how wrong you are newpurple

hell you should care even if its a friends baby i would be sad if it was an enemys baby for fucks sake

_________________

No I don't fail to see it for that either, "I think therefore I am" is not a survival instinct, but it is a primitive concept that can be shown through survival instincts.

as stated a fly can recognize they are not part of the world around them, anything that moves understands this, even slugs.

it's hardly sentience.

Sentience in science is a primitive concept made to make people of lesser understanding feel good about themselves.

Flies do break into restaurants to get food.. same deal, an elephant breaks in and is noticed cause he's bigger, a fly is just considered a nuisance and if a slug could get in it would. it's not mental ability, it's travel ability and power.

sentience, lol PSH.

again sentience is not a first person concept, it's not your view of the world, it's your ability to understand how others view the world and whether or not you actually think for yourself or are dictated to think that way by the foundations of existence.

I reference intelligence tests in support of my argument, when taking those tests it's all about your ability to see yourself from other's perspectives rather then just your own perspective.

_________________

no backsies

you like to lick vaginas the fetishes while not very similer are vaugly related enough its not that much of a stretch to imagine one could evolve into the other

_________________

Why the fuck should I care about someone elses baby? They look like, and are about as useful as potatoes. I would feel sorry for the other guy the same way I feel sorry for someone when his relative dies, but I really don't give a shit.

well if you fell sorry for somebody thats giving a shit how do you define giving a shit

_________________

fine, let me rephrase that.
I'd pretend to be all "oh noo.... that's too bad, is there anything I can do for you?" so I don't look bad. I actually only give a shit about not looking like an asshole in front of the person.


actually, I'd probably cry like a baby...

And again, you miss the obvious point. The Fly needs the food, the Elephant simply wants to be drunk. Need vs Want was my whole point, and somehow, that flew over your head.

I also did not even imply "I think therefor I am" is a survival instinct. I said its the ability to think outside instinct.

Now, onto a simpler argument. You are now arguing with science, with no evidence to back up your claims. I provided an article, and am capable of more. Can you provide sources for your... humorous, point of view?

articles are only as correct as the knowledge of the person who wrote them, just because many people believe it to be a certain way does not make it so.

flies also bother people even when full, they are gluttonous, they no longer eat to feel full, they eat out of spite for the person trying to protect it.

Want, Flies want our food because it's tastier than garbage. flies get drunk too, you've obviously never worked at a bar, they love the sticky alcohol residue on the beer mats.

to them we are Festus bringer of booze.

_________________

No. Flies find the closest source of food. There is no want, just instinct. They lack a sense of taste. They are not neurologically designed for it. Try again.

Flies are after the sugar content in alcohol. They lack the enzymes to get drunk.

Articles, on a consensus, is called the scientific method. You're still failing. So, pony up, or shut up, as they say.

do you have no empathy purple

_________________

its worth noting for anybody late for the conversation that that bit at the end was added by a mod

_________________

No, I added that myself.

oh i must have just not noticed it at first

_________________

"Cogito, Ergo Sum" isn't really about either self-awareness nor the ability to recognize the world around you.
In Descartes Meditation, it's the end result of a long query into what can be held as certain.

In fact, it would be well in accordance with the meditation to say that the world around you is not distinct from you at all (similarly, that it doesn't exist at all, or that its nature is knowable or a number of other conclusions).

It was however not an establishment of cause and effect as some treat it, nor a criteria for existence or for value or anything else, it was much simpler than that. Thinking is a proof (to the thinker) that the thinker himself exists, because he could not think if he did not exist. This is not to say one way or the other whether things that do not think exist or not, or even whether it's possible that anyone other than Descartes himself thinks or exists. He also continues to deal with the "matrix making me think or me thinking" problem, but as he phrases it "what if a clever demon is only deceiving me to think that I exist, or to believe that I think?", which he concludes that, in such a case, he must exist because he is deceived and a demon cannot deceive what does not exist (thus, "I think therefore I am" has a built in alternative theory of "I am deceived therefore I am" which I think helps clarify what is being presented). As an aside, his own existence as a thinking being (and note, he does not conclude he knows for sure he even has a body at all, or whether the world he perceives exists otherwise) is one of only 2 things I know of him claiming are certain, the other topic that he goes onto right after but is often ignored is his proof of God, which is fairly interesting from his method of doubting everything (he even claims to have become an atheist before beginning many of these inquiries, so as to do better with doubting everything, but presumably became theistic after his proof of God).

I clarify this partially because I find Descartes actual philosophy pretty interesting, even if I don't agree with all of it, but also because it should not be used to indicate that thinking is a criteria for being a human person. The statement and philosophy behind it are so incredibly far removed from that interpretation. In fact, under that philosophy, our whole argument about sentience is rather pointless, as we would for one never know whether anything else has sentience of any definition, or even have a physical form, or whether physical form is really possible. Descartes philosophy should leave you questioning whether there even exists such a thing as a human, or whether your own thoughts and flaws, or some other random unknown influence, simply made it up.

And, bringing that back to the point, while we truly do not know at what stage something that can be called thought begins (and it's difficult to define thought at early stages of life anyway, especially prior to language), why should its active presence (or some other attribute related to it) be considered a criteria for being currently human?

Ladies and gents, I present, n0th1n. Long time no see.