Would it be immoral to kill a clone?

File: 38 KB, 120x700, tumblr_l2bhf9FoGx1qz5fl3o1_500.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 02:46:23 2010 No.1898515 [Reply] [Original]

Would it be immoral to kill a clone?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 02:48:23 2010 No.1898518 depends on how the clone was made. and if you think its immoral to kill someone in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 02:50:23 2010 No.1898522 >>1898518 >depends on how the clone was made I don't see why.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 02:51:23 2010 No.1898525 OP doesn't understand the nature of the individual. It's just as much a crime as killing some random person off the street.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 02:53:23 2010 No.1898530 >>1898525 Okay, but what if they had the same memories and impulses as the person?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 02:55:23 2010 No.1898537 >>1898522 well you got to define clone. do you mean an exact matter for matter copy, or one that was grown from an egg. and are you talking about killing your own clone or killing someone elses clone?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 02:56:23 2010 No.1898540 >>1898530 That still wouldn't make it the same individual. Even if a clone was an exact and perfect copy of the original, the moment they don't share exactly the same sensory input they become different people. Similar, but quite distinct.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 02:58:23 2010 No.1898545 >>1898537 (I'm not OP) In my opinion all the options you named are immoral.

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 02:59:23 2010 No.1898547

>>1898530
Unless the clone was killed at the precise moment it was formed, it has already begun experience from a different perspective and is not the same individual. People are nothing more than the collection of memories and genetics that compose them.

If you killed the clone before independent experience, however, you have still killed a person, just a person identical to another person.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:02:23 2010 No.1898556 >>1898515 >Would it be immoral to kill a clone? according to history its immoral to kill anything that will not be used as food.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:05:23 2010 No.1898562 >>1898515 Is it immoral for one of a pair of identical twins to kill another?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:05:23 2010 No.1898565 their isn't such thing as moral or immoral thus it can't be either.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:05:23 2010 No.1898566 >>1898556 Not very accurate brah. We kill animals for science (even chimps), for fun (hunting) and just for convenience (dumping a bunch of chemicals in a house to get rid of the cockroaches).

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:06:23 2010 No.1898569 >>1898565 This. morality is an abstraction. No objective relevance.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:07:23 2010 No.1898570 >>1898556 Is it immoral to eat a clone? >Berabing clit wat

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:07:23 2010 No.1898571 >>1898565 the two are just words human have made. you can't go outside and pick up a moral.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:08:23 2010 No.1898573 >>1898569 No. This^. Yours sounded smarter than mine. :P

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:11:23 2010 No.1898586 File: 20 KB, 318x349, 1279417554250.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1898515 Nope.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:15:23 2010 No.1898596 >>1898570 cannibals dont think so...

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:16:23 2010 No.1898597

>>1898571
Something doesn't have to objectively exist for it to be real. As human constructs, purpose and morality do not exist in nature, but that doesn't mean their creation by humans is meaningless, because we have decided they have meaning.

ITT: edgy teenage pseudo-nihilists.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:18:23 2010 No.1898600 >>1898597 To be fair, you can't argue with the fact that there is no objective morality and thus no absolute answer to OP's question. That said, I think you'll find that the consensus is that killing is immoral.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:19:23 2010 No.1898605 File: 91 KB, 300x400, cooper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] IF THEY HAVE EINSTEINS BRAIN WHY NOT CLONE IT DOGGAMNIT!

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 03:20:23 2010 No.1898609 >>1898600 Is morality decided by a vote now?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:21:23 2010 No.1898617 >>1898609 According to the law it is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:22:23 2010 No.1898621 >>1898600 >That said, I think you'll find that the consensus is that killing is immoral. explain that to the lion king

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:22:23 2010 No.1898624 >>1898600 Nope, can't argue that. Just responding to all the idiots saying "hey man morality isn't real, man".

