Science has not proven reductive materialism. In fact, there is plenty of new scientific evidence which appears to point to consciousness being a fundamental aspect of reality - such as the last 3 decades of NDE research, with over 60+ retrospective and prospective scientific studies by such academics like Bruce Greyson and Sam Parnia.
I know one thing absolutely for sure John Carter: you cannot prove, no scientist today can prove consciousness itself simply can be reduced to a "clump of cells". That has not been scientifically established at all. As far as we know, the body can just be a conduit for consciousness like a radio is a conduit for a Mozart symphony, but not the source (nor did a radio write Mozart's Sonata Semplice).
Therefore, you and others have no right to foist your own belief system on the rest of us based on just your ideological framework that really has no scientific basis at all.
I'm honestly baffled by what your argument is. For the record, I'm a panentheist: I believe that consciousness is primary, and intrinsic to reality down to the subatomic scale. I'm certainly not a reductionist.
How you jump from there to 'murdering babies is fine' is just weird.
One thing Caitlin gets right, with her Thought One: The Elites and propagandists and corrupt Democratic party are going to exploit this divisive issue for all its worth, while the economic plunder of US citizens and the world's ecosystem will continue unabated.
The most recent theory about consciousness is that neurons are fired by a naturally collapsing quantum wave function. The paper can be found searching for consciousness-is-the-collapse-of-the-wave-function. It is an interesting idea but far from solid evidence, really just a thought experiment.
And I'm honestly baffled by your declaration that a fetus is a baby.
Show me when "the divine" has entered "the radio" as jamenta put it.
Or tell me that you've never squished a bug. If you have, your pantheist beliefs are inconsistent.
Heinlein showed us that "Thou art God", but he had no problem destroying the evil manifestations of what that meant. (in fact, he was a fervent believer in the second amendment)
Certainly you don't believe all of creation is "Good".
I view it much more simply. I am just one of God's experiments to discover what is "good" and what is "bad". God hasn't figured it out.
When (s)he does will he experience eternal light or eternal dark? How will any experience happen without the contrast between the two?
Like the second law of Thermodynamics that says entropy will rule, when everything breaks down to the same thing how is that different from one thing? how is it different from nothing?
At one time the US congress believed that a fetus regardless of gestation age can be a victim of violence.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
If they are only clumps of cells how can they be a victim of violence as a member of the species Homo sapiens ?
Where does it say that acknowledging the presence of consciousness in other entities means you can't kill them? That's obviously absurd. All life needs to eat, and all life, one way or the other, feeds on death. You don't get to wash your hands clean by pretending that it's fine because the thing you killed doesn't have consciousness; equivalently, killing something doesn't (necessarily) mean your hands are dirty.
The consciousness argument is neither an argument for nor against the practice, any more than it is an argument for or against hunting or warfare. Although infanticide enthusiasts do seem to be rather l eager to imagine the practice is acceptable because babies don't have consciousness.
Context matters. If you kill a man who is attempting to kill you, you've done nothing wrong. If you kill a man because you want his watch, you're a murderer.
Similarly with abortion. If the argument is "a baby would cramp my style", which it seems to be in the overwhelming majority of cases - it's murder.
Science has not proven reductive materialism. In fact, there is plenty of new scientific evidence which appears to point to consciousness being a fundamental aspect of reality - such as the last 3 decades of NDE research, with over 60+ retrospective and prospective scientific studies by such academics like Bruce Greyson and Sam Parnia.
I know one thing absolutely for sure John Carter: you cannot prove, no scientist today can prove consciousness itself simply can be reduced to a "clump of cells". That has not been scientifically established at all. As far as we know, the body can just be a conduit for consciousness like a radio is a conduit for a Mozart symphony, but not the source (nor did a radio write Mozart's Sonata Semplice).
Therefore, you and others have no right to foist your own belief system on the rest of us based on just your ideological framework that really has no scientific basis at all.
I'm honestly baffled by what your argument is. For the record, I'm a panentheist: I believe that consciousness is primary, and intrinsic to reality down to the subatomic scale. I'm certainly not a reductionist.
How you jump from there to 'murdering babies is fine' is just weird.
One thing Caitlin gets right, with her Thought One: The Elites and propagandists and corrupt Democratic party are going to exploit this divisive issue for all its worth, while the economic plunder of US citizens and the world's ecosystem will continue unabated.
Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that they will exploit this for all that it's worth.
All of that doesn't make the issue any less valid.
The most recent theory about consciousness is that neurons are fired by a naturally collapsing quantum wave function. The paper can be found searching for consciousness-is-the-collapse-of-the-wave-function. It is an interesting idea but far from solid evidence, really just a thought experiment.
And I'm honestly baffled by your declaration that a fetus is a baby.
Show me when "the divine" has entered "the radio" as jamenta put it.
Or tell me that you've never squished a bug. If you have, your pantheist beliefs are inconsistent.
Heinlein showed us that "Thou art God", but he had no problem destroying the evil manifestations of what that meant. (in fact, he was a fervent believer in the second amendment)
Certainly you don't believe all of creation is "Good".
I view it much more simply. I am just one of God's experiments to discover what is "good" and what is "bad". God hasn't figured it out.
When (s)he does will he experience eternal light or eternal dark? How will any experience happen without the contrast between the two?
Like the second law of Thermodynamics that says entropy will rule, when everything breaks down to the same thing how is that different from one thing? how is it different from nothing?
At one time the US congress believed that a fetus regardless of gestation age can be a victim of violence.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law that recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."
If they are only clumps of cells how can they be a victim of violence as a member of the species Homo sapiens ?
Where does it say that acknowledging the presence of consciousness in other entities means you can't kill them? That's obviously absurd. All life needs to eat, and all life, one way or the other, feeds on death. You don't get to wash your hands clean by pretending that it's fine because the thing you killed doesn't have consciousness; equivalently, killing something doesn't (necessarily) mean your hands are dirty.
Thanks, an elegant support in favor of abortion.
Making me even more question your statement about "killing babies".
The consciousness argument is neither an argument for nor against the practice, any more than it is an argument for or against hunting or warfare. Although infanticide enthusiasts do seem to be rather l eager to imagine the practice is acceptable because babies don't have consciousness.
Context matters. If you kill a man who is attempting to kill you, you've done nothing wrong. If you kill a man because you want his watch, you're a murderer.
Similarly with abortion. If the argument is "a baby would cramp my style", which it seems to be in the overwhelming majority of cases - it's murder.