Euthanasia and the Right to Die.

[eFestivals]

No, all have been. That's what evolution means.

I know what evolution means, thanks.

But what no one knows is what instincts that single cell started out with, and without that info it's impossible to know what instincts might have evolved.

[eFestivals]

Through logical output.

thought doesn't have to have any output.

No output does not equal no thinking, it only equals no output.

And given the limited physical form of a single cell, its ability to show the output of thought is physically limited anyway.

[eFestivals]

I disagree. Knowing would be tantamount to thinking, would it not? I don't think the cell was doing much thinking when it overcame the desire to split and instead created a will to merge with other cells producing pro-creative replication.

Eh?

Just cos you think something doesn't mean it exists. And you cannot know of something you do not know of no matter how hard you think.

But anyway, all this is bollocks. We, as humans, have human instincts (if not universally-shared ones with other animals). When someone talks about instincts in relation to humans, they're talking about human instincts.

We are instinctively hungry, and thirsty, and tired, if nothing else. Human instincts exist.

Edited August 22, 2012 by eFestivals

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Not from an evolutionary perspective, which is what I stated from the outset. Do you ever listen? Beings have their instincts inherited through the behaviours of previous generations.

And in relation to cell based organisms, there is no observable sentience other than the will to replicate.

[worm]

Ah, OK.

So not "from the outset", and it's you moving the goals and making wrong assumptions about what I'm meaning.

Edited August 22, 2012 by worm

[worm]

thought doesn't have to have any output.

[worm]

Just cos you think something doesn't mean it exists.

[eFestivals]

Just cos you think something doesn't mean it exists.

As a thought, yes it does.

As something of relevance, meaning, and truth ... no it doesn't.

[eFestivals]

thought doesn't have to have any output.

How do you know if you can't prove it exists?

Who's said it can't be proven? .... nutter.

We know thought exists, and we know that thought requires no output.

So you deciding that output is the way to decide for certain as to whether other beings think is as stupid as it gets, because of how removed it is from what we already know.

Fucking hell man! You were asking for proof of its existence, I'm saying that you can prove it through logical output i.e. you can see the pattern of logic.

That's a method of proofing the existence of thinking.

But it's not a method for proving the non-existence of thinking you small-minded twat.

I'm guessing you got a F- in all science exams you did at school.

[eFestivals]

No, it's me continuing the line of thought of instinct being the product of learning from an evolutionary perspective. You pulled me on it. I'm telling you about it. That's it.

But you can't be "continuing" with something you've only just started goping on about (as the time stamp of your words proves).

And I said fuck all about any evolutionary perspective. I had no need to because there's zero relevance to where human instincts came from in mentioning the fact of human instincts. The fact of their existence is the only thing of relevance.

So.... you've lied and thrown in irrelevances, and avoided debate if the issue being discussed. It's a bit of theme for you. I'll leave you to argue your idiocy with yourself.

[worm]

As something of relevance, meaning, and truth ... no it doesn't.

Edited August 23, 2012 by worm

[worm]

Who's said it can't be proven? ...

Edited August 23, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

You can't see irony can you. What is truth other than a thought? What is meaning other than a thought? What is the above assertion if not a thought formed from logic?

My thoughts are just like your own, a thought formed in logic. But nothing of that says than any thought you or I might form in logic is worth anything. Some people think there's a god; if there's no god their thoughts of god are worth nothing (unless counting delusions as worth something towards truth).

it's unsurprising that you crash so much when you're swerving around like a looney.

[eFestivals]

It needs to be proven if you're to cite me rules about it, you thick twat.

PMSL.

You've been citing the fact that thoughts are proven by output. I've cited that that proves nothing about whether thought is happening.

So all you're proving is that you only expect others to adhere to the rules.

That makes you both a thick twat and stupid beyond your own ability to recognise it. Oh dear.

'There's no evidence that thought exists'

'You can prove it through it's output (logic)'

'Thought doesn't have to have any output'

Neil, how the fuck can you say that thought doesn't need any output if it doesn't exist. Fuck. Me. Sideways!

Keep fantasising about what I've said, and proving yourself the thick twat.

I've not said anything about "There's no evidence that thought exists".

I've said that output is not required for thought to exist. Because it's not.

Seeing output proves nothing about the existence of thought either, unless you're able to know the input.

I have said that just because we think we think does not mean that we do. We know a feeling of thinking - that is all we know and all we can know.

[worm]

My thoughts are just like your own, a thought formed in logic. But nothing of that says than any thought you or I might form in logic is worth anything.

[worm]

1) You've been citing the fact that thoughts are proven by output.

2) I've cited that that proves nothing about whether thought is happening.

[worm]

Just cos you think something doesn't mean it exists.

[eFestivals]

As I said to you earlier, the proof of thought is in the logical output of thinking.

Nope. There's merely *A* proof of thought - tho it is also thought relying on thought for it's own existence (and in the end, self-satisfying ideas like that don't mean shit).

Our first knowledge of thinking is when we think about the fact that we think. Until that moment we only know thoughts, but not that we think. Without knowing that we think, we have nothing of thinking.

And that very first knowledge of thinking is all thought without output. It's no less of a real thought experience to us than it would be to think for the purpose of output, or to think about observing some other being's output.

So ... in relation to non-human beings, we can observe output and say that we believe that's a demonstration of their thought, but we cannot say that no output means no thought. Thought does not require output for thought to be happening.

[eFestivals]

2) No you haven't. You've said that it is happening without providing any evidence whatsoever.

No, i've been trying to say (I accept my words at the last attempt were particularly poor) that thought can happen without there being output.

We only know of thoughts and its output by thought. Light travels thru our eyes into our brain where the information within that light is thought about - we think we've seen output.

Therefore thinking that we think is the ONLY valid way to gain evidence of thought.

Above is in relation to the self. For observing other species, the fact of no output does not prove that they do not think, because we know (no less than we know anything) that thought does not have to have any output.

[worm]

Nope. There's merely *A* proof of thought - tho it is also thought relying on thought for it's own existence (and in the end, self-satisfying ideas like that don't mean shit).

[worm]

No, i've been trying to say (I accept my words at the last attempt were particularly poor) that thought can happen without there being output.

Edited August 23, 2012 by worm

[worm]

Someone should put you both out of your misery

[eFestivals]

It proves that thought exists! It is proof of what we call sentience!

It is *a* proof, yep. It is NOT an accurate way of testing for whether a being is able to think or not, but it is a way that thinking is displayed.

We got into this because you gave that as *the* way to know for all living things, an answer which is patently wrong.

And I think you need to refer to a dictionary. Urgently.

[eFestivals]

But you were saying that thought cannot be proven.

Ultimately, it can't be. It can only self reference. "I think therefore I am".

Unless you're going to tell me how you observe something without the use of thought?

There is absolutely no evidence that something is thinking without any logical output to prove it. That's what I'm saying.

That's laughable. That's what I'm saying.

I suggest you start at the beginning, rather than start with an answer and pretend the world fits your answer.

There is no less evidence for thought without output as there is for thought with output. This is indisputable in all facts and in all logic.

To reiterate, you can prove sentience. You can prove it through the logical output i.e. the learned behaviour, explanation, or willful disregard of physical laws of a being.

Yep, you can.

But not displaying any of that does not prove no-thought.

[AcademicPistol]

Someone should put you both out of your misery