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:22:23 2010 No.1898625 >>1898597 >Something doesn't have to objectively exist for it to be real. Tell me something that objectively does not exist that is real. TG - Someone who likes to use ITT to get his opinion out.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 03:23:23 2010 No.1898626 >>1898617 One cannot be arrested for being immoral. On is arrested for breaking the law... unless you live in Iran.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 03:23:23 2010 No.1898630 >>1898624 So how do you define morality?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:24:23 2010 No.1898633 >>1898556 >>1898566 The only logical thinkers here

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:24:23 2010 No.1898634 >>1898626 i lol'd

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:25:23 2010 No.1898635

>>1898625
Abstract concepts, which only exist in the mind, yet are real for all intents and purposes.

Sure, you could argue that abstract concepts have a concrete existence as matter interacting with matter in someones brain, but that's not what's meant.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:25:23 2010 No.1898639 >>1898626 Actually you can get arrested for immoral conduct in a scientific context. We have ethics committees for that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:25:23 2010 No.1898640 >>1898633 logicality is just an opinion. when you have the life of two men at your hands and can only save one, who dies?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:26:23 2010 No.1898642 >>1898624 Can you point to a moral please? How about post pix? Or failing that, a mathematical model?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:27:23 2010 No.1898647 >>1898642 >Can you point to a happiness please? How about post pix? Or failing that, a mathematical model?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:28:23 2010 No.1898650 >>1898635 Abstract concepts. Really? Those aren't real either, I'm sorry. And they exist in your mind, which has no physical form.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:28:23 2010 No.1898651 >>1898642 Can you prove you're real, and not just a figment of my subconscious? See, I can cop out too.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:28:23 2010 No.1898655 We as humans learn to kill for survival or sacrifice for the better of the master race. Ergo KILL and not murder.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 03:29:23 2010 No.1898659

>>1898639
As I understand it, ethics pertain to the expectations of the community for someone of a given position. A mayor is given power and is lawfully obligated to act ethical, i.e. to not exploit said power. If he gives a highway contract to his brother's business just because of his brother, that is unethical. That doesn't mean it is immoral.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:30:23 2010 No.1898660 >>1898647 There isn't such thing as happiness either. It's just a name we give a feeling in our body that our MIND makes us think were having.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 03:31:23 2010 No.1898661 File: 13 KB, 349x325, Dopamine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1898647

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:32:23 2010 No.1898666 >>1898651 Maybe I am? But now we can agree that moral isn't real. Thank you for agreeing with me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:33:23 2010 No.1898668 >>1898605 >>1898605 Why has this not been done

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:33:23 2010 No.1898669 File: 207 KB, 540x1747, 20100923.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >this thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:33:23 2010 No.1898671 >>1898661 lmao. well if your going to pull the DMT card on me then....you win. hahahah.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 03:33:23 2010 No.1898672 Everyone who is dissing abstractions and models, everything you perceive is nothing but data points. You use those data points to form a model of the world around you. The keyboard you are typing on is no more real than sqrt{-1).

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:37:23 2010 No.1898680 >>1898669 one sided person with absolute no understanding for development. i bet you label your pens

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:39:23 2010 No.1898683

This thread started off with "Would it be immoral to kill a clone?" and is now at, "Everyone who is dissing abstractions and models, everything you perceive is nothing but data points. You use those data points to form a model of the world around you. The keyboard you are typing on is no more real than sqrt{-1).".

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:39:23 2010 No.1898684 >>1898680 but the comic is true. this thread as gotten to the point where nothing is real.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:40:23 2010 No.1898687 >>1898684 That's because nothing is real, lets just end it at that.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 03:41:23 2010 No.1898690

everybody
Everybody.
EVERYBODY!
...
wait
...
just wait a sec.
...
I have a glorious idea that I have been wanting to implement for awhile now... In a corner of some public room... put a sticker about waist high on a wall that says... "Nihilist Seating".

>>	WRONG Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:42:23 2010 No.1898695 >>1898684 All Opinions are REAL! >Opinions

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 03:43:23 2010 No.1898700 File: 21 KB, 264x152, kimiko13.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1898695 What do I have to do to make my opinions imaginary?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:43:23 2010 No.1898701 >>1898687 that's what i said...

