Death_By_Pod

So you don't believe in doctor-patient confidentiality? In most cases, (in the south) you will get into more trouble if your parents knew you had an abortion rather then having a child. The notification system is in place so that parents can unjustly impose their moral judgements on the teen; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s an abuse of parental power. Thanks for forcibly imposing your religious views (making abortion illegal due to gods will) on everyone else; your views conflict with something called freedom of religion. My religious view is that everyone with a forums name of Raegen should spend life in prison because my god commanded it to be. But people donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want frisbees they want calculators! The people donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t care theyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re using it for the wrong ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâpurposeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢, whoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s to say how something should be used. Why donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t we ban guns, their primary purpose is to kill people; killing people is wrong so it should be banned. Its funny how we never talk about banning guns and a host of other things with their primary purposes to kill; it just seems to me like the abortion debate is really just support for making women more subservient to men. The more areas where men have control of women the better! Thanks for taking my words literally, I was trying to respect peoples philosophical views (like not having sex before marriage) by stating 'might not' even then most people don't become pregnant straight away, so recreational sex does play an influence in these cases. Let retract that statement and replace it with 'would not'. Not to mention biochemical reactions (like pheromones for example) which influence your sexual behaviour before you decide to only have sex for reproduction only. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s impossible to discard recreational sex from influencing your birth. This is the problem when discussing legal and natural phenomena things with you, you always use your philosophical arguments to justify your stance. This is ok since itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s your opinion but it isn't going to change the nature; you can't use supernatural arguments to defend factual evidence. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not like their forcing you to have an abortion, if you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t believe in abortions then donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have one. So why not skip all the chat and just say itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s your opinion and that the choice should be left up to the individual mother. Abortion isn't murder since the foetus isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a child; it can't live independently from the mother and hence has no say in whether it wants to live or not. The foetus from the raped/unhealthy woman has no choice in if it wants to live; great double standard you got going there. I really donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know why I bother posting in these things, it just keeps on going in circles from people who donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t read the thread or just chime in support of enforcing their religious views on others. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s probably to try and cut down on the misconceptions people have but it never seems to get taken in, I guess some people like to have ignorance of the world around them.

The oldest religious book is The Pyramid Texts http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm being made ~5100 years ago, makes the bible look like a young kid. Although not as long (they used hieroglyphics, so I guess that slowed it down), length isn't a determining factor to how holy/great a book is. If youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re talking about modern religion then Hinduism is in fact older then Christianity by about 4000 years, again a lot older then Christianity.

Giving a scientific answer to "where did the universe came from" is much like giving the answer to 1/0.

I know what you mean, it's just having physical perceptions of your surroundings is what I would consider life (sentience). If you had no senses then whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the difference between life and death; you just couldn't tell. You would be like a plant, you still grow and develop but you don't have any sentience.

