Why are the evolutionist's so upset? (page 5)

unsure

Law it's not biased a priori towards humans.
If a hypothetical strong AI could pass the Turing test our Law would accept it.
Actually there are political groups that want to give legal status to some primates. But always failing...

First you use a hypothetical for your argument, saying that if a hypothetical AI was strong enough Law would accept it. (I'm sure most here will not accept a hypothetical as main argument.)

Then you use an example of intelligent primate legal status cases failing to prove another point. Seems contradictory. Primates are very smart. Primates are also biological; some would say this is a huge difference.

See below:

"A New York Judge Has Granted Legal Person Rights To Chimpanzees [Updated]"

http://io9.gizmodo.com/a-new-york-judge-has-granted-legal-person-rights-to-chi-1699160192

"Ganges and Yamuna rivers granted same legal rights as human beings"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/21/ganges-and-yamuna-rivers-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-beings?CMP=share_btn_link

"India has officially recognized dolphins as non-human persons, whose rights to life and liberty must be respected."

http://m.dw.com/en/dolphins-gain-unprecedented-protection-in-india/a-16834519

John_Mann

First you use a hypothetical for your argument, saying that if a hypothetical AI was strong enough Law would accept it. (I'm sure most here will not accept a hypothetical as main argument.)

Really?

The very structure of logic is made by the pair if-then. If (premise) then (conclusion).

Especially my case where I argue consciousness is unique to humans beings. I can only use an "if" premise to develop a scenario where non humans have consciousness. So I used some likely entity as a possibility.

Where's exactly the logical flaw?

Then you use an example of intelligent primate legal status cases failing to prove another point. Seems contradictory. Primates are very smart. Primates are also biological; some would say this is a huge difference.

That's a mess of argument.

What is contradictory (assuming you have the same cofty's position) you saying Law don't assume metaphysical positions and after you post a link about rivers granting legal rights as persons! This doesn't sound metaphysical to you?

And the links are weird and strict exceptions.

In a statement, the government said research had clearly established cetaceans are highly intelligent and sensitive, and that dolphins "should be seen as 'non-human persons' and as such should have their own specific rights."

As Cupp expressed to me via email, he’s advising against reading too much into this before we know more about what the judge was thinking:
The judge may merely want more information to make a decision on the legal personhood claim, and may have ordered a hearing simply as a vehicle for hearing out both parties in more depth. These kinds of claims are new terrain for judges, and we should be cautious about drawing conclusions as to judicial intent based on the format used to schedule hearings.

Do you really think these cases are related to animals and rivers having consciousness just like humans? The judicial intent was based on indistinguishable consciousness between rivers, animals and humans?

unsure

@John_Mann

Why do you assume I have the same position as other forum posters?

I never said anything was a logical flaw. I said it seems contradictory, (to me).

I gave you examples where animals and other things were given personhood; you choose to label them as "strict exceptions".

Regarding the Ganges rivers, "In Hinduism, the river Ganga is considered sacred and is personified as a goddess Gaṅgā."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges_in_Hinduism

Remember, you as a Christian believe in a God with personhood, just like those who are Hindu believe in these rivers having personhood and we should all be respecting their beliefs.

The topic is very much still up for debate among the scientific community for those things of a biological nature.

My reading comprehension is not the best.

Many people, from many walks of life, with different abilities, read these forums. Please remember that.

Remember, Jesus of the Bible was a humble, patient teacher; this should be emulated by those who believe in him.

cofty

Your arguments about the law are a red herring.

The Law does not hold a five year old responsible for their actions. Five year olds have consciousness.

There is no evidence that humans are anything other than biology.

TD

So if not by biology then by what exactly Law consider humans not only different but also superior?

The rights accorded by any given society are a corollary to the responsibilities thereof. In other words, you derive certain rights in the society in which you live by keeping its rules.

Anybody who doubts this has only to break those rules. -Especially in a society with the death penalty.

Animals, although sentient are not able to enter into a social contract of this sort.

dogon

Islam is not a religion its a political ideology. Its evil by its very nature. I may not believe in the bible but I can also live next to Christians and not worry I will get my head cut off. Fuck Islam.

Village Idiot

Star stuff > Earth stuff > life stuff > brain stuff > Consciousness (Mind is what brain does.).

As Carl Sagan once said "We are star stuff contemplating star stuff."

As for Social Darwinism, society can evolve into anything it wants to. It can evolve into peaceful cultures versus warrior cultures; Altruistic versus Ayn Randian hell. And yes, there is a genetic component to it.

John_Mann

@unsure

Sorry if I misread your position and for being harsh.

I never said anything was a logical flaw. I said it seems contradictory, (to me).

Contradiction is a logical flaw.

John_Mann

Your arguments about the law are a red herring.
The Law does not hold a five year old responsible for their actions. Five year olds have consciousness.

You are using a red herring.

My argument is about legal superiority based on consciousness and not in legal responsibility.

My points still stands because a five years old child is considered superior to animals based in its human nature.

TD

I wouldn't call it a red herring,

Surely you understand though, that categorizations of all types, including legal conventions, exist for the sake of expedience and are therefore not necessarily statements of a deeper reality?

Simple example: Jehovah's Witnesses claim that that the system of categorization used in the packaging and selling of blood products to medical facilities is a statement of a deeper reality about blood and what actually constitutes "blood."

I hope you can see the fallacy in that contention (?)

Why are the evolutionist's so upset?

Share this