There was a very good episode of the TV series Boston Legal, wherein a widow donated her husband's body to a teaching museum https://www.bu.edu/articles/2019/to-do-today-see-inside-the-human-body-at-the-museum-of-sciences-body-worlds-exhibit/ and the daughter took possession, so she could bury it. — Vera Mont

Interesting.

But what I see is a crime committed by the daughter: Alan represents two clients, a woman who stole her late father's body from a museum.
If the widow already donated the corpse to the museum for scientific research, then the museum is now the legitimate "owner" of the corpse. The daughter is not legally covered to ask for the body of her father. Why she didn't opposed against the donation in the first place?

If they take the benefit, they should absorb the cost. — Vera Mont

I am agree, the state should absorb the costs of they take the benefit but here we have another dilemma because the state acts with public profits thanks to the taxes so those costs are already paid by the contributors. I mean, the state works thanks to our rents and tax payers, it is not particular neither a private corporation. The dilemma could be if the state should or not take those benefits the public administration when is based on public resources.

1. Is this clause generally known by the population as part of their civic obligation? I.e. is it explicitly articulated in law? — Vera Mont

Well, at least in my country is explicitly articulated in law. We have to check every state’s laws and see what they articulate towards the destiny of a dead corpse.

Having taken possession of the body for harvesting, does the state undertake the responsibility for dignified disposal of whatever is left? Or, having appropriated the useful bits, does it download that effort and expense on the family? — Vera Mont

According to same laws the efforts and expense needs to be taken by the goods and money he or she left in the inheritance. If these are not sufficient, it needs to be paid by the goods of the successors and ultimately, public funds if the state is held accountable.

Can't say ... You caught me off guard! — Alkis Piskas

:grin: I got the same feeling about the AI’s response!

Am I right in thinking you're suggesting that because these decisions are made by judges and laws, a dead person's articulated informed consent is not required? — fdrake

Exactly, because I consider judges as authorities who are able to make decisions or confirm consents in name of someone who is no longer capable to do those acts.

How do brain-dead human beings become the exclusive and legitimate holdings of this organization? — NOS4A2

Those organizations (supposedly) are there to help others or preserve nursing and caring. If they are aware of someone who dies and their organs can help others, they can ask a judge to authorize organ donation on behalf of that person to preserve the health and life of others.

I fully respect your arguments and words but I think you misunderstood my views on this thread or topic.
One of the main debates is to consider if a third person can decide on someone's interests when such individual is no longer available to do it by himself. The judges (or prosecutors in some special cases) hold this power to decide in the best interests of the persons or community involved. As I said previously, the law is applied to get equity not to solve ethical issues because that would be so ambiguous and the results could not be satisfactory at all.
But this is not an invention of modern states. Roman law already foresaw this judicial dilemma when the consent of someone was needed but impossible to get or provide. Then, jurists created civil figures to avoid these problems such as guardians, conservators, fiduciaries, the rule of the parents as authority etc... So, it is necessary to ensure such circumstances thanks to the guarantee of third parts who take the responsibility. This can be applied to make decisions toward donate someone's organs afterwards but there are some important examples as much as the subject of this thread. For example: People declared absent because they have disappeared and his whereabouts are unknown. I think it is necessary to ask a third person to please take care of such special issue. Thus, a judge can make decisions on the absent's interests without his permission. Otherwise, it could exists a lot of problems and difficulties just because we cannot get the consent of someone who we don't even know where is at...
Well, this is what happens to the dead people. Someone needs to make decisions in their names or persona because it is obvious that they no longer can do so.

But the treatment as an object, or consumer item, whose possession is to be legally decided presupposed its status as property. It is presumed the property of the occupant as long as he's in possession; his to leave in a will, like anything else he owns. There is nothing either ethical or religious about that: it's a thing that can be argued over, arbitrated, cut up, portioned out and used.
The only question here, who has a right to decide how it will be used, absent the owner's explicit instruction. — Vera Mont

If it is consider as one’s possession with the status as property, why suicide is condemned by both religion and laws? Because someone needs to take responsibility in a public order and whatever I would do with my body it would make a reflect act. I don’t see that we are so free as long as we keep alive to decide on the volunteerism of the free will in our bodies.
In the other hand, I still think that the only third part capable of deciding on other someone’s interests can be the judges. As I said, each of us have a lot of private interests but the public order is over to self care.

