I can't say. 1) I can't compare mechanical with organic computing because they are totally different and 2) I just came to know about the second type, so I don't know even the basics in this field.
In any way, I find it very difficult, if not impossible, that a human-like consciousness --and mind, in general-- can be attached to either of them. — Alkis Piskas
I'm afraid they would have slept away whithin a couple of minutes!
(Even if I am a good speaker and teacher.) — Alkis Piskas
I.e. sound defeasible reasoning vs woo-of-the-gaps fairytales. :wink:rationality Vs theism. — universeness
-I am sure it was not my fault = ).Well, hello again Mr Gaspar! I hope any exchange between us, can be more fruitful than it has been in the past. — universeness
The part I have underlined, confirms for me, that after the big bang, we moved from a situation of disorder, everywhere in the universe, and due to the homogeneous nature of the universe at that scale, that disorder, 'evolved' into the 'relative' 'order' of the galaxy clusters we observe today. — universeness
I have.I hope you have become a little more intrigued, regarding 'The biological computer.' — universeness
I'll do my best. But I can't promise anything! :grin:I think it's worth trying to keep up with developments in quantum and biological computing. — universeness
AI has already changed the human experience. But this has been done gradually. As the developments in other scientific/technological fields have. Only that the progress in all these developments is achived geometricly, i.e. faster and faster. But who knows, maybe some spectacular, revolutionary change awaits us in the future.I think these are gong to change the human experience very significantly indeed. — universeness
I consider this a healthy thinking! :smile:perhaps my ASI speculations need to take a break! — universeness
In your opinion, do you think disorder favors high entropy? Does High complexity implies high entropy? — Nickolasgaspar
Thanks, but I'll pass. Shooting fish in a barrel like that ain't fun anymore. — 180 Proof
All this is fine. However, I would like more to see a progress in the human sciences too. — Alkis Piskas
perhaps my ASI speculations need to take a break!
— universeness
I consider this a healthy thinking! :smile: — Alkis Piskas
What do you mean by "my dualism"? When did you hear me talking about such a thing? :smile:It would still be interesting to push you a little more and ask for more detail about how emerging tech 'affects' your dualism. — universeness
Here too, I would like to know how do you understand the concept so that I can answer based on that. E.g. Science in general uses the term consciousness as a feature of the body. Neurobiolgy talks about the mind, and, lately, from what I have read, it starts to differentiate it from the brain. And so on.If science EVER demonstrates that when a system is endowed with certain properties, it will become 'conscious' as we understand the concept. — universeness
What do you mean by "my dualism"? When did you hear me talking about such a thing? :smile:
Also, what do you mean by "dualism" regarfding the current context of the discussion (AI, ASI, etc.)? — Alkis Piskas
The only answer I can offer is that human consciousness is a combinatorial effect of everything the human brain IS and DOES.Here too, I would like to know how do you understand the concept so that I can answer based on that. — Alkis Piskas
What source are you quoting here? The source of consciousness is cited by the vast majority of neuroscientists as the brain, not the body.E.g. Science in general uses the term consciousness as a feature of the body. — Alkis Piskas
Neurobiolgy talks about the mind, and, lately, from what I have read, it starts to differentiate it from the brain. And so on. — Alkis Piskas
That's true. Ah, so that's why you refer to "dualism" and "dualistic" ... Well, I never use this term --or any other "ism" for that matter-- to describe my views. I don't like labels. And I don't follow any theory.From the start of our exchanges on TPF, you have suggested that you do not accept that human consciousness is 100% contained in the human brain. — universeness
Certainly not. I was very clear, and youself you said I am a WYSIWYG kind of person.Have I misinterpreted your viewpoints from the start? — universeness
I don't know about the proposed consciousness of a future ASI ...if human consciousness is not located 100% in the human brain then why would the proposed consciousness of a future ASI be any different? — universeness
OK. But, assuming that an individual is identified with his brain, i.e. he is his brain --which is quite a conflicting and paradoxical idea-- can't this be applied also to an individual's personality, behaviour, etc.?human consciousness is a combinatorial effect of everything the human brain IS and DOES. — universeness
Here's a good reference:The source of consciousness is cited by the vast majority of neuroscientists as the brain, not the body. — universeness
Yes, I know. That is why I asked you how do you understand the concept of "consciousness", i.e. what does it mean to you.Re Wiki — universeness
I can undestand this. And I respect your views on the subject, independently of whether they are consistent with the overwhelming majority of the scientific and philosophical views or not.I have found no compelling arguments that and aspect of 'mind' has an existence 'outside' of the brain. — universeness
If you mean the above mentioned overwhelming majority, then no. There's also a big minority --religious and philosophical-- who think differently and believe other things regarding consciousness and the mind. And, don't forget --unfortunately, we always do!-- that we are talking within the frame of the Western world. But there's also Eastern world --that we usually forget-- in which the overwhelming majority thinks differently and believes other things regarding consciousness and the mind.I thought you did assign a significant credence level to those positions. — universeness
So, I'm not a "dualist" or "Descartian" (Cartesian) and I don't have "dualistic" views. See what I mean? — Alkis Piskas
I accept that you are in earnest. If you prefer me to state that you do not accept that human consciousness is 100% contained in the human brain, as opposed to calling you a duellist then, so let it be written.Certainly not. I was very clear, and youself you said I am a WYSIWYG kind of person.
