So I have a friend who thinks this
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-01-2017, 08:28 AM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2017 08:37 AM by excitedpenguin.)
RE: So I have a friend who thinks this
Double post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 08:32 AM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2017 08:36 AM by excitedpenguin.)
RE: So I have a friend who thinks this
(07-01-2017 04:38 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(06-01-2017 07:04 PM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  I don't think people should have the right to die, unless we're talking about unbearable and untreatable pain. Wanting to die seems to me like a brain failure, in any other circumstances, at some level. It's not that I nurture some sort of authoritarian tendencies, but it seems like a preventable tragedy to me, in that scenario. And preventable tragedies should at least tried to be dealt with.

I really don't know. Suicide is a can of worms and it just so happens to be an important subject to me. I'm only interested in talking about it in impersonal, societal terms, therefore, if possible and if anyone is to pursue this topic further here in relation to the kind of circumstances mentioned in the OP.
Most suicidal ideation would fit what you are describing, but there is such a thing as rational suicide, particularly as you say in the presence of unbearable and untreatable pain. Although it would be up to the person actually suffering to determine what constitutes "unbearable" ... not other people.

The best way to understand it is to ask you this. You have a beloved, noble dog who has been at your side for 15 years. One day it is run over by a bus and is in horrible agony. You have a choice to keep it alive, but it will undergo horrible pain that it doesn't understand, and it will never be completely recovered or pain free ever again. Or you can euthanize it.

Most people today would call you a self-centered cruel asshole for denying your dog the mercy of death. And they would commend you on the difficult decision you had to make, and comfort you for your loss, if you had the dog put down.

But for some strange reason when it's a human, it's the opposite. You're a self-centered cruel asshole if you allow the person's request to die at a time and in a manner of their own choosing; but you're a virtuous person to be commended for denying them that right and keeping them alive and in pain against their will.

That is because a dog is not a sentient being. There's no mystery here, as you seem to suggest. We are responsible for other creatures less(or more, depending on how you choose to look at it) than we are for humans, and while dogs are animals we can attach to emotionally, almost comparably to the way we do to humans, they are still non-autunomous creatures that depend on you for most things in life, as their owner. They are also a different species. They don't hold as much of a value as humans do. Humans are intrinsically valuable by any rational moral standard(one that prioritizes only sentient life's well-being, beginning with humans, to make matters simple and generally agreeable enough for this audience's threshold of boredom and range of values, respectively) in a way that dogs simply are not, or if they are, then to a much lesser degree.

We are right to value humans more than dogs, simply. And we are right, therefore, to expect different standards of reasoning and mindfulness of the underlying complexity at hand to be exacted in dealing with these ethical conundrums.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 09:04 AM
RE: So I have a friend who thinks this
At work.

Sorry no time for good/big post other than your reply excitedpenguin is wrong in that it misrepresents or fails to grok the dog euthenasie example mentioned by mordant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 09:13 AM
RE: So I have a friend who thinks this
(08-01-2017 06:38 AM)SYZ Wrote:  As far as I'm concerned, they're all just wishful thinking at the specified timelines.
Yes. As an IT professional I can tell you that if we haven't conquered the Blue Screen of Death on Windows and if Chrome keeps asking me to validate logins every time I visit a site and can't "remember this computer" then we are a long way away from uploading consciousness from a brain to a machine, and having it survive there.

In point of fact a lot of this tripe comes from the misbegotten and increasingly discredited idea that the human brain is analogous to a computer. This metaphor is in the process of going the way of "the human brain is analogous to a plumbing system for fluids" or "the human brain is analogous to a complex machine", both of which held sway for a long time too.

The human brain is a pattern-matching engine that detects matches and mis-matches to previously observed patterns and stimulates base, rote responses to them, embellished by memory of past experiences and a rudimentary and unreliable sort of self-awareness. Or at least that statement is far closer to reality than "the brain is a biological computer".

The most optimistic estimate of computer scienctists who hold to such notions as mine for how long it will take to decode how things are stored in the human mind, is 100 years. And in the view of many (yours truly included), even that is way too optimistic. Past events are stored only in a rough format (the canonical illustration: try to draw a dollar bill from memory alone, then draw one with a dollar bill in front of you. Compare the two drawings. Be enlightened.) Worse, they are probably laid down in the context of your own particular experiences, such that the memory of the same event would be stored in your brain entirely differently than it's stored in mine. There is no universal schema to discover, most likely. Worse still, the fidelity of memories, such as they are, tend to deteriorate over time unless those particular memories are constantly accessed, and even then retention is imperfect and surprisingly malleable.

The human mind is a train wreck of imperfection more so than we want to admit. We want it to be an orderly filing cabinet full of perfect recollections, possibly with a flawed and improvable playback mechanism. But it's really just a dogpile of snippets of thoughts and feelings with an illusory "you" presiding over it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 09:23 AM
RE: So I have a friend who thinks this
At work.