I want to be an owner of different buildings in Madrid but at the same time I have to pay taxes for those real state properties because it is necessary to share a bit of my wealth with others…

@Alkis Piskas interesting, if the OpenAI doesn't have the necessary amount of information it lacks of the ability to give arguments or data. Check out the question I raised a few moments ago

Me: How many chances of winning the Nobel prize of literature Yukio Mushima had?

OpenAI: Yukio Mishima was considered a contender for the Nobel Prize in Literature during his lifetime. However, the Nobel Prize is not publicly announced as a list of nominees or a ranking of potential winners, and the decision-making process of the Swedish Academy is confidential. It is not possible to determine how many chances Mishima had of winning the Nobel Prize, as the academy does not release information about its evaluations or discussions. Nevertheless, Mishima's contributions to Japanese literature and his international reputation as a writer have secured his place in literary history.

Hmmm... Interesting looks like that the AI suffers with the opaque information. :chin:

what is the ethical distinction when both are harm reducers and life enablers? How would this distinction block the concluded entailment? — fdrake

I think the ethical distinction between both practices lies in the extension of the free will of the donor. We can be agree with the fact that is more ethical when somone decides the destiny of his body afterwards.
But the law is not enacted to solve ethical issues but to reach equity. That's why I see it is fine if a judge needs to make a decision because we consider judges and courts as third parts who resolve problems of the societies and they interpret what should be someone's wishes if the interests of a person is at risk. We cannot take these premises so personally because (in my humble opinion) it would be a selfish act to opt out a donation when a someone needs it so urgently. Otherwise, interpreting our bodies as property it looks like a religious belief rather than ethical one...

Another example is on names and second names (I know it is off topic but I think is a good example): Each individual since is a kid has the right of having a name but imagine for a second that the kid is abused by their parents. I see acceptable if a judge removes his second name if it is necessary to protect the kid. It doesn't matter the consent of his parents if they are abusers...

Conclusion, it is possible to led judges to decide as third arbitrary parts for what could the best for the persons.

[quote]( 2 ) Opt out organ harvesting is ethical.

I think there's two ways to take this, the first is going down the path that you can harvest people's organs without seeing the bodies as property.[/quote]

After reading the well written arguments on this topic (interesting thread, @fdrake) I end up in the conclusion that Opt out harvesting is fully ethical because as premises 4 and 5 indicate:( 4 ) Opt out organ harvesting is ethical because it is more beneficial than harmful. (premise)
( 5 ) Generalising from 4, a procedure performed to a dead body is ethical if it is more beneficial than harmful. (same justification as line 2).
Then, we can conclude that we can "obviate" someone's consent if it would help others.

In the other hand, there is always been a deep debate on if we should consider our bodies as "our properties". Allow me to share with you an interesting jurisdictional opinion regarding to this topic by the Supreme Court (of Spain, my country)

1. Whenever a person dies, he/she loses her/his civil personality and then he/she lacks his/her own right to claim.[ * (Yet, an authority represented by their interests can take decision on order to complement someone's interests)

2. Public order must prevail over private. A judge must decide and authorize an organ donation if the health and life of others is at risk, even if the donor had not expressed his agreement or disagreement while alive.

Donald Trump is a shrewd person who arrived at the White House with the aim of limiting the justice processes against him. Whenever you reach such amount of power, you can control the Supreme Court as much as you wish. It is not about money but power.

I didn't end up staying in academia, but technically I am one. — Manuel

Right! Sorry for forgetting you... If I am not wrong you hold a PhD on philosophy at Comillas right? Well, I remember it because I attended to Nebrija which is in front of your university. :sweat:

I was wondering if any academic philosophers visit this forum — Shawn

@Pfhorrest is an academic philosopher. He writes interesting articles in his main page: The Codex Quaerentis.
I remember that a few years ago he posted some consistent and philosophical threads but I think he is off from TPF or he is just taking a break.

