Does consciousness begin at conception?

Post Reply New Topic

I think the position that makes the least assumptions, even more so, is just to say you really don't know. Its intellectually dishonest to think, with absolute certainty, that there is nothing worthy of the title God. I don't really buy the unicorn or orbital teapot analogies either, because the concept of God is based in the notion of metta-consciousness, not just some random silly thing. All of reality, on some level, is a singularity. This singularity may not be conscious in the theistic sense, but it is all interwoven and interconnected. Perhaps this interconnectedness, the fact that all matter is compatible with itself and all empty space in the universe is an actual example of divinity. On the other hand, maybe this transtemporal unknown driving the laws of nature has to be conscious in order to have the title "God". I ultimately don't know, and that's what I'll leave it at. Its not as arrogant as saying, with absolute certainty, that there is a God or isn't a God ...and it makes less assumptions.

You contradict yourself (bolded above). A persons personality and mannerisms are functions of the brain itself and are intimately related to and affected by brain chemistry and physical form. On the one hand you claim the hypothetical soul isn't in the body and is not physical but then give it credit for the things the physical brain is known to be responsible for. You can't have it both ways. Ergo the soul does not exist.

At least we know unicorn or orbital teapot are silly because we understand what these terms refer to. 'God' or 'metta-consciousness' on the other hand are absolutely nonsense gibberish.

This is the wrong question. The question is not, "does consciousness begin at conception?" Clearly it doesn't. The question is, "Is the development of consciousness significant in the balance of rights between a woman and her unborn child?"

Similarly, the question, "is a fetus a human being?" is equally wrong. It's absolutely clear that a fetus is a living, human being. But that does not answer the question, "What is the correct balance of rights between a woman and her unborn child?"

The medical-ethical and legal questions are not resolved by doing an end-run around them and attempting to move the goalposts. Calling a fetus a human being is accurate, but does precisely nothing to resolve the question of when or under what circumstances it might be acceptable to terminate a pregnancy.

It's a shame we started off at odds on the taxation issue. While I disagree with some of your conclusions, I really like how you approach things.

If intelligent people didn't vehemently disagree with each other from time to time, where would progress and innovation come from? And how could be protect ourselves from progress and innovation?

does unborn conscious human have interests?

how do interests come into being? are some interests innate?

does an unborn conscious being have any conception of life or death?

without conceiving of either, is it possible to prefer one over the other?

if it has no interests, would you considered it a person?

do the future interests of as yet non-existent persons matter?

No.

Simplest explanation that fits the current evidence is currently the most viable explanation.


"There is no god"

Is a far simpler explanation than:

"There is a god, that intentionally hides any evidence of its existence. That intentionally ignores prayers done in laboratories. That intentionally lets evil run rampant cuz free will. That sent his kid to die for us in what would be the most Hillariously non-sensical plan ever".

Ocam himself thought of his razor to debunk atheism. But it was a time in which we didn't understand life too much. Then atheism needed complex explanations to work around things like the universe's creation and why life is so complex. Unfortunately for Ocam, Darwin described evolution. A natural process that explains complexity of lfie through simple means.

This is the reason why Evolution is so dreaded, because it completely flips the world. Thanks to it, the simplest explanation for the complexity of life is no longer "Wizard did it", but an actual set of laws that match our current evidence and understanding of life.

But lest we go off-topic. In the current case, that we cannot measure a soul physically and that we know that there are chemical processes in the brain that control our reactions to stimuli means that, by Ocam's razor, there is no reason at all to believe in a soul.

Consciousness or "personhood" or whatever equivocation created by pro-abortionists to deflect from the fact that abortion kills a human being is beside the point. At conception, a new human life is created.

Sperm are human life.

No
one
cares

What?

Holy s**t! That makes me a genocidal maniac!

They are alive little creatures with human DNA.

Main difference between the level of "life" a sperm has and this thing after conception:


Is that at least sperm can move.

"Interests," is poorly defined here. Certainly there are interests that only arise as a matter of conscious thought, and necessarily involve the cerebral cortex ("I like chocolate"). But there are also interests that express themselves independently of consciousness, like hunger and thirst.

But if we are talking about legal interests, then yes. An unborn human, whether conscious or not, has interests. But that's not a particularly helpful determination. Because a pregnant woman has both interests and rights.



Does that matter? A human being in a permanent vegetative state has no conception of life or death, and has no apparent capacity to prefer one over the other. That in no way diminishes that person's legal rights. But even in the unlikely circumstance that an unborn human being has a conception of life or death, and a preference for the former, is that determinative of any question?



Not for that reason.

Again we need clarity. What is the difference between a human being and a person? I am acting on the assumption that a human being is a distinct organism with human DNA; whereas a person is a human being to whom legal personality has attached. Conception defines when a human being comes into existence; but the law defines when a person comes into existence.

I consider an unborn child to be a living, human being, but not to be a legal person. To my way of thinking, the legal interests of the child divert from the interests of the mother at the limit of viability (conservatively, 20 weeks gestational age). These interests have not yet crystalised into legal rights, however. That only happens with successful delivery. But at the limit of viability, those interests have diverted such that assertion of the mother's legal right to life, liberty and security of the person must be assessed in light of those competing interests.



Yes. But that's not the question. The question is, how much do they matter?

That sounds more along the lines of one who is pissed off at a "God" that disagrees with his own personal views more or less.



I was showing you the effects of the "Soul" as represented through personality and mannerisms. If the soul does not exist, then there would be no emotions/feelings and personalities that differ. Everyone would be cold, logic driven robots. Relationships would not matter.



I find that questionable, when one dies or pronounced clincally dead, there is a major difference in their body besides rigor mortis. There not they same as they once were. The soul is the "life" of the person.

Best Regards,

Jake

Completely untrue. You appear to know as little about brain function and neurology as you do evolution.

No, give me the field and the floor on this one hear me out. You are implying that is all based upon logic and reasoning as to why people operate the way they do. That is not the case, listen to me, at least this once.

If the soul does not exist, man would only operate based upon logic and reasoning. Emotions, based upon one's personality would become obsolete. Therefore, if no emotions were present, the only way man would operate would be by logic and reasoning. Man would become cold, heartless and almost inhuman creatures.

I understand basic human neurology to know that man operates upon two fields of thinking, logic and emotional. I consider myself a mix of both, however implying that only one field operates exclusively is not viable or valid. One cannot be entirely logic driven, also, one cannot be emotionally driven. There must be an equal ground. That equal ground is the soul. Although it is not material and can be measured, does not imply that it does not exist. I have conviction to know, that the soul does exist, that when I die, I will no longer be "Jake" as once was when I lived. I will be a cold, lifeless, shell of a being. My humanity will cease to exist. But do I end there? Is my path the end, the beginning of another? I would like to think so. Like I mentioned before, creation and life is teleological, there is a beginning, a middle and end.

Best Regards,

Jake