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:44:23 2010 No.1898703 Nihilist may refer to. a person who believes human existence has no objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:44:23 2010 No.1898704 >>1898690 GOOD ONE! HURR DURR HURRRR ORAL SEX HURR DURRR JOKE

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 03:45:23 2010 No.1898706 File: 12 KB, 133x151, kimiko14.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1898704 I don't think you got the joke.

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:45:23 2010 No.1898708

>>1898650
How do you justify your belief in naturalism and materialism, then?

Can you PROVE that the universe consists of nothing but matter? Can you PROVE that the universe obeys rules? No, you can't. Those are abstractions, beliefs, the irrational basis of all reason.

All reasoning has an aspect of irrationality. That's the nature of existance. All deductive reasoning is based upon inductive assumptions. All philosophies make some fundamental assumption that cannot be proven.

You can say there is no abstract, but by saying that, you're assuming an abstract.

It's funny how people accuse me of the nihilist by using a priori arguments that dismiss anything that cannot be conclusively proven.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:45:23 2010 No.1898709 >>1898701 No...that's what SHE said!

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:47:23 2010 No.1898714 File: 9 KB, 278x181, images..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] I dont know which anon i am talking to anymore

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:47:23 2010 No.1898715 >>1898672 Really. So If I hit you with a moral, and then a keyboard, which will hurt more?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:48:23 2010 No.1898718 >>1898708 Cool story, brah.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:49:23 2010 No.1898723 >>1898706 i thought i did. if i didnt then explain it to me please lol

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 03:52:23 2010 No.1898727

>>1898708
>Can you PROVE that the universe consists of nothing but matter?
>implying physical or material refers only to matter
Stop getting ALL information from Wikipedia. It's nice once in awhile, but BS at other times. For philosophy stuff there are plenty of university websites with online encyclopedias of relevant terms.

But back to materialsm. It is generally the idea that the same physical interactions that cause an apple to drop to the ground dictate EVERYTHING. It contrasts the idea that human conciousness is somehow above or at least on par with the how fundamental the laws dictating the apple falling.

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:52:23 2010 No.1898728

>>1898708

>implying that persistent and solid objects are abstractions.

Look, we may use an abstraction (like mathematics) to manipulate reality. But that doesn't make Mathematics "real". It's a tool for understanding the world, nothing more.

You're assuming we're all Rationalists in the traditional sense. Don't. Science is just the best tool we have to understand the natural world, but it's NOT my religion.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 03:53:23 2010 No.1898729 >>1898715 How do you define hit?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:53:23 2010 No.1898732 File: 32 KB, 500x304, Remote Control Cars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >This Thread This thread is now about Remote Control Cars

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:54:23 2010 No.1898735 >>1898729 how do you define "define"?

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:55:23 2010 No.1898737

>>1898729

Answer the question. You know exactly what I mean. Draw from your experience of being hit in the head.

One is a solid object with measurable properties. The other is a semantic spook.

Philosophy student eh? Enjoy your word games about nothing.

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:57:23 2010 No.1898739

first i gotta say this
>implying that your implying implying about implying imply implied that i imply about implying.

second.

>>1898728
>Look, we may use an abstraction (like mathematics) to manipulate reality. But that doesn't make Mathematics "real". It's a tool for understanding the world, nothing more.
^This.

/thread

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:57:23 2010 No.1898740 File: 32 KB, 500x304, no.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1898732 NO!

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 03:57:23 2010 No.1898741 >>1898723 I was referencing the common (or what I thought was common) idea of what one who doesn't believe in anything should do; i.e. crawl into a corner, lay in the fetal position, and die.

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 03:58:23 2010 No.1898742

>>1898727
Didn't imply anything of the kind, but if it makes you feel better by all means consider to skirt around the argument.

