Recent posts by Cmurda on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are viruses and fire considered living things?

If you subscribe to the Cell Theory than viruses are considered to be non-living, since all living organisms are composed of one or more cells , in correlation to the virus which is composed of no cells. The Cell Theory is just that, a theory and is subject to change.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Immortality.

Originally posted by vikaTae:
You’re ignorant of what I’m typing which is in regard to energy need to procure consciousness not the aspects of consciousness.

It’s not my fault you can’t explain yourself worth shit. I addressed every point that actually made any sense.

For all practical purposes it’s the same as true immortality? Simply no, it is not the same as true immortality.

For all practical purposes it is. What does it matter if you only repeat the exact same series of actions a hundred billion times, instead of an infinite number of times? You have no memory of how many times you have repeated the action, and you’re creating nothing new in each loop.

Since you assume a machine survived continuous jumps, I’ll assume that the human race will be wiped out before we develop that technology.

It is your problem you cannot comprehend what I’m saying (I don’t have a problem with how I worded it); but considering this is coming from someone that has acknowledged that there is no difference between similar and same (i.e extremely long life for practical purposes is immortality which is distinct somehow, of which you have not explained from true immortality) it is not a surprise. Perhaps if I put for all practical purposes (like you did) in front of something it will get rid of this dilemma.

For all practical purpose we know that something gives off heat and we assume it’s a fire…or is it a person, a car, a chemical reaction, etc. I suppose it is important to know the difference between same and similar. A fire is the same as another fire but shares a similar characteristic (that of giving off heat) with a person, a car, etc. Using practical purpose doesn’t justify a statement neither does adding true in front of a word make it clearer as to ones meaning.

What does it matter if you can repeat a series of actions hundreds of billion times rather than infinite number of times? Oh I don’t know maybe the purpose of it was to perform it infinitely (ergo immortality thread), not lets repeat an action hundred billion times thread, in which case I wouldn’t bother wasting time typing the difference between finite and infinite.

As for the last thing prior to the edit, I did not say that the events would happen as a result of one or the other or at the same time. Merely that if you’re going to bring an assumption; there is another assumption that can counter it (but this is serious business lets use assumptions to back ones argument).

Edit: I go to many forums and the formatting is different on all of them although the formating in this post wouldn’t be hard to correct, I’m limited on time to do it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Immortality.

Oh it’s possible all right. You sidestep the issue of a longer and longer life requiring more and more storage space for memories, by placing the consciousness in a loop. We already know the actual conscious element of our brains is a secondary function – an emergent after-effect of the way our brains function, so this is not as far-fetched as it sounds. You are still conscious, but the data your consciousness feeds off of, loops. your long-term memory still exists, but the circuit storing short-term memory into long-term is broken. Short term storage fades out, and never adds intothe gestalt.
The net effect is a conscious mind that whilst conscious, is incapable of growth, or deviation from expected parameters – whilst being blissfully ignorant of this fact. As such it can be maintained in this state pretty much indefinitely.
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Cmurda:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Oh what you said will be possible, Galdos, no doubt about that. It will also be ultimately possible to construct artificial minds indistinguishable from once-organic minds.

Currently, collaborative virtual environments are very much in-vogue, and they’ve been in-vogue for over thirty years, so I cannot see that dying away any time soon. We are social creatures after all.

If by immortality this discussion means consciously having an unending life; than I believe it is not possible (at least in this universe). Immortality- the condition of unending life (how do you know you’re alive if your not conscious of it?)…I’ll seek to prove that eventually one won’t be conscious making the argument of the plausibility immortality faux.

Oh it’s possible all right. You sidestep the issue of a longer and longer life requiring more and more storage space for memories, by placing the consciousness in a loop. We already know the actual conscious element of our brains is a secondary function – an emergent after-effect of the way our brains function, so this is not as far-fetched as it sounds. You are still conscious, but the data your consciousness feeds off of, loops. your long-term memory still exists, but the circuit storing short-term memory into long-term is broken. Short term storage fades out, and never adds intothe gestalt.

The net effect is a conscious mind that whilst conscious, is incapable of growth, or deviation from expected parameters – whilst being blissfully ignorant of this fact. As such it can be maintained in this state pretty much indefinitely.

You can replace whatever part of the body you want, one can even make an artificial body and mind, while the physical property of the container that contains consciousness will exist. The energy needed to power it will eventually become so spread out that energy will be unable to be collected efficiently to keep one conscious. I come to this conclusion via the Second Law of Thermodynamics; which implies that systems will be come more disordered (entropy).

In the end, yea, but that’s so far in the distant future, that it’s for all practical purposes, the same as a true immortality.

You also have the admittedly remote possibility of punching a hole in the fabric of space-time, and dropping your looping mind-simulation out of the bubble of our reality into whatever lays outside. Assuming the mechine survived, it would be outside of our physics, and all bets would be off.

I am not sidestepping any issues; you can talk all you want about characteristics of consciousness and how we are able to replicate it, but without energy it simply won’t exist which you go on to admit that it will end. You’re ignorant of what I’m typing which is in regard to energy need to procure consciousness not the aspects of consciousness.

For all practical purposes it’s the same as true immortality? Simply no, it is not the same as true immortality. Having an extremely long life may share similar characteristics but it is not the same (in your mind it very well may be). The only way it can be the same as true immortality is to be true immortality. What is true immortality anyways and how does it differ from immortality? And don’t respond that extremely long life is immortality and true immortality is unending since by definition immortality is unending; so what is the difference?

Since you assume a machine survived continuous jumps, I’ll assume that the human race will be wiped out before we develop that technology.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Immortality.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Oh what you said will be possible, Galdos, no doubt about that. It will also be ultimately possible to construct artificial minds indistinguishable from once-organic minds.

Currently, collaborative virtual environments are very much in-vogue, and they’ve been in-vogue for over thirty years, so I cannot see that dying away any time soon. We are social creatures after all.

If by immortality this discussion means consciously having an unending life; than I believe it is not possible (at least in this universe). Immortality- the condition of unending life (how do you know you’re alive if your not conscious of it?)…I’ll seek to prove that eventually one won’t be conscious making the argument of the plausibility immortality faux.

You can replace whatever part of the body you want, one can even make an artificial body and mind, while the physical property of the container that contains consciousness will exist. The energy needed to power it will eventually become so spread out that energy will be unable to be collected efficiently to keep one conscious. I come to this conclusion via the Second Law of Thermodynamics; which implies that systems will be come more disordered (entropy).

While it is held that energy in the universe is constant it becomes increasingly spread-out through time. This means that one will use more energy obtaining energy from a source than what is actually received by the source . How can one be conscious if the energy used to keep the artificial brain/body running is unobtainable? If you believe consciousness is unnecessary than you still won’t have energy to do anything (using the same concept).

Granted this event will not happen for astronomically long time, but if the purpose of immortality is unending life, then even an astronomically long time falls short of unending (because it will end).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / [Moderation] How to Become a Moderator 101

I can see you don’t have aspirations to be a mod, but thanks for the bump!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / [Moderation] How to Become a Moderator 101

I still remember writing this post 4 years ago O_o

 
Flag Post

Topic: Kongregate / Ultimate Kongregate Photo Topic

Originally posted by Rothycat:

Arr, man, you gotta resize that beast!

lol

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why do people think Atheists are sinners?

Fight for your opinions, but do not believe that they contain the whole truth, or the only truth.

Goes for both sides of the debate.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Well in case it doesn’t, feel free to ask anyway. You know where my whisperbox is.

It was a pleasure discussing and understanding your thoughts and opinion. =]

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

If it doesn’t come with a sentient mind attached, it pretty much never does.

Even then, the mind is what matters, bits of the body can be upgraded or replaced to the best of our technical capability, so long as the mind agrees – the body is just a commodity for that mind.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

If it doesn’t come with a sentient mind attached, it pretty much never does.

Even then, the mind is what matters, bits of the body can be upgraded or replaced to the best of our technical capability, so long as the mind agrees – the body is just a commodity for that mind.

That probably summed up all the questions I could have probably asked about you.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Cmurda, what is it with you and emotional appeals?

Ignoring the second paragraph thusly, under the same circumstances as you quoted my saying above, I am perfectly fine with it, yes.

My emotional appeal is when does the human body and life stop being a commodity for you?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Cmurda:

Medically assisted death is usually for people that give their own concent for having it done. Should proxy concent work the same way as well, especially in cases of infants?

I fail to see why not. The parents were the legal guardians, they had the right to decide. The infant did not even have a fully connected brain or more than base instincts for that matter. Thus was incapable by any definition of making the decision itself.

I’m not arguing that that wasn’t a horrible way to die, for anyone. Is it just be or were the parents a little ill conceded? In making the child die when a surgery could have been performed to save its life.

It was a child they did not want, at all. It had multiple significant defects which the parents decided they did not desire it to suffer through life having. A controversial decision assuredly, but fully their right to decide.

So if a case came by where an infant with downs syndrome was refused a blood transfusion based off of the parents religious beliefs, you would be okay with that?

As a side note, I doubt many people have had the pelasure of working with a child with downs syndrome, they are compassionate and generally have an optimistic outlook on life. From what I’ve seen they can do many things (I’m not saying all) that a “normal” person can. I’ve seen some play soccer, football, etc.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

This is why the right to medically assist in death is so sorely needed. Thank you for the perfect illustration of the problem, Cmurda.

Medically assisted death is usually for people that give their own concent for having it done. Should proxy concent work the same way as well, especially in cases of infants? I’m not arguing that that wasn’t a horrible way to die, for anyone. Is it just me or were the parents a little ill conceded? In making the child die when a surgery could have been performed to save its life.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

As for the baby owens case:

In 1976, Dr. Joan Owens went to have a baby deliever at a Midwestern Medical Center. After going through the admission process was taken to her room where she gave birth to a baby girl.

She was shown her child and recognized that it had down’s syndrome. After a quick examination by Dr. Ziner (her obstetrician) it was confirmed that the child had down’s syndrome, to which Dr. Joan owens replied " I don’t want a mongoloid child." A further examination of the child showed that the small intestine failed to develop properly and was closed off in one place (duodenal atresia). In order for it to be corrected a simple surgical procedure (low risk) would fix the problem.

Until the surgery was to be performed the child could not be fed. Philip, Dr. Joan Owens husband, refuse to give conscent for the surgery until he talked with his wife. When she awoke she still did not want the child, on the basis that " It wouldn’t be fair to the other children to raise them with a mongoloid." and that it would " take all of our time, and “we wouldn’t be able to give the other children the love and attention they need.” After which she decided to let the child die, the Dr. Ziner pleaded with them to give conscent to have the surgery performed but they were adamant.

The hospital staff met for 2 hours, in which they discussed what to do. Some thought they should get a court order, which is what they would do in cases where an infant requires a blood transfusion or immunization but due to the parents religious beliefs make them refuse to conscent. To which, they decided this case was not parallel with others because the infant would still be defective after the surgery.

It took twelve days for Baby Owens to die. Her lips and throat were moistened with water to lesson her suffering, and in a small disused room set apart from the rooms of patients, she was allowed to starve to death. the nursing staff in charged were warned that anything used to shorten the babys life would more than likely constitute as a criminal action. Fear of being charged with a crime kept the staff from administering any medication to baby owens.

If you want to read the whole story, I tried to keep it concise, is in “Intervention and Reflections” by Ronald Munson on pages 630-631.

The reason why I bring this case up is that what makes a baby have moral rights, compared to a fetus that doesn’t? In this case, a baby which most would agree to have moral rights, including the right to life was left to die when a simple procedure could have been performed to save its life. Although the child had downs syndrome does that diminish its right to life? At what point does pro-choice go too far?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

So yes, definitions of what a fetus is could vary and as a result that is your opinion.

No, not really. You can change the words being defined around, but the meaning remains the same.

Look here:

Fertilized cell → Cavity formation → Uterine Implantation ~> Neural tube closes ~> Cell mass exists host

These are definable benchmarks that are the same regardless of what you call them. Now look:

Zygote → Fetus → Baby

These terms are also definable benchmarks, but rather referring to specific events themselves they comprise the periods between, before, or after events.

So applying the periods to the above you get something like so:

Fertilization → Cell Division = Zygote
Initial Cell Devision → Birth = Fetus
Birth → Indeterminate = Baby

As you can see, words are applied to specific periods of development.

Now let’s say you go ahead and say “well the term fetus is emotionally loaded, I’m going to use baby.” Ok. In that case you define everything from initial cell division on as a baby. Contrary to your claim, you did not just replace one word with another. What you really did is took the word for defining one specific developmental period and used it to define two distinct developmental time periods. All you did is this:

Fertilization → Cell Division = Zygote
Initial Cell Devision→ Indeterminate = Baby

So in short, your word shuffling does not change the fact that there are distinct time periods between different benchmarks. In fact the only thing you do (and I guess this might be the intention of your emotional appeal) is to try and remove any discussion of specific benchmarks and developmental periods by using blanket terms to refer to multiple discrete events.

Besides arguing over semantics, no one has answer my question of why a baby has moral value compared to a fetus that doesn’t?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

Originally posted by BombCog:

Cmurda, it is not an opinion that a fetus is not a baby. By definition, a baby has been born. There’s your difference. Calling a fetus a baby is attempting to invoke the emotions we tie to infants of our own species and create guilt for abortion. Taking a life is a terrible thing, and while I agree (here’s where the opinion is) that a fetus has the possibility of life and therefore a good one, it has not yet obtained it. If we can show how that fetus’ impending life will be painful, it should be possible to abort the growing process and terminate the pregnancy.