If there's some misundestanding, it is due to the use of terminology. See now why I dislike and avoid "isms"? So, one more time, I am not a "dualist", I don't have "dualistic" views and I'm not known for my "dualism". — Alkis Piskas
I AM a monist when it comes to human conscience but as an atheist monism has no relevance to me when it comes to theism. I have no aversion to folks applying the term to me as long as they get the context correct and if they don't then I will correct them, rather than completely dismiss the label as it does accurately describe my opinion of the source of human consciousness.Because then I could say that you are a "monist", you have "monistic" views and you are known for your "monism". Which I think is silly, isn't it? — Alkis Piskas
:grin: Well, thankfully, it's in the hands of much more capable expertise than mine. But I will keep up with developments in the area, as best as I can.I don't know about the proposed consciousness of a future ASI ...
I could do a research and study the subject, but I prefer not. I trust you and I leave this subject entirely in you hands! — Alkis Piskas
Yes, imo.OK. But, assuming that an individual is identified with his brain, i.e. he is his brain --which is quite a conflicting and paradoxical idea-- can't this be applied also to an individual's personality, behaviour, etc.? — Alkis Piskas
Here's a good reference:
A Neuroscientist Explains The Difference Between The Mind & Brain
https://www.mindbodygreen.com/articles/difference-between-mind-and-brain-neuroscientist
(I'm sure that you can find a lot of them, if you are interested in the subject.) — Alkis Piskas
I have answered this many times. My high credence level goes to proposal that human 'consciousness' and all it's sub-properties, are due to human brain activity. Human emotions/instincts/intuition/imagination etc result from brain activity, and the brain, is the sole source of all such phenomena, IMHO!Yes, I know. That is why I asked you how do you understand the concept of "consciousness", i.e. what does it mean to you. — Alkis Piskas
If you mean the above mentioned overwhelming majority, then no. There's also a big minority --religious and philosophical-- who think differently and believe other things regarding consciousness and the mind. And, don't forget --unfortunately, we always do!-- that we are talking within the frame of the Western world. But there's also Eastern world --that we usually forget-- in which the overwhelming majority thinks differently and believes other things regarding consciousness and the mind.
Indeed, if we place the the two "groups" on the plates of a weighing scale, I don't know to which side the scale will tip. — Alkis Piskas
I had never maintained that consciousness is not 100% contained in the human brain. That would mean that is is in part physical and in part non-physical. How could I believe that, if I have said so many times that it's nature is non-physical and that even mind is separate from the brain?If you prefer me to state that you do not accept that human consciousness is 100% contained in the human brain — universeness
Thnk you for reading the article (if you had not read it before.)Dr Leaf, does not suggest that her separation of mind and brain means that 'mind' is not located within the brain. She types:
The mind uses the brain, and the brain responds to the mind. — universeness
I wouldn't say that. The brain is an autonomous system based on a stimulous-response mechanism. It works by receiving and sending signals. The mind cannot send such signals. It can only receive and interpret signals. This is how e.g. I recognize a tree --i.e. undestand that what I see is a tree-- when I look at it.The mind also changes the brain. — universeness
Fortunately so! :grin:People choose their actions—their brains do not force them to do anything. — universeness
Certainly. Experience can occur and be obtained independently of the brain. E.g. the experience of emotion, which comes from thought (memory etc.)experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions. — universeness
And she does well. No one can talk about mind's "location", since location refers to physical things and the mind isn't one. (But I cannot talk on her behalf. Better ask herself to be sure! :grin:)I would of-course ask her exactly where she thinks the 'mind' is located as she does not discuss this. — universeness
I don't. It's just an article I have picked up. I also read it for the first time. I fact, not the whole of it. You have much more patience and eagernes in learning new things than myself. I can say even remarkable, in my standards! I take off my hat to you on this! :clap:Do you have any quotes from her that indicates her clear determination, regarding my location question? — universeness
Thanks. This is what I wanted to know. I'm sure you have talked about all this many times in this place and elsewhere, but not with me. (At least, I don't remember so. Quite possible. My memory often betrays me.)My high credence level goes to proposal that human 'consciousness' and all it's sub-properties, are due to human brain activity. Human emotions/instincts/intuition/imagination etc result from brain activity, and the brain, is the sole source of all such phenomena, IMHO! — universeness
