Anything about the human body

Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#51
Now, let's visit "the Ghost in the Shell" idea: Human brain, artificial body.


Let's ignore the cause of such disfigurements; imagine we are capable of giving them "the
ghost in the shell" bodies.
(This may be a little extreme, though.)
The "ghost in the shell" idea means a fully functional, artificial body and a human brain; then, we cannot quite develop fully functional, artificial sensory organs.
Robocop is another idea.
Both attempts will be extremely far-fetched; can we achieve them at all?

Right now? Who knows?. I doubt it.


However, I'm reasonably confident that some country has already produced at least one human clone. I think the way of the future may be in manipulating DNA and the probably secret revival of eugenics.. Something along the lines of the practice found in the Sci Fi film 'Gattaca' . People will pay literally anything to live longer, with better health and natural abilities.


Gattaca is a 1997 American science fiction film written and directed by Andrew Niccol. It stars Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman, with Jude Law, Loren Dean, Ernest Borgnine, Gore Vidal, and Alan Arkin appearing in supporting roles.[2] The film presents a biopunk vision of a future society driven by eugenics where potential children are conceived through genetic selection to ensure they possess the best hereditary traits of their parents.[3] The film centers on Vincent Freeman, played by Hawke, who was conceived outside the eugenics program and struggles to overcome genetic discrimination to realize his dream of going into space.
The film draws on concerns over reproductive technologies which facilitate eugenics, and the possible consequences of such technological developments for society. It also explores the idea of destiny and the ways in which it can and does govern lives. Characters in Gattaca continually battle both with society and with themselves to find their place in the world and who they are destined to be according to their genes.

Gattaca - Wikipedia
 
Oct 2009
3,561
San Diego
#52
Atheists are absolutists?

Really. I didn't know that, what with being one and all.

OF COURSE some atheists are absolute in their thinking. IE They make the assertion. " There is no God" . This is a positive claim, and as such attracts the burden of proof.I wish anyone holding that view he best of luck in trying to prove it. If successful, they will be the first person in recorded history to do so.

I, and most atheists I've met in life and on line, make no claims about the existence of gods. If you are interested, there is a plethora of atheist forums on line. I've belonged to several ,over several years.

I am an agnostic atheist. That simply means I do not believe in the supernatural, gods, the soul, angels, demons, ghosts, the paranormal , mountain trolls or fairies at the bottom of my garden. I do not claim to know.

The reason I don't believe is the absence of proof for any of those things.

I do not conflate 'evidence and 'proof' because they are not the same.
Um- Evidence IS Proof.
the idea that you can not prove the non-existence of God is BECAUSE ALL proof is EVIDENT... and the reason you can not prove Anything about God is because there is no evidence.
Being is not evidence for God- because if being needs a cause then so does God. If God needs no cause then neither does being.

It is Not logically true to say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The ONLY thing that lack of evidence is evidence of, is non-existence.
That is- the One trait that ALL things that do NOT exist Share, is the total lack of evidence of their existence.

Ergo- the only valid assumption that CAN be made about God- based upon the evidence- is that such a being does not exist.

That is Not a "positive claim" about God- it is the default position on EVERY hypothesis for which there is no evidence.

No one has to "Prove" something does not exist.

The Only people making a positive claim are those claiming a God does exist. And the proper response to such a claim is to demand proof of such a claim.
Believers are making a claim with Zero evidence in proof.

Atheists are making a claim that the Lack of evidence supports entirely.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#53
Um- Evidence IS Proof.
the idea that you can not prove the non-existence of God is BECAUSE ALL proof is EVIDENT... and the reason you can not prove Anything about God is because there is no evidence.
Being is not evidence for God- because if being needs a cause then so does God. If God needs no cause then neither does being.

It is Not logically true to say that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The ONLY thing that lack of evidence is evidence of, is non-existence.
That is- the One trait that ALL things that do NOT exist Share, is the total lack of evidence of their existence.