Btw, what you described is naturalism, not materialism.

You're on /sci/. You're arguing that because morality has no objective existence, it's not real. All I was pointing out is the supreme hypocrisy in such a statement, considering everything originates in the mind at some level.

>>	Implying Fri Oct 15 03:59:23 2010 No.1898744 >>1898715 Now I'm going to hit you with some photons. OH NO SINCE YOU DIDN'T FEEL THEM THEY MUST NOT EXIST Seriously, stop acting like a 17-year old who just discovered philosophy.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:00:23 2010 No.1898746 >>1898735 My point is, your definition of hit makes it logically impossible for one to hit another with a moral. If I'm not mistaken, that is a strawman. And remember, those pain signals are just datapoints. /:)

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:02:23 2010 No.1898748 >>1898744 I feel when photons hit me...

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:03:23 2010 No.1898749 >>1898744 >implying there are any solipsists here, instead of a circlejerk of materialists and a couple philosophy majors using solipsism to point out the contradictions in the /sci/fags arguments.

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:05:23 2010 No.1898752

>>1898741

Why not embrace absolute freedom? Enjoy attempting to take over the world or screwing lots of women?

Why does Nihilism imply depression to most people? Are you so addicted to needing to have stuff to "believe" in? To justify your own desires and so on?

Animals don't need any of that crap. Think dogs worry about the implications of Godels Theorem at night? I'm just an animal with a symbolic logic engine for extra world modeling. So are you. Get over it already.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:05:23 2010 No.1898753

>>1898742
1) You are confusing me with someone else. I've been using a trip this entire thread.

2) You were implying what I said you were implying whether you knew it or not because it was damn near explicit. You asked for another poster to " PROVE that the universe consists of nothing but matter" as if to say if it doesn't then materialism is invalidated, when the standard model in physics already states not everything is matter.

3) On another note, I don't like how you use the word "prove".

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:06:23 2010 No.1898754 >>1898744 Really? So photon's can't be used to burn through solid objects now? Dig deeper.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:07:23 2010 No.1898755 >>1898741 Oh, well you thought wrong, that's not common. Actually that's quite odd. You might want to go get psycho-analyzed

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:07:23 2010 No.1898756 >>1898749 What is the mind?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:08:23 2010 No.1898758 >>1898749 >implying anything other than strict materialism is a valid perspective.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:09:23 2010 No.1898762 >when the standard model in physics already states not everything is matter. Source?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:10:23 2010 No.1898764 >>1898756 Ask Alan Watts.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:10:23 2010 No.1898765 >>1898756 What does "what" mean?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:10:23 2010 No.1898767 >>1898756 the mind is where your conscience constructs your preceptions of the universe

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:10:23 2010 No.1898768 File: 97 KB, 325x1002, fast_freud.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1898755 I already blame my mother for everything. pic semi-unrelated, it was the only pic in my folder with the word "freud" in it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:10:23 2010 No.1898769 >>1898753 Matter as a loose term for a logical substance; quantifiable. The rest, fair enough. It's 4 am here and I have insomnia, so my arguments probably aren't the best.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:12:23 2010 No.1898773 File: 8 KB, 250x188, face57.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1898764 Convince me why I should. I'm open enough.

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:12:23 2010 No.1898775

A moral is entirely subjective, and cannot exist without subjectivity. Because of this, it is impossible to tell "what is moral" as it depends on the person answering, and no one person's moral is more right than another's.

