|
Marc Clifton wrote: Combining algae DNA with nerve cells is just so effin wrong.
Why? It's all the same stuff.
You know that bananas share 55% of our DNA, don't you? And the percentage is only that low because they ain't got room for the other 45%.
Life on Earth is just one thing. All the "huge differences" between creatures/plants/etc. are pretty much cosmetic.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: All the "huge differences" between creatures/plants/etc. are pretty much cosmetic.
Well, that's one way of looking at things and is definitely useful at times. Other times though, I feel it's important to look at the differences and uniqueness and recognize that we are screwing around with things that are highly unnatural. Chalk it up to my perspective on life resulting from my particular spiritual beliefs.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: that we are screwing around with things that are highly unnatural.
Just curious exactly what part of your keyboard, monitor and computer is "natural"?
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Just curious exactly what part of your keyboard, monitor and computer is "natural"?
That's an absurd analogy which indicates to me that it's probably a waste of time to even answer. But here goes -- what does my keyboard, monitor and computer have to do with using a virus to inject DNA into nerve cells to change the behavior of the neuron?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: That's an absurd analogy
You said "that we are screwing around with things that are highly unnatural."
Which is exactly what I quoted. Computers are not natural. Nor is the human interface to them.
Consequently by your statement the very act of responding on this board is "unnatural".
Which was in fact my point.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Life on Earth is just one thing.
Speak for yourself. I'm no banana. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, bananas are quite big.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: All the "huge differences" between creatures/plants/etc. are pretty much cosmetic.
The brain, emotions, choice, are those just cosmetic? Or are you saying the human brain and emotions and choice are the same in all plants, creatures, etc?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
We don't currently have any way to tell whether plants and animals have what we would recognise as "emotions", or whether they have anything similar to our illusion of choice / free-will.
For the more complex animals, it would be pretty surprising if they didn't.
Of course, that would make what we've been doing to them over the millennia quite horrific.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: our illusion of choice / free-will.
Only for teenagers. 
What do you mean illusion? Are you suggesting we don't really have the ability to make choices? 
Richard Deeming wrote: For the more complex animals, it would be pretty surprising if they didn't.
Which ones?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: What do you mean illusion? Are you suggesting we don't really have the ability to make choices?
There seem to be lots of reports suggesting that's the case. For example:
The concept of free will could be little more than the result of background noise in the brain, according to a recent study.
RyanDev wrote: Which ones?
The higher apes, whales, dolphins, etc. Basically, anything with enough neurons in its brain for sentience to emerge. The tricky part is obviously working out the threshold at which that happens.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: There seem to be lots of reports suggesting that's the case.
And you believe that?
Just stop and think about how many decisions you have made so far today. 1000's, likely. You're saying you aren't in control of those decisions?
Let's see if criminals can use this line of defense in court.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: You're saying you aren't in control of those decisions?
I'm saying there might be evidence to suggest not.
RyanDev wrote: Let's see if criminals can use this line of defense in court.
It probably stands as much chance of success as claiming, "the voices in my head told me to do it". 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: I'm saying there might be evidence to suggest not.
There's also evidence of the Loch Ness Monster. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: There's also evidence of the Loch Ness Monster.
The "evidence", in this case, being a few blurry photographs and some tall tales from drunks.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
The point is just because there is evidence, doesn't mean it is even close to being true.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Which would be why I used the word "suggest".
There is evidence to suggest that we might not have control over our decisions.
On closer inspection, that evidence might turn out to be nonsense. But we can't know that without examining and testing the evidence.
Until then, it's safe to assume that we do have control. However, it can form the basis of an interesting philosophical discussion. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Which would be why I used the word "suggest".
There is evidence to suggest that we might not have control over our decisions.
Ya, I got that. I asked if you believed it. I was already aware of the studies, just curious what your own personal belief was.
Richard Deeming wrote: However, it can form the basis of an interesting philosophical discussion.
Or, fun movies like the Matrix. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: just curious what your own personal belief was.
My personal belief is that the are some decisions which don't involve our conscious brain - not just reactions, but more complicated decisions which we later struggle to explain.
However, I don't believe that applies to all decisions. It's quite possible to think about something, consciously decide on a course of action, and then carry it out.
But then, that could just be a defence mechanism built-in to my consciousness to prevent me from seeing the truth - my own personal blue pill.
RyanDev wrote: Or, fun movies like the Matrix.
I always preferred Dark City[^].
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
RyanDev wrote: And you believe that?
"Proven correct" and "proven incorrect", remember? That's the intelligent way to look at everything, and Richard appears to be looking in that direction.
RyanDev wrote: Let's see if criminals can use this line of defense in court.
Many criminal actions have been proven to be because of chemical imbalances affecting the brain, which is why many "criminals" receive treatment, whether chemical or psychiatric, to help them stop behaving in ways that they know to be "wrong".
One of the things that has had the biggest effect on criminal behaviour has been that of educating offenders, to help them to realise that they (and what they want) are not more important than other people (and what they want).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: "Proven correct" and "proven incorrect", remember? That's the intelligent way to look at everything,
And in this case, neither applies so then what?
It has not been proven correct that we have no choice. Nor has it been proven incorrect. Looks like you're stuck unless your belief system allows you to use your own brain. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody has said that it has been proven correct.
Richard put forward the idea because it has been studied and is worthy of consideration.
You appear to have neither studied it nor considered it, but have decided that it is not true, without basing your decision on reasonable methods.
If that's "choice", then we're better off without it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
modified 6-Nov-14 12:17pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Nobody has said that it has been proven correct.
No. But you said he was using the intelligent way of ""Proven correct" and "proven incorrect"" Those are your words. And neither actually applies.
Mark_Wallace wrote: You appear to have studied studied it nor considered it, but have decided that it is not true,
Why, because he linked to 1 article and I didn't?
Your prejudice is strong.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
This is ridiculous.
*PLONK*
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. 
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
