[NeedKarma]

...or what was going on before conception.

Hopefully foreplay.

[Wondergirl]

Hopefully foreplay.

Not with those guys (we know where their minds were) -- with the mind of the person-to-be.

[TUT317]

This debate would probably come closer to an agreement if there were a suitable definition of consciousness. Unfortunately, not everyone can agree on what it is to be conscious.

One working definition of consciousness is to regard it as a particular type of feeling or a "What is it like?" experience. In terms of this debate we can ask, "what is it like for me to be alive, or you to be a live?" In other words, what is this experience like? This is probably the best we can do because it is a meaningless question to ask someone. "What were your pre-birth experiences?"

Someone is conscious if there is something it is like to be that person. This is the so-called subjective nature of experience. As it stands I have no experience of what it was like before my birth. In a similar fashion I can say that I have no experience of what it is like to be a dog, cat or a horse.

We are restricted to the resources of our own mind. We could IMAGINE what it was like before our birth in the same way we could IMAGINE what it is like to be a dog. Unfortunately, extrapolation from our own point of view won't answer, "What is it like?" Imagination won't give us the subjective nature of experience.



Tut

[NeedKarma]

The person to-be was molecules that formed the sperm and the egg, nothing more, nothing less. Why do we have to ascribe something more to it than that?

[Wondergirl]

The person to-be was molecules that formed the sperm and the egg, nothing more, nothing less. Why do we have to ascribe something more to it than that?

Where did that spark come from, the spark that is NK, for instance, and not WG?

[NeedKarma]

That's genetics. Other than that I'm not sure what you are referring to.

[TUT317]

The person to-be was molecules that formed the sperm and the egg, nothing more, nothing less. Why do we have to ascribe something more to it than that?

Hi N.K.

On the basis of my definition I would say that it very difficult to ascribe something more to it than what you have outlined above.


Regards

Tut

[Wondergirl]

That's genetics. Other than that I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Even the egg and sperm have a spark in them that's transferred to the organism that they create. They are not just blobs of molecules. Scientists can merge blobs, but have never created the spark.

[Wondergirl]

Hi N.K.

On the basis of my definition I would say that it very difficult to ascribe something more to it than what you have outlined above.


Regards

Tut

Then it should be easy for scientists to replicate this and make a person.

[positiveparent]

I think that at death it's a huge multi orgasmic event, then nothing , until you're kicked out into a shute and wham born again. A continuous orgasmic event, sounds like a plan...

[TUT317]

Then it should be easy for scientists to replicate this and make a person.

You are a very perceptive person W.G. I take my hat off to you.

You may the Philosophical Zombie argument interesting.

Philosophical zombie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Regards

Tut

[NeedKarma]

Then it should be easy for scientists to replicate this and make a person.

Correct. It's called in-vitro fertilization.

[Wondergirl]

Correct. It's called in-vitro fertilization.

Wrong. That's taking already existing egg and sperm.

I mean the scientists create the egg and sperm out of globs of stuff lying around in the lab and then join them to make a person (who has a spark, a mind, a "soul," if you will).

[NeedKarma]

Wrong. That's taking already existing egg and sperm.

I mean the scientists create the egg and sperm out of globs of stuff lying around in the lab and then join them to make a person (who has a spark, a mind, a "soul," if you will).

I wasn't aware that that was the question here: can scientists create life outside of the natural sexual way of creating life. I don't know the answer to that nor do I ponder it.

A person is a person though, I don't understand what you mean by "spark" though I have met people with no spark. I realize that you really want to bring some god into the picture and if so that's your belief. I don't have the same belief. To each his own.

[Wondergirl]

I realize that you really want to bring some god into the picture

No, I don't.

[NeedKarma]

Ok then, where does the "spark" come from?

[Wondergirl]

Ok then, where does the "spark" come from?

We haven't gotten around yet to agreeing there is one.

[TUT317]

A person is a person though, I don't understand what you mean by "spark" though I have met people with no spark. I realize that you really want to bring some god into the picture and if so that's your belief. I don't have the same belief. To each his own.

Hi NK,

I think what Wondergirl means by "spark" is that there is something "additional" when it comes to experience. Perhaps the best analogy is to consider the possibility of a philosophical zombie. That is, a creature that is like us in every way except that it doesn't have feelings. It functions a lot like a scientific creation/ robot. David Chalmers would say that with philosophical zombies, "all is dark inside".

Philosophical zombies (if they could exist) are less than human. They are like us in every way except they lack "spark" that is, the additional element of feelings or 'what is it like? Experiences.

I think it boils down to this:

If philosophical zombies can exist then Wondergirl is right.

If philosophical zombies are an impossibility the N.K. is right.

At this stage of the debate there is no need to bring God into the picture.

[NeedKarma]

Don't worry about what we agree on. You asked me questions and I answered based on my version of things, I want to hear yours now - you brought up the whole spark thing.

[NeedKarma]

If philosophical zombies can exist then Wondergirl is right.

Ok. Where can such creatures be found?