The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The beginning and end of human life: the view from Australia > Comments

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

By Peter Sellick, published 29/12/2021

The arguments around VAD are like those around abortion. Both end a life, and both are justified by the assertion of human rights.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. All
.

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 …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 11 January 2022 12:18:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(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 ?

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Tuesday, 11 January 2022 12:29:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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...]
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 11 January 2022 10:54:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[...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.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 11 January 2022 10:54:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

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 …)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 12 January 2022 8:33:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(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”.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 12 January 2022 8:50:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. 12
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy