Dov Henis Posted September 30, 2006 Report Share Posted September 30, 2006 ( written 8 July 2006) (A) Bioethics = the ethics related to moral values in the biomedical sciences. (:hihi: Ethics = Moral values = principles/values/issues of right and wrong in human affairs, according to precepts/attitudes based on - religion, or - social/group customs, or- rationalism. © The major goals of embryonic stem cells research are to improve and to save life, the most valuable and lofty aims of human striving and effort. Therefore in a Western democracy societal propriety and welfare rightly and legally dictate clear explanation of the nature of political objection/restriction of embryonic stem cells research. (D) Religious objections to embryonic stem cells research involve a concept of a uniquely human "soul". These religious considerations are well-presented in a brief format at http://webservice.mnl.ust.edu.ph/bioethics/absComment.asp?RecNo=6 . (E) Rationally/Scientifically there is no such thing as a uniquely human "soul". By Science-Informed Humanism reflection there is neither reason nor cause to consider that somehow humans were endowed with what is not an extension or elaboration of constituent/sconstellations of precursors in the line of earlier organisms from which we finally evolved. Thus for all we comprehend presently life is life is life, all forms of Earth life are members of one single family, and they are in essence bubbles of energy formed and maintained by energy as brief temporary energy storage bubbles. We do not yet comprehend the implications of this but this ignorance notwithstanding does not lessen our compassionate concern for all humans and for humanity, and it calls the scientists who practice scientism to formulate and present a clear case and precepts for rational bioethics in embryonic stem cells research. DH----------------PS August 30,2006 Disregarding conflicts of faith vs science worldviews, science has just come to the rescue of both religious and non-religious patients; recent research shows that stem cells can be cultivated (1) from cells split off from developing embryos without impacting the embryo itself, and (2) from cells of a dead embryo. Now it would be interesting to see how the faithfull will accept this in regards to government support-oppose ESC research... Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted October 11, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2006 [quote name=Dov Henis Rationally/Scientifically there is no such thing as a uniquely human "soul". By Science-Informed Humanism reflection there is neither reason nor cause to consider that somehow humans were endowed with what is not an extension or elaboration of constituents/sconstellations of precursors in the line of earlier organisms from which we finally evolved. [/quote] I confess I'm puzzled... No comments.... No indignant protests.... All's quiet on this front...?! Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted October 15, 2006 Report Share Posted October 15, 2006 I confess I'm puzzled... No comments.... No indignant protests....I suspect the lack or response is because you’ve presented a topic with which everyone, both scientists and religionists, are familiar to the point of weariness, to wit:Rationally/Scientifically there is no such thing as a uniquely human "soul".People who agree feel no need to agree. People who don’t see no room to argue.all forms of Earth life are … in essence bubbles of energy formed and maintained by energy as brief temporary energy storage bubbles.People acquainted with science associate terms like “energy bubbles” with New Age pseudoscience. Most have found discussions of science with people who find such terms useful frustrating, unproductive, and to be avoided.I don’t mean to imply that you, Dov, are someone to be avoided, just that these particular terms tend to discourage conversation for hypographers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted October 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 I don’t mean to imply that you, Dov, are someone to be avoided, just that these particular terms tend to discourage conversation for hypographers. - Appreciation of your empathic sensitivity. - In my opinion this "Soul" thing and “energy bubbles” have nothing to do with "New Age pseudoscience". They are the core of the extent of our comprehension of what is life and of our attitudes to a host of issues that ensue from this comprehension and are related to it. - Is it technically possible to change or to expand the title of this thread, to include "what is life" in the title? ( like "Bioethics in ESC Research and What Is Life"...) - Try to find a definition of life that does not utilize "life" or "living" ... i.e. that is not a chase of its own tail... I think, Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthepon Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 The soul is definitely not something that science has proves the existence or even strongly hinted at till date. It is probably the outcome of the refusal of the people to believe that their observation power, intellegence and mindset can stem from a thing as mundane and normal as a brain made of solid matter.It is difficult to accept that the seemingly enormous mental realm is nothing more than nervous impulses and chemical signals, all regulated by things that are totally mechanical. Then, ethics stems from an inbuilt and instinctive love for the individuals of one's own species. Trouble occurs when people attempt to convert this extremely versatile and constantly changing concept into something of a more fixed nature. Life, is another very versatile concept, and the members here have knocked their heads over it at times. Before yo continue, do check the article that summarises the discussion that had taked here earlier. It was a more 'pure' biology oriented one, and you might want to continue the discussion on this thread. Do you wish for the title of the thread to be changed? If so, feel free to PM a moderator of the biology forums to get it done, and give the exact title you have in mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted October 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 - Is it technically possible to change or to expand the title of this thread, to include "what is life" in the title? ( like "Bioethics in ESC Research and What Is Life"...)- Try to find a definition of life that does not utilize "life" or "living" ... i.e. that is not a chase of its own tail... On an afterthought life is a generic term and even though I have not yet found a definition of life that is not a tail-chase it is the definition of soul that I am now seeking to discuss, and to start with I suggest that soul is a fingerprinted life, i.e. a specific single unique temporary-bubble-of-energy. Thus if I knew how to "PM a moderator" I would be grateful for changing the thread title to "Bioethics in ESC Research And What Is A Soul". Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Thus if I knew how to "PM a moderator" I would be grateful for changing the thread title to "Bioethics in ESC Research And What Is A Soul".Done. (I’m one of the several moderator for the medical science forum) An easy way to “PM a mod” (“Private Message a moderator”) is to find a post with a badge marked “moderator” under the member name & icon. Check the signature line at the end of the post – if the mod is following procedure, which forums he/she moderates will be listed there. If the list include the current forum (eg: medical science”), click on the member name and select “send a message to …”. Type a message and click send. Keep an eye on the upper part of the hypography homepage – it will tell you when a PM has been sent to you. The purpose of the PM system is to avoid disrupting threads with purely editorial chatter (like this post), and allow people to communicate anything they don’t want to in an open forum. Since a forum is meant to be open, PMs aren’t used much compared to posts, and shouldn’t be abused by a lot of “back channel” communication, but are useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zythryn Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 On an afterthought life is a generic term and even though I have not yet found a definition of life that is not a tail-chase it is the definition of soul that I am now seeking to discuss, and to start with I suggest that soul is a fingerprinted life, i.e. a specific single unique temporary-bubble-of-energy. Dov, on a purely philosophical point, I would define soul as the 'whole' of the person's non-physical aspect. This is comprised of their character, self image, and memories. On a physical aspect, it is very difficult to define something that either doesn't exist or can't be detected. If you wish to scientifically define 'soul' I think you need to come up with a hypothesis about how this temporary-bubble-of-energy could be detected, or what type of energy it is comprised of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted October 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 (1) The soul is definitely not something that science has proven... probably the outcome of the refusal....to believe that ... observation power, intellegence and mindset can stem from a thing as mundane...as a brain... (2) It is difficult to accept that the seemingly enormous mental realm is nothing more than nervous impulses and chemical signals... (3) Life, is another very versatile concept ronthepon, I respectfully suggest that as the three above items are described they are in fact ONE item, i.e. there is no such thing as (2) a mental realm distinct from the (1) physical constellation, and these two items as written are elements/aspects of (3) life's mechanism. I suggest we do not divert to the mechanisms of life and of soul but stick to their essentialities. Dov PS: Thank you for the change-of-title instruction... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthepon Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 The soul is something that is purely imaginary, the mental realm is analogous to the output displayed by the monitor, and the physical 'constellation' is analogous to the bits and bytes running in the circuits. Wether they are one item or not depends on how you define them. How do you define mind? Soul? It is not written in any universally accepted manner. I suggest we do not divert to the mechanisms of life and of soul but stick to their essentialities.Er, I'm not sure if I got the meaning of this properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted October 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 (1) soul...the 'whole' of the person's non-physical aspect. This is comprised of their character, self image, and memories. (2) On a physical aspect, it is very difficult to define something that either doesn't exist or can't be detected... to scientifically define 'soul'...need...hypothesis...how this temporary-bubble-of-energy could be detected, or what type of energy it is comprised of. (1)- Person's? Do you suggest that only humans have souls? - The 'whole' of the person's non-physical aspect...is inherently specific- unique for each individual organism/person, i.e. fingerprinted life, personality. - Personality: the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual (or a nation or group), the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics, the set of distinctive traits and characteristics. (2)-You seem not to differentiate between the generic item life and the pehenomena of its individual member organisms, personalities, souls. - No problem observing souls while they are alive, or being aware of their past existence via evidence that survives or is remembered as their works/effects. - What more of an hypothesis is needed for life being this-temporary- bubble-of-energy than comparison of living versus dead organism. - The still unknown element, maybe not yet investigated enough, is the cascade of events of organism's death process and consequently its reversibility. But this is a matter of life, thus a diversion from the subject of the thread, soul. I think, Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted October 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Dov: " I suggest we do not divert to the mechanisms of life and of soul but stick to their essentialities". Er, I'm not sure if I got the meaning of this properly. ronthepon, I mean not to define soul (and/or life) by its performances or products or effects but by its base nature. Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted October 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 (D) Religious objections to embryonic stem cells research involve a concept of a uniquely human "soul". These religious considerations are well-presented in a brief format at http://webservice.mnl.ust.edu.ph/bioethics/absComment.asp?RecNo=6 I re-post the above in order to clarify the reason and motive for adding What Is A Soul to the thread's title. The recommended link is written very well, and it refers to a human embryo as a person, which is inherently by definition a personality. The question is how/when is a cooperative commune of genes, an in-cell living conglomeration, endowed with personhood, i.e. with soul, and consequently what is it that he is endowed with if he is indeed endowed with something. Don't you wonder? Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 The question is how/when is a cooperative commune of genes, an in-cell living conglomeration, endowed with personhood, i.e. with soul, and consequently what is it that he is endowed with if he is indeed endowed with something.Your question may be deeper than my response, but the answer is: When the observer interprets it as such. The interpretation is also the endowment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dov Henis Posted October 20, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 The subject is livelier and is becoming more relevant to our daily life : http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/us/dn8865-abortion-science-politics-and-morality-collide.html Dov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 Dov, on a purely philosophical point, I would define soul as the 'whole' of the person's non-physical aspect. This is comprised of their character, self image, and memories. On a physical aspect, it is very difficult to define something that either doesn't exist or can't be detected.I am confused by the self contradiction of these two statements. First you claim that "character, self image, and memories" are "non-physical". OK so show us all where they are contained "non-physical(ly)". Show us how any of these would be in existence, continue to exist, once the physical body was destroyed. OK, someone could pull out an old photo album and claim this to be someone's memories. But really now! Then you seem to state as I did that these things do not exist outside of the physical and further that anything outside of the physical is minimally "difficult" ( I would say IMPOSSSIBLE) to define. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted October 20, 2006 Report Share Posted October 20, 2006 over 65% of all fertilized eggs fail to come to term. Most never even implant. In addition, most in vitro fertilized eggs are not used, to be discarded as waste. Twining happens up to weeks after fertilizaztion (which therefore gets the ONE soul claimed to be assigned at fertilization?) There is not a single scientific reason to assign any valid personhood to a few scrap embryos and stop them from being used to reduce the suffering of actual living humans. It is nothing less than more unethical religious suppression of societal advancement seen previously in efforts to stop vacinations, vivisection, anesthetics, in vitro fertilization, birth control and the fork. InfiniteNow and CraigD 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.