| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
25 Mar 2005 09:19:13 PM |
| Object: |
Facts vs. media fictions about Terri's actual condition |
The affidavit extracts below demonstrate the falsity of the old media's
erroneous allegation that 'no one is home' in Terri Schindler Schiavo.
Also, Terri can anticipate and feel pain.
A U.S. judiciary run amok and a shameless American Criminal Liberties
Union are intent on murdering via starvation an innocent/ guiltless and
defenseless woman.
Decency demands that this unjustified, court-imposed death sentence on
Terri Schindler Schiavo be stopped.
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
From
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
from the PDF "Affidavit of William Cheshire, Jr., MD 03-23-05":
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF DUVALL
Before me this day personally appeared William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.,
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I, William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., have personal knowledge of the
facts stated in this declaration and, if called as a witness, I could
and would testify competently thereto under oath. I declare as follows:
I am a neurologist practicing in the State of Florida and am certified
by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. In regard to my
educational background, I received an A.B. in biochemical sciences from
Princeton University, an M.A. in bioethics from Trinity International
University, and an M.D. from West Virginia University. I completed an
internship in internal medicine at West Virginia University, a residency
in neurology and a pain fellowship at the University of North Carolina.
I am also an appointed volunteer with the Florida Statewide Adult
Protective Services team, in which capacity I was called on March 1,
2005, to provide an independent and objective medical review of
allegations of possible abuse, neglect, or exploitation of Ms. Theresa
Marie Schiavo.
Although no one from the Department of Children and Families has
inquired about my personal views about treatment decisions in cases of
persistent vegetative state (PVS), I would like to disclose that I came
into this case with the belief that it can be ethically permissible to
discontinue artificially provided nutrition and hydration for patients
in a persistent vegetative state. Having now reviewed the relevant
facts, having met and observed Ms. Schiavo in person, and having
reflected deeply on the moral and ethical issues, I would like to
explain why I change my mind in regard to this particular case.
.....
Based on my review of extensive medical records documenting Terri's care
over the years, on my personal observation of Terri, and on my
observations of Terri's responses in the many hours of videotapes taken
in 2002, she demonstrates a number of behaviors I believe cast a
reasonable doubt on the prior diagnosis of PVS. These include:
1. Her behavior is frequently context-specific. For example, her
facial expression brightens and she smiles in response to the voice of
familiar persons such as her parents or her nurse. Her agitation
subsides and her facial demeanor softens when quiet music is played.
When jubilant piano music is played, her face brightens, she lifts her
eyebrows, smiles, and even laughs. Her lateral gaze toward the tape
player is sustained for many minutes. Several times I witnessed Terri
briefly, albeit inconsistently, laugh in response to a humorous comment
someone in the room had made. I did not see her laugh in the absence of
someone else's laughter.
2. Although she does not seem to track or follow visual objects
consistently or for long periods of time, she does fixate her gaze on
colorful objects or human faces for some 15 seconds at a time and
occasionally follows with her eyes at least briefly as these objects
move from side to side. When I first walked into her room, she
immediately turned her head toward me and looked directly at my face.
There was a lot of curiosity or expectation in her expression, and she
maintained eye contact for about half a minute. Later, when she again
looked at me, she brought her lips together as if to pronounce the
letter "O," and although for a moment it appeared that she might be
making an intentional effort to speak, her face then fell blank, and no
words came out.
3. Although I did not hear Terri utter distinct words, she demonstrates
emotional expressivity by her use of a single syllable of vocalizations
such as "ah," making cooing sounds, or by expressing guttural sounds of
annoyance or moaning appropriate to the context of the situation. The
context-specific range and the variability of her vocalizations suggests
at least a reasonable probability of the processing of emotional thought
within her brain. There have been reports of Terri rarely using actual
words specific to her situational context. The July 25, 2003 affidavit
of the speech pathologist Sarah Green Mole, MS, on page 6, reads, "The
records of Mediplex reflect the fact that she has said 'stop' in
apparent response to a medical procedure being done to her." The Adult
Protective Services team has been unable to retrieve those original
medical records in this instance.
4. Although Terri has not consistently followed commands, there
appeared to be some notable exceptions. In the taped examination by Dr.
Hammesfahr from 2002, when asked to close her eyes she began to blink
repeatedly. Although it was unclear whether she squeezed her grip when
asked, she did appear to raise her right leg four times in succession
each time she was asked to do so. Rehabilitation notes from 1991
indicated that she tracked inconsistently, and although she did not
develop a yes/no communication system, did follow some commands
inconsistently and demonstrated good eye contact to family members.
5. There is a remarkable moment in the videotape of the September 3,
2002 examination by Dr. Hammesfahr that seemed to go unnoticed at the
time. At 2:44 p.m., Dr. Hammesfahr had just turned Terri onto her right
side to examine her back with a painful sharp stimulus (a sharp piece of
wood), to which Terri had responded with signs of discomfort. Well
after he ceased applying the stimulus and had returned Terri to a
comfortable position, he says to her parents, "So, we're going to have
to roll her over...." Immediately Terri cries. She vocalizes a crying
sound, "Ugh, ha, ha, ha," presses her eyebrows together, and sadly
grimaces. It is important to note that, at that moment, no one is
touching Terri or causing actual pain. Rather, she appears to
comprehend the meaning of Dr. Hammesfahr's comment and she signals her
_anticipation_ of pain. This response suggests some degree of language
processing and interpretation at the level of the cerebral cortex. It
also suggests that she may be aware of pain beyond what could be
explained by simple reflex withdrawal.