I know.I don't mean to suggest that my opinion on the source of human consciousness, is completely ossified — universeness
IMO, you ate not wrong. It is that you look the subject from a different angle and use different means --or tools, if you want-- to reach knowledge and truth . From what I have come to know from your posts and our exchanges, you are a Science-oriented person, and by consequence, you are interested and use Science's methods and path, in general. I have said already that 80% of the members --with whom I have "talked" and/or read their topics-- are Science-oriented. It's very rare that I here personal experiences. Personal experience is ignored in Science, if not frowned upon, as far as truth and reality is concerened. Yet, Science forgets that an individual's reality is not formed based on facts and logic, but also from personal experience. I use the word "experiencing", which is a dynamic process, to differentiate it from "eperience", which is a static concept.I would say it would, 'shock me to my core,' if my opinions on the topic were PROVEN to be completely wrong — universeness
I would not accept that! :grin:I would personally, be forced to consider adopting the dualist label. — universeness
Ok, I now understand that your 'significant separation' is with what you are calling 'the human mind' and 'the human brain/consciousness.' My 'quick' interpretation of Dr Leaf's article (I say quick as my interpretation is not based on a deep reading and pondering of her works, I had not heard of her before your link.) lead me to notice that her main separation, was more between mind and brain, rather than mind and consciousness. She types:I had never maintained that consciousness is not 100% contained in the human brain. — Alkis Piskas
I am learning stuff from you too Alkis, Your treatment of the human 'mind' issue as opposed to the 'human consciousness' issue is interesting. Unlike Dr Leaf and yourself, I cannot see any evidence for treating human mind and human consciousness as anything other than synonymous.And, in the process, I learn myself a lot of things from you! :smile: — Alkis Piskas
I had not heard of her before either nor have I read the whole article myself. It was just an example I brought up --it does not represent me or my views-- to show that there are different approaches on the subject of "mind vs brain" today. That's why I said that you can find more of them if you like.my interpretation is not based on a deep reading and pondering of her works, I had not heard of her before your link. — universeness
I really don't know.She does not mention human consciousness in this opening statement, so does she consider human mind and consciousness, synonymous? — universeness
Maybe. But I have other priorities for exploration rearding the subject, as I mentioned above.If you follow her sub-links you get a clearer picture of her proposals. — universeness
I'm not aware of this, but I consider it probable. Sorry if I look I'm ignoring your points. But to be honest, and please do not be offended, I sometimes I browse through and even I skip long passages on subjects that I have not good knowledge of, line Physics, as I have mentioned. And this does not refer specifically to you .Some of the quotes you used in your last post look like they are MY words rather than Dr Leaf's words. — universeness
[/quote][Re mind and consciousness]What would your absolute BEST bit of evidence be, that they are not synonymous? — universeness
I imagine what was once a restaurant will become more like a dorm cafeteria. You just come in and eat what you will of what they’re serving that day. No more wait service. Most of the automation of the place will be like a factory, with machines doing continuous tasks with little more intelligence than today’s toasters. There needs to be an AI presence somewhere, but it will likely be offsite, and using specialized drones for non-repetitive tasks like maintenance of the machinery and the control of the rats.You are merely trying to suggest a scenario which YOU think CURRENT automated systems could not deal with. I will leave such issues to the experts in the field. — universeness
This goes against the morals of a huge percentage of voters. I mean, contraception is considered a sin by many, and forced sterilizations are not going to be popular with the voters. It also renders the species completely dependent on the baby farms. It hits one’s Nazi eugenics buttons where only ‘better’ people can breed, and only qualified people can raise children, not necessarily their own. Yea, the voters will love that.Yes but bodily autonomy may not be an issue in the future if the whole process is done outside of the body, as I am sure most women would prefer that, to the bodily trauma they currently have to go through.
