on without human life. Consciousness is essentially analogous with a wireless connection with all that is. An analogy would be sending a wireless signal to another receiver across country. Depending on the environmental conditions (air quality, interference etc), it would take say 0.03 seconds for that signal to arrive at it's destination. Sound waves, particle waves do not instantly arrive, though consciousness is much quicker than electrically patterned connections.
There is no error. The margin, or time differential serves creation. The 0.03 second lapse is not the only finding of scientists. There is a full 8 second lapse in brain activity and awareness of it when it comes to things like epiphanies. Determinism and hence life, works entirely because of those lapses.
Yes the universe can go on without human life. Consciousness is essentially analogous with a wireless connection with all that is. An analogy would be sending a wireless signal to another receiver across country. Depending on the environmental conditions (air quality, interference etc), it would take say 0.03 seconds for that signal to arrive at it's destination. Sound waves, particle waves do not instantly arrive, though consciousness is much quicker than electrically patterned connections.
Of course, there is an error in every scientific experiment, either you use parametric or nonparametric tools (there must other as well) and the size of the error will allow to take the scientific results as valid or not, under certain probability of repeating the same experiment with the same results.
8 seconds lapse?
Are all of these experiments being proved in only humans (sorry I do not remember if you have said already the answer)?
------ This thread is Archived ------
lifeisadream: Thank you!
What if we are going backwards instead of forward?
How people/scientists now which direction in time we are going?
Or there is not directionOf course, there is an error in every scientific experiment, either you use parametric or nonparametric tools (there must other as well) and the size of the error will allow to take the scientific results as valid or not, under certain probability of repeating the same experiment with the same results.
8 seconds lapse?
Are all of these experiments being proved in only humans (sorry I do not remember if you have said already the answer)?
What if we are going backwards instead of forward?
How people/scientists now which direction in time we are going?
Or there is not directionOf course, there is an error in every scientific experiment, either you use parametric or nonparametric tools (there must other as well) and the size of the error will allow to take the scientific results as valid or not, under certain probability of repeating the same experiment with the same results.
8 seconds lapse?
Are all of these experiments being proved in only humans (sorry I do not remember if you have said already the answer)?
I would think that such experiments can only be done on species with the ability to be aware or observe. I know of no other experiments on other species but it would be interesting .. and since the discussion is about free will in order to make right or wrong choices I'm not sure it would even apply to other species in this paradigm.
The idea of backwards forwards is debatable I guess. It's that .03 seconds that actually provides the illusion of time. We think it's 'now' but it's really the past in observation.
My vote, timewise would be forward not backward but the possibility exists that life is a constant do over or repetition. That makes it debateable.
In context of the universe in infinity, there is no real direction. When you look up, someone on the other side of the planet is looking in the opposite direction. Is that down? Up for you, west for you, when it is down for another or east for another. Relative perspective.
The same applies to right/wrong, even if there are some generally accepted rights and wrongs in humanity, there's room for judgement in personal perspective.
------ This thread is Archived ------
bodleing2: You are right, these kind of discussions are more suited to the religion and philosophy forum, which I must admit interest me more than most.
It has more to do with learning, something we never stop doing...well most of us...
It has more to do with learning, something we never stop doing...well most of us...
eh, we all get off topic now and then. I am picking on you a little.
Some of the topics in religion are interesting, but I started this thread wondering if others ever experienced times we felt we had to make a choice but there really was not a choice (they liked) so either no choice was made or we chose the friendliest devil...lol
I am in the state of the former. I love my job but I prefer to move back home....a real quandry so my choice has been to do nothing at this point.
------ This thread is Archived ------
BB_snickers: I would think that such experiments can only be done on species with the ability to be aware or observe. I know of no other experiments on other species but it would be interesting .. and since the discussion is about free will in order to make right or wrong choices I'm not sure it would even apply to other species in this paradigm…..
Other species make decisions and looking at them closer it is amazing how other animals function.
How can octopi be able to liberate themselves from a cage?
How can a dog sit for days and month aside the tomb of their owner?
How can a butterfly travel 1000’s of kilometers with out GPS and get to the same place every year back and forward? And it is not the same butterfly it is their greatchildren-buterfly.
My bet is that this guys-animales have a shorter time lapse between their “brain” function and their action
BB_snickers: ….
The idea of backwards forwards is debatable I guess. It's that .03 seconds that actually provides the illusion of time. We think it's 'now' but it's really the past in observation.
My vote, timewise would be forward not backward but the possibility exists that life is a constant do over or repetition. That makes it debateable.
In context of the universe in infinity, there is no real direction. When you look up, someone on the other side of the planet is looking in the opposite direction. Is that down? Up for you, west for you, when it is down for another or east for another. Relative perspective..
The idea of backwards forwards is debatable I guess. It's that .03 seconds that actually provides the illusion of time. We think it's 'now' but it's really the past in observation.
My vote, timewise would be forward not backward but the possibility exists that life is a constant do over or repetition. That makes it debateable.
In context of the universe in infinity, there is no real direction. When you look up, someone on the other side of the planet is looking in the opposite direction. Is that down? Up for you, west for you, when it is down for another or east for another. Relative perspective..
Or there is not time.
BB_snickers:
The same applies to right/wrong, even if there are some generally accepted rights and wrongs in humanity, there's room for judgement in personal perspective.
The same applies to right/wrong, even if there are some generally accepted rights and wrongs in humanity, there's room for judgement in personal perspective.
Of course, defying right/wrong depends on many factors yet I like to consider that at times:
Both sides can be right
Both sides can be wrong
Both sides can be neither right nor wrong.
There can be a third (or more) angle, side....
------ This thread is Archived ------
BB_snickers: I think that you are right. The same way that genetics replicate bodies, memetics replicate consciousness. Both are affected by environmental and social constructs so that the any decision about right or wrong is arrived at by popular or majority choice..
Not idea how it woks but I will read some about it.
Thanks!
BB_snickers:
I think that other species are not saddled with moral choices, much less the consciousness to make choices. Are they self aware? To some degree I suspect. Even that does not happen to humans until they are about 5-7 years old. Does it happen to other species.
Technically we are synthetic bodies. Along with all the other mazing things in nature, we too are a process of combined cellular structures. Compared to possible 'machine' structures there could be debate on which was the preferred structure.
I think that other species are not saddled with moral choices, much less the consciousness to make choices. Are they self aware? To some degree I suspect. Even that does not happen to humans until they are about 5-7 years old. Does it happen to other species.
Technically we are synthetic bodies. Along with all the other mazing things in nature, we too are a process of combined cellular structures. Compared to possible 'machine' structures there could be debate on which was the preferred structure.
Synthetic bodies???
Not quite.
We are made as a natural random process, synthetic bodies are made to order, kind of.
Any way, it has been fun and we are at the same point, still.
------ This thread is Archived ------
animals behave (choose) based on instinct and learned behavior called classical conditioning. I am sure we do not completely understand the depth of their sensory capabilities (looking at dogs tracking owners or species migration and nesting behavior) but it is instinct. The further we move from relying on our sensory capabilities the less we understand them...also true in animals. A well fed feline will refuse to hunt.
your dog is loyal because you feed him, I wouldn't look for more than that in it
I am sure you may want to disagree but before doing so please recall this thread is concerning human choices. I am at a crossroads of choosing whether to let the people hijacking my thread go ahead and do so....or ban them and risk having the thread die
well, carry on. I've always liked pirates :)
your dog is loyal because you feed him, I wouldn't look for more than that in it
I am sure you may want to disagree but before doing so please recall this thread is concerning human choices. I am at a crossroads of choosing whether to let the people hijacking my thread go ahead and do so....or ban them and risk having the thread die
well, carry on. I've always liked pirates :)
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
biggest lie
s*xual skills
Why is this shameful?
your favorite topic?
Kultur-multur
The weird and the random facts around the world
Have it both ways!
Ladies
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
maybe. I am not planning any research, thank you. I find these types of suggestions for others to be a bit presumptive (as though I need a recommendation) Thanks for the suggestion though. Perhaps I would suggest that there are more important topical matters that could occupy ones time and mind? lol
It is not conciousness unless someone realizes it. Whether it exists within or outside of our minds doesn;t really matter to me. Once again, we are off topic here (first warning)