There is no point in getting involved in the abortion argument. Just be aware that abortion is just one of things that is removing the 'civilisation' from Western civilisation.

Thank you Peter.
Life begins at Conception
Personhood begins with Life

Is it fair for a child to suffer a life of consequences due to it's parents' indisciplined drug & alcohol fuelled behaviour such as we see daily by the tattooed & body-pierced Bogans of 'proud British heritage'?

There is little room left in our neatly structured world, for the inconvenience of the life of others.

Don’t fall under the bus, there is no mercy!

Dan

Life begins at Conception
LesP,
For many yes, for even more it's a miserable existence that could be avoided by abortion !

individual,

<<Life begins at Conception
LesP,
For many yes, for even more it's a miserable existence that could be avoided by abortion !>>

The medical profession disagrees:

"Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

"The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

I understand where your coming from Individual.

The mating act is totally divorced from the reality of the inevitable outcome of the act.

But when the welfare cheque increases with the number of additions to the family stock, where is the incentive to not procreate.

But isn’t this an indication of the real problem with abortion?
it’s probably fair to say, those women that freely use the abortion services, would be suspiciously the ones who have brains enough to deal with the outcome of a full term pregnancy.

Maybe a more enlightened abortion regime would be to discourage the process of abortion and encourage by welfare payments towards those with a brain to deal sensibly with the pregnancy.

Obviously there is a disconnect in the ivory towers when birth rates of the Nation are falling below acceptable levels, requiring mass immigration to shore up population growth: It makes no sense out here unless the whole thing is a lie, which it is of course.

Mass immigration is not in the slightest degree intended to shor up population stability as claimed.
The only propping up that does, is props up the welfare of land developers and other such scammers involved in guiding the ruling class with rewards to a better life style for themselves.

Interesting thought!

Dan

All I'm going to say is:
Instead of wishing to force women to give birth to an unwanted baby or guilt-tripping them, please advocate for free contraception and mandatory, comprehensive sex education.
The result will be a significant reduction in the abortion rate as has been shown by some European countries such as the Nordic countries and the Netherlands.

Celivia

Well, if you are referring to my intelligent suggestions above, (which you may not be), there is a difference between guilt tripping women to hold the pregnancy full term, and guilt tripping them over the actual alternative, abortion.

I would think in my own head, if guilt tripping is the problem for women, then why are not more women guilt tripping over the actual abortion itself, with its obvious butchery and violence, and nil to scant regard for a human life; especially one so vulnerable and still in the womb.
It all seems so cowardly to me.

I would say to these women, get some guts and face your responsibility.

Dan.

.

Dear Peter,

.

You declare :

« The Church, in most of its forms, has opposed abortion and many also oppose Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD). The grounds for this opposition are similar and are based on the view that each person is created in the image of God. Each of us has an integral dignity that cannot be erased even during a painful death »
.

Does that mean, "a contrario", that if there were no God, the Church, in most of its forms, would not oppose abortion, nor Voluntary Assisted Dying (VAD) ?

Do you honestly consider, Peter, that belief alone (that there really is a God) – without any substantive evidence – is sufficient grounds for finding someone guilty of assassinating an embryo or foetus created “in the image of (that hypothetical) God” ?

It seems to me that that is a position on very shaky grounds. It is the type of bigotry on which the Church had women burnt on the stake or drowned – particularly in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, even as late as the 17th century.

If only there were a God, Peter, if only …
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lx8c3-djc8&ab_channel=reidyboi411

.

"each person is created in the image of God."

Who was the first charlatan to utter those words?

Life has no beginning and no end.

The questions raised by the author stem from the artificial separation of "human life" from the totality of life.

I wish the author respected just as much the life of animals and condemned their killing just the same - the whole world and all that is in it is created in the image of God, not just humans. The non-religious may think and do whatever they like (they have their own learning curve ahead, which too must be respected), but for the lovers of God there is no place for such arrogant thoughts as if humans are somehow better, somehow less-distorted images of God than the rest.

unwanted baby or guilt-tripping them, please advocate for free contraception and mandatory, comprehensive sex education.

Celivia,
Agree however, there's another factor many who have it too good never think about. Those who want to hasten the downfall of the West will never, repeat never make use of birth control.
After all, the biggest problem we face is overpopulation & only the correctly educated & those who can think know that in order to prevent more babies suffering the West has to stop sending aid to those who don't want to help solve the problem.
The West needs to be cruel to be kind to all. Bonuses should be paid to women who chose birth control after two babies. This could encourage women in poorer economies to give two children a good life instead of raising three or more in poverty & misery !
Modern medical advances probably can already effect temporary or reversible sterilisation in males & females. Economic & environmental problems are already making it crystal clear that this is the only way forward.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You affirm :

« Life has no beginning and no end »
.

The fact that the current state of the art of science can neither confirm nor debunk that statement relegates it to the status of pure conjecture.

Perhaps the recently launched $US10 billion NASA-built telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope, (JWST), the most powerful space telescope ever created, will shed some light on the subject.

The JWST is the closest thing we have developed so far as a time machine.

It will gather light from stars and galaxies located up to 13.6 billion light-years away — light that has taken 13.6 billion years to reach the telescope’s mirrors. Since the universe is thought to be roughly 13.8 billion years old, the galaxies that JWST will be observing probably formed about 100 to 250 million years after the Big Bang. The universe was in its infancy then, and JWST will be providing us with photos of it when it was a baby.

That may not be quite early enough, but it may, nevertheless, provide us with some interesting factual information that would be a vast improvement on our current state of ignorance of just how and when the universe and life began.

Religious doctrine, dogma, belief, teaching, and propaganda have never been reliable sources of information on such matters.

Science has often proved it wrong.

Wisdom dictates that we should not listen to the sirens that pretend to reveal the unknown. We must be patient and wait for science to accomplish its task.

Some progress will be made during our lifetime, and we must be grateful for it, but we must also accept that, unfortunately, much will not.

That's life.

.

Dear Banjo,

Life has no beginning simply because one cannot conceive of a time when life was not. Time is just a relation between events, but if there is no life then there are no events, thus there is no point in time when life "was" not.

The intention of my post was to point to the author that life is not limited to human life. In fact, not even to biological life. If one artificially limits life to biological forms then of course, one does not even need a telescope to point at such a time when no biological life existed. However, that division which claims "this phenomenon is life, that phenomenon is not life", is arbitrary and based on human ego alone.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You explain :

« Life has no beginning simply because one cannot conceive of a time when life was not. Time is just a relation between events, but if there is no life then there are no events, thus there is no point in time when life "was" not »
.

Apparently, you consider that life exists in our minds only, Yuyutsu – that it is a purely subjective notion. That is not the case. Life is an objective reality. It exists independently of any ideas we may have concerning it.

The fact that we “cannot conceive of a time when life was not” has no effect whatsoever on the existence or non-existence of life. It does not depend on our thoughts (conception) in order to exist or not exist.

The day I die I shall “no longer conceive of a time when my life existed”. That does not alter the fact that my life did, in fact, exist. It will have been an objective reality – and my lack of conception of it will have no effect on that reality.

I also beg to differ with your declaration that “if there is no life then there are no events”. An event is “a thing that happens or takes place, especially one of importance” (OED). In physics, it is defined as “a single occurrence of a process, e.g. the ionization of one atom” (also OED).

Events occur constantly in the universe where there is no life. In fact, there are an enormous number of events and very little life. The only life we know of at present is life on earth and that is insignificant compared to all the events that are occurring throughout the universe, completely independent of any life that may also exist, including life on earth.
.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-YSB6v8k1U&ab_channel=GBHForumNetwork

.

Dear Banjo,

"one cannot conceive of..." is just an expression.
For example, when we say that "one cannot conceive of Santa living in the North Pole", we only mean that that concept is illogical.
Of course Santa could be conceived of, and many little children indeed do, but an intelligent adult would not.

Thus please allow me to keep the discussion of objectivity vs. subjectivity for another time since it has little to do with this topic.

Regarding events, time depends on events regardless of their "importance" or otherwise. Who is to claim that a particular event is more important than another? - that's sheer prejudice, not physics!
An electron going round a nucleus of protons and neutrons is also an event. All clocks, including atomic clocks are based on such events. The Newtonian idea of the existence of time independent of matter, has long been superceded by Einstein's relativity.

