[Raven]

Originally Posted by AChimp

Dude, you are like, soooo Age of Elightenment. Just because you can't make an equation out of it, or measure it exactly doesn't invalidate it. Psychology is able to make some pretty damn accurate predictions based on it's "pathetic attempts."

That is the same argument used against abortion as well. Or must we forget about the continously reference of a soul from the majority of the "pro-life" side of the camp. They utilize scientific methods, but this does not make them a science. Construction also utilizes scientific methods, are they are science as well?

Originally Posted by AChimp

you're going to turn into one of those lame existentialists who whines that he or she is the only thing that they are sure of in the universe? You are actually going to argue the existence of sentience?

The very existance of sentience is existentialism. Sentient being is a being that is self-aware. Self-awareness can not be determined or prescribed for any being. The only being that can truly tell if its self-aware or not is the sole being able to comprehend it. And that being is simple put, you. There is no way to determine whether anyone is self-aware or not. As being self-aware is based upon a determinition that requires you to experience it. Thus the very existance of sentience is nothing more than mass existentialism. But this is completely off subject.

Originally Posted by AChimp

Bacteria DO NOT have a functioning brain because they are ONE cell. I can pull up any diagram of a bacteria you want, and I challenge you to point out the brain... or are you refering to the nucleus? That controls cell functions, moron, and is purely based on reactions to various proteins and chemicals. It is a physical and chemical reaction. There is no "conditioning" involved. Cells are not "trained" to do specific things; there's no Raven's School Gifted Bacteria.

The human brain works in the same respect. It merely responds to chemical, protein, and hormone stimuli. Than generates nerve reaction channeling potassium ions through the nervous system. Simple because the system is more complex and efficient does not mean they are two different systems. Is a computer from the 1970s no longer a computer because of the ones we currently have running today?

Originally Posted by AChimp

There's a difference between "brain" and "nerve centre." Nerve centres say, "Hey, my flagella on that side was brushed so I'm gonna move in that direction now." Pure instinct. Have you ever watched an amoeba through a microscope? I have many times. There is no predictable pattern of movement like you would see if the amoeba was making any logical "choices," so to start BSing your way around claiming protozoic organisms can make decisions is crap, even for the sake of playing devil's advocate. Even philosophy has a point at which the wisemen say it's retarded.

I have watched both an amoeba and a human. Neither have predictable patterns. That's called the Chaos Theory. I said they choose to engulf their prey. They choose to move. You are automatically assuming I'm saying they are making logical decisions. There isn't a creature yet that can make a decision based upon logic. They are all essentially determined ahead of time.

Originally Posted by AChimp

Brains are even't that much different, since most animals operate on pure instinct. Why doesn't the deer chose to run away from the headlights? It has a brain. Oh wait! D'oh! Instinct tells the deer to stay still when it gets scared... right.

Since humans have a brain, why do most humans choose not to kill their neighbors over owning a pet they don't like? They have brains. Oh wait! D'oh! Conditioning tells the humans not to. Oh ya and the Sympathetic nervous system dictates fight or flight. They aren't scared. I don't quite know what they are. But if they were scared they would have run.

Originally Posted by AChimp

If brains that could make free choices were that simple to create, trust me, as a computer science major, creating neural nets would be a walk in the park and we'd already have true AI.

Tell me how many variables do you include for the AI? Thousands? Millions? Well as many as you use I highly doubt you are using enough to actually create an AI close to the human brain. You would need billions of variables. From the minute reaction to a tempature of .01, to the reaction of getting stabbed. This is of course to create one that is exactly like a human. Now if you are simple making a true AI you still need a large quanity of variables, of which I could not begin to comprehend what they would be based upon.

Originally Posted by AChimp

If you were to create a clone of yourself, minus the brain, would you start giving it rights? Would your clone care if you started harvesting its organs? Would it have sensory perception? The answers to the latter two questions are no. Sensory perception requires at least a nerve centre, and caring requires thought.

If it was living than it is deserves the same rights you and I have. But it is completely unlikely that it would be alive. Or even if it was "living" it would be unlikely that you could count it as a living being. As it would require a brain to react to stimuli within one's environment.

Originally Posted by AChimp

Since I have just shown that during the first trimester, there is NO brain, and any tiny little nerve cells DO NOT constitute consciousness allowing choice, there is no reason to assume that the embryo would be aware of its surroundings or care what happens to it. Caring requires thought, remember? The only reason why we ASSUME that it would care is because we assign our own beliefs to it when we imagine ourselves in its shoes. That's called the self-reference criterion; you can read any psychology book about it.

Caring is nothing more than chemical signals sent from one portion of the brain to the other, causing a reaction. Now you have already said that the nucleous reacts to proteins and chemicals. Much the same way the brain reacts to proteins and chemicals. So a cell that lyses itself to protect the rest of the fetus, obviously "cares" about the its surroundings does it not? Consciousness is metaphysical.

Originally Posted by AChimp

If we were to decide that there's no such thing as sentience, which is the idea you appear to have, why not assume EVERYTHING is human? Oh wait... they don't have the same DNA! Well, now, you see, we're back to defining stuff solely on it's physical properties.

Instead of defining them by what has a soul and what doesn't?

Originally Posted by AChimp

Okay, dude, you're not even talking science anymore. You're in the realm of philosophy, which according to the belief structure you outlined above, is just as pathetic as pschology.

I never said psychology was a pathetic attempt at a science. I never said it was pathetic. And he made a statement, thus I responded.