There are those that consider it murder to not bring to term a female egg, whether via in vitro fertilization or via test-tube procedures like you suggest.No abortion as such would be needed just a case of completing a process or stopping it. I imagine, a whole new set of arguments would ensue.
Sounds like a possibility, but it would be probably easier to just combine the DNA of both into a waiting egg from which the female DNA has been removed. Remember that the two women also want to do this and might need one of their gene sets placed into something like a sperm cell. Also remember that the state controls reproduction and might decide that you don’t get to raise your own kids, or raise kids at all, even if you do breed some, so whether the genes of the kids you raise are yours or not might not be something you get to have if we’re implementing this test-tube world.How about a future where a man can be injected with a compound which makes him produce the equivalent of a female egg. This could then be removed and fertilised with sperm, from his male partner.
Most theists would probably embrace all that. I was one once and wasn’t taught the sort of exclusion that you might get from the more conservative church authorities. There are churches based on love and inclusion instead of the opposite.:lol: I would love to see the theist's react to that one.
It isn’t the sort of question that ones comes out and asks, but my son sort of dated somebody from such a family, so I did at some point find myself in their home. The girl’s father certainly put out an air of not minding what I (or my son) thought of his social status.Those on the bottom of the social status scale don’t seem to mind their position there, or the social disdain that comes with it.
— noAxioms
You know this for certain? How many have you personally asked?
I don’t think the humans will have complete free travel. Sure, it’s a big zoo, but there’s parts of any zoo from which the tennants are kept out. Yes, the zoo animals can say what they want. No it’s not a democratic system, but I don’t think voters would yield their responsibility completely away to the point of it being a zoo. Who knows. Maybe they would. A zoo is pretty posh compared to the wild, especially when the ‘wild’ is everywhere not in this artificial enclosure optimized for humans. Being outside that would probably require life support.Do the animals in a zoo have free travel? freedom of speech and protest? a democratic vote?
Yes, those are all zoo amnesties. But you don’t get to choose to be a zookeeper. An assistant one perhaps.Free education? A career path of their choice with an ability to change their chosen life path anytime they wish?
So the argument goes. How big you think it should be? Less than a 1-10 million people on Earth? That seems plenty for a breeding population, and is well within the limits of renewable resources without resorting to importing something as dangerous as energy from off-planet. It would need to be spread out over several interesting places. I can’t get enough of mountains, especially since I was raised in a place completely lacking in them.If they do, then I would love to live in such a world zoo.
Most of that answer was ‘find more regions’, which didn’t answer the question at all. Better education and whatnot is going on now, and has almost zero effect. No breeding like rabbits is currently considered immoral by many groups. The propaganda isn’t capable of change unless the morals change first.How is population of a given region controlled?
— noAxioms
Via population education, a better means of production, distribution and exchange, perhaps we can make the deserts bloom, build environmental friendly, cities under the water, and we also have the potentially unlimited living space, that might eventually result from space exploration and development. — universeness
They were united with them, and chose to be separate when it wasn’t forced anymore. I don’t think they benefited much at all from the Union days.Ukraine may well have united with Russia in the same way as countries in the European union united.
A nice sound bite, but mistaken.What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
But it does. I have goods worth bartering, and that has influence over those that want those goods that are not otherwise available to everybody.As long as what you would consider 'wealthy,' gives such individuals no significant ability, to influence any significant number of individuals
It’s not supposed to, but it’s also quite human nature that corruption is likely, at least until you offload that task to the automation just like everything else. Can the automation be corrupted? Is it bound by popular choices? We all want (voted for even) guns so we can kill each other. Should the automated non-corruptible authority deny that because it wouldn’t make anybody’s lives better? Because I assure you, the only reason the USA has guns is due to sanctioned legal corruption.or can influence the actions of those in authority
It was, but not as much ‘cost’ as moving close to my employer. That cost was money, and I suppose that since I had a need, the perfect society would allow me a home near my place of work, but maybe it would be a much smaller home due to the population density there.Yes, I do think long commutes are a waste of resources. — universeness
OK, I think I get what you’re saying, but what do you do then with the person who wants to live in a place that happens to be quite distant from his place of work? Some of those jobs cannot be performed remotely (such as one in a lab just to name something). Is this person’s needs to be denied?I have no idea why you interpreted this as You don’t think long commutes are a waste of resources?
Sure, but slowly, not at a specific event like the pushing of a button that let ‘Skynet’ loose. The singularity isn’t like that. By the time we see it, it’s probably been there for quite a while.The development of an AGI/ASI, has been posited by many, as the technical singularity moment, that will ring the death knell for the whole human species.