And a definition is the act of defining or making definite, distinct, or clear. If someone chooses to define a fetus as a human baby, thats their own personal definition of it. And the definition of opinion is A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof. So yes, definitions of what a fetus is could vary and as a result that is your opinion.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

How many times do I have to repeat that a fetus is not a baby?

You can repeat it as many times as you want, but the fact remains that it is simply an opinion. Some view a fetus as developing human-being with moral rights, while some view a fetus as simply a fetus that’s a lump of tissue with no moral value. Regardless, trying to argue against an opposite opinion is what I would equate to as “beating a dead horse.”

On another note, what makes a baby have moral value, while a fetus does not? I would refer everyone to the Baby Owens (mother was Dr. Joan Owens and attending physician is Dr. Ziner) case but sadly the links I’ve found going to the actual case are not working. I’ll try to sum it up later when I get home from school. If someone can find a working link in the meantime feel free to post it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

Still another topic within the abortion debate is abortion in terms of asethetic characteristics. Let’s say a woman is healthy, the fetus is healthy and wants to have a baby girl, however, when an amniocentesis is done it is found out the the fetus is going to develop into a boy. and immediatly wants to have an abortion, should it be done?

Additionally this could open the floor up to using abortions in cases where amniocentesis test results find that a fetus if allowed to be born has a high chance of developing down’s syndrome, huntingtons disease, etc. In cases such as this would it be allowable to have an abortion take place?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / grand theft auto: bad influence or just a game.

If video games such as grand theft auto promote violence, then why don’t we require everyone to listen to imagine by John Lennon… if the same holds true we should see peace.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Cmurda:

I don’t believe I ever said anything that would deny a woman to abortion, I’ve stated I’m against it and that I will opt out of doing the procedure, but that again for the 4th maybe 5th time, does not prevent or deny that woman from going a door down and having her/him do it.

My question again is should we require all health care workers to partake in abortions? In other, words you will not allow them to choose to opt out of the procedure, but force them to do it. Again choosing to opt out of doing a procedure does not mean you deny that procedure to that person but allow someone else to do it in your place.

Very well, you do of course have the right to refuse to do a particular procedure, BUT you need to make damn clear that it is out of personal preference or religious beliefs only, AND make damn certain that the patient is given all the resources they need to contact another doctor who will.

Also if you’re the only physician available, you do it, your own religious beliefs be damned. At the end of the day the patient comes first.

The law as it stands now, if I remember correctly, requires someone to be on call that will perform abortion if the people working are uncomfortable in doing so.

So am I correct in saying that we both agree if the worker that is err… working should have the the choice to opt out of an abortion operation? Obviously this means there will be someone on call or on staff that is willing to do the procedure.

The reason why I say this is because if abortion becomes legal in all cases, it will more than likely require people in the health care field to participate in it. This would leave out the possibility of finding someone else that would be willing to do it.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

I don’t believe I ever said anything that would deny a woman to abortion, I’ve stated I’m against it and that I will opt out of doing the procedure, but that again for the 4th maybe 5th time, does not prevent or deny that woman from going a door down and having her/him do it.

My question again is should we require all health care workers to partake in abortions? In other, words you will not allow them to choose to opt out of the procedure, but force them to do it. Again choosing to opt out of doing a procedure does not mean you deny that procedure to that person but allow someone else to do it in your place.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

Originally posted by nerdrock101:

Cmurda, I think this is mildly relevant to you and your situation.

Also, if you don’t or will not have the sentience to understand that you have certain human rights, then I don’t know if you truly have them.

It’s somewhat relevant in a sense, a taxi driver sole purpose is to take people around town, in that story they refuse service based off of religious reasons. However, the fact remains that they are in violation of their job description. As a health care worker I will be soley responsible for the physiological wellness of someone, not the psychological. And as some abortion cases have it, there is no need to have an abortion other then the fact for personal reasons or psychological reasons. The health care worker is then in fact not in violation of their job, whereas with the cab driver it is, and to require them to partake in abortion when it is not necessary to the physiological well-being of the mother is in violations of the autonomy of that health care worker.

I don’t see why you wouldn’t find it permissible for a health care worker to refuse from partaking in an abortion operation when there is no physiological reason for it , except under the prima facie that the mothers life is at stake then they will of course be willing to partake in the operation.