6. According to the definition of PVS published by the American Academy
of Neurology, "persistent vegetative state patients do not have the
capacity to experience pain or suffering. Pain and suffering are
attributes of consciousness requiring cerebral cortical functioning, and
patients who are permanently and completely unconscious cannot
experience these symptoms."^6 And yet, in my review of Terri's medical
records, pain issues keep surfacing. The nurses at Woodside Hospice
told us that she often has pain with menstrual cramps. Menstrual flow
is associated with agitation, repeated or sustained moaning, facial
grimacing, limb posturing, and facial flushing, all of which subside
once she is given ibuprofen. Some of the records document moaning,
crying, and other painful behavior in the setting of urinary tract
infections.
.....
7. To enter the room of Terri Schiavo is nothing like entering the room
of a patient who is comatose or brain-dead or in some neurological sense
no longer there. Although Terri did not demonstrate during our 90
minute visit compelling evidence of verbalization, conscious awareness,
or volitional behavior, yet the visitor has the distinct sense of the
presence of a living human being who seems at some level to be aware of
some things around her.
As I looked at Terri, and she gazed directly back at me, I asked myself
whether, if I were her attending physician, I could in good conscience
withdraw nutrition and hydration. No, I could not. I could not
withdraw life support if I were asked. I could not withhold
life-sustaining nutrition and hydration from this beautiful lady whose
face brightens in the presence of others.
The neurologic signs are in many ways ambiguous. There is no guarantee
that more sophisticated testing would definitively resolve that
ambiguity to everyone's satisfaction. There would be value, I think, in
obtaining a functional MRI scan if that is possible.
This situation differs fundamentally from end-of-life scenarios where it
is appropriate to withdraw life-sustaining medical interventions that no
longer benefit or are burdensome to patients in the terminal stages of
illness. Terri's feeding tube is not a burden to her. It is not
painful, is not infected, is not eroding her stomach lining or causing
any medical complications. But for the decision to withdraw her feeding
tube, Terri cannot be considered medically terminal. But for the
withdrawal of food and water, she would not die [well, she would not die
now-- everybody dies eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later. We
never know when we will go to meet our Maker. -df].
In summary, Terri [Schindler] Schiavo demonstrates behaviors in a
variety of cognitive domains that call into question the previous
neurologic diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. Specifically, she
has demonstrated behaviors that are context-specific, sustained, and
indicative of a cerebral cortical processing that, upon careful
neurologic consideration, would not be expected in a persistent
vegetative state.
Based on this evidence, I believe that, within a reasonable degree of
medical certainty, there is a greater likelihood that Terri is in a
minimally conscious state than a persistent vegetative state. This
distinction makes an enormous difference in making ethical decisions on
Terri's behalf. If Terri is sufficiently aware of her surroundings that
she can feel pleasure and suffer, if she is capable of understanding to
some degree how she is being treated, then in my judgment it would be
wrong to bring about her death by withdrawing food and water.
At the time of this writing, Terri Schiavo, as the result of the
decisions based on what I have argued to be a faulty diagnosis of
persistent vegetative state, has been without food or water for 5 days.
She is thus at risk of death or serious injury unless the provision of
food and water can be restored. Terri Schiavo lacks the capacity to
consent to emergency protective services and must trust others to act on
her behalf. If she were to be transferred to another facility, it would
be medically necessary first to initiate hydration and ensure that her
serum electrolytes are within normal values.
How medicine and society choose to think about Terri [Schindler] Schiavo
will influence what kind of people we will be as we evaluate and respond
to the needs of the most vulnerable people among us. When serious
doubts exist as to whether a cognitively impaired person is or is not
consciously aware, even if these doubts cannot be conclusively resolved,
it is better to err on the side of protecting vulnerable life.
Respectfully submitted,
William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D., M.A., F.A.A.N.
[signature]
Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this 23[rd] day of
March, 2005, by William Polk Cheshire, Jr., M.D.
[notary stamp and signature]
======================================================================
articles: livelier ones are by Thomas Sowell and William Kristol. Eric
Cohen's is very thoughtful.
http://www.townhall.com
Cal Thomas: Schiavo case matters in symbol and substance
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adfseF68nkocU1%40individual.net
Justifications for taking of human life?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3aj33dF67kgcuU2%40individual.net
any atheists against Terri Schindler Schiavo's being starved to death?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3adrlvF69l60hU1%40individual.net
1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope slide from devaluing some
human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
ACLU: Legal Terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/11/27/195402.shtml
Terri Schindler Schiavo Case
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/10/16/223430.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43463
What, if anything, will you do to help Terri and stop a judiciary and
ACLU run amok?
action items to help Terri
http://www.terrisfight.org/actionitems.html
.
|
|
| User: "boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
16 Jul 2005 06:23:29 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121509909.725714.99550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Calm down. Be reasonable.
I am on both counts.
Offer another word why don't you.
You are the one making the argument, it's up to you to use correct and
understandible teerms or wrds.
I've seen
many, but decision is the only clear one, as far as I'm concerned.
And you are obviously mistaken because the word "Decision" already has a
definition which clearly implies an entity that can make a choice.
Besides, decision is used already in common language for natural
phenomena, usually like "a decision falling".
Yes, in *common* usage. However you are not using the word in even that
context.
Remember it is only you who attributes decisions to comets.
No, that would be you, in the context of this sub-thread.
Yes I say
the comet might have ended up differently then it did, so there is an
event(s) at which point a decision falls, but this does not mean the
comet owns that decision.
Then who or what does?
At all points of decision is nothing, so
there is no need to attribute the decision to any object.
Then there is no decision involved, is there?
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
| User: "boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
16 Jul 2005 06:33:59 AM |
|
|
"boikat" <boikat@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:e96Ce.117749$du.20619@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121509909.725714.99550@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Calm down. Be reasonable.
I am on both counts.
Offer another word why don't you.
You are the one making the argument, it's up to you to use correct and
understandible teerms or wrds.
Hmmm, can I Chez Watt myself? :}
<snip>
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
17 Jul 2005 01:16:47 AM |
|
|
The Darwinists derived natural selection from artificial selection. In
doing so, they illegitemately made a denial that any consciousness
could possibly affect natural selection, which is outside of evidence.
It is essentially atheist. Science doesn't really know how
consciousness works, as can be seen by the absence of artificial
intelligence.
When I try to emulate the evolutionist point of view on the universe
and life, of aboslutely zero decisions falling in nature, and of no
relation to consciousness whatsoever, I find that when I come to
afterwards looking at the brain and how it works, I also don't have any
ethics for it's relation to consciousness. I would be prodding the fork
in the brain of a dog, and think it was just all machine anyway, just
like all the rest of the universe, and the yelling of the dog just
another mechanism, and not think of consciousness. That is because when
deconstructed, the things in the brain look the same as other things in
the universe. Things for which I'm supposed to absolutely deny
consciousness, as part of methodological naturalism.
Where exactly is that line when there are decisions falling for which
I'd have to have an ethical respect because they are conscious and may
involve pleasure or pain, and for decisions that are basically empty of
consciousness? Can you please tell me exactly what event in the brain
is there that I need to respect for ethics, and how this event can not
at all take place outside the brain?
Well you can't tell me of course, because science doesn't understand
about consciousness, as you so excellently demonstrate. Like I said, a
decision may fall, basically empty of consciousness, like a rock
precariously balanced falling of it's own accord. But to go and make an
absolute denial of any consciousness whatsoever is unreasonable
(because common knowledge indicates consciousness is related to
decision), and unethical (because when in doubt about the possibility
of causing pain one has to be on the safe side of things). So as
before, for ethical reasons it is essential that your recognize the
possibility of consciousness for decisions, but there is no need to
refer to that consciousness in doing science with the phenomenon of
decisions.
Emulating the evolutionist point of view, the universe looks so much
like a toy to play with. It is only when I realize there are decisions
falling in the universe, for what purpose i do not know, with what
consciousness I do not know, that I feel less like a god. You have a
strong psychological motive to think human beings are the only ones
that own consciousness, that all consciousness is human, because it
makes you as a god.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
17 Jul 2005 01:56:59 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121581007.332982.71590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Darwinists derived natural selection from artificial selection.
Darwin studied artificial selection in animal husbandry.
In
doing so, they illegitemately made a denial that any consciousness
could possibly affect natural selection,
Illegitimately? You mean they were wrong? Then please tell us
whose "consciousness" affects natural selection and how it does
so.
which is outside of evidence.
No. There is no such evidence known. If I'm wrong, please provide
some.
It is essentially atheist.
No. Science doesn't deal with God. It can't; it's too weak.
Science doesn't really know how
consciousness works, as can be seen by the absence of artificial
intelligence.
True.
When I try to emulate the evolutionist point of view on the universe
and life, of aboslutely zero decisions falling in nature, and of no
relation to consciousness whatsoever,
This really doesn't make much sense in English, but I think it means,
"I will try to think like a scientist who sees no consciousness in
the occurrence of physical phenomena."
I find that when I come to
afterwards looking at the brain and how it works, I also don't have any
ethics for it's relation to consciousness.
(still paraphrasing)
"I find that when I try to consider how the human brain works, I cannot find
any
relationship between a consciousness that I've assumed to be like any other
physical phenomenon and ethical considerations."
I'm translating from nandoese, here. How am I doing?
I would be prodding the fork
in the brain of a dog, and think it was just all machine anyway, just
like all the rest of the universe, and the yelling of the dog just
another mechanism, and not think of consciousness. That is because when
deconstructed, the things in the brain look the same as other things in
the universe.
Again this isn't coherent English, so it's hard to say what it means.
"A scientist who looks at consciousness as just brain chemistry and the
brain as just a biochemical machine would not mind the suffering of
a lab animal."
Have I got that right? I don't want to comment until I'm sure that's
what you mean.
Things for which I'm supposed to absolutely deny
consciousness, as part of methodological naturalism.
I don't think scientists deny that consciousness is an existing phenomenon.
Do you?
Where exactly is that line when there are decisions falling for which
I'd have to have an ethical respect because they are conscious and may
involve pleasure or pain, and for decisions that are basically empty of
consciousness?
So you want to know what events have an ethical dimension (like deciding
to hit someone) and what events don't (like rocks rolling down a hill). Is
that right?
Can you please tell me exactly what event in the brain
is there that I need to respect for ethics, and how this event can not
at all take place outside the brain?
This isn't coherent enought to answer. I'd say no "events in the brain"
(can we call these "thoughts"?) have an ethical value. Certain actions
taken in response to those thoughts have ethical values.
Well you can't tell me of course, because science doesn't understand
about consciousness, as you so excellently demonstrate. Like I said, a
decision may fall, basically empty of consciousness, like a rock
precariously balanced falling of it's own accord.
But to go and make an
absolute denial of any consciousness whatsoever is unreasonable
Does this mean that it is unreasonable to deny consciousness exists at all
because precariously balanced rocks fall without consciousness? Because
I'm not aware of anyone who holds that view. Or do you mean that it is
unreasonable to deny that some consciouness must attend the falling rocks?
If you mean the latter, please demonstrate what this consciousness is and
how we may investigate it.
(because common knowledge indicates consciousness is related to
decision), and unethical (because when in doubt about the possibility
of causing pain one has to be on the safe side of things).
OK.
So as
before, for ethical reasons it is essential that your recognize the
possibility of consciousness for decisions, but there is no need to
refer to that consciousness in doing science with the phenomenon of
decisions.
Are you saying that scientists don't consider the ethcis of their
experiments on conscious beings?
Emulating the evolutionist point of view, the universe looks so much
like a toy to play with.
More like a mechanism to understand.
It is only when I realize there are decisions
falling in the universe, for what purpose i do not know, with what
consciousness I do not know, that I feel less like a god. You have a
strong psychological motive to think human beings are the only ones
that own consciousness, that all consciousness is human, because it
makes you as a god.
Is this a plea for animal rights?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Deadrat
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
17 Jul 2005 08:21:59 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121581007.332982.71590@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Darwinists derived natural selection from artificial selection. In
doing so, they illegitemately made a denial that any consciousness
could possibly affect natural selection, which is outside of evidence.
Wrong. Yes, the concept of NS is associated with observing the results of
artificial selection, however there is nothing illigitimate about that, nor
"denial" of any consciousness involved in natural selection. If you have
any *evidence* of a consciousness involved in the process of NS, by all
means present it.
It is essentially atheist. Science doesn't really know how
consciousness works, as can be seen by the absence of artificial
intelligence.
It's actually agnostic. Science does not, and can not, address the
existance of any supernatural entity or phenomena without some hard
evidence. Got any?
When I try to emulate the evolutionist point of view on the universe
and life, of aboslutely zero decisions falling in nature, and of no
relation to consciousness whatsoever, I find that when I come to
afterwards looking at the brain and how it works, I also don't have any
ethics for it's relation to consciousness.
You're never going to solve you little delema uning the word "decision" for
phenomena which turns into a strawman delema when you phrase it in such a
manner.
I would be prodding the fork
in the brain of a dog, and think it was just all machine anyway, just
like all the rest of the universe, and the yelling of the dog just
another mechanism, and not think of consciousness.
There's that Nando context shift again.
That is because when
deconstructed, the things in the brain look the same as other things in
the universe. Things for which I'm supposed to absolutely deny
consciousness, as part of methodological naturalism.
That's your problem. In the case of poking the brain of a dog with a fork,
*you* are causing an effect. Who's "poking" the comet that eventually
impacts the earth and causes the extinction of the dinosaurs? What being is
making the choices in that? Got any hard evidence? BTW, how would science
work using methological unnaturalism? Would that form of science be of any
use? Could you give an example of how a theory based upon methodological
unnaturalism would be tested or employed to produce a product?
Where exactly is that line when there are decisions falling for which
I'd have to have an ethical respect because they are conscious and may
involve pleasure or pain, and for decisions that are basically empty of
consciousness? Can you please tell me exactly what event in the brain
is there that I need to respect for ethics, and how this event can not
at all take place outside the brain?
"Ethics" comes from within your own brain and consciousness. Now, about
that comet? Where does a gomet get "ethics" from? What counsciousness is
involved with gravity and orbital dynamics?
Well you can't tell me of course, because science doesn't understand
about consciousness, as you so excellently demonstrate. Like I said, a
decision may fall, basically empty of consciousness, like a rock
precariously balanced falling of it's own accord.
If you have any evidence that it's falling on it's own, as in it "decides to
fall" in a non-common usage manner, please explain how the rock makes that
decision.
But to go and make an
absolute denial of any consciousness whatsoever is unreasonable
(because common knowledge indicates consciousness is related to
decision), and unethical (because when in doubt about the possibility
of causing pain one has to be on the safe side of things).
It's not unreasonable to deni that a consciousness is involved if there is
no evidence of a consciousness involved.
So as
before, for ethical reasons it is essential that your recognize the
possibility of consciousness for decisions, but there is no need to
refer to that consciousness in doing science with the phenomenon of
decisions.