Can you think of any other reasons that people might have sex? Are they necessarily less 'primary'? Of course - but one cannot deny the reproduction is the main function of it. If sex didn't reproduce we wouldn't be here... There can't be more than 1 "primary" function, for anything. It's like having two "favourite" flavours of ice cream, it just doesn't work. Okay, so worst thing in the world wasn't a great choice of words. How about "worst plausible outcome in a certain circumstance?". Way to attack my choice of language, instead of my logic. You really destroyed my straw man... If does if they compare getting pregnant to a car crash. I disagree with relativism, but that's another argument for another time. Quick one: if I use a calculator as a frisbee, it doesn't change the fact that a calculator's main purpose is to calculate mathematical equations. If I use sex for fun (which I have absolutely no objection to, btw), it doesn't change the fact that sex has a primary function of reproduction. Take away the function of reproducing and BAM! There goes the human race. Take away the function of pleasure, and yea, life would seem much less enjoyable, but at least there's still life :| As the rest of your post deals with subjectivism again I'll just leave it at this. Without recreational sex we might not be here either, maybe it was the thing that took our parents relationship to the next level and furthered their commitment to each other. How could you possibly discount recreational sex in playing a factor in your existence? Having a car crash could be just as bad as having a child; both are unexpected events which set you back. An unwanted teenage pregnancy is worse then a car crash at least with a car crash you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have to drop out of school to take care of a child; with a car crash you might be out for a few months but you can always bounce back, with a child your out for 18+ years and after that time it might be too late for you to achieve your aspirations. So youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re saying there is nothing out there that doesn't have more then one primary function? How about things that have equally important primary functions, recreational sex is as important if not more important then having children; especially for social animals like humans, bonobos and dolphins. I wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even dare to say that the primary biological function of reproduction is to have children, why would we even need something that gives us pleasure every time we have a child; the child itself should be enough motivation. Using the bonobo as an example, settling disputes over sex is a much better survival strategy then attempting to have as many offspring as possible; bonobos can only produce one offspring every five years so it is vital that they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t kill themselves over something unnecessary like arguments between each other. Too me both actions are primary functions but if I had to choose recreational sex would be their primary function and reproduction is secondary. Without recreational sex they would have hunted themselves out of existence, reproduction is just used to keep the lineage going rather then a survival mechanism. Sex isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a numbers game to us (unlike many other animals); we also use sex socially to get ahead. You can use the calculator to solve math problems but if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re creative enough you could reprogram it to do entirely different tasks. The reprogrammed calculator can still do math problems but itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not the primary function anymore; depending on circumstances primary functions change.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947 The time you would start to feel pain and hence have some physical perception of the world. Animals like dolphins and bonobos also show us that sex isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t just for reproducing. What IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m trying to get at is that there is more then 1 primary function of sex and it isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t just for kids.

Maybe I should get you to check your facts and see that abortion up to 26 weeks is considered fine by the medical community (since the brain isn't fully wired to feel pain, and hence 'feel death'), but I guess your not going to take that into consideration. The foetuses DNA is not entirely new, why do children share similar physical features of their parents, stop playing dumb. The Ova or Sperm only having one set of DNA isn't the problem (ever heard of cloning? It's possible to have almost all DNA from one single parent, so youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re saying itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s ok to abort cloned children?) the problem arises to what you consider living; if you consider the point at conception to be life then whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s stopping you from calling all reproductive cells living. You still failed to discuss this point: "Information in the pregnancy history section of the NSFG indicated that 568 (8%) of the contraceptive use segments during the observation period had ended because of an accidental pregnancy. Of these, 71% (404) resulted from contraceptive failure during the first 12 months of method use; the remainder occurred in subsequent months." If you can't have abortions then the only way to be 100% safe from having children is to abstain, pure and simple. ~6% pregnancy chance of getting pregnant in the first year of using contraceptionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s isn't a foolproof way of avoiding children (it helps, but doesn't stop it). If I was faced with no abortion and 6% chance of having a child, I wouldn't want very much sex. Maybe I'm just ignoring something simple, what are some techniques at not getting pregnant at all? The problem is people put too much faith in contraceptionÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s (and things like vasectomies) for being foolproof when in practice they arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t. No one should have to put up with a child they never wanted in the first place, sometimes precautions fail and abortions should be there as a last resort (the ultimate contraception, I guess).

Undefined, whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s 1 divided by 0?