Back to the topic:

«The only life we know of at present is life on earth and that is insignificant compared to all the events that are occurring throughout the universe»

Life is all around, at least wherever matter exists. Considering non-biological phenomena, such as the movement of stars, to not be worthy of the name "life", is prejudice based on human ego.

The author went a step further, to consider only human life as worthy of protecting. Not the totality of life, not even biological life, only human life.

Mayhap he considers only humans to be created in the image of God?
But never mind, that would be a theological discussion between myself and the author which would unlikely be of any interest to an atheist/agnostic like yourself.

According to the author, when 46 chromosomes are present, the very moment 23+23 human chromosomes combine, that organism must not be interfered with.
Why would it be different when 60 (30+30) chromosomes combine to form a cow?
Unless one is blinded by prejudice in favour of the human body they identify themselves as, one would consider 60 chromosomes just as sacred as 46!

60 chromosomes just as sacred as 46!
Yuyutsu,
Only a being with 46 can answer that & it looks like you might just be the person to ask that creature & get an answer.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« Life is all around, at least wherever matter exists. Considering non-biological phenomena, such as the movement of stars, to not be worthy of the name "life", is prejudice based on human ego »
.

I don’t see anything reprehensible about making a distinction between animate and inanimate matter. The distinction is not due to “prejudice based on human ego” as you suggest. It is the result of a long process of natural evolution.

Life, as I have indicated in previous discussions, is what the French biologist Jacques Monod described as a process of chance and necessity, where chance is a random variable and necessity an inevitable event.

Both animate and inanimate matter are subject to the laws of nature. But only organic, biological, or animated matter is capable of autonomy, to whatever extent its particular biological form and degree of evolution may allow.

Stars (which you mention) move, not because they are animated and autonomous – therefore “worthy of the name life” – but simply because they are subject to the laws of nature (gravity, explosions, collisions, fusions, etc.).

Life is not “all around wherever matter exists”, as you state, Yuyutsu. Life is extremely rare. The dirt, rocks, stones, and ice of the planets together with the Sun and the stars (often composed of gases) are not organic, biological, or animated matter.

You may live among the stars, Yuyutsu, and dream at night that they are part of your life, but they, as such, are not live objects.

The only resemblance between the inanimate matter of the cosmos and us materialises when we are dead and, like all the other inanimate matter of the cosmos, we too become inanimate matter subject only to the laws of nature.

.

Dear Banjo,

In your previous post you praised objective reality over the subjective, but now you speak of autonomy and free will, which is a subjective experience with no objective or scientific backing.

From an objective point of view, neither stars nor animals nor humans have any free will - in fact, they have no will at all of any kind, they are all subject to the laws of physics, including what goes on in our brains and even in our minds.

If you prefer to view life from an objective perspective, then I will go along: stars, rocks, stones, ice, planets, sun and stars, plants, animals and humans, that which seems to be animate and that which seems to be inanimate, are all the same, all made of the same sub-atomic building blocks, all helplessly following the same physical laws, none being more important or less important than the others. To dissect the objective reality and then consider one part of it to be more precious and/or sacred than the others, makes no scientific sense, no logic: such thinking is based on emotional arrogance.

Hi diver dan
I wasn’t referring to your previous post, I merely put in my 2-cents worth about some points in the article.
But in your response to me, you don’t acknowledge that free birth control and mandatory, comprehensive sex ed is the best way to reduce abortion rates.

Do you really think that if abortion is made difficult to access or illegal, that women would stop having abortions?
Like it or not, throughout history, women have found a way to terminate a pregnancy -sometimes successfully, sometimes dangerously. For example, backyard procedures, hot baths, and using abortificant herbs have been used prior to legal abortions or in countries where there’s no access to safe abortions, to terminate unwanted pregnancies.
Termination of pregnancies should be safe and easily accessible to prevent unnecessary pain and deaths.
Do you prefer it if women have dangerous abortions?

Sure, some women may feel guilty after having an abortion, but that’s for them to deal with and to find help with, if needed. It’s her choice, not yours or anyone else’s. It’s a matter between the pregnant woman’s doctor and her.
You don’t know the circumstances pregnant women are in so you should stop to judge them.

Hi Individual
I agree that women who want to prevent getting pregnant should have free access to birth control either here in Australia or elsewhere.
The best way to lower the birthrate is to educate women.
Good point, we know by looking at history that higher education and falling birth rates go hand-in-hand. Empower women by education throughout the world and the problem of poverty and high birth rates will start to fall.

'The best way to lower the birthrate is to educate women.'
The problem is not with women

Educate all and you have a chance to a balanced society

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« In your previous post you praised objective reality over the subjective, but now you speak of autonomy and free will, which is a subjective experience with no objective or scientific backing »
.

I did not “praise” objective reality, Yuyutsu. I simply indicated that “it exists independently of any ideas we may have concerning it”. That is just its definition, that's all – nothing to do with praise.

You note that I “speak of autonomy and free will”. Yes, I do speak of autonomy, but, if you re-read my posts carefully, you will not find any mention at all of “free will”.

That said, I am quite happy to discuss free will with you if you are interested.

As I see it, nature has endowed all life forms with a certain degree of consciousness and autonomy to enable us all (animals, vegetation, and whatever) to thrive, evolve and survive. And it is the exceptional growth and development of the human brain that has allowed mankind to dominate all the other life forms and attain the supreme degree of consciousness and autonomy that we call free will.

.

Hi Special Delivery
While I agree that education of every person is necessary, we still have a global problem when you look at the obstacles that girls/women face when it comes to education; obstacles that boys/men are not facing.

There is a strong link between increased education of girls/women and lower birth rates. I’m not sure if we’re allowed to post links in our comments, but just look it up yourself and you will find it out.
There are several articles discussing this fact.

There is a fundamental problem with Peter Sellick's argument. People respect human lives because other humans have selves like us, not because of DNA. For example, hospitals can turn off life support once a patient has been declared brain-dead, even though pregnant women have been kept "alive" in this state for weeks or months because the family wanted to save the fetus. No one is there anymore. We would regard the murder of an identical twin just as seriously as any other murder, even if the victim's DNA lives on in the twin. No unique DNA. We would extend human rights to E.T. or Commander Data if they actually existed. No human DNA. The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, when the embryo or fetus simply isn't developed enough to have a self. No one is there yet. The issue becomes murky later in pregnancy, but late abortions are relatively rare and usually performed because something has gone tragically wrong with a wanted pregnancy. Third trimester abortions are uncontroversially illegal, except under the most extreme circumstances.

Jewish law never accepted the moment of conception argument. For example, they didn't delay the execution of a pregnant woman unless she was actually in the process of giving birth. There was also a difference of opinion among early Christians about whether ensoulment (personhood) took place a the moment of conception or when the fetus was developed enough to have human faculties. Those in the latter camp would have said that early abortion was still wrong, but for reasons to do with Christian theology and because (at the time) abortion was so dangerous for the woman.

It is one thing to tell the flock that a good Christian will have nothing to do with abortion except to save the mother's life and quite another to attempt to force your views on people outside who don't accept the moment of conception argument. Similarly with voluntary assisted dying. What if the dying person doesn't accept that his or her horrendous suffering is part of their journey to God?

Dear Banjo,

«You note that I “speak of autonomy and free will”. Yes, I do speak of autonomy, but, if you re-read my posts carefully, you will not find any mention at all of “free will”.»

Good, thank you for clarifying because from an objective point of view there is no such thing.
What you refer to as "autonomy", is an objective functionality: while science may describe it in detail, attaching importance to this functionality is emotional and irrational.

«That said, I am quite happy to discuss free will with you if you are interested.»

What's there to discuss? from an objective standpoint there is no such thing!

«As I see it, nature has endowed all life forms with a certain degree of consciousness and autonomy to enable us all (animals, vegetation, and whatever) to thrive, evolve and survive. And it is the exceptional growth and development of the human brain that has allowed mankind to dominate all the other life forms and attain the supreme degree of consciousness and autonomy that we call free will.»

I generally agree with your statement, apart from three points:

1) The word "consciousness" does not belong in this list: there is nothing objective about it.

2) I was of the impression that we just agreed, above, that "free will" is different from autonomy (the latter exists, the former not), so why suddenly equate the two again?

3) The phrase "...to enable us all (animals, vegetation, and whatever) to thrive...", falsely equates US with those life forms (animals, vegetation and whatever). This statement could be true if you only replaced it with "to enable animals, vegetation and whatever, to thrive...".