In the other hand, Guest Speakers was a good idea to ask academic philosophers to join TPF and answers some questions.

One of my haiku poems has been published in a book called: HAIKUS VI.
The editors were calling for haiku poems related to autumn. I named my poem "Aki no Hana" because it means in Japanese "flower of autumn"

Visitando la
Tumba de mis ancestros.
Flor de otoño.

If I translate it into English, it doesn't follow the rules of 5 + 7 + 5, but I do it anyway:

visiting the
grave of my ancestors.
Autumn flower. :flower:

@Hanover

I was wondering if there were an option I could just choose that would put the current position into the analysis board. — Hanover

You can use the tool "Set up position" (copy and paste your position) or save the game in your library and use the tool "Load from Library"

Do you mean this?: Chess Analysis Board

Going back to an earlier post, I mentioned that when one group goes on strike, the rest bitch about them. — Sir2u

This situation always happens. I guess is due to lack of collectively culture. We are living in a individualistic and selfish period where most of the citizens only care about their own problems and avoid to make groups or masses with the aim to change the circumstances.

February 2nd.

Please check your INBOX. — Alkis Piskas

I going to do it right now!

Here. I just asked OAI as question about the subhect that I am discussing in parallel to this, about information and the physical universe — Alkis Piskas

How interesting is, right? We can use the OAI just to check what the programme would answer to different philosophical enquiries about the threads of this forum. Imagine the AI as a member of TPF, it could be so interesting... taking part in threads or even being able to starting a thread itself about whatever the AI considers as "philosophical"

@Alkis Piskas THE AI IS CAPABLE TO WRITE POETRY, OH MY GOD

I just asked if the AI if it can write a haiku and it says:

Me: Can you write a haiku poem?

OpenAI: Yes, here's one:

In the still of night
Moon rises, casting its light
Peaceful and serene.

Oh jesus! This completely disturbed my mind for minutes!

One can find a lot of them just by browsing the contents of this forum! — Alkis Piskas

That's true! It is interesting to make different questions about philosophy to the AI. Yet, I am not confident enough to do so because it is more intelligent than me and probably it starts to answer with messages that I am not able to understand at all! :lol:

Emotions refer to the soul. And an AI bot does not and will never have one. At least the AI as we know it today. — Alkis Piskas

I wish the AI continues as we know it in nowadays. Otherwise, such programmes and chats would be able to replace us!
One of the things I don't like at all about this topic is the "program" of AI to make painting or "arts". To be honest, I am against such acts. Art can only be interpreted by someone who has a soul, thus the humans.

Well, they are not dilemmas for me! — Alkis Piskas

Imagine trying to do a PhD on philosophy with the OpenAI :lol:

Please hold on while I look it up ... OK, don't do that either! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

Well, give me a chance to at least debate with the AI about samurais and haiku poems :flower: :blush:

But how is it going over there with the none Spanish speaking immigrants? Are they adapting to Spanish life OR are they adapting Spain to their ways? There are "supposedly" places in England where shari laws take preference. If that is so, why did they want to leave their place of origin? — Sir2u

Those are good questions.

To make a good answer to your enquiries, I think I have to separate every none Spanish speaking immigrant in different groups. Chinese citizens are well integrated and they speak Spanish so fluently. Most of the kids of the Chinese who came to Spain more than 10 years ago, are now in school or even in university. So, there is not a big deal or a problem regarding Asian immigration.
In the other hand, immigrants from Africa or Muslim countries are a different scenario. They do not speak Spanish and they do not get involved in the society. A tough barrier is religion and due to this culture cliché they tend to live isolated from the rest... in "ghettos" or neighbourhoods separated from the Spaniards or other immigrants.

Well, it's not so pleasant a subject, is it? Most probably the subject of suicide is classified as very negative and even dangerous ...
Try to ask it more pleasant things! — Alkis Piskas

To be honest, I tried to avoid trivial questions with the AI like: Do you like sunny days? Or... Do you know if it will rain in the next hours?, etc... I think that's so trivial and lacks of substantial interest. So, I thought myself why don't debate about Mishima and Sepukku? :lol:

This shows much intelligence for a ChatBot, doesn't it? — Alkis Piskas

Exactly. I think is a very intelligent ChatBot. Nonetheless, it seems that it is not capable to express emotions. Such complex dilemmas are better understood and debated by humans (just for at the moment :smile: )

Great stuff! Really.
But please, stop talking about suicide! — Alkis Piskas

Haha ok, next time I would ask about katanas!

You are right that the AI is based on search-composition model which helps to ensure the responses by the programme. Nonetheless, I see OpenAI interesting for two main reasons: The answers are so elaborated and well written rather than being ambiguous or just a copy and paste from Wikipedia
It looks like it elaborates different answers to each interlocutor, as @Alkis Piskas pointed out. The answers on Yukio Mishima's ritual suicide was more elaborated to him than the messages I received in the same topic.

Hello there friend!

Isn't that just great? I'm using Web scraping myself from time to time, but this is something else ... very advanced!

Now, I repeated the same exactly question and I received an even much more elaborat answer [...] — Alkis Piskas

It is so interesting that OpenAI can manage different answers to their interlocutors. It shows that the algorithm is good as hell and avoids ambiguous answers. In the other hand, I don't know if it happens to you but in some of my messages, the policy of the web warned me like two times because I was violating the rules. Specifically, the mods or admins said: This content may violate our content policy. If you believe this to be in error, please submit your feedback — your input will aid our research in this area
That message arose when I was keeping in talking about seppuku and how I see it as a formidable way of death. Whenever I saw the warning I decided to stop debating on it, because I didn't want to get banned the first day :lol:

Indeed. I would say very impressive, and I can tell you that am not easily impressed by AI or programming stuff in general.
OAI must certainly use more than one algorithms, although this is of a secondary importance here.
As for its persuasiveness, I believe that it results from reading references that are most popular in the Web and which are negative about, against suicide. — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I had the same feeling as you. This AI is so persuasive to fight against suicide. As you explained, I guess is due to some facts that conduct the algorithm to negative/bad/escape from, etc... suicide. I must accept that one of my main objectives was to persuade the AI to agree with me in the interpretation of seppuku or ritual suicide. Nonetheless, it turned out to be impossible. The programme is rough and it is difficult to change the patterns. I even received the following message, like scolding me: No, this conclusion is not accurate or appropriate. Suicide is a serious and complex issue, and it is never a solution to dissatisfaction with one's life.
I remember that the AI kept answering me with some ambiguous messages but in the same direction: Avoiding suicide.

I just wrote in the chat right now and says:

me: Have your thoughts on suicide changed?

OpenAI: As an AI language model, I don't have personal thoughts or feelings, but my understanding of the topic remains the same: Suicide is a serious and complex issue that can have many underlying causes, including mental health issues, emotional distress, and external stressors. It is never a solution to life's problems and it is important to seek help from trusted individuals or mental health professionals to address these underlying issues and find healthier ways of coping with life's challenges.

Promoting or glorifying suicide is never appropriate or acceptable. If you or someone you know is struggling with suicidal thoughts, it is important to reach out for help and remember that there is always hope for a brighter future.

The answer is similar and it remains in the same point :rofl:

One war I'm not sure about is the conquest of southern Europe by the Ottoman Empire. The Empire was certainly strongly religious, but I'm not sure if that was a major driver for the wars. — T Clark

I am agree with the fact that religion was not the principle cause of wars and conquests in Europe. Yet, at least, it seemed to be a motivation for each emperor, sultan, Kingdom, etc... I can't remember a commander or general who spread atheism in the conquered territories.

I think up until the 19th century at least, you couldn't really separate the the state from the church. I'm not claiming that religious institutions were a force for peace — T Clark

:up:

only that religion generally is not what causes wars. — T Clark

Yet, Palestine and Israel war (or conflict context) have as a principle cause religious disparities.

In a historical perspective: the persecution of Jews and Muslims after the "reconquista" in Spain had religious causes.

Probably, religion is not the main cause of each war. Nonetheless, I see that is a motive of conflict between people.

As Tom Storm pointed out, that'll be because of conservative christian attacks that prevent policy improvement.