How about hundreds of other ova that don't form into a child, what made that kid special? From the point of view from the maternal mother maybe the emotional pain (in having a child she can't contact) is too much to handle and an abortion might have been a better choice; however the childÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s point of view is that they are being looked after properly so it seems like the right choice, it all comes down to what perspective you are looking at it from. 1/3 of Americans have an abortion in their life time, so many of posters here would have a mother that made an abortion in their life. What would it feel like to be the foetus that was aborted? A foetus aborted is no different from an unfertilised ova, it is moot to talk about the future child's life since they weren't going to exist in the world in the first place. In the case of an adopted child, the child does in fact exist since no abortion took place so the child does in fact have some sort of sentient existence. I'm just rambling a bit but I really don't get your point, you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t apply a moral judgement to something that might occur (or for that matter something that doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have any moral decisions); you better not go outside because you might accidentally harm someone and thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s wrong. It isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t physically healthy for the sperm to discard it without use or in the case of ova, not conceiving (why is this ok, but not for foetuses). A foetuses body can not live independently from its mother since its organs are not developed (so it relies on the mothers organs to cater for the foetus); A one year old child can live independently from the mother (no physical connection to mother). Yeah, doing what counselling mothers on their hard decisions? The mother might have some form of emotional trauma no matter what she chooses; the problem with adoption is that trauma will be long term. How can you get over the loss of your child when you know that is still out there, at least with abortion the ordeal has some form of closure. Yeah there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t anything more to sex then having children, do you know how naive that statement is (the truth finally comes out, abstinence the best form of protection!)? Do you know what itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s like to have sex with a partner you love, the reason for sex in a relationship isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâjust becauseÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ or ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâfor funÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢; Just because there is an associated risk with doing something doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean you shouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t do it. Sex is an integral part of many peoples marriage, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m willing to gamble that many people on the pro-life side do indeed have sex; are you seriously saying to me that youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re planing to abstain from sex when you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want a child (so whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s that sex for a few periods of your whole life)? You better stop eating because you might get fat have a heart attack and die. Every action we take has some form of risk; you canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t live life in a bubble. Theoretically yes, but thats not what the data says: N"Information in the pregnancy history section of the NSFG indicated that 568 (8%) of the contraceptive use segments during the observation period had ended because of an accidental pregnancy. Of these, 71% (404) resulted from contraceptive failure during the first 12 months of method use; the remainder occurred in subsequent months." In general I love this little statistic. It shows that you are doing more harm making abortion illegal then to leave it legalised, should we really be pushing for illegality when we have data such as this: Country (Abortion rate per 1,000 women aged 15-44*/Maternal deaths per 100,000 live births) Where abortion is legal: United States 26 12 England/Wales 15 9 Netherlands 6 12 Finland 10 11 Japan 14 18 Australia 17 9 Where abortion is illegal: Brazil 38 220 Colombia 34 100 Chile 45 65 Dominican Republic 44 110 Mexico 23 110 Peru 52 280

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm Has a collection of rulings and history about what stage a foetus can feel pain, and guess what its not 7 weeks; most modern findings are around 20-28 weeks (about 26 avg.), the time after which <1% of abortions are made. I would say before this point the foetus doesn't have any other substantial sensory inputs and hence would have very little sense of self (sentience). The foetus is basically automation; nourishment goes in, waste goes out and has little mind of itself. Calling it a child at conception is just as bad as calling sperm potential life and making it illegal to use contraception to stop the sperm, both have little resemblance to what we consider a human being. For you and everyone else that has this opinion, where does this stop; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a pretty arbitrary allowance. Would it be allowable to abort a foetus if the couple actively use contraception but still managed to conceive a child (contraception isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t perfect)? This is similar to forced penetration since the child was conceived against the will of both parents, they both made conscious efforts to stop it but the contraception failed. This couple should be treated just as fairly as the abuse victim, neither are at fault. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a pretty grand claim; you have no idea about adoption do you? Do you think a mother would just give up the child, stone cold and not care about it? How about all the emotional trauma associated with voluntary giving up a child that you created? WouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t this be grounds for abortion because it is not mentally and emotionally healthy for the mother to give birth and adopt out?

What I was saying had nothing to do with it either being a particle or wave; the wave i was referring to is the probability of an object being at a certain position not an EM wave. Anyway you can find some wiki articles that better explain this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse which gives a brief overview of the ideas and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat which contains an application of the idea. Ill quotes the relevant part of the document. "More intuitively, some feel that the "observation" is taken when a particle from the nucleus hits the detector. Recent developments in quantum physics show that measurements of quantum phenomena taken by non-conscious "observers" (such as a wiretap) most definitely alter the quantum state of the phenomena from the point of view of conscious observers reading the wiretap, lending support to this idea. However (and this is a key point of the thought experiment), there isn't any rule within the Copenhagen interpretation that says one way or the other, and this interpretation of quantum mechanics is incomplete without such rules and explanations for how such rules come to exist." Which is basically what I was talking about; the object is always approximately there but is precisely there when a measurement is made. I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t believe in this conscious observer idea at all.