.

Dear Uuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … from an objective point of view, there is no such thing [as autonomy].

What you refer to as "autonomy", is an objective functionality: while science may describe it in detail, attaching importance to this functionality is emotional and irrational »
.

Those centuries-old criticisms are long surpassed, Yuyutsu. I am more inclined to agree with Jacques Monod’s criterion of “autonomous morphogenesis”.

The OED defines life as :

« The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death »

It defines autonomy as :

« Freedom from external control or influence; independence »

Here is a brief description of Jacques Monod’s criterion of “autonomous morphogenesis” :

« ...a living being's structure results from a ... process ... that owes almost nothing to the action of outside forces, but everything, from its overall shape down to its tiniest detail, to "morphogenetic" interactions within the object itself. It is thus a structure giving proof of an autonomous determinism: precise, rigorous, implying a virtually total "freedom" with respect to outside agents or conditions — which are capable, to be sure of impeding this development, but not of governing or guiding it, not of prescribing its organizational scheme to the living object. Through the autonomous and spontaneous character of the morphogenetic processes that build the macroscopic structure of living beings, the latter are distinct from artifacts, as they are, furthermore, from the majority of natural objects whose macroscopic morphology largely results from the influence of external agents. To this, there is a single exception: that, once again, of crystals, whose characteristic geometry reflects microscopic interactions occurring within the object itself. Hence, utilizing this criterion alone, crystals would have to be classified together with living beings, while artifacts and natural objects, alike fashioned by outside agents, would comprise another class. »

(Chance and Necessity, p.10)
.

Free will is a functional advantage developed by nature. It is autonomy, the autonomy of the individual. Its acquisition and development are progressive.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

It is an evolutive mode of functioning. It has been evolving ever since the apparition of life on earth of which human beings are by far the most advanced form. We have long surpassed all other forms of life and all other animal species in terms of autonomy and continue to make progress, generation after generation. Though there may be important differences in the rate of development of autonomy among individuals due to all the variables that contribute to its evolution, progress is nevertheless achieved during the lifetime of each individual. Beneficial mutations and experiences continue to accumulate over time, multiplying and diversifying choice patterns to an ever-greater degree of complexity until the individual is no longer held to obey any predetermined course of behaviour, gaining in the autonomy we call free will.

Autonomy or free will implies that the individual can govern himself, of determining his own thoughts and actions without, or despite, outside influence. He must clearly be in the driving seat. He must exercise what we call self-control. Self-control is an integral component of autonomy. If there is no self-control, there is no autonomy. The degree of autonomy is determined by the degree of self-control and vice versa.

As the individual continues to emerge and develop free will, his vision of society and the environment in which he evolves takes on a new perspective. He develops a greater awareness of his earthly condition and the nature of his existence and life in general.

The emerging faculty to extract himself from his environment and observe himself as an individual is fuelled by that innate, basic emotion we call curiosity which mankind shares with other animal species. Our curiosity and need for understanding lead us to develop a capacity for abstract thought and imagination when no obvious rational explanation is available. It is a gradual evolutionary process that allows us to develop the capacity to project our minds beyond perceived reality in our quest for an explanation. Conscience and free will continue to emerge because of this development.

.

And back in the real world we have the question of 'abortion', which in reality is a question that only women can answer for themselves.
Men, and especially religion, along with political logic, has no place in this question.
In fact any social ideology that justifies death and persecution, in any form, has nothing to contribute to this question or to that of 'life'
The ideological social masses always seem to think it is their right to interfere with the wishes of an individual (woman) who is in a difficult situation to begin with.
We speak of free will, as long as it's convenient to society, otherwise free will is taken off the table and the individual is accused of not understanding what they are doing.
Well, in their own minds they do, and that's all there is to it.
Their decision is of the moment and within the parameters of their awareness of their own existence.
Society raised the individual, intentionally or unintentionally, doesn't matter at this point, society can live with this woman's choice.
If society wanted a different result it should have paid attention to the education that was needed well before this point.

Dear Banjo,

First I must clarify that in my previous post when I wrote "there is no such thing", I was referring to free-will, not to autonomy.
Autonomy could still exist in a sense, depending on how exactly it is defined, yet that has nothing to do with free will.

Computers for example also have an increasing degree of autonomy and at some time in future (hopefully not before I have left this world for good), their autonomy might even exceed that of humans, yet they will always remain bound by their algorithms and none of that could grant them consciousness or will of any kind, let alone "free".

Humans as such, are no different - they too have no consciousness and no will.
Before you jump at my last statement, let me clarify that I am not claiming that you are not conscious: all I said was that the HUMAN with which you identify has neither consciousness nor will, so that's quite different.

There was never a shortage of deluded people indiscriminately spewing out their wishful ego-boosting thoughts. This Jacques Monod seems to be one of them.
I could spend my days here refuting practically every sentence of his mental diarrhea, but I have better things to do. I better converse with you than start arguing with every Frenchman that ever existed, including this one who would have been wiser to keep to his field of expertise - bacteria, chemistry and biochemical feedback loops.

I think the point is missed in argument between the spiritualist and the materialist: That point of course is, they both argue for the same team, that team is matter.
Matter is ephemeral; as we as humans are. To say we posses autonomy over the processes of creation and deconstruction of matter shows to all the absurdity of the point of the argument between them in the first place.

Nothing consisting of matter has freedom of choice, or autonomy over processes preordained by nature, and to stump up with argument against each other on these issues is usually the point at which the rest of us depart the scene.

The randomness of nature is also indefinable. There are theories of course; chaos theory being one. Attempts to force the hand of nature to disclose her intentions with the weather are clumsily incomplete, even with the hook up of supercomputers to assist in the challenge.

Autonomy, freedom, give us a break!

Dan

.

Dear diver dan, Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I understand your points of view which, though the arguments are different, arrive at the same conclusion : that there is no such thing as free will.

Imagining that to be the case, for the sake of the argument, then there can be no such thing as moral responsibility.

If someone charges us with, say, lying, and if we can convince him/her that it was simply not within our power not to lie, then we have done all that is necessary to absolve ourselves of responsibility for lying.

Without free will there is no moral responsibility. If moral responsibility exists, then someone is morally responsible for something he/she has done or for something he/she should have done but did not do. To be morally responsible for some act or failure to act he/she must be able to have acted otherwise, whatever else it may involve. To be able to have acted otherwise is to have free will.

Therefore, if moral responsibility exists, someone has free will. If no one has free will, moral responsibility does not exist.

If we are all programmed by nature from the cradle to the grave and can’t do anything about it, then we are all innocent of any crimes or misdemeanours that nature has programmed us to commit.

By the same token, we have no merit in any special prowess we may achieve : bravery in battle, scientific discovery, artistic creation or performance, self-sacrifice to save others from some calamity, etc.

No blame, no punishment – no laws, no justice – no merit, no rewards. No need for any of that. We are all programmed by nature to do what we do and to fail to do what we “ought to” do.

Do you both really believe we are all just some sort of humanoid robots ?

I am willing to believe that may have been the case when we separated from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees some 5 to 7 million years ago but, unlike our cousins, the chimpanzees, haven't we evolved since then ?

.

Dear Banjo,

Let me respond in brief now, then by God's grace I will have the time to answer in full later today.

Rest assured, we are NOT humanoid robots.

Only the human which we [mistakenly] think we are, is a robot.

No blame is warranted, but there are laws in this cosmos which carry consequences: physical laws affecting matter and moral laws affecting spirit.

If the hand of the human with which you identify hits another person or animal, then that human will attract nature's reaction. If you identify yourself with that human, then you experience that reaction as suffering.

Everything is pre-programmed by nature, but as long as you [mistakenly] consider yourself (rather than nature) to be the doer of actions, to that extent you will also experience the inevitable results of these actions, good or bad, to be your reward or punishment respectively.

While objectively there is no free will in nature, you are free to choose whether or not to associate yourself with nature or any part thereof (e.g. a human).

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « … there are laws in this cosmos which carry consequences: physical laws affecting matter and moral laws affecting spirit »

As I understand it, Yuyutsu, there are what we call “laws of nature” and “natural laws”. The former are of a scientific nature (e.g., the law of gravity), which, as you say, “affect matter”, and the latter are of a philosophic nature : a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society (so-called "positive law").