Though something doesn't [philosophically] "exist" until it is realized, they are still around to be realized. A moral simply ceases to be.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:12:23 2010 No.1898776 >>1898758 >implying you aren't still being hypocritical and illogical

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:13:23 2010 No.1898778 >>1898768 Ah. Well I was just jesting. Are you a philosophy major?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:14:23 2010 No.1898782 >>1898776 >implying that A isn't A.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:14:23 2010 No.1898783 >>1898773 Because Alan Watts is the fucking shit! To bad hes dead though. RIP

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:15:23 2010 No.1898787 >implying that your implying implying about implying imply implied that i imply about implying that im a complete faggot because i argue in the form of implying

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:17:23 2010 No.1898791 >>1898782 >implying if A then B proves A

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:17:23 2010 No.1898792

>>1898765
what (hwut, hwät, wut, wät)

pronoun

1. the nature, class, name, purpose, etc. of a thing: what is that object?what is your address?
1. an explanation or repetition of something previously said: you told them what?
2. such an explanation or repetition: used elliptically: “Sh. Quiet!”“What?”
a quantity, sum, etc.: what will it cost? the value, importance, or effect of something: what is life without music?
2. that which or those which: to know what one wants anything that: do what you will the exact person or thing that: he's not what he was five years ago that or who: a nonstandard usage: the man what gave it to me
3.
4. Chiefly Brit., Informal used to end a sentence with a general or rhetorical interrogative force: it's rather late, what? used to introduce a parenthetical element in a sentence: she has, what is rare, true tolerance used elliptically to mean “what it is,” “what to do,” etc.: I'll tell you what!

Origin: ME hwat < OE hwæt, neut. of hwa, who < IE interrogative base *kwo-, *kwe- > where, who, L qui, who what, Lith kàs, what, who

noun
the true or basic quality of something: to uncover the what and why of their relationship

adjective

1. which or which kind of: used interrogatively or relatively in asking for or specifying the nature, identity, etc. of a person or thing: what man told you that? he knows what role she played
2. as much, or as many, as: take what time (or men) you need
3. how great, surprising, magnificent, disappointing, etc.: in exclamations: what a man! what nonsense!

adverb

1. in what respect? to what degree? how?: what does it matter?
2. how greatly, surprisingly, etc.: in exclamations: what tragic news!
3. Obsolete why?

conjunction
Brit., Dialectal so far as; as much as: we warned them what we could

interjection
used to express surprise, anger, confusion, etc.: what! no dinner?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:17:23 2010 No.1898794 >>1898787 >im a complete faggot because i argue in the form of implying Got that right.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:19:23 2010 No.1898801

>>1898769
>Matter as a loose term for a logical substance; quantifiable.
Well stop using it that way. The definition of matter is primary school science class stuff. Using it that way will only hurt your argument. But anyways, I understand what you meant to say now.

Goodnight. I need to go to bed too. I skipped two classes today studying for an Advanced Calculus test and I can't miss anymore tomorrow. Damn time release adderall keeping me up. :(

P.S. - As a physics major I take it personally when people misdefine physical terms. Maybe I was being too hard on you.

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:19:23 2010 No.1898803

>>1898794
lol im not even in this arguement anymore. the last post i made was "their isn't such thing as moral or immoral thus it can't be either." then the shitstorm hit and people started arguing in the form of implying. never have seen such faggot tree.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:21:23 2010 No.1898815
File: 21 KB, 320x240, kahn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1898783
>Because Alan Watts is the fucking shit!
Your enthusiasm entices me, it entices me. But that isn't enough for me to look at his Wikipedia article this late at night, and I'll likely forget about it tomorrow.

I did it for the lulz Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:22:23 2010 No.1898816
File: 17 KB, 598x483, jake.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqHEGFcwSHIN_3XFdDLzgcXsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20101015011314A
A1Ytmf

In case this 404's look forward to reading the comments, toasted in sci/math you're welcome <.>

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:22:23 2010 No.1898817 holy shit! did you no that if your browsing in firefox and click on a baby blue box behind someones black text while holding control it puts a blue border around it like it is selecting it! totally irrelevant but i just found that out.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:23:23 2010 No.1898819 >>1898803 I don't think he actually read your post.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:24:23 2010 No.1898822 >>1898816 i predict epic lulz will be had

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:24:23 2010 No.1898823 >>1898817 I just found out that PAM dissolves glue residue and that camera phones can see the flashes of infrared light from TV remotes.

