"Scientism" is a word used by silly people who fear evidence.
Silly people like Karl Popper and Hilary Putnam?
So do you deny the very existence of scientism?
John_Mann
JoinedPosts by John_Mann
-
98
Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species
by cofty inevolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.
just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.
-
-
John_Mann
-
51
Why are the evolutionist's so upset?
by Esse quam videri inso many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.
it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.
should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.
-
-
John_Mann
First you use a hypothetical for your argument, saying that if a hypothetical AI was strong enough Law would accept it. (I'm sure most here will not accept a hypothetical as main argument.)
Really?
The very structure of logic is made by the pair if-then. If (premise) then (conclusion).
Especially my case where I argue consciousness is unique to humans beings. I can only use an "if" premise to develop a scenario where non humans have consciousness. So I used some likely entity as a possibility.
Where's exactly the logical flaw?
Then you use an example of intelligent primate legal status cases failing to prove another point. Seems contradictory. Primates are very smart. Primates are also biological; some would say this is a huge difference.
That's a mess of argument.
What is contradictory (assuming you have the same cofty's position) you saying Law don't assume metaphysical positions and after you post a link about rivers granting legal rights as persons! This doesn't sound metaphysical to you?
And the links are weird and strict exceptions.
In a statement, the government said research had clearly established cetaceans are highly intelligent and sensitive, and that dolphins "should be seen as 'non-human persons' and as such should have their own specific rights."
As Cupp expressed to me via email, he’s advising against reading too much into this before we know more about what the judge was thinking:
The judge may merely want more information to make a decision on the legal personhood claim, and may have ordered a hearing simply as a vehicle for hearing out both parties in more depth. These kinds of claims are new terrain for judges, and we should be cautious about drawing conclusions as to judicial intent based on the format used to schedule hearings.
Do you really think these cases are related to animals and rivers having consciousness just like humans? The judicial intent was based on indistinguishable consciousness between rivers, animals and humans?
-
51
Why are the evolutionist's so upset?
by Esse quam videri inso many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.
it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.
should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.
-
-
John_Mann
One could argue that law is used to preserve our own species. Almost all living species put their own kind first. This is a function of evolution; nothing metaphysical. Everybody "thinks" their own "team" is superior. Superiority can be biased and subjective.
Law it's not biased a priori towards humans.
If a hypothetical strong AI could pass the Turing test our Law would accept it.
Actually there are political groups that want to give legal status to some primates. But always failing...
-
51
Why are the evolutionist's so upset?
by Esse quam videri inso many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.
it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.
should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.
-
-
John_Mann
The Law does not comment on whether humans have a metaphysical dimension. Stop playing word games.
Law consider humans different from animals.
Biologically we're are indistinguishable from animals. There are even similar (or superior) brains in nature (dolphins and whales).
So if not by biology then by what exactly Law consider humans not only different but also superior?
Can't you see Law use metaphysical criteria? Things like oath and testimonial evidence for instance.
Can't you see you being a follower of Scientism you can't even imagine humans using other methods than science to understand the universe?
-
51
Why are the evolutionist's so upset?
by Esse quam videri inso many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.
it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.
should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.
-
-
John_Mann
No there are no reasons at all. Not even one. Endless repetition doesn't make it so.
Not even law?
Law does not distinguish between a non human animal from a human person?
-
51
Why are the evolutionist's so upset?
by Esse quam videri inso many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.
it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.
should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.
-
-
John_Mann
Insulting those who accept this simple fact by calling them "cultish" is a pathetic attempt to excuse yourself from the burden of proof.
Well, actually I said the view is cultish. This is not an ad hominem fallacy and you know that. And the scientism view is not a fact.
You always seem to confuse philosophical fact and scientific data (also called scientific fact) too.
BTW, do you mind to define in your words what scientism is and why you personally is not a follower of scientism?
I think you're a very clear example of a follower of scientism. But you always seem to deny that and I don't know why you do that.
At least I clearly assume my position as a Catholic.
-
51
Why are the evolutionist's so upset?
by Esse quam videri inso many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.
it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.
should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.
-
-
John_Mann
There is no good reason to assume we are more than biology.
Is assumed in law.
There's a big difference in law between killing an animal or a human.
Liking you or not we have a lot of reasons to assume we are more than biology.
Not only religious reasons... That comes later, you know, after death... The real Judgement will take place.
-
98
Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species
by cofty inevolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.
just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.
-
-
John_Mann
it was just a passing comment by a poster who'd gotten fed up with the narrow physicality of science offered by some posters
Yes, this forum is full of followers of the cult of scientism.
Funny thing is the majority of them are not even conscious of being brainwashed by scientism.
-
51
Why are the evolutionist's so upset?
by Esse quam videri inso many evolutionist's on this forum are upset at the terror attacks in europe such as recently in sweden.
it is just a logical step in the evolution of the human race.
should you not rather be celebrating the great changes taking place right before your eyes and constructing detailed explanations of the cell structure and dna development in the human brain.. you can't eat your cake and still have it.
-
-
John_Mann
If there's no difference between humans and animals then yes nobody could be surprised with genocide.
That's the logical conclusion from this premise.
The theory of evolution really says humans and animals have no biological differences in some kind of superiority.
But the theory doesn't says this premise extrapolates biology. Actually both Darwin and Wallace recognized the problem of consciousness in ToE. Wallace spent the rest of his life trying to find a paranormal explanation about consciousness. He is not remembered as Darwin because this.
Of course the majority of humans know we are more than just biology. That's why this biological premise is not acceptable in law.
But some people think humans are just biology. This view it's not from science but from scientism. This cultish view is very wide spread today.
-
98
Evolution Deniers - An Endangered Species
by cofty inevolution explains how everything descended from a common ancestor over millions of years.
creationists only seem to want to talk about what came before that common ancestor.
just for the sake of discussion let's pretend that the following is true.
-
-
John_Mann
What forum? What idea?