the Aristotelian version is that the fetus has a "telos" (to mature into a baby in the same way an acorn matures into a tree), and that having an abortion permanently frustrates this telos. — darthbarracuda

I don't have the time to go more into detail concerning your response right now, my apologies, but might you know the aristotelian stance on whether keeping a rock on a table is morally wrong as it's perturbing the telos of that rock, which is reaching the ground?

"Consciousness" and "self-awareness" are features of mind of which we are especially fond, but they are not the only components of a person. — Bitter Crank

But are they the main component? Is it possible for the sub-consciousness, for example, exist without the conscious mind?

There is so much about us that is processed out of reach of the conscious mind. "I" am witnessing some of these words flow into the computer through my fingers. I am not consciously composing the sentences, for the most part. — Bitter Crank

I disagree. Because of the trivialness of the situation, you're not consciously considering each option or decision you could be making but you're still conscious of your actions. In a sense, you're conscious of each button of the computer you're pushing and each sentence you compose.

Similarly in your example of turning with a car, one is aware of turning, by how much and how much they are turning the steering wheel. What they're not conscious of are only the options they're not picking.

Then too, our body is part of the unified self. We disposed of mind/body dualism, right. — Bitter Crank

Whoa, let's not jump into conclusions quite yet ;) Even if conscious mind is not all there is to the mind, that does not disprove dualism by itself. And whole another thing to think of is p-zombies, or the opposite scenario of a mind with no body (both being hypothetical of course).

Killing a sleeping person is eminently murderous. You'll hang for doing so.

I don't know about you, but I don't stop existing when I sleep. — Bitter Crank

How do you know? Your body does not, true, and your vital functions remain stable, but what about your mind? Do you have experiences of it existing while you're unconscious? There is no self awareness to eliminate if you're not sentient at that moment.

May I direct your attention to a more suitable place for the discussion in question, this one, as we're dangerously drifting off-topic?

Sorry but that seems like a logical fallacy. The argument, although briefly, is stated above and I don't see how one's capability to make that argument is relevant to the correctness of that argument.

The answer, by the way, is yes.

It does appear to be what one might call "temporary amnesia", since observation of memory is not there. There can be disagreement if what is memory, but it doesn't appear to be there in an unconscious state. — Rich

Indeed, and I think the lack of observation is the significant part. Are the memories not there, or are we only not remembering them? Our brain does have the memories as electric signals, but does the mind, assuming it's not only a product of chemical interactions, have them?

Same answer - I think I am, to some extent.

Well, you were the one to ask me whether I understood the scientific stance, to which I'm merely trying to answer. Whether I do understand that or not seems to be relevant to whether my argument is justifiable or not, which is, of course, relevant.

Edit: treat this comment as if it didn't exist, I misunderstood.

Well, how can anyone know they understand anything? I think I understand it but strictly speaking, a cogito, ergo sum.

Do you understand the state of the science about consciousness? — T Clark

How can you know the difference between knowing and thinking you know?

This requires a very precise understanding of mind, since the mind does reawaken. There is continuity of some sort as memory is recalled and intention once again exerts will. — Rich

I agree with this, but is the existence of the mind required during that time for these claims to remain true?

Having been unconscious, the actual feeling is that of no memory and no intent to perform some action — Rich

I believe this might be a poor phrasing of what you mean, as I assume you don't mean unconsciousness is (necessarily) followed by amnesia? As for the lack of intent to perform actions, does the same not hold for waking up?

How do you reach the conclusion that respecting marriage, even a non-existent one by avoiding premarital sex, is more important than not murdering people?

Does killing a sleeping person count as a murder? They don't have conscious and sentient mind at the time of the murder, so it's justifiable to make the claim that they don't exist, but that they only have potential to become into existence.

Natural sciences can't explain consciousness, sentience. Under such circumstances I don't see how one could consider natural sciences fully explaining their actions, which appear to be made by the mind.

It's a matter of preference perhaps..... lets say I simply "prefer" red over black becuase it give me a better feeling when I think of it. — XanderTheGrey

Or maybe you know very well that you're very likely to die if you shoot yourself.

You've studied more about probability than me, but from a personal prespective your chances of wining any given hand or game are still 50/50 are they not? — XanderTheGrey

If the chances of getting a tails is 50/50 and you throw 10000 coins, there'll probably be ~5000 tails. If there's 50/50 chance of getting 10000 tails in the row, there's 0,5 chances that you're getting 10000 tails instead. Now repeat this test enough times, let's say 10000. You now have 100 000 000 coins, 50 000 000 of which are tails from the tests where you got 10000 tails in the row. You see how the math isn't just adding up?

What you quoted was a simplified description of what I think it essentially boils down to. — Sephi

Then that description is a very incorrect one.

The problem doesn't exist because the premise (first quote) is icorrect.

It's not possible for the first coin flip to have 50/50 chances, the second coin to have 50/50 chances and the odds of both having the desired result being 50/50. How familiar are you with probabilistic mathematics?

You wouldnt factor in the odds of soneone at the table spontaniously dying from an aneurysm. — XanderTheGrey

I would, but all the players have an equal chance of dying.

the odds of you winning are still 50/50 — XanderTheGrey

If everyone has 50/50 chance of winning, on average there are 2,5 winners each game.

Also, address my example of your suicide.

If you try to shoot yourself, are your odds of surviving 50%? Are your odds of dying for no reason at that moment 50%? If both are yes, why not shoot yourself because there's no increased risk of dying?

Ofcourse I would say 50/50.

There is a very difficult slight in the underground legerdemain called "flippant technique"(not to be confused with the card slight or flourish). It takes anywhere from 5-15 years to master, and its purely a technique of control, so there is no way to classify it as cheating. I don't know if there even is an official world record, but I've seen a 72 year old male prestidigitator flip my silver morgan to tails 54 times in a row landing it on a card table(heads is slightly harder to flip to.), but I've seen that achived at 33 times in a row by the same man.

How would you calculate the odds with this man involved? To me it would still be 50/50. — XanderTheGrey

Is your argument that because the're are too many factors or the problem is too hard to calculate, we're to assume 50/50 odds?

Tell me this, what are the odds of the first coin being tails and the second coin being tails, then?

What if someone defines god as a being that didn't create the world? Are they correct because "ultimately that's [that god created the world] implied in any concept of god, anyway"? The definitions you gave are that god is a thing that did not create the world, so that is exactly what you're doing.

Basically, how I describe the deistic god is: pick the very first thing that existed, and slap the name god on it. — Sephi

the first thing that existed is only the first thing until science finds something else that existed before it. — Sephi

This assumes that space and time are not manipulated. — XanderTheGrey

Are they? Where does this assumption come from?

What are the odds of throwing a tails with a coin twice in the row?

None of what I said implies that god didn't create the world. — Sephi

It doesn't imply that it did, either, making it false.

Do you have statistics on the success rate of entrepreneurs?

Well, I mean the odds of it happening at any given time, in any given place. Would be 50/50 right? In infinite space there is unlimited potential for something to reach out and intervene. — XanderTheGrey

No, if you throw a die the odds of getting 1 are at any given time and in any given place 1/6.

It dosen't matter how long your life is, its matters how long things have been going, how long the omniverses life span is(infinite in this case). — XanderTheGrey

How long the life is does matter in this case. How long the lifespan of omniverse is is irrelevant to any case. One of the most basic rules of probability is that the history of events does not change the odds of any outcome.

That's not the Deistic definition either because it includes the god creating the world.

Of course the rule only applies to possible events, as Tim noted in his comment:

Well, if there is a chance - or if "chance" not equal to zero — tim wood

If you die the time frame is not infinite. That's why I added "assuming you live infinitely".

The answer is: absolutely - assuming you live infinitely.

I think of it this way; in the bigger picture, considering an infinite time span, infinite space, matter & energy; a being somewhere could win a in gambling every single time it plays(lets say several times a day) for 90 years of its 100 year life. Thats event is a possibility. — XanderTheGrey

It most certainly is, but where do you get the 50/50 from? The odds of that happening are 100%, not 50%.

Which is problematic as that applies to opposites. — Jeremiah

When an event happens infinite times,

• p(A happens) approaches one,
• p(¬A happens) approaches one,
• p(¬(A happens)) approaches zero (A never happens), and
• p(¬(¬A happens)) approaches zero (A always happens).

There's no problem.

Could you present some examples of the freedom that we've lost in the last decades? Even being somewhat familiar with the show, I can't think of any.

As for the definition, that comment was a reply to Sephi. I don't (think I) have any problems with your definition.

That is a false premise because your definition is not how God is defined. First, the definition does include "the first being that existed", but not "the first the first thing known by science to have existed". Second, there are other definitions for God, which vary between religios and persons, but often include such things as being sentient and being responsible over the creation of the World.

Compare lifestyles today to that of the 60s and 70s in terms of what we can and can’t do in the eyes of the law, for instance. — MikeL

This sounds like a very regional issue of your home country.

Exactly, for terrorists they're not collateral damage because killing them is the goal.

Does only the result matter, or the motivation as well? For one killing is negative, for the other it's positive.

You provided examples of how altruism can be a product of selfishness, but not proof.

It may be that we are talking past one another. I'm suggesting that conditions cannot be separated from the concept of what love is. As soon as you try to define what love is, you must have conditions which separate it from other things like indifference or hate. — John Days

So far I agree, these kinds of conditions exist for everything. In order to love something unconditionally, the conditions of you existing, loving that something and that love being unconditional, for example, must be met. However, those are not the kind of conditions that the word unconditional means in the context.

That's not a condition of love, that's a condition of it being unconditional.

Which rationally contradicts anything you say afterward about how love can be unconditional. — John Days

No, it doesn't. Unconditional love means that the love has no conditions. Every condition you've presented in this discussion is a condition for it being unconditional, not a condition of the love itself.

Life is not here to survive. If it were, it would have evolved into a very simple organism which could very strongly withstand the pressures of time, it would not have evolved into complex, sophisticated, and extremely delicate organisms, if it only wanted to survive.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Life doesn't want to survive; each individual being does. If there's an empty ecological niche, then it's the fittest form due to the lack of competition. What I imagine when I think of the organism you described, is a simple plant of some sort duch as moss or algae. But these are also very defenseless if a more complex predator appears.