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:25:23 2010 No.1898824

>>1898792

Ummm what B? We exist in a world of physical objects. Regardless of their structure, they are persistent, measurable and observable by more than one individual. We call these things Matter.

Matter is Not an Abstraction.

Matter is Matter.

A is A. (Damn it, I sound like Ayn Rand).

An Abstraction is a mental construct. A neural flickering to help build our model of the world. Just because we use abstractions to understand the world doesn't make them "real" the way Matter is.

The Map is NOT the Territory. The Menu is NOT the Meal.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:26:23 2010 No.1898827 >>1898816 >this question has been DELETED l:l

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:26:23 2010 No.1898828 >>1898819 oh i wasn't implying that he did, i didn't think he read it anyways, i just wanted to comment on the fact, totally irrelevant to his knowledge but now he knows.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:27:23 2010 No.1898830 >>1898823 >and that camera phones can see the flashes of infrared light from TV remotes. wtf?! are you serious?!

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:28:23 2010 No.1898832 >>1898824 >Matter is Not an Abstraction. Yes it is. It's just a concept in a theory. And keep in mind I'm not some chickenshit philosophy major. I'm a physics major. Physics is my life.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:29:23 2010 No.1898833 >>1898830 TRY IT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:29:23 2010 No.1898834 in your name fizx what does the !d75etXAowg stand for. i've never understood it. but can't ask in /b/ or ill be a newfag, tho i've been here since 05, i just don't care about what goes on, on this site.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:30:23 2010 No.1898838 >>1898830 yeah most camera CCDs can pick up a bit of the IR band that boreders red visible light

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:30:23 2010 No.1898839 I think it would be immoral to kill a clone because you are terminating a living thing, regardless of it's origins, for no valid purpose. Of course, if it's done something to warrant death, then go ahead.

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:31:23 2010 No.1898841

>>1898832

Then you've lost the game. I'd hoped you were some philosophy major who just discovered Kant or something.

Oh dear. Do you think that objects are made of numbers as well?

Again, the Map is NOT the Territory. You've lived inside your head a little long haven't you?

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:32:23 2010 No.1898843

>>1898824
Really dude....everyone stopped arguing, and you just have to jump back in like a faggot. Leave it alone.

As Alan Watts said, "Reality is only a Rorschach ink-blot, you know. ". So believe what you want, do what you want, live your own life. Believe we were all made by you if you want who cares.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:32:23 2010 No.1898846

>>1898834
That is my actual trip code. Tripcodes work by typing in a name, then the number symbol "#", followed by any series of characters. The characters before the "#" will be seen by everyone who reads your post, it will be your name, while everything to the right will be encrypted so that no one but yourself will know what it is. That is so no one can imitate you.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:33:23 2010 No.1898849 >>1898833 thats awesome!

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:33:23 2010 No.1898850 >>1898841 Give it up man, he's a solipist.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:34:23 2010 No.1898852 >>1898827 >DELETED no it has not. copy and paste dude, dont click because greasemonkey is a monkey http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqHEGFcwSHIN_3XFdDLzgcXsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20101015011314A A1Ytmf

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:36:23 2010 No.1898855 >>1898834 >claims to have been on 4chan longer than a week >doesn't know what a tripcode is Oh come one, you don't have to lie on an anonymous imageboard.

>>	rape Rape !pjwjmEQ1RM Fri Oct 15 04:37:23 2010 No.1898859 rape

Rape !pjwjmEQ1RM Fri Oct 15 04:39:23 2010 No.1898865

>>1898855
No thats the truth.....what do I care, you don't believe me hahah Jesus, like I need to impress people on this board. If anything it makes me look more like a loser then anything because I've been on this site this long. I didnt even post once until 09....maybe 08. I would just come here for the funny ass shit in /b/. and i dont no what a trip code is because im not a computer geek.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:40:23 2010 No.1898866 >>1898843 Yeah your right, that was faggot of me. Solipsists just irritate me though.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:40:23 2010 No.1898869 >>1898865 and now rape is my name. i dont want a trip code. makes me look like a nerd.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:42:23 2010 No.1898873 >>1898859 If it is a 4chan raep than it is acceptable! also stop trien so hard

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:42:23 2010 No.1898874 >>1898866 It's all good. I didn't mean to use the word faggot, I was just irritated by the fact the arguing started again, I forgot this is what this image board is for. Would you like to make up with gay sex?

