yguy

That's a patent falsehood. Otherwise, there would be no legal distinction between murder and manslaughter.

Aradia

Not quite. The courts are there to determine how much of a *threat* somebody is. Accidental murder (manslaughter) does not brand someone as being a threat to the same degree as a murderer. The courts will use motive (eg, 1st, 2nd, 3rd deg murder) to help determine the degree to which someone is a threat, but motive is a *tool* in threat determination. The root purpose of the court system is to determine threat, not motive.

By the way, if anyone wants to bring up victimless crimes, don't. I believe using the court system for victimless crimes is a waste of time, so anyone who brings it up will be wasting their breath.

Jesse

Jesse:
What does it mean to "directly" detect something in science, as opposed to indirectly detect it? For example, when we use spectroscopy to find the composition of stars, are we "directly" or "indirectly" detecting the different types of atoms that make up these stars?

Aradia:
Yes. The way I'm using it, "indirectly" detecting something would be detecting something affected by something else, and attributing it to the something else.

Well, in spectroscopy you're detecting concentrations of elements based on a theory of how different elements should effect the spectrum of light from the star, which sounds indirect (especially since you look for dark lines where photons of a certain frequency were not emitted by the star, rather than looking at the photons that did make it from the star to you). I don't see how this is so different from detecting "dark energy" based on a theory of how it should effect the "spectrum" of redshifts from galaxies at different distances from us.

How about the detection of Neptune by its gravitational effects on Uranus? Is this "indirect", and if so, how is it fundamentally different from detecting an object creating gravitational waves by its effects on a human-designed gravitational wave detector, which seems about as "direct" as using a telescope to detect objects emitting electromagnetic waves?

SimplyAtheistic

I have answered the question completely, please pay attention.

Except this common sense is backed by research.

There is a difference between controlling and being able to handle your thoughts, the latter being what a psychiatrist is for.

I am stating that he IS directly controlling it, just because it is pre determined doesen't mean he doesen't have control, he just has predictable control.


Heh, no diversion here, just the truth. By thinking he ignores his ability to realize, a completely voluntary choice.

That is exactly what I am saying.

Actually, not nonsense. Again, the courts job is to decide a risk factor to society.

Let me rephrase, the job of the court system is to protect society from individuals who infringe upon others' rights, though it is not always achieved. Better?

What is evil to you may be good to me. Such as prostitution

Exactly, and our decisions are different based on what we consider good. I may decide it is good to tear out your kidneys and roast them over a fire.

Have Fun

yguy

Perhaps in a few years, you and I will be able to have an intelligent discussion. In case I die before then, nice knowing you.

SimplyAtheistic

It makes me sad to think you will stop this debate because of one comment. I considered our discussion intelligent, and the point of this comment was to be extreme. It was to show you that "good" can mean anything to any person. I urge you to reply to my entire post and not use this as an excuse because you feel defeated. Jake

Aradia

I don't think it sounds indirect. But that's just me. *shrug* I do see detection based on galaxy redshifts as being different, though. But, again, that's just me. *shrug*

The claim was regarding electromagnetic radiation. None of this is pertinent.

yguy

Doesn't matter, because it cannot determine threat without determining motive. A necessary ingredient in murder is malice; so that if you cannot judge the homicide to have been malicious, you can't call it murder.

And there is no such thing as malice without free will.

PandaJoe

I'm going to reply to something one the first page, simply because I can.

So, you say that a thinking being necessarily is a conscious being, and in turn necessarily has a soul. So how do you define thinking? If a being was presented with a series of events that required a response from that being, observed said events, analyzed them, and was able to conclude the best reaction to these events, would you say that this is a thinking being?

Just wanting you to clarify this a little.

Goober

Wow, long thread, so I'm just going to jump to the end and have my two cents about consciousness and the brain.

If you were to take a person, and surgically replace one of their neurons with a computer chip that was capable of doing the exact same thing as that neuron, would that person cease to be conscious? Clearly the answer is no.

If you were to then do it to another neuron, would they lose consciousness? Again, I don't see how anyone could argue that they would. Then you could just keep repeating this until all the neurons in their brain are now computer chips. They would still have to be conscious, because at no stage of the process did replacing one neuron with a chip make them cease to be conscious.

So now we can see that it is possible for a brain made entirely of man-made electronic parts, which don't have souls, so souls are not required for consciousness.