Machines have long since done some things better than us. I think the definition needs refinement from this one. Any stupid search engine has faster access to a huge database of answers and can get to them faster. But so far it cannot create new knowledge, and I think that part is critical.From that site, we have:
What is artificial superintelligence (ASI)?
Artificial superintelligence (ASI) entails having a software-based system with intellectual powers beyond those of humans across a comprehensive range of categories and fields of endeavor. — universeness
I pretty much disagree with every statement here.A book contains data, not knowledge. Knowledge is created after you assimilate this data. (Check the term "knowledge".) And it is your mind that process this data, not your brain. The brain can only process stimuli. And stimuli are not data. — Alkis Piskas
OK, so you seem to be taking the language point of view, a refusal to use a given word to describe an identical process being done by something not on your list of approved categories. This smacks only of religious ignorance. Especially the bit about the suggestion of self-awareness (something that you assert only life can have) existing before abiogenesis (life), which seems to be directly contradicting your own definitions.AI can never become self-aware or even just aware. Awareness is an attribute of life (living organisms).
Didn’t get this. You want to harness the energy of a black hole? Kind of hard to do that from something from which no energy can escape.As for "Dyson spheres", I don't think so. Artificial black holes would have far more energy density for far less energy expenditure (no planetary orbit-megaengineering). — 180 Proof
I’ve bred a few innocent children and trust me, they don’t sleep all that well. Imagine how long it took the photographer to get that shot.I imagine you will sleep like an innocent child tonight — universeness
I don’t remember assembly code including any details of chip pin details like all those buses and control lines and such.I loved assembly code, with all its opcodes and operands and how it accessed and manipulated internal registers, as well as the data bus, the address bus and the control lines. — universeness
I did the tape and card bit, but am unaware of binary being input that way. That was mostly done with manual toggle switches. Very tedious, simple, and before my time. There were assemblers by the time I came around, and my punch-card input was typically some version of fortran.It could have been worse, you could have been a binary programmer in the days of punch cards or input tape
I don’t think binary code was every more than a few thousands of bytes. If you can’t bootstrap something more high-level in that amount of space, you’re in the wrong industry.Must have been fun trying to find a code error in a million lines of binary code
Who asked you? :grin:A book contains data, not knowledge. Knowledge is created after you assimilate this data. (Check the term "knowledge".)
— Alkis Piskas
I pretty much disagree with every statement here. — "NoAxioms
Just en passant, the body cannot process feelings (emotions). It can only feel their effects and suffer its consequences. The mind is the "place" where feelings are created --i.e they come from-- and processed.
(I just fell on that because you were referred to in a message I received from universeness.) — Alkis Piskas
Would you accept the free pinky upgrade and become one of the advanced pinky people, or would you stay as one of the current mundane pinky humans? — universeness
Verse 1:
We are more than just the sum of our parts
Our minds and bodies, intertwined works of art
There's something deeper, something that we can't explain
A quality within us, that we can't contain — universeness
Physical, yes.There must be a body to have both emotional and physical feelings. — Athena
Physical, yes.
I'm not sure though what do you mean by "emotional feelings". Emotion is itself a state of feeling.
But a "feeling" can mean different things. When you say "I feel fear" you refer to a mental reaction. When you say "I feel a pain" you refer to a physical reaction. And "I feel guilty", is still another example, referring to conscience.
Mental states can produce changes in the body. E.g. when you are very anxious/stressed, you can feel one or more of various things: adrenaline running in your body, irritability or pain in your stomach, tightness in your chest, increased heart beats, etc. There are also positive emotions which you can "feel", but are very little physical: E.g. When you feel joy a cheerful you feel your body "lighter" and a sense of wellness. The more positive an emotion is, the lighter body feels. And the opposite, the more negativean emotion is, the heavier the body feels.
All these states are produced by the mind. The brain receives automatically signals (stimuli) from these states and sends in its turn signals to different parts of the body (organs, organism) via the nervous system, which in turn react to these signals according to their nature and f\unction. The brain can also get signals from these parts of the body as a feedback. It's a wondrous system! :smile: — Alkis Piskas
I have read a lot of Buddhist material and watched/listened to a lot of talks, from a lot of different sources, in the past, but I don't remember anything about that. In fact, I don't remember even the word "hormobnes" coming i to play. It sounds like what you say is an interpretation of westerners. And not westerners that have been initiated to Buddhism, but who are mixing western with eastern concepts or, better, who are interpreting eastern concepts and principles based on western ones.The Buddhist talk about us being controlled by our emotions — Athena
Certainly.Exercise is very important to how feel mentally and physically. — Athena
:smile:We should not get botox injections that prevent us from smiling, because if we can not smile we can become depressed — Athena
No, have not heard of him, but I googled him, and read the wiki entry for him. A highly qualified physicist, who has had a very interesting career.Besides, there are much more important works about the nonlocality of the mind and consciousness. For instance, Menas Kafatos' (of Greek origin too, who I'm sure you know) — Alkis Piskas
I have not read either book, but I am interested in any connection science and scientists make between quantum physics and human consciousness. I have read up mostly on the work of Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose, in this area."The Nonlocal Universe" and "The Conscious Universe", in which he talks about quantum phenomena, a subject I know you like a lot. — Alkis Piskas
I have heard of Kastrup, as he is a very well informed, respected voice, AGAINST the notion that an AI system may become conscious. His main argument seems to be:Another very interesting person --with a PhD in both Philosophy and Computer Engineering, whom I'm also sure you know-- always within the context of consciousness and quantum Physics is Bernardo Kastrup. — Alkis Piskas
I hope you will find such a sojourn fruitful.BTW, with all that talk --mainly from you-- about quantum Physics, I'm planning to relive my knowledge which I have left behind some 30 years or so! — Alkis Piskas
No, you have misunderstood my complaint. I am referring to you posting such as:Some of the quotes you used in your last post look like they are MY words rather than Dr Leaf's words.
— universeness
I'm not aware of this, but I consider it probable. Sorry if I look I'm ignoring your points. But to be honest, and please do not be offended, I sometimes I browse through and even I skip long passages on subjects that I have not good knowledge of, line Physics, as I have mentioned. And this does not refer specifically to you .
Anyway, what are they? — Alkis Piskas
andPeople choose their actions — universeness
These words are from Dr Leaf, but you quoted them as it they came from me or that I agreed with them.experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions. — universeness
experience cannot be reduced to the brain's actions. — universeness
[Re mind and consciousness]What would your absolute BEST bit of evidence be, that they are not synonymous?
— universeness
If you refer to the article, again, I really can't say. I mean, it would be unwise from my part if I did.
As for my personal views on the subject. Mind and consciousness are two totally different kind of things. But this subject is a topic of itself! — Alkis Piskas
You are guilty of 'lazy thinking,' Future restaurants are not doomed to offer humans a poor, boring service due to the fact they will be a lot more automated. The problem is your (contrived in my opinion) lack of vision or your continuing dalliance with pessimism.I imagine what was once a restaurant will become more like a dorm cafeteria. You just come in and eat what you will of what they’re serving that day. — noAxioms
:lol: Control that 'crazy horse' you are riding, it's jumping wildly all over the place!. Having the option in the future to create a baby, completely outside of the female body, using donated sperm and eggs from consenting parents, IS NOT against god (catholic god included), as god does not exist. It is NOT a 'baby farm,' any more that the female reproduction system is a 'baby farm.' It has absolutely nothing to do with adding genetic manipulation to either the sperm or the egg nor does my suggestion have any relation to Nazi eugenics! Your tendency to leap towards extreme scare mongering, when I make suggestions about what OPTIONS humans might have in the future, suggests you are very attracted to unwarranted sensationalism!This goes against the morals of a huge percentage of voters. I mean, contraception is considered a sin by many, and forced sterilizations are not going to be popular with the voters. It also renders the species completely dependent on the baby farms. It hits one’s Nazi eugenics buttons where only ‘better’ people can breed, and only qualified people can raise children, not necessarily their own. Yea, the voters will love that. — noAxioms
I support bodily autonomy, not irrational anti-abortion groups.There are those that consider it murder to not bring to term a female egg, whether via in vitro fertilization or via test-tube procedures like you suggest. — noAxioms
Which dystopian system are you musing about here? It's certainly not one I would support!Also remember that the state controls reproduction and might decide that you don’t get to raise your own kids, or raise kids at all, even if you do breed some, so whether the genes of the kids you raise are yours or not might not be something you get to have if we’re implementing this test-tube world. — noAxioms
Yeah, sales-folks will say just about anything to get you to enter their tabernacle. Especially when they are losing so many of their 'flock.' As Walter Scott wrote: 'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'There are churches based on love and inclusion instead of the opposite. — noAxioms
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.