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:43:23 2010 No.1898878 >>1898873 I didn't try that hard. Actually I just typed a few words, but thanks for looking out for my well being. Gives me a warm feeling inside.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:46:23 2010 No.1898879 We'll this has been an eye-opening (mind opening also, so no one argues that my eyes aren't real) chat. Thank for the different view on all kinds of subjects.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:47:23 2010 No.1898882

>>1898841
Fuck dude, I'm just not getting through to you. All you and I can "know" is what we percieve, and our perceptions aren't that there are desks in front of us or that there are air currents passing over our skin, it's baser than that. All we have to work with are the impulses that get to our minds. Describing where those impulses came from is by definition a model, or an abstraction.

You seem to think I believe everything is invalid, but I think it is the other way around. I think you are drawing an arbitrary distinction between what you think is "real" and what is "a construct".

This all kind of ties in with the misconception that science creates facts. Science is the method of using observations (those nerve impulse data points) to create theoretical models (the idea of air currents to describe the cool sensation on your skin) that can make predictions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:48:23 2010 No.1898885 File: 72 KB, 500x318, stop this fsagorty.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>1898515 >Would it be immoral to kill a clone? It would only be moral if the clones were spherical and in a vacuum

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:51:23 2010 No.1898888 >>1898882 huh, I've been watching this thread thinking I didn't agree with you and then you go and say exactly what i was thinking...

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:51:23 2010 No.1898890 >>1898882 Maybe I cut that down too much. Someone tell me if they think it needs some filling in.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:52:23 2010 No.1898892 If there's one thing you can learn from that comic, it's that scientific anwers to many philosophical questions are trivial and cognitively unfulfilling at best.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 04:54:23 2010 No.1898895 >>1898888 Was it my definiton of science that reeled you in? People who have a decent understanding of what science is are too few and far between.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:54:23 2010 No.1898896 >>1898892 but that is true of most philosophical answers to philosophical questions.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 04:56:23 2010 No.1898898 >>1898895 more or less. maybe I was just misunderstanding your posts, its pretty late lol

my head is now shaved Anonymous Fri Oct 15 05:00:23 2010 No.1898901
File: 57 KB, 480x640, baldy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anons asking questions by anons that anons answer for other anons, then anons follow up on anons replies that are not anon related but anon still answers to the anon before the last anon.... Oh My i just got a brain hemorrhage !

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 05:00:23 2010 No.1898904 I'm about to masturbate to CP, what do you fools think about that! Is it moral to masturbate to CP?

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 05:03:23 2010 No.1898905

>>1898892
>>1898896
I hate philosophy. Ironic that I find myself in these threads so often.

Really, what I hate is the definition of philosophy. It's supposed to be all encompassing, with I think is idiotic. The philosophy of science should just be called the study of science. Some ass holes one day just decided to label "The study of [blank]" philosophy and here we are. It's so braod its useless. Worse, the many useless tangents "philosophers" pursue is thought to be valid just because philosophy as a whole is thought to have value (and its kind of hard not to convince people something has value when you define it as EVERYTHING).

And I hate philosophers.