My current illusory me wishes I wasn't. Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2017, 09:24 AM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2017 10:41 AM by mordant.)
RE: So I have a friend who thinks this
(08-01-2017 08:32 AM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  That is because a dog is not a sentient being.
Typical anthopomorphic special pleading. Nonsense. A dog is sentient. It is aware. I has feelings. Its awareness and feelings are at a lower amplitude if you will, they are simpler and more primal, but they are there. Have you never had a dog as part of your life?

You are just making unwarranted special pleading for human awareness.
(08-01-2017 08:32 AM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  There's no mystery here, as you seem to suggest.
It is you who are injecting mystery. It isn't mysterious at all.

Nor does any of my argument have to do with autonomy or lack thereof. That's entirely extraneous to the point. A suffering human may well have no more real autonomy than a dog, and in some cases, not even any more comprehension of what is happening to them, either.
(08-01-2017 08:32 AM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  They are also a different species. They don't hold as much of a value as humans do. Humans are intrinsically valuable by any rational moral standard(one that prioritizes only sentient life's well-being, beginning with humans, to make matters simple and generally agreeable enough for this audience's threshold of boredom and range of values, respectively) in a way that dogs simply are not, or if they are, then to a much lesser degree.
I don't deny that if I can save a human by shooting a dog (say, because the dog is attacking the human, or preventing the human from escaping some other harm) I will shoot the dog every time. But with reluctance and regret appropriate to the level of awareness of a dog.
(08-01-2017 08:32 AM)excitedpenguin Wrote:  We are right to value humans more than dogs, simply. And we are right, therefore, to expect different standards of reasoning and mindfulness of the underlying complexity at hand to be exacted in dealing with these ethical conundrums.
The amount of value we place on one being vs another (rightly or not) has nothing to do with my argument. Suffering is suffering. If suffering is wrong to prioritize over the attachment of a non-suffering being to the sufferer, that principle is entirely transferable. If suffering is wrong to prioritize over the discomfort one feels in confronting ones own mortality by proxy in allowing the death of those who choose it rationally, then it is just wrong. The players don't matter.

The operative principle is that each being should be able to have a quality of life better than constant agony, or it should be relieved of the agony, at least when all reasonable hope of improvement is gone. If it's capable of making that choice rationally for itself, THAT is where the human difference comes in. A human generally can make those determinations, in advance by living will if nothing else, and so should be the sole decision-maker. A dog cannot, and a responsible human acts compassionately on their behalf. So sure there are differences in making decisions but they are based on what the victim is capable of, not on some inherent value of their species.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
08-01-2017, 10:27 AM
RE: So I have a friend who thinks this
(05-01-2017 07:02 PM)Afteel-Nifty Wrote:  So I was having a discussion with my friend the other day about immortality and how some articles I found support the idea that we will have it in seven years or more.

Their response was that the government would find away to make the person who figured out the biology to make us immortal would "disappear" applying that the government would kill the person.

This was their response to almost everything I brought up in the discussion. Rather it would be clean energy to space travel. The government would find a way to kill the people who thought up those ideas.

The reason why I brought this up in the forums is because this sounds like something that a crazy conspiracy theorist would say and I wanted to know if there was any factual proof that the government or any corporation would take the time to do something irrational like this?

Also. sorry if I posted in the wrong thread. I looked at the rest of the threads available and thought this would be the better one to post this topic in.


Mate, there're better subjects to talk about.

My advice is get out more and meet more interesting people.

Don't waste your life with fools. Fuck this idiot off. He's a dickhead.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
08-01-2017, 06:14 PM
So I have a friend who thinks this
Those scientists working on total body frequent cellular replacement to attempt to keep humans alive potentially for extra lifetimes by replacing cells of the body are still around and not disappeared.

Just showcase to this friend all the people knowingly exactly working on these biological sciences.

Sidenote... maybe the discovery literally would make the person dissappear, like obi wan style, and it wouldn't be a government blame.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2017, 04:10 AM
RE: So I have a friend who thinks this
People often say that the government are hiding stuff from us that may be true to a degree but what makes you think they can cover up big stuff like ufo's ,Big foot fairy's when the can't even give proper services.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-01-2017, 12:37 PM
RE: So I have a friend who thinks this
(09-01-2017 04:10 AM)sneroul the thinker Wrote:  People often say that the government are hiding stuff from us that may be true to a degree but what makes you think they can cover up big stuff like ufo's ,Big foot fairy's when the can't even give proper services.
Because when it suits them to lend quasi-plausibility to a conspiracy theory, the government and science has some subset agencies that have endless funds and total power to both create and sustain gigantic and pervasive hoaxes. Think: Men In Black and their "neuralizers".

And when it suits them to "discredit" a long-proven explanatory framework like the TOE, this is doubly handy.

Through the magic of compartmentalization, the same people will tell you that government is bumbling and ineffective and should be minimized as an epic fail, in other areas where they chafe at government "impositions".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: