I don't see any moral problem with it, except that our modern society would reject such a creature, and since it would no doubt have the intelligence to understand it had no place you would be creating a creature which would no doubt suffer a huge amount.

I don't think it is horrifying, but then I think humans are animals, and hold no special place within our environment, except that which we make/imagine for ourselves.

"I don't see any moral problem with it, except that our modern society would reject such a creature, and since it would no doubt have the intelligence to understand it had no place you would be creating a creature which would no doubt suffer a huge amount."

Yes, exactly. It's not just what our society would do, though. You'd be creating a creature (or *might* be -- who knows what it would be like) that could be human enough to desire love, knowledge, interaction, but inhuman enough not to be able to attain them. Great idea, to satisfy your curiosity. Of course that's just a secular reason, but even that should be enough for even somebody of your beliefs to reject it.

"[A]nd [humans] hold no special place within our environment, except that which we make/imagine for ourselves."

To hold this belief you have to ignore so much that the mind boggles. I was going to say "deliberately ignore," but again, I don't really know that. Conceivably you are very confused.

"To hold this belief you have to ignore so much that the mind boggles. I was going to say "deliberately ignore," but again, I don't really know that. Conceivably you are very confused. "

what, may i ask, am i ignoring or confused about? i'm paying attention to things like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2lSZPTa3ho

@ orathaic

I do not wish to put words into semck's mouth for he is a much better debater than me. I do, however, think that what he means by the term ''made in the image of God'' is enjoying free-will. Does that help?

" Does that help?"

No. What is "free-will", why do only humans have it and why does this make humans intrinsically superior in value to other species?

Some one say something?

Yeah, Putin said something.

So, if humans enjoy free-will, would the same be true of a human-chimp hybrid (we probably can't do a simple 50/50 hybrid, but may be able to make something 51/49... where does free-will start/stop?)

Also, can you show my pet dog doesn't have free-will?

@ Orathaic. First and foremost do you believe in the concept of free-will? Once this has been established we can move the discussion on.

Why can't you define it?

believe in free-will? do you mean to ask if i believe the we exist as some kind of free-agent guiding our bodies to act?

then no. But we do have an unshakeable illusion of free-will. To us it appears that our decisions are free, in that sense we do indeed have free-will, the ability to choose. Though it is rather more limited than we might prefer to imagine...

I notice you include no reference to moral judgements in your answer. Is morality a useful illusion too?

What on earth does morality have to do with free will? This all seems like a proxy for consciousness or reason or some such thing. Speak plainly.

I notice you don't attempt to define what you're talking about at all...

How and ever, it seems obvious that morality is a human invention.
oh, and when i say useful, i also mean that it is useful to describe someone as being responsible for their actions when that is the case.

"what, may i ask, am i ignoring or confused about? i'm paying attention to things like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2lSZPTa3ho"

Cool.

So you obviously believe behavior is important in judging this question. Things you're ignoring, then, would include -- but not even vaguely be limited to -- complex language, science, mathematics, literature, religion, (complex) morality, space travel, philosophy, history, agriculture, medicine, and diplomacy. Oh, and zoos.

To say that we have no special place in our environment is like saying that hydrogen bombs hold no special place among handguns.

But please, tell me about how bonobos can count and how that makes them our co-adventurers in mathematics. Make my day.

Ach Kaiser, ich verstehe, aber richtig Bayerish kann i nett.

@ Marti, definitely what one calls another person helps define the argument. For example, I'm pro-choice regarding what to major in or what to wear to school. Why not call it "pro-abortion"?

Haha, so guad. :) Aba, 'nicht' is 'ned' ned 'nett'.

"Why not call it "pro-abortion"?" Because that's not really what we're after. The point isn't "yes abortions are good", the point is "women get to choose what happens to their bodies" to say its "pro-abortion" vs. "anti-abortion" is to kinda miss the point.

@ semck - You're taking it as self evidently true that humans are special among animals. But only by our own measures which may very well be false. And even if humans intelligence makes us unique, that doesn't necessarily mean we're special. If our intelligence and consciousness evolved entirely without cause then we're only special from our own point of view, rather than universally and objectively special.

Despite human capacity for complex thought most other species have found that they can live in balance with their environment and with nature. Humans do not. Why is that less valued than complex thought? I think enhancing the overall probability of survival of the greatest amount of life forms possible is the single most important arbiter of "worth" or "value". Complex thought might be entertaining, but unless it assists with the struggle for survival I don't see why it should be deified to the extent to which it is, to a point where human life is the only thing that appears to have any value while other lifeforms that keep everything in balance and allow survival to be a possibility are not valued.

Still waiting for any kind of definition of free will or any answer to any of my questions whatsoever. But I have a feeling all we are ever going to get for Fulham and Semck will be snide pithy one-lines and a lot of eye-rolling.

@Mafia,"You're taking it as self evidently true that humans are special among animals. But only by our own measures which may very well be false."

Well, we're certainly very _different_, Mafialligator, and I'm not taking it as self-evidently true, I'm giving evidence. Of course, I do think that evidence should be self-evident to every person, it's true, but I'm adducing it withal.

"Special," I suppose, is more of a value judgment. But here's the thing. If you were religious, then I could give you religious support for it. If you're irreligious, and don't believe in objective standards, then I can suggest you use our human standards. But of course I have nothing to suggest when you say "our own measures may very well be false." What, in your worldview, would it even mean for our measures to be "false"? Moreover, suppose we take it as granted. Then we would have no idea what measure to use. The red ant may be the most special animal by far, or who knows what?

However, orathaic made an actual claim (we do not hold a special place), and then he backed it up by purporting to show evidence which did, indeed, appeal to our normal measures.

"If our intelligence and consciousness evolved entirely without cause then we're only special from our own point of view, rather than universally and objectively special."

Interesting. Always like to see atheists arguing this way from the Darwinism. Point remains, though, if special means anything, then we're special. (And note that I'm highly leveraging the necessary-but-not sufficient, _objective_ condition "very different"). Whether or not our intelligence has an objective meaning, it's a vast change that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

"Complex thought might be entertaining, but unless it assists with the struggle for survival I don't see why it should be deified to the extent to which it is, to a point where human life is the only thing that appears to have any value while other lifeforms that keep everything in balance and allow survival to be a possibility are not valued."

Certainly we're destructive as well as constructive, Putin. Humans are capable of greater evil, as well as greatness in other things.

I'm curious why greater survivability is your standard, though, especially for other species. It is a metric the other species themselves apparently pay no attention to at all, nor we; certainly it is not evolutionarily relevant (unlike survival of one's own species).

"Still waiting for any kind of definition of free will"

Well that wasn't my subthread, and I didn't even see your request; moreover, I wouldn't entirely cache out human specialty only in those terms. But let me not leave you waiting, if it's a definition you want (really, putin, learn to use google).

Free will is the idea that one's actions are not fully determined by the past or present state of the universe, including (but not limited to) the physical state of one's own brain. It _generally_ also includes the idea that the actions are nevertheless not random, but informed by moral values and competing desired ends.

Pretty soon us "special" humans will wipe out all the non-"special" lifeforms and and in turn, wipe ourselves out. Perhaps if we stopped considering ourselves semi-deities, as you appear to do with the "image of god" business we might figure out a way to co-exist.

We have complex thought but we can't photosynthesize. Every lifeform has its own "special" abilities.

You are of course mistaken that other life forms routinely find ways to coexist. The fossil record is littered with the remains of species whose predators never learned to coexist with them. Many of those predators are our companions today.

"It is a metric the other species themselves apparently pay no attention to at all, nor we; certainly it is not evolutionarily relevant (unlike survival of one's own species)."

Other species are under constant pressure to survive, humans are not. Other species primary concern with their own well being allows them to live in harmony with nature. Not so for humans. Humans have conquered the threats of predators and our immediate habitats. That very fact, however, is the biggest threat to our long-term survival. There is no force that can keep us in check and in balance except ourselves. If we continue to ignore the issue of 'greater survivability' our own existence will be put at risk. So it is evolutionarily relevant. We are the functional equivalent of a invasive species spread out very heavily everywhere around the planet.

"I wouldn't entirely cache out human specialty only in those terms."

Well you wouldn't explain what in god's image meant, so you were spoken for by your colleague there.

"It _generally_ also includes the idea that the actions are nevertheless not random, but informed by moral values and competing desired ends. "

Why are all actions informed by moral values? Couldn't and haven't humans for most of their existence lived completely amoral lives?

"Free will is the idea that one's actions are not fully determined by the past or present state of the universe, including (but not limited to) the physical state of one's own brain."

One can engage in actions outside the control of one's own brain? How does that work? How do humans escape the determinism of the state of the universe and the past & present? And I thought Christians believed that all outcomes were predetermined and controlled by the omniscient deity, or is the deity not omniscient and all-powerful? I've never understand this weird combination of an omnipotent & omniscient deity + supposedly fully autonomous individuals in control of their own actions. It's like a square circle.

Errr, false perhaps may be a misleading term. Essentially what I'm trying to say is, I find it curious that when humans sit down and try to decide what species have value and which ones do not, we always come up with ways of measuring this that conclude that humans are better than everything else. In most cases we'd call that a conflict of interests, and yet somehow with this question, the same rules don't seem to apply.

"The fossil record is littered with the remains of species whose predators never learned to coexist with them."

While it is true that individual species have become extinct because others did not co-exist with them, few species have been so out of balance with their surroundings that they cause mass extinctions, as humans have in multiple time periods now. Individual extinctions do not upset the overall ecological balance.

So we have reached the position where the pro-choice lobby deny the absolute existence of free will. Apparently free will/choice is illusory at heart, but yet it should be the sole determinant in deciding the fate of unborn fetus' and born babies (remember those pictures). Well something is wrong with this whole argument I think. Or are these inconsistencies acceptable if they suit your world view?

On the other hand there is the much more well founded argument, based on morality, that absolute rather than subjective right and wrong behaviour is real, now where I have I heard that before? Maybe we should reach for that big black book on our shelves?

Incidentally we still await an answer on where and why the pro-choice lobby will draw the line. So far we have heard that this should be at the disgression of the individual woman. Do they really believe in that, have they thought about for a second or is this just the politically correct knee-jerk reaction?

Lack of free will and lack of choice are not the same thing. The choices I make are determined by my past experiences and my cognitive processes which are in part determined by biology. But simply because there is a limit to the things I will and will not do, as determined by my brain and my past experiences that doesn't justify using legal means to deny me the opportunity to make those choices. Surely you can grasp this distinction.

And yes, I have thought about the implications of leaving choices about women's bodies up to the women who have to live in those bodies, it's not just a knee jerk reaction. It's a principled stand on an issue. Is it really that inconceivable to you that someone can take a reasoned and principled stand on an issue that disagrees with your own viewpoint?