Modern “natural law” theory dates from the Age of Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries) and became synonymous with the concept of natural rights.

Natural law theory was a key component of the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen following the French Revolution in 1789, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations of 1948.

These laws and conventions affect not just “spirit” as you indicate. They affect human beings in their integrality just as positive law (statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law" which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles) affects them.
.

2. « Everything is pre-programmed by nature …[but] … while objectively there is no free will in nature, you are free to choose whether or not to associate yourself with nature or any part thereof (e.g. a human).»

That statement is highly contentious contradictory and incomprehensible, Yuyutsu.

I don't agree with your deterministic theory of human behaviour. As I indicated in my previous post, it may have been plausible 5 to 7 million years ago when we separated from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees, but it is certainly not plausible today. Unlike our cousins, the chimpanzees, we have since made tremendous progress and evolved exponentially due to the exceptional development of our human brain.

We now employ multiple-choice patterns and exercise our own free will by making our own judgments and our own decisions and putting them into effect.

.

To be born as a human being is a rare and wonderful thing. I can think of few grounds for justifying the destruction of an unborn being. That 80,000 defenceless young humans are killed each year is horrific.

Dear Banjo,

1.
«and the latter are of a philosophic nature: a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society (so-called "positive law").

Modern “natural law” theory dates from the Age of Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries) and became synonymous with the concept of natural rights.»

This is interesting, but is not what I referred to.

This theory could possibly be DERIVED, as you say, from actual natural laws that affect spirit.
I'm not familiar enough with it to tell whether this is the case.

2.
«That statement is highly contentious contradictory and incomprehensible, Yuyutsu.»

Yes, sorry, I did not get around yesterday to explain further.

«I don't agree with your deterministic theory of human behaviour.»

Then you must assert that humans have some supernatural capabilities, that somehow they get exempt from nature's ordinary laws.
Do you?

All I noted was that humans are part of nature, which is governed by laws, that we live in a cosmos rather than in chaos.

"Deterministic" does not mean that we have the practical capacity to calculate and determine what a human would do in a given situation. Human behaviour can be extremely complex, nor do I not claim to know all of nature's secrets, but complexity is not a valid exemption.

«As I indicated in my previous post, it may have been plausible 5 to 7 million years ago when we separated from our common ancestor»

So far we discussed humans in an objective manner, but now you add to the mix the words "we" and "our", thereby seems to be the confusion.

Yes, humans separated from their ape ancestors some 5-7 million years ago - that is a fact which can be scientifically researched, verified or refuted, regarding humans, apes, chimpanzees, their evolution and their behaviour, so far so good.

But what has any of these facts to do with "we"?
We just happen to identify with a human, we figuratively "dwell" in its body, but our freedom does not imply the freedom of that human.

Yuyutsu

You have some amusing views on life.
I would like you to consider for a moment your views on morality, since this article centres on the subject.

Some of your views I’ve discovered over time reading your posts. It intrigues me how you stay engaged with the mostly pragmatic OLO patrons.
Am I correct in believing you consider yourself to be a pragmatist, when your views are mostly at odds with the crowd?

A couple of points though: Reincarnation is one.

I’m intrigued in this since you are a firm believer in the rule of nature, but however, your divergences are confusing.
You appear to hold a less than firm grip on the physical body. This could be a good point of debate. It’s really a core demarcation between the physical and the metaphysical.
The recognition of the tenuous hold of the soul on life is a pretty recent acknowledgement, especially considering the millions of years of human evolution.

Freud splits the personality, (which contains the soul), into three elements known as the id, the ego, and the superego.
Your proposal seems opposed to that, in that these elements are transported at death, to be reconstituted through a metamorphic process in a metaphysical realm; and thus reconstructed, returned to earth to inhabit the living body of an earthly life form currently in existence.

Fit morality into all this for me if you will. My view as a pragmatist is that we have a need to redefine morality with its set views of the time, to help in the task of dealing with issues as gross as the current example of Laissez-faire abortion.

Dan

Dear Dan,

Thank you for raising this interesting topic of pragmatic morality.

Morality is not a fixed code, one size fits all, it manifests differently at the different stages of our spiritual evolution.

This is why my response to you could be different to my response to Banjo Paterson, yet different again to my response to the author.

As a general rule I would expect a higher moral standard from spiritual aspirants as they advance, but then one may reach a very advanced stage where one needs to drop morality altogether and step beyond it.

As the extreme example for stepping beyond morality, allow me to quote a biblical incidence:

"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!”. He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys." [2 Kings 2:23-24]

So while this topic criticizes women who, generally due to some serious and troubling, practical and well-thought considerations rather than just out of a whim, decide to kill their unborn, here this powerful prophet kills 42 kids on a moment's notice, over a trifle and without any warning - likely wanted and loved kids who will be mourned by 42 families. Yes, these kids are childish and foolish but Elisha was an adult who must have understood that "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never break me"...

I will not be able to cover this vast topic, which I studied and contemplated for many years in just a few 350-word posts, but the key to morality is Hillel's golden rule:

THAT WHICH IS HATEFUL TO YOU, DO NOT DO UNTO YOUR FELLOW

[continued...]

[...continued]

In that light, expecting a poor, single working-class woman not to abort is unrealistic.
Would she actually hate it if her mother stopped her from coming into this tough world and its poverty?
She would more likely instead thank her for that.

But gradually, as a woman is more educated, more well in life, more enjoying her life, she would more and more hate the idea of being made to miss it.
For her, since she would hate that done to herself, abortion would be an immoral sin.

But then, suppose her baby was found to have a crippling disability, then again that educated mother would have loved, not hated, to be aborted in the situation.
For her, abortion in those circumstances would not be immoral.

Then comes a woman who is well on her spiritual path and therefore understands, appreciates and internalizes the value that one can derive even from life as an invalid.
For her, abortion would be immoral and sinful even if the baby was to be deformed.

Finally, an enlightened woman who has realised God, indiscriminately loves whatever comes, knowing clearly and beyond doubt that everything is according to God's will, thus hates nothing.
No morality applies to her, no sin can taint her, just as no sin tainted Elisha when killing these 42 children.

--

For the other issues you raised, you may like to start a new thread because the limit here of 4 posts per day would make responding to them impractical.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

I hope everything went OK for you yesterday. You seemed a bit preoccupied.
.

To my remark «I don't agree with your deterministic theory of human behaviour » you replied :

« Then you must assert that humans have some supernatural capabilities, that somehow they get exempt from nature's ordinary laws. Do you? »

No, Yuyutsu, I was referring to your statement that “everything is pre-programmed by nature”.

As I indicated in my previous post, my understanding is that there are what we call “laws of nature” and “natural laws”. The two are quite different from each other. The former are of a scientific nature (e.g., the law of gravity), which, as you say, “affect matter”, and the latter are of a philosophic nature : a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society (so-called "positive law").

Despite the extraordinary progress we have made over the past 5 to 7 million years since we broke away from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees, it continues to remain almost impossible for us to contravene the (scientific) “laws of nature”. A typical example that comes to mind where we have succeeded in doing so was in 1969 when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin contravened nature’s law of gravity and travelled to the moon and back in NASA’s Apollo 11 spacecraft.

I think we can safely say that that was just the beginning and that we will eventually succeed in making it possible for the general public to travel to the moon and elsewhere in the cosmos (to planet Mars, for example).

It is, of course, not so difficult to contravene the (purely philosophic) “natural laws” which do not exert physical constraint. The respect of “natural laws” depends essentially on the control exercised by our conscience. But, in addition, as I indicated in my previous post, society also sanctions the non-respect of human rights that it considers to be deriving from so-called “natural laws”.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

So, in conclusion, Yuyutsu, to sum-up, I consider that even if, as you say, “everything is pre-programmed by nature”, we have developed the possibility to contravene nature’s programming (“laws of nature” and “natural laws”), and exercise our own free will to an ever-increasing degree as time goes by, generation after generation, millennium after millennium, and will, no doubt, endeavour to continue to do so for the rest of our existence.
.

Then you ask :

« But what has any of these facts to do with "we"?

« We just happen to identify with a human, we figuratively "dwell" in its body, but our freedom does not imply the freedom of that human »
.

In my view, Yuyutsu, these facts have everything to do with “we”, and “we” alone.

As much as I would like to agree with you that « we just happen to identify with a human, we figuratively "dwell" in its body … », I see no reason to believe that we are anything other than our body.

I see us human beings simply as biological creations of nature that have attained the highest degree of evolution and complexity of all existing forms of life on earth to date.

That, to me, is quite awesome.

But, as I indicated above, I don’t think we have reached the end of the production line yet – far from it. We are still very much a “work-in-progress”. Who knows what mother nature has in store for us in terms of our future evolution ? She may well decide that a soul would be nice to top it all off, the icing on the cake as it were !

If ever that happened to be the case, Yuyutsu, I’m sure you would not be the only one to rejoice …

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-2amTBPYX0&ab_channel=CMajorGlobal

.

Dear Banjo,

I am dumbfounded by your suggestion that by flying to the moon people broke the law of gravity. The law of gravity states that physical bodies mutually exert a certain pulling force, but does not preclude the possibility of other forces in the opposite direction neutralising this force, which is just what the Apollo rockets did.

Suppose Apollo was flying to the moon without any rockets, or suppose it flew faster than the speed of light, that would have breached the laws of physics (but of course that wasn't the case).

Similarly, doing evil, hurting others, by itself is not against the moral laws of spirit: only doing so without, sooner or later, suffering the unpleasant consequences, that would constitute a breach of the laws of spirit.

I do not understand what you mean by "laws of a philosophical nature": are you suggesting the existence of some natural laws that only apply in the presence of people who love to think, not otherwise?

Your subjective experience of having free-will is just that, a subjective experience. Do not confuse it with the objective operation of your brain that is bound by the laws of nature.

«I see us human beings simply as biological creations of nature that have attained the highest degree...»

That correctly describes human beings, but not yourself.

To equate yourself with a body (human or otherwise) is absurd:

Our body has completely changed during our lifetime, it once was a single cell (which by now is long gone), then a baby, a child, a youth, an adult, an elderly - which of these is "you"?

Or suppose you accidentally lose a limb: are you what remains of your body, or are you that limb?
Or suppose you receive a prosthesis or other technological bodily enhancements (perhaps even brain enhancements): does "you" now include these devices as well?
Or suppose your brain was transplanted into a different body, are you now your old or your new body?

I could go on and on with more examples to demonstrate that absurdity.

And so ladies and gentlemen of the gallery, that is the point where inevitably the argument of superior philosophy contested between the materialist and the spiritualist ends, in a spiral to the ground.

Effectively because the goal is on common ground. One denies the attachment of soul and body, the other denies the soul the possibility of transcendence, but both admit to influences of the forces of nature over the body in its living form.

But where in this is morality? Morality is a social construct. Secularism has changed the name to ethics which suits the fluid nature of secularism, and allows such absurdity to flourish as with Laissez-faire abortion, gay marriage and I add here, multiculturalism, since it manipulates one culture to dominate another!
Is it ethical to manipulate a housing market by suppressing interest rates artificially, to the obvious benefit of those in a political position of power to personally benefit their property portfolio?

It’s these pragmatic questions which leave Philosophic argument to continue between two fools on a hill.

Dan

Dear Dan,

«...philosophy contested between the materialist and the spiritualist...»

A spiritualist is a person who indulges with spirits, ghosts of the dead, indeed a despicable, harmful and sinful practice - are you accusing me of that?

«One denies the attachment of soul and body, the other denies the soul the possibility of transcendence»

But I have not discussed soul in any manner: this is because that term can be very confusing and different people use the word 'soul' for totally different things. If you like to discuss souls then you must first define what it means in your particular jargon.

«But where in this is morality? Morality is a social construct.»

Not by me - I was arguing that morality is derived from nature.

«Is it ethical to manipulate a housing market by suppressing interest rates artificially, to the obvious benefit of those in a political position of power to personally benefit their property portfolio?»

All I can say is that this practice is immoral, by most people at least, because most people would hate being on the losing end of that stick.

Yuyutsu

There’s a line to cross between practicality and philosophy.
I was referring to Paul McCartney hit of 1960’s “fool on the hill”, which is a reference to a wise sage.
Wisdom is fine, but it’s practical application is what interests me.

We commonly use the word morality in its positive sense, but most of the discussion around the subject is negative.
I outlined a small number of them above.

I also think it’s a wise idea which denotes a sense of responsibility towards a persons belief if they claim in words to be spiritually alive and wise to its calling, to keep a firm footing in the physical world we inhabit as humans.
After all, there’s a war going on between good and evil.

I believe we should treat our lives as a physicist treats the study of matter against the scales of entropy. The more it heats up, the faster and more chaotic are the particles of matter.
We are not here for good times. Nothing will kill you quicker than sitting around in a lounge chair. That’s the low end of entropy.

Dan

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « I am dumbfounded by your suggestion that by flying to the moon people broke the law of gravity. The law of gravity states that physical bodies mutually exert a certain pulling force, but does not preclude the possibility of other forces in the opposite direction neutralising this force, which is just what the Apollo rockets did »
.

That’s correct, Yuyutsu, Apollo had to “neutralize” the force of gravity, i.e., make gravity (the law of nature) ineffective by applying an opposite force or effect. To make a law ineffective is to violate, break or contravene that law.
.

2. « I do not understand what you mean by "laws of a philosophical nature": are you suggesting the existence of some natural laws that only apply in the presence of people who love to think, not otherwise? »

As I indicated in my previous post, “natural laws” or "laws of a philosophical nature" ( as opposed to “laws of nature”) are defined as “a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society (so-called "positive law").

I also indicated that “natural laws” (unlike “laws of nature”) do not exert physical constraint. The respect of “natural laws” depends essentially on the control exercised by our conscience.

I added that modern “natural law” theory dates from the Age of Enlightenment (17th and 18th centuries) and became synonymous with the concept of natural rights and that natural law theory was a key component of the American Declaration of Independence in 1776, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen following the French Revolution in 1789, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations of 1948.

These laws and conventions affect not just “spirit” as you indicated in a previous post. They affect human beings in their integrality just as positive law (statutory man-made law, as compared to "natural law" which is purportedly based on universally accepted moral principles) affects them.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

3. In reply to my statement “I see us human beings simply as biological creations of nature that have attained the highest degree of evolution and complexity of all existing forms of life on earth to date”, you replied :

« That correctly describes human beings, but not yourself. To equate yourself with a body (human or otherwise) is absurd »
.

No, it’s not, Yuyutsu, nor is it simply based on belief – such as that of Hinduism where the atman (“breath,” or “soul”) is claimed to be the universal, eternal self, of which each individual soul (jiva or jiva-atman) partakes.

Hindus believe that the jiva-atman is also eternal but is imprisoned in an earthly body at birth. At death, they believe that the jiva-atman passes into a new existence determined by karma, or the cumulative consequences of actions. The cycle of death and rebirth (samsara) is eternal according to some Hindus, but others say it persists only until the soul has attained karmic perfection, thus merging with the Absolute (brahman).
.

Religious beliefs are a personal matter, Yuyutsu. I respect them all, including yours, but I do not consider that any of them correspond to my personal worldview based on the current state of the art of scientific knowledge.

Religious doctrine has all too often been proven wrong concerning nature and the universe.

« The American physicist Sean M. Carroll has written that the idea of a soul is incompatible with quantum field theory (QFT). He writes that for a soul to exist: "Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can't be a new collection of 'spirit particles' and 'spirit forces' that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments.”

Some theorists have invoked quantum indeterminism as an explanatory mechanism for possible soul/brain interaction, but neuroscientist Peter Clarke found errors with this viewpoint, noting there is no evidence that such processes play a role in brain function; Clarke concluded that a Cartesian soul has no basis from quantum physics »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

.

Dear Banjo,

1.
«To make a law ineffective is to violate, break or contravene that law.»

The law of gravity was not ineffective: it had the effect of producing a force which countered and reduced the force of Apollo's rockets. Had it been ineffective, Apollo would have flown even faster.

2.
«“natural laws” or "laws of a philosophical nature" ( as opposed to “laws of nature”) are defined as...»

Very confusing, so you say that "natural laws" are not the same as the laws of nature?

Even if the laws you just introduced actually exist, why give them such a misleading name as to make believe that they belong in this topic?

3.
Let us not diverge into the topic of souls (sorry, my time is limited) because it is not essential here. Speculating whether or not souls exist in nature and if so what is their relation with matter and how is that consistent with quantum mechanics, etc. etc., may all be of much curiosity, but all this is confined to the research of nature, and as I already told Dan, I not do claim to know all of nature's secrets.