It would be just as unethical to consider a counsciousness involved in
natural phenomena where there is no valid, verifiable evidence of a
counsciousness involved in a natural phenomena. Science, in general simply
does not address it because of that. Present the evidence of a counscious
entities involvement and that will be a consideration. It's as simple as
that.
Emulating the evolutionist point of view, the universe looks so much
like a toy to play with. It is only when I realize there are decisions
falling in the universe, for what purpose i do not know, with what
consciousness I do not know, that I feel less like a god.
Could you clear that up a bit? It almost sounds like you're saying that
science is supposed to make us feel like gods.
You have a
strong psychological motive to think human beings are the only ones
that own consciousness, that all consciousness is human, because it
makes you as a god.
But you are the one who just complained that our current understanding of
the mechanizations of the universe *didn't* let you feel like a god because
you perceive that science looks at the workings and events that occur in the
univers as being unguided by a consciousness that makes "decisions". You
are really, really confused.
Something for you to consider: The purpose of science is not to make *you*
feel all warm and fuzzy about yourself.
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Augray" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
16 Jul 2005 07:37:50 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Calm down. Be reasonable. Offer another word why don't you.
I'd suggest "event".
I've seen
many, but decision is the only clear one, as far as I'm concerned.
Besides, decision is used already in common language for natural
phenomena, usually like "a decision falling".
I've never heard it used like that.
Remember it is only you who attributes decisions to comets. Yes I say
the comet might have ended up differently then it did, so there is an
event(s) at which point a decision falls, but this does not mean the
comet owns that decision. At all points of decision is nothing, so
there is no need to attribute the decision to any object.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
16 Jul 2005 08:52:54 AM |
|
|
"Augray" <augray@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:tc7Ce.12983$6e3.843703@news20.bellglobal.com...
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com wrote:
Calm down. Be reasonable. Offer another word why don't you.
I'd suggest "event".
I've seen
many, but decision is the only clear one, as far as I'm concerned.
Besides, decision is used already in common language for natural
phenomena, usually like "a decision falling".
I've never heard it used like that.
In "common language", the closest thing that would fall under Nando's vague
and wishy-washy manner would be, for example, "I'm glad the tree didn't
decide to fall on the house" after a wind storm blows over a tree that could
have fallen on the house if the wind had been blowing a different direction.
Of course, everyone (except Nando, apparently) understands that the tree
never "made a decision".
Remember it is only you who attributes decisions to comets. Yes I say
the comet might have ended up differently then it did, so there is an
event(s) at which point a decision falls, but this does not mean the
comet owns that decision. At all points of decision is nothing, so
there is no need to attribute the decision to any object.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
16 Jul 2005 08:52:54 AM |
|
|
"Augray" <augray@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:tc7Ce.12983$6e3.843703@news20.bellglobal.com...
nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com wrote:
Calm down. Be reasonable. Offer another word why don't you.
I'd suggest "event".
I've seen
many, but decision is the only clear one, as far as I'm concerned.
Besides, decision is used already in common language for natural
phenomena, usually like "a decision falling".
I've never heard it used like that.
In "common language", the closest thing that would fall under Nando's vague
and wishy-washy manner would be, for example, "I'm glad the tree didn't
decide to fall on the house" after a wind storm blows over a tree that could
have fallen on the house if the wind had been blowing a different direction.
Of course, everyone (except Nando, apparently) understands that the tree
never "made a decision".
Remember it is only you who attributes decisions to comets. Yes I say
the comet might have ended up differently then it did, so there is an
event(s) at which point a decision falls, but this does not mean the
comet owns that decision. At all points of decision is nothing, so
there is no need to attribute the decision to any object.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
14 Jul 2005 11:20:40 PM |
|
|
wrote:
A lightningstrike that takes out a powertransformer is just a matter of
cause and effect. You are not doing very good in locating the point of
decision, which is much at the first appearance of the lightningstrike.
So what decided the lightning strike could appear? The what decided that
whatever decided that, could appear? and so on, until we arrive at
what seems to be your destination, when the question will become, what
decided god could appear?
Face it, you're lost, you don't know, you've no word for it even,
you're never going to get it, because the pressure from your
anti-creationism is too great to even begin to think sensibly about it.
We've got a word for it alright, but most of us are too polite to say it.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
14 Jul 2005 11:41:27 PM |
|
|
What decided you to respond in such a way. Hate is what.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
15 Jul 2005 12:24:29 AM |
|
|
wrote:
What decided you to respond in such a way. Hate is what.
BZZT, wrong again. Love, amd more particularly, love of truth, (you have
not noticed my signature line then?). But please feel free to show me
where i am wrong, in my response to what you posted, as I will change my
beliefs if they are SHOWN to be wrong.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "goozlefotz" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
16 Jul 2005 01:59:37 PM |
|
|
shane wrote:
BZZT, wrong again. Love, amd more particularly, love of truth, (you have
not noticed my signature line then?).
"love of truth" The only word in that phrase that I know the
definition of is "of".
.
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
17 Jul 2005 01:18:39 AM |
|
|
goozlefotz wrote:
shane wrote:
BZZT, wrong again. Love, amd more particularly, love of truth, (you have
not noticed my signature line then?).
"love of truth" The only word in that phrase that I know the
definition of is "of".
Is that you, Pontius? :)
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
15 Jul 2005 05:27:08 AM |
|
|
shane wrote:
BZZT, wrong again. Love, amd more particularly, love of truth, (you have
not noticed my signature line then?). But please feel free to show me
where i am wrong, in my response to what you posted, as I will change my
beliefs if they are SHOWN to be wrong.
Sorry Shane I got fed up with it. I've shown it at least 5 times in
this thread how natural selection theory is valueladen, without any
meaningful response.
Now Boikat uses the word "decisionpoint" in stead of "decision". Some
*years* ago some other evolutionist furiously insisted I use the word
"determination" in stead of "decision". That's the progress of years,
from determination to decisionpoint, a wordchange.
There's a whole world out there of decisions, determinations,
decisionpoints, turningpoints, realization... If per chance you happen
on a forest you may consider it. The rustle of the wind, the crack of a
tree, some birds flying over there, then overhere, etc. Many decisions
falling in quirky patterns, giving of an atmosphere to feeling. And as
you realise the forest has been there for years you can sense the
history of all those decisions falling, the forest being as you see it
by all those decisions turning out the way they did.
So where is the love of truth, when a whole class of knowledge that is
manifest in common knowledge as well as religion, is suppressed,
denied, misunderstood and forgotten about in science?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
15 Jul 2005 08:38:47 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121423228.491606.3660@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
shane wrote:
BZZT, wrong again. Love, amd more particularly, love of truth, (you have
not noticed my signature line then?). But please feel free to show me
where i am wrong, in my response to what you posted, as I will change my
beliefs if they are SHOWN to be wrong.
Sorry Shane I got fed up with it. I've shown it at least 5 times in
this thread how natural selection theory is valueladen, without any
meaningful response.
Because the accusation of "value" as you are applying it is meaningless,
because the ToE *IS NOT CONCERNED WITH VALUE IN A MORALIY CONTEXT OF GOOD OR
BAD*!
What about the "ALL CAP" part do you not understand?
Now Boikat uses the word "decisionpoint" in stead of "decision". Some
*years* ago some other evolutionist furiously insisted I use the word
"determination" in stead of "decision". That's the progress of years,
from determination to decisionpoint, a wordchange.
And still you are tossing "decison" around in you word salad in a
meaningless manner.
There's a whole world out there of decisions, determinations,
decisionpoints, turningpoints, realization... If per chance you happen
on a forest you may consider it. The rustle of the wind
Has nothing to do with 'decisions" the wind does not *decide* to blow this
direction ot that direction. It all a matter of mindless physics: fluid
dynamics, thermo diferences, and so on..
the crack of a
tree,
A matter of weight of the tree lombs and structure of the wood. Or do you
think a tree sits there and thinks to itself, "I think I'll split my trunk
in half today.."
some birds flying over there, then overhere, etc.
Ah! At least birds are capable of actually making a *decision* because
birds have brains! That does make a difference, you know. They may fly
yhis way or that way because one way or the other may be where the bugs or
berries are, ot that's where they hear a potential mate singing, or so on.
The point is that birds can use their brains to make a decision.
Many decisions
falling in quirky patterns, giving of an atmosphere to feeling.
Meaningless sentance.
And as
you realise the forest has been there for years you can sense the
history of all those decisions falling, the forest being as you see it
by all those decisions turning out the way they did.
And a lot of the appearance of the forest are due to random influances.
So where is the love of truth, when a whole class of knowledge that is
manifest in common knowledge as well as religion, is suppressed,
denied, misunderstood and forgotten about in science?
Morality is not the purpose of science, though morality of the scientist in
being honest about the interpretation of the data is. That is shy
creationism is immoral; because when creationsist do science they *have to*
bias their interpretation of the data or observations to support their a
priori conclusions. Where is the morality in that? Where is the truth in
that? Creation "scientists" are the ones that you should be attempting to
deride for ignoring morality and ethics.
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
15 Jul 2005 11:03:32 AM |
|
|
No morality, except for that one big valueladen goal in natural
selection of the fittest coming to dominate the population.
As I said before, the way to define natural selection is a trial and
error scheme of mutations being selected in terms of reproduction. No
comparison of reproductionrates neccessary, that already says the
organisms are shaped in terms of reproduction, which is sufficient to
explain evolution of species by natural selection. Factors such as
competitive encroachment being better understood as an environmental
factor to the unit of selection.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "boikat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
15 Jul 2005 11:54:51 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121443412.709423.58830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
No morality, except for that one big valueladen goal in natural
selection of the fittest coming to dominate the population.
No "morality" is involved. NS is a natural phenomena. That is all it is.
As I said before, the way to define natural selection is a trial and
error scheme of mutations being selected in terms of reproduction.
And suitability for the envionment. That has nothing to do with morality.
No
comparison of reproductionrates neccessary, that already says the
organisms are shaped in terms of reproduction, which is sufficient to
explain evolution of species by natural selection. Factors such as
competitive encroachment being better understood as an environmental
factor to the unit of selection.
In the context of the ToE, and as a natural phenomena, that has nothing to
do with *morality*. When you get a dictionary to look up the definition of
the word "decision", you might also what to look up the definition of
"morality".