I suppose fundamentalist christians have the advantage of not even pretending to rationality. — Banno

So... It seems you are acknowledging that it's primarily a political conflict rather than an intellectual one (?). — T Clark

It is a political political conflict, no doubts. The Church has always been another part of the status quo filled with a lot of power (more than I ever can imagined...) and tend to persuade people with their dogmas or religious doctrines. There are even some states that the rule of law is based on sacred texts such as Saudi Arabia or Iran.
So yes, one of the main causes of atheism is fighting against a super-political machine. Don't forget about Vatican City and how the popes can take part in diplomatic issues between countries (for example: Chile and Bolivia conflict on the access to the sea of the latter)

It is a political debate since all religious authorities act as political actors in the arena and instead of convincing with "intellectual" dogmas they do it with persuasion (as a good politician would always does...)

Thank you for your analysis, 180 proof.

In the other hand, it surprised me how the AI answered me: It is important to note that seppuku was a highly formalized and ritualized practice, and was considered a means of restoring one's honor. It was not meant to be a means of escape or a form of self-expression.

I am agree with the fact that seppuku was always meant to be a honourable samurai practice which comes from Japanese feudal era. Yet, I think it can be understood as a form of self-expression. At least, Yukio Mushima interpreted death as an art representation...

My concerns are not on if we have conciousness afterwards but understand the meaning of death. Western world tend to have a very poor/negative view in both death and suicide.
Nonetheless, I am reading books of Japanese witters for the last two years and their vision is different. More pure, clear, without mysticism. They accept it in a poetic/heroic manner. I want to approach that feeling one day.

After death or the eternal debate on if there is or not anything afterwards.

But I guess that philosophical puzzle could be included both on "Consciousness" and "The nature of meaning/rationality/intelligibility"

Poor people are intensely conditioned by their laws. Time is mandatory for them to relinquish reticence and abandon indoctrinated unfriendliness, aggressiveness, denials, and distrust. — Bug Biro

:up:

Disqualification of asking police for help is the most dangerous rule for poor people — Bug Biro

:clap:

Good analysis and arguments, @Bug Biro.

Why does luck is connected to supernaturalism/theism?
We use or refer to "luck" whenever we are not available to explain something which randomly happens or it happened "against all odds"
I have checked the definition of luck and it says: the "force" that causes things, especially good things, to happen to you by chance and not as a result of your own efforts or abilities.

Accepting the definition and cause of luck would let us to interpret that theism is just a number of theories that are sustainable in random chances. Then, according to this theory, was the creation of the world a random act instead of a God's effort?

That is the truth but not the whole truth - I made it a point to mention the legacy of slavery (impoverishment over generations, combined with residual racism). — Agent Smith

It is a point which opaques the main issue: Police abusive behaviour. The police officers who beaten up that young boy are black too. So, as I explained before, following the views of other members and protesters, the problem is the colour blue, police departments. Five armed and equipped men against one person is filthy as hell... It is not even justified. More than a crime is a shame on an institution that is there to supposedly protect you.

A gang of young inexperienced fully armed police patrolling at night driving unmarked vehicles in a unit called “SCORPION”? WTF were the supervisors thinking? Criminal negligence at best. Murder accessory is more accurate. This crime goes higher than the officers. — 0 thru 9

:up:

It is criminal organization, indeed. Those police officers are just a small part of a filthy and corrupt institution which thinks can act without any control.

But hey, according to @Agent Smith, the problem is on African American's shoulders not the brutality and violence of the cops :roll:

Since there are more poor blacks than poor any-other-race [blame falls squarely on the shoulders of historical racism (slavery)], blacks will dominate the crime statistics, creating the illusion (maya's a bitch) that blacks are (more likely to be) criminals. Some other socioeconomic factor, not necessarily poverty, may be at play. — Agent Smith

Ok... and how that's related to the abusive behaviour of police officers? I think you are mixing up the problems.

Exactly.

Policemen believe that they are over you. Whenever they enter in the corps and wear an uniform they tend to be abusive. It is true that this work (being a police officer) is dangerous. Nonetheless, is a big paradox that we need to be defended from them instead of being protected by. I always considered police institutions just the heavy, abusive, violent arm of the politician. They are their personal soldiers.