Regardless of any Hindu beliefs, I gave you concrete examples (and I could produce many more) regarding the absurdity of identifying yourself with your body.

I can then go a step further and (time permitting) demonstrate that the same applies not only to your body, but that it is also absurd to identify oneself with nature or any part thereof (including souls, if there are such), that doing so is the pinnacle of illogical superstition.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « The law of gravity was not ineffective: it had the effect of producing a force which countered and reduced the force of Apollo's rockets. Had it been ineffective, Apollo would have flown even faster »
.

In your previous post you indicated that the Apollo spacecraft did not “break the law of gravity”, it “neutralized” it. To which I replied :

“That’s correct, Yuyutsu, Apollo had to “neutralize” the force of gravity, i.e., make gravity (the law of nature) ineffective by applying an opposite force or effect. To make a law ineffective is to violate, break or contravene that law”.

The OED defines “neutralize” as :

« Render (something) ineffective or harmless by applying an opposite force or effect »

That is exactly what you declared, Yuyutsu, and that is exactly what I agreed was correct.
.

2. In respect of “natural laws”, you ask :

« Even if the laws you just introduced actually exist, why give them such a misleading name as to make believe that they belong in this topic? »

Because, as I explained in my previous post, like the laws of nature (e.g., gravity and electromagnetism) natural laws are also deemed to derive from nature though not physically but philosophically (as I explained in detail in my previous post).

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

3. « Let us not diverge into the topic of souls (sorry, my time is limited) because it is not essential here … »

You brought the subject up, Yuyutsu, not me. In reply to my statement : “I see us human beings simply as biological creations of nature that have attained the highest degree of evolution and complexity of all existing forms of life on earth to date”, you indicated :

« That correctly describes human beings, but not yourself. To equate yourself with a body (human or otherwise) is absurd ».
.

Please be assured that I don’t take that as a personal insult, Yuyutsu.

Your reply does not make sense unless it is placed in the context of your religious belief – that of Hinduism where the atman (“breath,” or “soul”) is claimed to be the universal, eternal self, of which each individual soul (jiva or jiva-atman) partakes.

By replying that it is absurd for me to consider that I am a human being or some other body, Yuyutsu, I think I know you well enough to imagine that you were simply voicing the doctrine of your Hindu religion which you so often present as being simply your own personal opinion.

Allow me, once again, on this occasion, Yuyutsu, as I have so often done in the past, to ask you not to confound your religious beliefs with reality, but to make a clear distinction between your religious beliefs and empirically established facts.

I’ve said it before and I shall say it again : I respect your religious beliefs, but I do not share them.

Allow me also, to take this occasion to clarify that I am not, as you indicated a while back on this thread, an atheist/agnostic. I am just an ordinary person.

.

Dear Banjo,

1.
What was neutralized by Apollo's rockets was the force that was generated by the law of gravity - not the law of gravity itself, which was never broken or challenged.

2.
Just because someone was inspired by nature does not make their ideas, titled "natural laws", actual laws of nature. Such laws could be good or bad, but either way they are man-made, thus do not belong in this discussion.

3.
I did not bring up or discuss the subject of souls. I think Dan did.

Indeed I said: "That correctly describes human beings, but not yourself. To equate yourself with a body (human or otherwise) is absurd"

I never even had souls in mind when I wrote the above.
Just because one is not a body does not imply that they are a soul.
Allow me to add that if souls indeed exist, then they too would be part of nature.

«Your reply does not make sense unless it is placed in the context of your religious belief – that of Hinduism where the atman (“breath,” or “soul”) is claimed to be the universal, eternal self, of which each individual soul (jiva or jiva-atman) partakes.»

My reply was based on simple logic, such as why 2+2 cannot equal 5, and never attempted to tell you positively what we are, only to point out what we are not.

The fact that this logic is used within Hinduism does not detract from its validity. You may be interested to know that Buddhism also accepts this negative logic even while they teach that Atman is only an illusion.

P.S. I have no idea who told you such nonsense as if Atman was breath or soul: this is NOT what Hinduism teaches.

«I am not, as you indicated a while back on this thread, an atheist/agnostic. I am just an ordinary person.»

I stand corrected.

All I suggested there, was that it would be unlikely for you to be interested in the theological differences between myself and the author (whether only humans were created in God's image), nothing more.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « What was neutralized by Apollo's rockets was the force that was generated by the law of gravity - not the law of gravity itself, which was never broken or challenged »
.

Gravity is just a force, Yuyutsu, a force of nature – nothing else.

It has played an important role in determining our morphology and preventing us from floating off into space.

But even though nature itself evolves, laws of nature appear to be universal and constant. They can be broken but not eliminated.

2. In respect of “natural laws”, you wrote :

« Just because someone was inspired by nature does not make their ideas, titled "natural laws", actual laws of nature. Such laws could be good or bad, but either way, they are man-made, thus do not belong in this discussion »

Nature has inspired many things to many people, Yuyutsu : art, religion, natural laws, science, sociology, architecture, medicine, etc. Even an apple falling from an apple tree in the summer of 1666 inspired Newton to formulate the law of gravity. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity was inspired by the Scottish philosopher, David Humes' “A Treatise of Human Nature”.

All laws are of inspirational origin, Yuyutsu – whether they be laws of nature, natural laws, or man-made positive laws.
.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

3. « Indeed, I said: "That correctly describes human beings, but not yourself. To equate yourself with a body (human or otherwise) is absurd" … »
.

The OED defines the “self” as :

« A person's essential being that distinguishes them from others especially considered as the object of introspection or reflexive action »

I consider that my “essential being that distinguishes [me] from others” is my body (which is that of a human being) and that my identity as a unique individual is my ADN. And as I indicated in a previous post, “I see us human beings simply as biological creations of nature that have attained the highest degree of evolution and complexity of all existing forms of life on earth to date”.

I see no reason to believe that I am anything other than my body (that of a human being). In that, I consider that I am no different from any other form of life on earth.

That said, Yuyutsu, if you can provide falsifiable evidence to the contrary, I should be pleased to hear of it.

4. « P.S. I have no idea who told you such nonsense as if Atman was breath or soul: this is NOT what Hinduism teaches »

I read that in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Yuyutsu.

Here is the link :

http://www.britannica.com/topic/soul-religion-and-philosophy

.

Dear Banjo,

1.
The law of gravity produces forces of gravity.
The effects of these forces can be countered by other competing forces, but that has no effect on the law of gravity itself, which is never broken.

2.
«All laws are of inspirational origin, Yuyutsu»

Are you then suggesting that no laws existed (including the law of gravity) before there were people to be inspired?

3.
«I consider that my “essential being that distinguishes [me] from others” is my body»

Fair enough, that would be your "essential being that distinguishes you from others".

(allow me to abbreviate from now on and use the initials: EBTDYFO)

Please observe that statements about what you HAVE tell nothing about who you ARE.

For example, suppose I said: "I consider that my car is that white one parked over there".
Fair enough, that's my car, but who is the car's owner?

The statement about "MY EBTDYFO" is no exception!

«I see no reason to believe that I am anything other than my body (that of a human being).»

And I made no such claim.

Indeed, I have no reason to challenge the fact that your EBTDYFO is your body. I only pointed to you that there must be, of logical necessity, a difference between you and the things you own, or which you otherwise refer to as "my". Indeed you just referred to your ENTDYFO as "my".

Your respected EBTDYFO is what it is, it is human, it is part of nature, thus has no will of its own.

4.
«I read that in the Encyclopedia Britannica, Yuyutsu.»

Indeed, how shamefully sloppy of them, nobody seems to do their homework any more.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« The law of gravity produces forces of gravity.

The effects of these forces can be countered by other competing forces, but that has no effect on the law of gravity itself, which is never broken »
.

The way I see it, Yuyutsu is more like somebody breaking the speed limit on the highway. Even though he/she breaks the law by driving his/her car above the speed limit, as you say : “it has no effect on the law”. But that does not alter the fact that the driver has broken the law.
.

« Are you then suggesting that no laws existed (including the law of gravity) before there were people to be inspired? »
.

That’s correct, Yuyutsu. Laws are not defined by nature. They are defined by human beings who observe natural phenomena, certain of which inspire them to posit either a physical “law of nature” or a philosophical “natural law” (as I explained in my previous post).
.