You do know that the body just isn't designed to live for that long, after a while your body stops replicating cells too many mutations in a cell might cause cancer so it turn's off in order to prevent it. I'm not an expert in this field but this site has so decent information, all I know is 200 year life spans are not physically possible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senescence Also it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t explain this: Humans by Era Average - Lifespan (in years) Human, Neanderthal - 20 Human, Neolithic - 20 Human, Classical Greece - 28 Human, Classical Rome - 28 Human, Medieval England - 33 Human, end of 18th Century - 37 Human, early 20th Century - 50 Human, circa 1940 - 65 Human, current - 77-79 (varies by region)

A Proton is a nucleon not a particle, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s beside the point if all the mass of the universe was pushed into something the size of a proton it would be a stellar black hole. I wouldn't be so sure about that second part; the object is always there whether someone observes it or not. I'll try and give a simplified explanation below. The difference being that if we don't observe it then we don't know its precise location (which is common sense) and is instead represented by a probability of being in a location. Every object in the universe is constantly interacting with other objects and these interactions affect the probability of the object being in a specific location; these interactions, might leave it a bit off centre to where it should be. When we decide to view something then it will most likely appear in the area of highest probability; we move from guessing where it is to making a precise measurement to where it is. Just to let you know, under the Copenhagen interpretation there is no real wave function; it is just a tool to help calculate probability.

In America parents can do what they like with you; even send you to a bad behaviour camp (in another country that doesn't care so much about child abuse). In other countries I'm not so sure but one thing is for certain, parents can make you do what they like and if you don't like it run away and live by yourself. They arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t physically or mentally abusing you so there isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t too much you can do but go along with it. If you really donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t want to go, why donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you talk to the minister, explain your situation and see if he/she can reason with your mother.

^^ Edit in last post insane. http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=biochemistry+of+love&btnG=Google+Search&meta= For a start, I never said it was purely done by brain scanning; in fact most of it is related to biochemistry such as pheromones, testosterone, oestrogen, dopamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, oxytocin, vasopressin, phenylethylamine and so on. It is theorised that falling out of love/lust after the first couple of years is due to building up a resistance to the chemicals your brain produces to make you feel in love. ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not how science works, if you bothered to look on the internet you would find all sorts of ways love is reduced to chemical reactions. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the saying that a couple has chemistry between them, because itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s true. Science works by making a claim and then going out to disprove it, not siting around any saying your true and getting someone else to do the hard work; thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s why we have so many problems like intelligent design.

Yeah, why not? Does gravity work the same way in every single galaxy; you havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t visited them so how do you know? It's called homogeneity and isotropy you mainly use these for big ideas like in astronomy or in your case proving a universal god or a network of souls. The question should be why homogeneity or isotropy doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t apply to my case and what causes it to be inconsistent, why would god favour one direction or one area over another. If someone says there is a snake in front of you (the universal claim), what you do is look down and disprove it. Some negative existential problems can be proven which contradicts what you are saying. Also some of the bible does contradict with reality, account of genesis for starters. In my opinion saying there is an absence of god is not a negative claim, it is the same as making no claim about god at all (but not acknowledging the question in the first place). Turning the question back to you, do you think it is logically possible that a knock-down, deductive disproof of your god may exist in the 99.9 percent that is outside your pool of knowledge and experience? How about all the other negative claims theists make, there is no knowledge dos doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know, there is no evil act god does, there is no logical act god canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t do, there is no thing that comes from nothing, there is no naturalistic origin of the universe and so on.

Some of my arguments just came from a book about it :P I was citing my source. but if you're curious, Reductionism can be used to reduce morality to a set of feelings instead of (what I believe is) its objective form. What about the knowing all of something first argument? If man is nothing but matter, does it make sense that we would have to know man in its entirety to say that? Or if we were to say that God does not exist, we would have to know reality in its entirety? Yep and at the other spectrum holism could be used to reduce morality to set of interacting systems. Holism and Reductionism doesn't exclusively justify absolute or non-absolute morals, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s just a method of interpreting nature; I can use Holism just as easily as Reductionism to support my personal opinions. There is a reason why women eat more when they are pregnant, that baby just doesn't make itself. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve always wondered how non-matter (things like souls) would get created in babies, since there is no fundamental building block for it; do women with children have less soul, would a woman with 5 children have less soul then that of 3 children. You think with all the dead people we dissect that we would have seen something unusual by now, I guess some traditions never die.