Refusing to treat a homosexual because they have coronary heart disease is different from refusing to take part in an abortion; in that there is a physiologically important reason to do the operation (to save the persons life), where in some case of some abortions there is no physiologically reason to have the operation.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

Originally posted by SaintAjora:

the only problem with that is if they fire you based off of your beliefs its discrimination

No, it is firing you for your refusal to do your job. That your beliefs motivated your not doing your job really isn’t anyones problem but your own.

A health care professional job description is to care for the physiological well being of a person. In cases of abortion in which, the fetus is in good shape and no harm comes to the mother as a result of not having the abortion, leaves room for the ability to deny participating in the operation. Again for some that mainly like to read points of interest that benefit their arguement the most, it does not ensure that the operation won’t take place.

Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Cmurda:

So to try and recap its okay for a woman to have autonomy over her body and a fetus which some may view as not sentient and base a descision off of that, but for a person working in health care refusing to perform an operation its okay to violate their autonomy even though they are a sentient being.

Again just debating.

Cmurda isn’t alone unfortunately. There is no dearth of physicians willing to deny or shape treatment according to their own personal race ideology or religious beliefs. I’m linking a google result page since it gives you an idea of the scale of the problem.

It’s a shame that we’re training another of these… I hesitate to call them people, but as with any profession, you get some bad apples in with the good.

It’s interesting that your profile says you are acceptable of most world-wide views and willing to work with them, yet in this case you are extremely hostile to me because of my opinion, when in return I’ve done nothing to deserve it only shared my belief and some of the reasoning behind it.

If you’re pro-choice (letting someone make a choice that best suits them) thats fine, I respect that opinion, but its interesting to me that when it comes to a health care worker choosing to opt out of a particualr operation you begin to see a problem with that. Not only do you see a problem with it you choose to chastise them for their belief, in this case by considering them not human. Ironically enough coming from you I might as well take this as a compliment, after all you don’t agree with human rights you prefer sentient rights. And if human is just another factor in life, which you hold to be cheap; I must be something entirely un-human… something sentient, something that you consider precious.

Apparently you don’t grasp the concept of the doctor I’m going to be. I understand that some people may not like my view on abortion which is perfectly fine, again I respect that. I find it absurdly offending that you decide based off my one analogy of one topic that I’m going to somehow treat patients based on if they are homosexual, a prostitute, etc. Just because someone doesn’t hold the same view as me doesn’t mean they will get any less of quality care then someone who agrees. However, some people such as vika tae like to chastise people for their beliefs, and assume everyone else is like them, I however am not. You can go back through all my objective questions and find that I’ve not said one thing about the quality of person you are based off of a single belief you had. If you truly are as open-minded of a person as you say you perhaps you can calm down the insults and bring something to the table that helps further the debate of abortion rather then preventing people from wanting to discuss it with you.

Perhaps you just don’t like to quote it because it doesn’t benefit your arguement but I’ll put it in big bold letters here for you… JUST BECAUSE I WON"T PARTAKE IN AN ABORTION DOES NOT MEAN ITS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, NOR DOES IT MEAN I WILL PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

Originally posted by BombCog:

If you are asked as part of your job, it’s your responsibility to either go along or refuse and face those consequences. As a medical professional your first priority should be humanity, the second should be your patient, and the last should be your personal ideals.

These are my feelings on that issue.

the only problem with that is if they fire you based off of your beliefs its discrimination, and although you may believe in what priority should come first, that doesn’t mean everyone feels the same way as you (not stating a person view just debating). Someone against abortion may hope that priority goes to a fetus but thats not necessarily the case all the time.

So to try and recap its okay for a woman to have autonomy over her body and a fetus which some may view as not sentient and base a descision off of that, but for a person working in health care refusing to perform an operation its okay to violate their autonomy even though they are a sentient being.

Again just debating.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Abortions- Are they really a bad thing?

Another side of this discussion could be; should we require health care workers to participate in abortions? That is to say, if a woman wants to have an abortion should everyone on staff be required to participate if asked? Since some feel the woman has autonomy over the fetus, should a health care worker’s autonomy be violated by forcing them to go along with the procedure?

Since I’m going into the medical field and am against abortion except in cases where the mothers life is in stake I will more than likely refuse to particpate in abortions. I will respect the womans decisions to want an abortion, but will refuse to partake in the actual precedure (I’m not going to run into the room and try to stop it either), that does not mean to say it won’t happen, maybe some other person on the floor will do it (I think they are required to have someone on call that will). But for the sake of arguement let’s say all the health care workers in the area are against it and refuse to participate. What should happen then?