« Please observe that statements about what you HAVE tell nothing about who you ARE »
.

That’s also correct, Yuyutsu. That is why I declared : “I see no reason to believe that I am anything other than my body (that of a human being).
.

« Your respected EBTDYFO is what it is, it is human, it is part of nature, thus has no will of its own »
.

We already debated the question of “free will” quite extensively on this thread, Yuyutsu, commencing on page 4.

Allow me simply to recall what I wrote on page 6 :

« I don't agree with your deterministic theory of human behaviour. As I indicated in my previous post, it may have been plausible 5 to 7 million years ago when we separated from our common ancestor with the chimpanzees, but it is certainly not plausible today. Unlike our cousins, the chimpanzees, we have since made tremendous progress and evolved exponentially due to the exceptional development of our human brain.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

We now employ multiple-choice patterns and exercise our own free will by making our own judgments and our own decisions and putting them into effect. »
.

Despite the influence of certain genetic and environmental factors, which continue to limit the scope of free will, we have developed extensive volitional control of our decisions and actions that we most likely did not possess 5 to 7 million years ago.

If you disagree with that, I don’t see any point in continuing to discuss free will.
.

On the Encyclopedia Britannica article referring to : “Hinduism where the atman (“breath,” or “soul”) is claimed to be the universal, eternal self, of which each individual soul (jiva or jiva-atman) partakes”, you exclaimed :

« Indeed, how shamefully sloppy of them, nobody seems to do their homework anymore »
.

This is what the Hinduwebsite.com indicates :

« The Self (atman) :

The self or the soul is called Atman, which literally means the breathing one. It refers to the person in the personality or consciousness of a being. It is essentially the pure and unadulterated subjective state, free from the influence of the mind, the senses and the ego. It is the witness to all that happens in the mind and body.

Atman represents the same essential reality as Brahman. In their purest state there is hardly any difference between the two. As the school of nondualism affirms, the existence of Atman as a distinct, individual entity is an illusion. It is but Brahman residing in the body of a being as its support. In many respects, it is the microcosmic aspect of Brahman, smaller than an atom and infinitely larger than the world, with the same pure consciousness. However, in the field of Prakriti, it becomes subject to illusion, bondage and the laws of karma. When it achieves liberation, it regains its true nature and returns to its purest state. »
.

That doesn’t appear to be very different from the Encyclopedia Britannica definition.

What is your version of the Hindu definition of “self”, Yuyutsu ?

.

Dear Banjo,

1.
Back to high-school physics:
Any physical object is affected by many forces at any given moment.
They include gravitational forces, electromagnetic forces, the hold of the earth beneath, friction, etc.
As a result, the object will accelerate in the direction of the vectorial sum of these forces (unless that sum is zero).
These forces aren't cancelled, they mutually exist.
The law of gravitation could be said to be broken only had no, or inappropriate, force been applied between any two physical objects, but unless we believe in magic/miracles, this never happened.

In the road-law analogy, the law does not state that one cannot exceed a speed limit, only that if they do so then they will be guilty of an offense that carries such-and-such penalty. "breaking the law" is an inaccurate colloquial expression to describe situations when one commits legal offenses and is therefore liable for penalty. No law is actually broken.

2.
«That’s correct, Yuyutsu. Laws are not defined by nature. They are defined by human beings who observe natural phenomena, certain of which inspire them to posit either a physical “law of nature” or a philosophical “natural law” (as I explained in my previous post).»

Human beings only observe and FORMULATE natural laws - or are you claiming that before humans were there, apples fell upward or sideways?

3.
«That is why I declared : “I see no reason to believe that I am anything other than my body (that of a human being).»

And I agreed that you are not anything else.

The question remains whether you are anything at all.

Buddhists claim that you are not, that there is no "you" at all.
Hinduism claims that you are God, which again is not a thing.
Either way, I produced some examples (and could produce many more) to demonstrate why you are not your [human] body, why that would defy logic itself.

Some traditions claim that you are something else, which they often refer to as "soul", but once they clarify what exactly they mean by that, this too can be logically refuted.

[continued...]

[...continued]

Whether you take to the Buddhist idea, the Hindu idea, some other idea that I am not aware of, become agnostic about who and what you are, or remain stuck to that logically-inconsistent idea that you were a human body and/or soul, that remains up to you.

3.
«We already debated the question of “free will” quite extensively on this thread, Yuyutsu, commencing on page 4.»

Yes, and I could relate well with what you wrote on page 6, but we got side-tracked because your fruitful explanation about humans and apes was interspersed by the word "we". We may discuss the free will (or absence thereof) of humans, or we may discuss our own free will (or absence thereof), but not both together as if that was one and the same.

4.
«This is what the Hinduwebsite.com indicates:

"The self or the soul is called Atman, which literally means the breathing one."»

What a mess!

"Atman" is simply the Sanskrit word corresponding to the English word "Self".

Equating oneself with a "soul" or "breath" must have been a product of the author's imagination and/or different traditions.

Same for "It refers to the person in the personality or consciousness of a being": totally contrary to Hindu teachings.

My 350-word limit restricts my ability the criticise the rest of his/her half-truths.

«What is your version of the Hindu definition of “self”, Yuyutsu?»

No positive definition is possible because OUR intellect cannot truthfully describe that from which it was derived.

Rather, the Hindu approach is to negatively point at lots and lots of other things which CAN be defined, then say: "Atman is not this, Atman is not that either..."

Here for example is an excerpt from the Hindu introductory text, Tattva Boddha:

"What is the Self?
-That which is other than the 3 bodies: the gross, the subtle and the causal;
beyond the 5 sheaths;
the witness of the 3 states of awareness;
which is of the nature of Existence-Knowledge-Bliss.
That which remains, is the Self."

But to understand such statements, one needs to first carefully study all the above terms.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « … "breaking the law" is an inaccurate colloquial expression to describe situations when one commits legal offenses and is therefore liable for penalty. No law is actually broken »
.

To break/violate the law simply means “to do something illegal” (Mirriam-Webster), and illegal means “contrary to or forbidden by law” (OED). [ nothing found in OED on “breaking the law”, but “lawbreaker” is defined as “a person who breaks the law.”].

It follows that as spacecraft “do something contrary to one of the laws of nature (gravity in this case), it may be said that they “break the law of gravity” (i.e., break through Earth's gravitational pull) to travel into space. Naturally, Earth’s gravity remains intact.
.

2. « Human beings only observe and FORMULATE natural laws - or are you claiming that before humans were there, apples fell upward or sideways? »
.

Human beings do not observe natural laws, Yuyutsu, they observe natural phenomena and “formulate” (if you like) natural laws.

I am a little surprised, though, that you prefer the term “formulate” to “define” (which I indicated in my previous post). Formulate means : “create or prepare methodically” (OED), whereas define means : “state or describe exactly the nature, scope, or meaning of”. Formulate seems to suggest that human beings “create” natural laws. It’s a bit ambiguous. I think it is better to say that they only “define” them based on their observations of natural phenomena.
.

3. « … I agreed that you are not anything else » “other than [your] body (that of a human being)”
.

Yes, I’m pleased you did, Yuyutsu, especially after having stated previously :

« That correctly describes human beings, but not yourself. To equate yourself with a body (human or otherwise) is absurd »

But now you add :

« The question remains whether you are anything at all »

To answer that question, Yuyutsu, perhaps you will agree that I am not “anything” but “somebody” – since we both agree that I am …

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

… “not anything else other than my body (that of a human being)” – unless, of course, you have changed your mind again !
.

4. « We may discuss the free will (or absence thereof) of humans, or we may discuss our own free will (or absence thereof), but not both together as if that was one and the same »

Once again, unless you have changed your mind, Yuyutsu, we have agreed that “I am not anything else other than my body (that of a human being)” and as I have every reason to believe that in communicating with you, I am communicating with a fellow “body (that of a human being)”, I see no reason to differentiate between us two and human beings generally, or bodies thereof.

If, however, you happen to be a freak [a person, animal, or plant with an unusual physical abnormality (OED)] or an extra-terrestrial, then, indeed, we need to examine if you do possess any free will.

