|
On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting  Dude even he knows I'm technically right..
You're hugging with vice-grips a very small detail completely missing the point of what he was originally saying in the first place. "Look! I'm right about this one very small point! Your ENTIRE argument is IN-IN-INVALID!!!"
|
United States44240 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting Dude even he knows I'm technically right..
I used person to mean consciousness. That was clear from the context. I then apologised for the linguistic limitations in expressing my ideas. My idea made sense but you attacked the wording rather than the idea, nitpicking at it in a irrelevant and pedantic way. Legs are no more a possession of a consciousness than a car. You can be born without legs. You can lose legs. They don't make your consciousness different.
And if you really want to get pedantic then you repeatedly used conscience earlier instead of consicousness. I didn't call you out on it because I don't need to score minor technical points to win arguments but if that's the game you want to play then sure, I'll play. My use of the word person was unclear, I apologise for that (for the third time). You used the wrong word several times over. Therefore I submit that you are in fact dumb, not me.
|
On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought.
I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is"
|
United States44240 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:
So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience.
# motivation deriving logically from ethical or moral principles that govern a person's thoughts and actions
# conformity to one's own sense of right conduct; "a person of unflagging conscience"
What a retard.
|
Sweden1612 Posts
What the fuck the word was intrinsic, it's a very specific word and was the only reason I made my first post.
|
Sweden1612 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:44 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought. I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is"
THANK YOU
|
On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting Dude even he knows I'm technically right..
Yeah, you are. His argument of a car doesn't really make a lot of sense to me either. I think it's a silly analogy. I understand what he's saying, but I think he's getting a bit carried away.
On February 05 2010 10:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting Dude even he knows I'm technically right.. I used person to mean consciousness. That was clear from the context. I then apologised for the linguistic limitations in expressing my ideas. My idea made sense but you attacked the wording rather than the idea, nitpicking at it in a irrelevant and pedantic way. Legs are no more a possession of a consciousness than a car. You can be born without legs. You can lose legs. They don't make your consciousness different. And if you really want to get pedantic then you repeatedly used conscience earlier instead of consicousness. I didn't call you out on it because I don't need to score minor technical points to win arguments but if that's the game you want to play then sure, I'll play. My use of the word person was unclear, I apologise for that (for the third time). You used the wrong word several times over. Therefore I submit that you are in fact dumb, not me.
I would argue that losing your legs changes your mentality (thus conciousness) in a very dramatic way, thus altering who you are. Neither one of us can actually attest to this (I assume), but I can imagine I'd feel considerably different about myself and my situation in life if I had suddenly lost my legs.
Again, I get what you're saying, but I think you're reaching really far on this, personally.
|
Sweden1612 Posts
So that's 3 people who pointed out the same thing..
Anyways it's cool whatever have a nice day
|
United States44240 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:44 BanZu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought. I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is"
My premise is that that the consciousness can inhabit and own physical things but that it is not a quantifiable part of it. The heart supplies it with oxygen. The brain provides the hardware. The stomach processes the food. But the stomach is a machine, just like the car is. The car goes to the supermarket and picks up the food.
Of course this is all just words and you can disagree with the premise. I'm curious though as to where you'd draw the line for what the consciousness is and is not. Which part of the body you can't remove without removing part of the consciousness. It's easy to disagree but harder to present a rival hypothesis.
|
this cant be explained by adrenaline since adrenaline rush is only a few minutes. you need more revolutional kind of biological knowledge to state this. like new german medicine, yay horay
(dont know the kind of smiley that should follow)
|
hoo-lyy-shit that pic is brutal
|
Sweden1612 Posts
So what in your opinion does affect the consciousness?
Emotions?
Hunger?
Sex/reproduction?
All of these would be affected by the limitations and social issues with losing a limb.
|
On February 05 2010 10:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:44 BanZu wrote:On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought. I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is" My premise is that that the consciousness can inhabit and own physical things but that it is not a quantifiable part of it. The heart supplies it with oxygen. The brain provides the hardware. The stomach processes the food. But the stomach is a machine, just like the car is. The car goes to the supermarket and picks up the food. Of course this is all just words and you can disagree with the premise. I'm curious though as to where you'd draw the line for what the consciousness is and is not. Which part of the body you can't remove without removing part of the consciousness. It's easy to disagree but harder to present a rival hypothesis.
I'm going to disagree and not give a rival hypothesis. But I bolded that because that is absolutely, 100% of the time true. It's always, without fail, harder to represent a rival hypothesis than to just tell you that I think you're wrong, which I do (to a degree).
On February 05 2010 10:50 inReacH wrote:
So what in your opinion does affect the consciousness?
Emotions?
Hunger?
Sex/reproduction?
All of these would be affected by the limitations and social issues with losing a limb.
Yeah, I don't really see how one could argue that you don't change when you lose a limb. Being mobile is a part of who I am. I don't lose the ability to walk when I lose my car. I lose the ability to use that car again, but it's entirely replacable. My legs... not so much (not yet). I just don't accept the argument that losing your legs doesn't change who you are as a person (conciousness).
|
On February 05 2010 10:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting Dude even he knows I'm technically right.. Yeah, you are. His argument of a car doesn't really make a lot of sense to me either. I think it's a silly analogy. I understand what he's saying, but I think he's getting a bit carried away.
Obviously intoxicated. I don't see how it's interesting for anyone in a non-destructive mood though.
Reductionalism is not interesting. It shrinks and shrivels the mental universe, rather than enhances it.
|
On February 05 2010 10:54 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:46 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:On February 05 2010 10:39 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:36 prOxi.swAMi wrote:On February 05 2010 10:24 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:21 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:19 inReacH wrote:On February 05 2010 10:08 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:05 inReacH wrote:
The definition of person includes body.. So if you lost your legs in 'nam (you weren't there man) you'd not be the same person. What about cells? You lose cells all the time. They reckon it takes 7 years for a body to be completely different, all the cells having died and been replaced at some point. Does that mean that after 7 years you're not the same person. If you were sentenced to a life sentence for murder could you legitimately argue that physically you're a different man? The man who committed the crime was slowly shed and excreted over the years and you're a new man who grew in the prison out of cell division and food. However the person stayed the same. In an effort to end this I'm just going to clarify my original point.. You said "They're not[your legs] an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is." INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature So even if I agreed with you that a person is only their conscience, a persons body still BELONGS to that conscience. Thalidomide babies are by nature legless. The legs simply never developed. That doesn't make them less of a person. Limbs are a possession of a consciousness, but so is a car. INTRINSIC: belonging to a thing by its very nature Not by nature. You're dumb, I'm out. Pretty sure KwarK has thrown the pwn-hammer on you. Hence you resort to insults. Shameful. BTW I really like your explanation KwarK, is interesting Dude even he knows I'm technically right.. Yeah, you are. His argument of a car doesn't really make a lot of sense to me either. I think it's a silly analogy. I understand what he's saying, but I think he's getting a bit carried away. Obviously intoxicated. I don't see how it's interesting for anyone in a non-destructive mood though. Reductionalism is not interesting. It shrinks and shrivels the mental universe, rather than enhances it.
I've missed you Moltke. I often disagree with you (but never say that, because I can hardly ever back it up with evidence), but I absolutely agree with you on this one.
|
I bet she was just so badass she is like "Stabbed? Whatever, this is nothing."
|
I believe that from the sniper victims ~ DC metropolitan area, one of the guys was shot, while reading a newspaper, and didn't notice. Though it was probably a rumor.
Adrenaline is awesome.
|
On February 05 2010 09:08 fabiano wrote:
hmmmm she looks hot
Russian woman. 50% of income used on cosmetics.
|
I think the body seems like more a part of you than a car because of the fact that you feel things through it and we haven't made other, synthetic alternatives to a human body for the conscience to exist in. I don't think this is impossible to achieve, 'cause science is awesome. I don't think there's a reason to have a problem with the idea of a body being no more part of 'you' than a car.
By the way, correctness and unanimous consent are not two mutually implicit things, so claiming "look how many ppl agree with me" is a pointless exercise.
|
United States44240 Posts
On February 05 2010 10:51 SweeTLemonS[TPR] wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:48 KwarK wrote:On February 05 2010 10:44 BanZu wrote:On February 05 2010 09:41 KwarK wrote:
On a related note, there's absolutely no reason you shouldn't suffer pain when you write off your car in a crash that doesn't injure you. You're not your legs, you can have your legs amputated and still be you. They're not an intrinsic part of who you are any more than a car is. But when your legs are damaged your brain finds out about it through the sense of touch and tells you that's bad and hits you with pain. But your legs aren't any more you than a car is and your sensory feedback isn't limited to touch, you can see you just wrote your car off. In theory, your brain should be able to go "you just wrote off your car, now how are you gonna get laid, don't do that again" and hit you with some pain. Nature can't keep up with the changing nature of humanity.
Food for thought. I have a problem with the premise: "But your legs aren't any more you than a car is" My premise is that that the consciousness can inhabit and own physical things but that it is not a quantifiable part of it. The heart supplies it with oxygen. The brain provides the hardware. The stomach processes the food. But the stomach is a machine, just like the car is. The car goes to the supermarket and picks up the food. Of course this is all just words and you can disagree with the premise. I'm curious though as to where you'd draw the line for what the consciousness is and is not. Which part of the body you can't remove without removing part of the consciousness. It's easy to disagree but harder to present a rival hypothesis. I'm going to disagree and not give a rival hypothesis. But I bolded that because that is absolutely, 100% of the time true. It's always, without fail, harder to represent a rival hypothesis than to just tell you that I think you're wrong, which I do (to a degree). Show nested quote +On February 05 2010 10:50 inReacH wrote:
So what in your opinion does affect the consciousness?
Emotions?
Hunger?
Sex/reproduction?
All of these would be affected by the limitations and social issues with losing a limb. Yeah, I don't really see how one could argue that you don't change when you lose a limb. Being mobile is a part of who I am. I don't lose the ability to walk when I lose my car. I lose the ability to use that car again, but it's entirely replacable. My legs... not so much (not yet). I just don't accept the argument that losing your legs doesn't change who you are as a person (conciousness).
I accept that you'd take emotional damage from the injury and that'd change your personality. My example was perhaps a poor one. I used legs because they're nice and easy to compare to a machine but they have value and emotional damage complicates the question. Let's take the example of an appendix. It's a physical part of your body. However if you lost it (in a non traumatizing way) would you agree you were the same person afterwards?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