Boikat
--
<42><
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
16 Jul 2005 12:41:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
shane wrote:
BZZT, wrong again. Love, amd more particularly, love of truth, (you have
not noticed my signature line then?). But please feel free to show me
where i am wrong, in my response to what you posted, as I will change my
beliefs if they are SHOWN to be wrong.
Sorry Shane I got fed up with it. I've shown it at least 5 times in
this thread how natural selection theory is valueladen, without any
meaningful response.
So can i take that as you cannot show where i am wrong?
You are fed up! perhaps not as half as frustrated as myself and others
have become in trying to get you to define the words you use, such as
"valueladen".
So a simple two part question; does "valueladen" mean the same as
"grocklet"? and how do you know?
<snip>
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
17 Jul 2005 01:48:14 AM |
|
|
Shane,
The word valueladen is not my invention, but from a philosphypaper
about natural selection. The philosphers argued that the standard
formulation of natural selection, posits a "valueladen" goal. The goal
is the fittest coming to dominate the population. The term valueladen
means that the standard formulation carries a moral imperative to
achieve that goal. It is saying the fittest *should* come to dominate
the population.
My experience of evolutionist discourse indicates that you will now
commence useless circular argument about, how science is a study about
what is, and not about what should be, and therefore natural selection
is not about what should be, because it is science.
------
To take out the valueladen goal the philosophers concluded that natural
selection should be redefined as differential reproductive success. You
might think that Darwinists already define natural selection this way,
because they are saying it, but that is not actually true. Darwinists
only mean differential reproductive success as caused by a difference
in genes. The philosphers mean differential reproductive success in
general.
I suggest an additional change on top of that the philosphers argued.
IMO natural selection should be simply formulated as a trial and error
scheme. A mutation is introduced, it is selected, meaning it get's
reproduced or it doesn't. This formulation says that organisms are
shaped in terms of reproduction, which is the meaning of natural
selection. (the philosophers formulation is only a logical theorem
about populationgrowth)
It may be so that a mutation is introduced that actually hinders the
reproduction of the invidual, but that it is reproduced regardless. It
is tempting to then say that this mutation is not fit, but doing so
would deny that fitness is measured by reproduction, and the whole
logical construct of natural selection would collapse.
Go ahead and give an intelligent response. It will require some study.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
| User: "Deadrat" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
17 Jul 2005 02:07:30 AM |
|
|
<nando_ronteltap@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121582894.455273.203570@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Shane,
The word valueladen is not my invention, but from a philosphypaper
about natural selection. The philosphers argued that the standard
formulation of natural selection, posits a "valueladen" goal. The goal
is the fittest coming to dominate the population. The term valueladen
means that the standard formulation carries a moral imperative to
achieve that goal. It is saying the fittest *should* come to dominate
the population.
Thank you. Finally. What was so hard about that? I've been asking
this question for days. Next questions: Who wrote the paper, what
was its title, and where was it published? It would help if I could read
it for myself.
You see, if it's a philosophy paper, it probably has little scientific
value.
The "standard formulation of natural selection" is a description of what
happens, not what *should* happen. That's not science. Science
carries no moral imperatives. That's ethics. I don't know what "It
is saying" about normative behavior, but it's not scientists who are saying
it.
My experience of evolutionist discourse indicates that you will now
commence useless circular argument about, how science is a study about
what is, and not about what should be, and therefore natural selection
is not about what should be, because it is science.
You got it right in one! Now why is that useless or circular? That's what
science does. Science says that the planets orbit around the sun; it
doesn't say
that's what they should do. Do you have any examples of actual scientists
operating in any other way. Your philosophy paper doesn't count until
you cite it so we can read it to see if it's only philosophy or also
science.
------
To take out the valueladen goal the philosophers concluded that natural
selection should be redefined as differential reproductive success. You
might think that Darwinists already define natural selection this way,
because they are saying it, but that is not actually true. Darwinists
only mean differential reproductive success as caused by a difference
in genes. The philosphers mean differential reproductive success in
general.
Which philosophers? Do philosophers talk about "differentail reproductive
success"?
I suggest an additional change on top of that the philosphers argued.
IMO natural selection should be simply formulated as a trial and error
scheme. A mutation is introduced, it is selected, meaning it get's
reproduced or it doesn't. This formulation says that organisms are
shaped in terms of reproduction, which is the meaning of natural
selection. (the philosophers formulation is only a logical theorem
about populationgrowth)
This isn't much of a change from the real thing.
It may be so that a mutation is introduced that actually hinders the
reproduction of the invidual, but that it is reproduced regardless. It
is tempting to then say that this mutation is not fit, but doing so
would deny that fitness is measured by reproduction, and the whole
logical construct of natural selection would collapse.
The measure of the mutation is not its affect on reproduction, but its
affect on survival.
Go ahead and give an intelligent response. It will require some study.
I'll wait while you do some.
Deadrat
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "shane" |
|
| Title: Re: Hitler's secular religion |
18 Jul 2005 03:25:14 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Shane,
The word valueladen is not my invention, but from a philosphypaper
about natural selection. The philosphers argued that the standard
formulation of natural selection, posits a "valueladen" goal. The goal
is the fittest coming to dominate the population. The term valueladen
means that the standard formulation carries a moral imperative to
achieve that goal. It is saying the fittest *should* come to dominate
the population.
I will tackle all this paragraph one sentence at a time for the sake of
being clear as to what my comments relate to.
"The word valueladen is not my invention, but from a philosphypaper
about natural selection."
This sentence contains, I believe, the seed of the problem you face.
Your argument is not with evolution, but with some philosophical view of
evolution. How have you come to determine that that philosophical view
is either correct, or even the current view of evolution held by
evolutions defenders and researchers?
"The philosphers argued that the standard formulation of natural
selection, posits a "valueladen" goal."
This still does not give a definitions of what exactly "valueladen"
means, but the context is reasonably clear. This sentence is also a part
of the problem you have. Note the word "argued", this means they had an
opinion that they defended, but is their argument correct? Nowhere in my
readings of the scientific side of evolution, have I found any inference
that evolution overall, has a goal. Now i will freely admit that my
reading is very limited in scope and there is plenty i may have missed,
but even here on t.o. it is usually the opponents of evolution that
propose some goal or direction to evolution. The fittest surviving, is
not a goal, but a logical outcome of the mechanisms of evolution. A
logical outcome of gravity is, that under normal circumstances on earth,
things fall to the ground when free to do so. The "things" have no goal,
nor does the ground.
"The goal is the fittest coming to dominate the population."
The philosophers may say this, but do researchers into evolution? It
depends on what is meant by the word domination, of which i think two
broad definitions are applicable,
1. If they mean that the entire population of the particular species
eventually take on their characteristics due to successful reproduction,
then they are partially correct as to the results of the mechanism, but
incorrect as to it being a goal, it is an outcome.
2. If they mean that that species eventually comes to rule over other
species as humans do to an overwhelming degree today, then they are
incorrect to think that it this is a predetermined gaol.
"The term valueladen means that the standard formulation carries a moral
imperative to achieve that goal."
But the philosophical position depends upon there being a goal to
evolution. If there is no goal, then the rest of their position is based
on an incorrect premise and is most likely wrong. Again i repeat,
nowhere, that i am aware of, in standard evolutuionary science, is there
the thought that evolution has a goal. It only has outcomes.
"It is saying the fittest *should* come to dominate the population."
Well yes, they should, in the normal course of events, not as a result
of a goal, but as a result of the mechanisms of evolution. Why do these
philosophers think that the only way to dominance is to have a goal?
That is like saying that the only reason why an object falls to earth is
because its goal is to do so. But it does so as an outcome of gravity,
not as a result of some inherent indefineable conciousness within
itself, that its reason to exist is to fall, if free to do so.
My experience of evolutionist discourse indicates that you will now
commence useless circular argument about, how science is a study about
what is, and not about what should be, and therefore natural selection
is not about what should be, because it is science.
I'm having a bit of trouble parsing that one, but will do my best, such
as it is.
Certainly "science is a study of what is," although science is also so
much more than just that. I would prefer to say that science 'includes'
the study of what is. So thus far we have nothing remotely circular.
Science is also somewhat a study of what should be, as one of the
indications of a valid scientific theory is that it makes predictions as
to what may be shown by that theory, in the future. An example is the
periodic table of elements, which when first developed had many holes
that Mendeleev predicted would be filled by the discovery of elements
with certain characteristics, he was subsequently shown to be absolutely
right, in spite of the people who thought otherwise. But note that the
"should be" part of your statement is still something that can be
demonstrated by science, i.e. the elements predicted by Mendeleev were
all real things made up of atoms, not fairy dust and witches spells.
Still no circularity that i can see.
Natural selection is a little about what shold be, but more about what
shouldn't be. By that I mean; some creationists often make ridiculous
claims about what evolution will produce, such as saying, "I will
believe in evolution when i see a cat give birth to a dog." Nowhere does
the theory of NS, or evolution, say such a thing should happen, in fact
I imagine that they say quite explicitly that if it did happen it would
be evidence AGAINST evolution. The "what should be" part of NS is that
it will say things like "that if a particular stable population
experiences changed circumstances that alter the current equillibrium of
reproductive success, then the population will change". Peppered moths
is a historic example. However there are some very recent examples just
coming to light, to do with bighorn sheep horn sizes, average maturity
size of fish in overfished fisheries etc. For a "primer" on this, see
the July 9 2005 copy of New Scientist article titled "In the blink of an
eye" or go to this link to read it;
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/evolution/mg18725071.100
Natural Selection is certainly science, it is about what is, and it is
about what should be. So what was your point again? Ohh that's right,
something about circles, but we have not gone around any, so i will
consider your point invalidated unless you wish to show otherwise.
------
To take out the valueladen goal the philosophers concluded that natural
selection should be redefined as differential reproductive success. You
might think that Darwinists already define natural selection this way,
because they are saying it, but that is not actually true. Darwinists
only mean differential reproductive success as caused by a difference
in genes. The philosphers mean differential reproductive success in
general.
Just for your information, Darwinists as a species are almost extinct,
if not actually extinct. Darwin was wrong about some things, and science
has certainly moved on in 150 years. So a Darwinist, if you can actually
find one, is certainly not the person you want to be getting your
information on evolution from. | | | | | | | |