That said, judging from our exchanges on this forum, there is little doubt in my mind that you do, in fact, dispose of free will – whatever or whoever you happen to be. But, no need to be brainwashed or have your mind programmed by some guru, mentor, “maître à penser” or what have you, Yuyutsu. I am quite sure you act responsibly and make your own decisions.
.

5. « No positive definition [of the “self”] is possible [in Hindoism] because OUR intellect cannot truthfully describe that from which it was derived. Rather, the Hindu approach is to negatively point at lots and lots of other things which CAN be defined, then say: "Atman is not this, Atman is not that either..." »
.

Thanks for the explanation, Yuyutsu. The thought that comes to mind on reading that, is : “it’s not the destination that counts, it’s the journey”.

.

Dear Banjo,

So we seem to be converging, with differences being mostly linguistic:
Perhaps it would be better if instead of "the laws of nature" I used "the mechanisms of nature" or "natural order", something like that in order to avoid any unnecessary confusion with human laws?
Perhaps if instead of "Formulate" I used "delineate"?

Thus I would like to take it back to square #4:

Can we agree that humans, being part of nature, cannot violate the mechanisms of nature (such as gravity)? Or are you claiming that there is something unique in humans (e.g. "free will") that allows them to do so?

Can we agree that the mechanisms of nature were established and the same even before mankind began to delineate them?

3.
I have not changed my mind:
I agree that you are not anything else (other than human) - this doesn't mean that I think you are a human!
And since you asked, I may add that nor do I think of you as "somebody".
I acknowledge that you are, but not that you are some-thing or some-body.

I do not expect you to blindly believe me, so in my last post I listed the options you face (I believe this list to be complete, but who knows...):

1. Keep insisting that you are a human despite the logical inconsistencies that I pointed to.
2. Adopt the idea that you are a spirit or soul, whatever that means.
3. Adopt an agnostic attitude whereby you don't know or even don't care who and what you are.
4. Adopt the Buddhist idea whereby in reality there is no such thing as "you" ("I").
5. Adopt the Hindu idea whereby in reality you are God, which is neither a thing nor a personality, neither body, nor soul, nor anything your mind and intellect could ever conceive of.
6. Adopt some other idea that I am not aware of.

[continued...]

[...continued]

4.
«judging from our exchanges on this forum, there is little doubt in my mind that you do, in fact, dispose of free will – whatever or whoever you happen to be.»

I have no reason to dispute this statement.
Indeed, this is the thought in your mind, in fact in most people's minds.
But does this thought/experience reflect the reality?

5.
It has been my pleasure.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

1. « So, we seem to be converging, with differences being mostly linguistic »
.

Yes, some are linguistic, but we also have differences in comprehension and interpretation.

Words are important. Not only must we use the right words and expressions, but if we don’t have a common language, we can’t hope to understand each other.
.

2. « Perhaps it would be better if instead of "the laws of nature" I used "the mechanisms of nature" or "natural order", something like that in order to avoid any unnecessary confusion with human laws?

Perhaps if instead of "Formulate" I used "delineate"? »
.

I think that as a general rule, Yuyutsu, it is preferable to employ common expressions from everyday life that most people easily understand. The expression “law of nature” has that advantage. It is a common expression that is easily understood. It conveys the notions that it is an imperative, a constant, and invariable – which are notions that are not relayed by the word “mechanism”.

By the same token, I think it is better to “define” (including mathematically) the law of gravity rather than just “formulate” (create or prepare methodically) or “delineate” (describe, trace or outline) it.
.

3. « Can we agree that humans, being part of nature, cannot violate the mechanisms of nature (such as gravity)? Or are you claiming that there is something unique in humans (e.g., "free will") that allows them to do so? »

The fact is, animals (including human beings) “violate” the law of gravity every time they lift their legs and walk, jump, run, climb up a tree or a ladder, or simply pick things up and fly (birds). In addition, humans have invented airplanes and spacecraft that allow them to fly around the world and out into space.

Being part of nature does not prevent animals (including humans) from violating the laws of nature (such as gravity) to varying degrees – it could be free will, could also be instinctive.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

4. « Can we agree that the mechanisms of nature were established and the same even before mankind began to delineate them »

According to the current scientific theory, the universe (nature) is thought to have begun about 13.8 billion years ago with a giant explosion (the Big Bang theory). Whereas human beings broke off from their common ancestor with the chimpanzees only 5 to 7 million years ago. So, yes, nature and its laws preceded mankind by a long shot.
.

5. « I agree that you are not anything else (other than human) - this doesn't mean that I think you are a human!

And since you asked, I may add that nor do I think of you as "somebody". I acknowledge that you are, but not that you are some-thing or some-body.

I do not expect you to blindly believe me, so in my last post I listed the options you face (I believe this list to be complete, but who knows...) »
.

That is confusing, contradictory, and makes no sense I’m afraid, Yuyutsu. You juggle with contradictory ideas and don’t seem to be able to make up your mind exactly what to think.

It’s just as confusing, incomprehensible, and inconclusive as the Hindu definition of “self” that you indicated in your previous post :

• « That which is other than the 3 bodies: the gross, the subtle and the causal;
• beyond the 5 sheaths;
• the witness of the 3 states of awareness;
• which is of the nature of Existence-Knowledge-Bliss.
• That which remains, is the Self." »

In other words : “we don’t know !”
.

You are obviously looking at reality through the prism of your religious beliefs, Yuyutsu, and unable to see not only that I am a human being but that you are too – just like everybody else in this world.

Allow me to say as you did, Yuyutsu : « I do not expect you to blindly believe me ». I simply wish you well.

I shall now sign off.

.

Dear Banjo,

There are things I agree with you and others that I don't,
but since you decided to sign off, I also wish you well.

Banjo Patterson,

<<Words are important. Not only must we use the right words and expressions, but if we don’t have a common language, we can’t hope to understand each other.>>

No, the right words and expressions, or common language are not important. We do not need to understand each other and if two people agree, one of those people simply becomes redundant. If anything different perspectives and wordings allows people to learn more about someone or something else.

For example, I wouldn't simply want to have the right words used from the perspective of the western world for example, when there are so many other worlds out there.

<<According to the current scientific theory, the universe (nature) is thought to have begun about 13.8 billion years ago with a giant explosion (the Big Bang theory).>>

I suggest reading this critique which is about Lawrence Krauss and his book “A Universe From Nothing” in the New York Times. You should be able to open and read it at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html

Continued...

Continued...

<<The fact is, animals (including human beings) “violate” the law of gravity every time they lift their legs and walk, jump, run, climb up a tree or a ladder, or simply pick things up and fly (birds). In addition, humans have invented airplanes and spacecraft that allow them to fly around the world and out into space.>>

The ability to fly is part of the nature of a lot of birds. They're not violating anything. It is a skill enshrined within themselves. Often not appreciated by humans as they cannot fly, by themselves alone, so some humans will say they (birds) violate, instead of recognising their intelligence.

That's because quite a number of humans eat or kill birds. I don't engage in either being vegetarian.

In terms of a ladder or a plane, I as a human are doing absolutely nothing in terms of violation. A ladder sits on the ground, I am on the flat surface of a ladder. I can fall to the ground (a false sense of security, if I was to think I could float or fly away from a fall). I certainly wouldn't want to defy gravity (in a false sense), being permanently stuck on the floor of an aircraft.

Imagine if I was on the roof of a house, am I defying gravity? It's simply a built structure sitting on the earth's surface.

<<You are obviously looking at reality through the prism of your religious beliefs, Yuyutsu>>

All humans & living species look at a matter through the prism of their own beliefs, whatever one wishes to label them as religious or otherwise. Generally, I take the position all humans are religious in some form, having values, positions, attitudes, regular practices, with some sort of desire for more etc.

Finally, "I'm NOT just an ordinary person". I'd never describe myself in such a way. To describe onself as an ordinary person, to try and differentiate between a so called "religious" and "ordinary" person, when there are so many other ways to truly show who you are, is a better way forward.

The beginning and end of human life: the view from Australia......?

THE view from Australia?
As if there was was a standardised and homogenised single view with somewhere near 100% consensus marketed as "The Australian view".

It requires a consuming arrogance to make such a claim or even imply it, particularly in light of the religious bias that permeates most of what Peter Sellick writes. He can demonstrate no legitimate authority to speak for Australians on this issue.

It stems directly from religious doctrine, the necessity of maintaining and continually instilling male dominance of the female. In a civilised and enlightened society this outrageous anomaly should be erasicated,