Your not differentiating between active and passive actions, you reveal angry activity in your brain because youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re actively being angry; of course your anger is going to show up over your love, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re focusing on more. I guess itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a bit of a truism; others only pick up on things youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re actively trying to reveal (your mother isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t thinking they sure love me, when she is getting yelled at). So are you telling me that we can see someone being angry and being calmer when you are focusing calm via meditation yet we can't see love when we overtly act like we are in love; do I really have to start searching for some papers to prove you wrong? What separates love from other abstract feelings like anger and fear? Your brain permanently forms connections in its brain for things such as visual memory, procedure, thoughts and feelings. Just because you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t actively using these connections doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mean they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t exist at all. When IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m at an animal cruelty protest/pro-vegetarianism rally do I forget how to make a steak sandwich, can you prove I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know how to make a steak sandwich when deep down I do? Prove what parts of my brain are active when I make a steak sandwich, otherwise I HAVE to conclude itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the soul channelling the procedure for a steak sandwich from a divine spirit. Let me say that I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t purely believe in reductionism, I also believe studying systems and interactions of systems is just effective as reducing them. Studying systems (e.g. studying the types of stars in the universe, or where certain types of fossils are located) is just as scientific as reductionism. Yep, letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s talk about Aristotles four causes (your placing cause in four categories, which is a reduction in itself). No offence but what are you trying to accomplish with this; the four causes are pretty ambiguous and only the efficient cause has anything to do with the modern meaning of cause. Please explain to me why the four causes are relevant here. Reductionism is out to try and reduce a system to its components or rules or a simplified system or an explanation, there is no true definition of reductionism other then the basic idea of having a better understanding of a system (Tell me one thing that you understand which has not undergone a simplification of any sort). You can call have reductionism relate to all of the four causes. In your music example: the material cause would be, the tape is made out of plastic and you are made out of body parts. The formal cause would be; having song x playing while you think about and relate to personal event y is what makes up the z emotion. The efficient cause would be, music causes emotion. The final cause would be, having personal experience makes this emotion z. Ill copy and paste another example from a website on the four causes (the case is a table). 1. The table is made of wood. 2. Having four legs and a flat top makes this a table. 3. A carpenter makes a table. 4. Having a surface suitable for eating or writing makes this a table. Like the first example, how are these not reductionist? I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see the problem here. I guess it all comes down to semantics, maybe you have very specific feelings for what reductionism is and I have very broad feelings. The evolution idea is flawed, the fruit of a plant (e.g. banana) is designed but it was obviously designed by nature (the banana was designed by the plant to be attractive as possible for it to have the best chance to spread its seed) not an unnatural designer. WhoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s to say that a bananaÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s design is nature and the universeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s design is not nature when they are both the same damn thing (nature). If you want a serious answer to why, try the weak anthropic principle. To put it simply, we exist because we are allowed to exist. Natural selection exists because it is allowed to exist; there no god yet perfectly valid and simple too. Look, IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying we have to interpret everything in reduced form, all IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m saying is everything can be reduced (not should). You can reduce ShakespeareÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s work down to syllables but it would be better to talk about it as a system rather then a string of syllables because it is more convenient or too complex to be interpreted as syllables. With another example, we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need to see every single active neuron to make a connection with a feeling or emotion; we treat the brain as a system (or simplify it into areas). It would be silly to dismiss the idea of holism altogether but it would be just as silly to dismiss the idea of reductionism altogether. By the way, that was the first time I ever heard the term expansionism. When I tried to look it up, all I got were countries expanding borders; I think the term youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re looking for is holism. Holism exists in the scientific community as much as reductionism; I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see your argument. Some people donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t mind being reduced, you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t represent planet Earth. How about when your grand mother wakes up from a long coma, she might have lost all her long term memory. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t possibly treat your grandmother in the same way as you did before her accident; you have to play by the rules of the brain and attempt to slowly recover her memory. There are times when you do need to treat your loved ones as a number. And what does this have to do with moral relativism (reductionism can be used to justify any moral position) sounds like someoneÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s trying to self justify their beliefs. My arguments were inspired by dinosaurs (hell yeah!) because they kick [wagon] and keep me motivated.