Steam=released.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 05:03:23 2010 No.1898906 >>1898904 child porn is a secular definition, not a moral one. its would be immoral only if you are breaking a law by doing it

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 05:03:23 2010 No.1898907

>>1898896
Sometimes yes, but philosophy people usually have more knowledge of the implications of their questions which can help in answering them. Good scientists are not supposed to look at non-empirical implications since it's outside of their field. The tragedy occurs when their methodology gets applied to all facets of human existence.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 05:06:23 2010 No.1898914 >>1898906 alright. then its immoral as we speak ;)

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 05:08:23 2010 No.1898919 >>1898914 i think thats the view many people would take, yes.

psychologyfag Anonymous Fri Oct 15 05:13:41 2010 No.1898927 [DELETED]

File: 30 KB, 640x416, wild-tulips.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1898904
>>1898904
>>1898904
>I'm about to masturbate to CP, what do you fools think about that! Is it moral to masturbate to CP?

As Oprah once said on a show related to what you just said.
"Thinking about it is completely different than acting it out" So with that said i hope you are the fantasy type and not the one that hurts children.
>Fantasy Is totally acceptable in my view.
ps: if you are the fantasy type dont kill yourself.

fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 05:14:23 2010 No.1898928

>>1898898
I haven't argued this particular position that often. I might not be great at it. I also think it might be a little too easy for my posts to construed as the rantings of some angsty self-declared-nihilist teenager.

Personally, if I were reading someone else arguing what I was arguing I would probably react the same way as you or some of the other posters. The ironic thing is that my conclusions evolved out of my how important I see empiricism as. Like I said in my other post, science makes observations and creates models. Those models are damned important, but people hear the word model and they think it's less than valid, the same goes for the word theory.

tl;dr - I find it ironic that my quasi-nihilism is a product of my die-hard empiricism.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 05:15:23 2010 No.1898930 >>1898906 One of us is very confused. Secular doesn't mean not pertaining to morality.

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 05:16:23 2010 No.1898931 >>1898927 As Oprah once said on a show related to what you just said. "Over 9000 penises". Sorrry, I couldn't resit. lol

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 05:22:23 2010 No.1898937

>>1898930
sorry, what I was getting at is that often morals are derived from religous concepts (ten commandments and all that), where as secular is more arbitary. im playing pretty loose with these definitions however... I guess what im saying is that there is nothing morally wrong with having child porn, in the same sense that there is nothing morally wrong with going 90 miles an hour down the highway. as opposed to laws against murder or theft, which are morally wrong.

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 05:23:23 2010 No.1898939

>>1898927
>So with that said i hope you are the fantasy type and not the one that hurts children.
Never in my life would I, welll since your a psychologyfag, could you tell me why I beat it to them in the first place? I think it all started with anime...then hentai....then loli....then 4chan....then cp. lol that's my theory

judge your self Anonymous Fri Oct 15 05:24:41 2010 No.1898940 [DELETED]

>>1898931
it was an episode with doc phil that i thought you would understand because of her history and doc phills familly history.
but thats ok if you want to lol.
i will not judge your sense of humour .
always look on the bright side of life (whistles)

>>	fizx !d75etXAowg Fri Oct 15 05:26:23 2010 No.1898942 >>1898937 Understood.

Anonymous Fri Oct 15 05:42:41 2010 No.1898972 [DELETED]

File: 60 KB, 480x358, shame_0.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>1898939
>could you tell me why I beat it to them in the first place?
you excelled beyond reasonable doubt. meaning and lets stay on topic. that you forced your self to like something you resented in the first pace.
when we get angry with the world we tend to go against any moral logic because we dont ... i should i say Want to move on with the 'robots'.
my advice to you is find in your self what can make you a likable person... i know it sux thinking that way . but its better than complete isolation.
you should look into necrophilia than google more of the 'phila' terms and you will find that you are not alone.
sorry for late reply but i was on the phone..

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 06:14:23 2010 No.1899031 this is the messiest thread i have seen on /sci/

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 06:17:23 2010 No.1899035 >>1899031 dealwithit.jpg

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 06:28:23 2010 No.1899058 >>1899035 I did because i created it lol

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 07:04:23 2010 No.1899104 Lol you thought this was over…bump.

>>	Anonymous Fri Oct 15 09:59:23 2010 No.1899428 what about being a clone makes murder controversial? because they don't have 'souls'?

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math