Actually it's 21gm and from a published paper in 1907, yep 1907. How accurate are beam scales (you have to use metal weights to counter balance a beam) measuring the weight of a living human being? You could change the weight more then 21gm by repetitively bending and straightening your knees. 21gm variation in someone weighing ~70000gm is completely within the range of measurement error.

So what about functional neuroimaging, mind-machine interfaces and biochemistry, they just don't exist? Even with our incomplete understanding of Neuroscience there is clear evidence that an actions cause reactions in the brain (which can be detected through imaging software). Just because it conflicts with your ideology doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t invalidate it, this is yet another branch of science that some religious people refuse to admit its existence. Everything has some form of reduction, itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a consequence of naturalism (you can observe the same thing independently); or are you trying to say we all have a soul? There is a lot of observation of what love is (itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not just neurological, or electrons as you put it), it just doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t magically work. The human body is made up of matter from the Earth; where does the soul factor in to it? Oh yeah, you used the wrong wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_reductionism, read that one.

Pi is real and irrational, it can't be expressed as a fraction therefore it doesn't have a final digit. Most numbers are irrational and most functions arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t nice and smooth, thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the way it is. There are a few proofs for irrationality and the easier ones deal with root two being irrational, I wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t conclude its god since we just donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know if patterns can emerge in pi (we havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t checked all bases). All I know is its consistent with itself.

Well you got Disney to thank for all of this; whenever their works are close to expiry they lobby to get it extended. In one way itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s quite disgusting to try and get them extended for such ridiculous amounts of time yet at the same time you wouldn't want to be in their situation. You should get some financial reward but you shouldn't be allowed to permanently withhold inventions from the public; kind of takes away the spirit of being part of the human race.

Is there proof of gravity? :shock: Nuhuh, Gravity is only a theory; I propose intelligent falling, gravity is so complex that it needs to be created by a 'pusher'. I believe the person pushing us to the 'centre of gravity' is God. Teach the controversyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ

ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what's so good about the game, it won't need much space at all since all that information is made through an algorithm (I have relatively high-tech FPS demo on my computer that takes up 95kb based on a similar process). Performance is another issue; it looked like there was lag on the computer at the presentation when he took certain actions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedural_synthesis

How do you get the moral scripture from a supernatural being without it coming into the natural domain? If it comes into the natural domain, then it can be observed and formulised but this contradicts that god is supernatural. So either God is natural or Moral absolutism has to have a natural source to be valid. The problem still remains that people have lived tens of thousands of years before modern religion (and our ancestors hundreds of thousands of years). These people still had some form of moral system; it wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a free for all. How about people like the Sentinelese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese) who live to this day without contact with the modern world, they seem to be living in a pretty structured tribe. If you assume we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t need to tell anyone the Absolutist Moral code and that it pervades throughout the universe, you get back to square one; it is a supernatural idea. You may as well say ghosts are moral spirit directors, ufoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s are monitoring our moral behaviour to help the ghosts direct us and vampires assassinate people who know too much about ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâthe systemÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢. You canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a supernatural idea governing the natural (our brain), it is clear that the brain responds in a naturalistic manner (otherwise things like, brain scans would be useless) so a supernatural set of morals wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t fit the data we see. If you look within your community of Moral absolutism you see that their morals evolve over time. Back in the dayÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s slavery was perfectly moral yet you donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see anyone preaching it today. The historical character of religious belief remains the fundamental problem with religious moral. Moral absolutism contradicts free will, if the world was deterministic then there would be no moral system (since all ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹Ãâmoral choicesÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ have been made by deterministic forces). However if there is free will, Moral absolutism is subjective (because free will includes the freedom to choose what is moral). WhatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s so wrong in saying that Morals were originally invented as a survival tool? If you start randomly killing people, then you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t going to increase you prospect of having children (and passing your genetic information along). So it would be safe to say that killing people is wrong because it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help you have children, in fact I would call something like this common sense. Moral absolutism is just a god of the gaps argument, we donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t understand enough about how the brain works so god must have made Morals.