Ergo- the only valid assumption that CAN be made about God- based upon the evidence- is that such a being does not exist.

That is Not a "positive claim" about God- it is the default position on EVERY hypothesis for which there is no evidence.

No one has to "Prove" something does not exist.

The Only people making a positive claim are those claiming a God does exist. And the proper response to such a claim is to demand proof of such a claim.
Believers are making a claim with Zero evidence in proof.

Atheists are making a claim that the Lack of evidence supports entirely.
I'm pretty sure I've already covered this,, on exactly your absurd claim, but I'll go through it again:. Evidence is NOT a synonym for proof. OF COURSE absence of evidence is evidence of absence .What it is not is proof.

An agnostic atheist, I make no claims. I state only that I do not believe due to lack of proof. A person stating 'there is a god' is making a positive claim. That means that person has the burden of proof. That he is unable to meet that burden is not my problem.

Your argument is simply wrong, being based on a common logical fallacy; argument from ignorance. Below are are an explanation of the difference and reasons for your error, found after 30 seconds of searching. Do your own search, by all means.

Difference Between Evidence and Proof

August 17, 2016
by Hasa
3 min read




Main Difference – Evidence vs Proof
Evidence and proof are two words that we commonly use interchangeably in general parlance. However, there is a subtle difference between evidence and proof. Evidence refers to information or facts that help us to establish the truth or existence of something. Proof is the sum of evidence which helps to prove something. The main difference between evidence and proof is that proof is more concrete and conclusive than evidence. However, it is important to note that these two words can be used interchangeably in common usage despite this difference.

Difference Between Evidence and Proof | Definition, Meaning, Usage



Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes the possibility that there may have been an insufficient investigation to prove that the proposition is either true or false.[1] It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, only knowable in the future, or neither completely true nor completely false. [2] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof. In research, low-power experiments are subject to false negatives (there would have been an observable effect if there had been a larger sample size or better experimental design) and false positives (there was an observable effect, however this was a coincidence due purely to random chance, or the events correlate, but there is no cause-effect relationship). The term was likely coined by philosopher John Locke in the late 17th century. [3][4]

Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia


Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" -- Carl Sagan, Astronomer

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" -- Donald Rumsfeld, Military strategist Dexter created absence of evidence to make people believe he was evidently absent. -Thanks again Showtime

The above is a favorite (and sometimes annoying ;-) catch phrase often repeated by many, many, many people (apparently including BradAppleton, for whatever that may be worth). Simply put, it means that if we don't know that something exists, it doesn't mean that it doesn't; It only means we don't know one way or the other, we just haven't been made aware of it yet so it's not part of our knowledge.

No, the paraphrase is utterly wrong -- evidence isn't knowledge or proof, not even remotely! We can have evidence of things that aren't true. Why is it so hard for people to grasp this obvious fact? And absence of evidence can pertain to any empirical claim, it doesn't have to be an existence claim. If you're going to set up a topic for discussion, just state it as is, don't seed it with your own harebrained misunderstandings.

http://wiki.c2.com/?AbsenceOfEvidenceIsNotEvidenceOfAbsence


Under the vast majority of real-life circumstances, a cause may not reliably produce signs of itself, but the absence of the cause is even less likely to produce the signs. The absence of an observation may be strong evidence of absence or very weak evidence of absence, depending on how likely the cause is to produce the observation. The absence of an observation that is only weakly permitted (even if the alternative hypothesis does not allow it at all) is very weak evidence of absence (though it is evidence nonetheless). This is the fallacy of “gaps in the fossil record”—fossils form only rarely; it is futile to trumpet the absence of a weakly permitted observation when many strong positive observations have already been recorded. But if there are no positive observations at all, it is time to worry; hence the Fermi Paradox.

Accept what I have shown or not, I don't care. Having now ben through this same nonsense twice, I have nothing further to add.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2009
3,561
San Diego
#54
I'm pretty sure I've already covered this,, on exactly your absurd claim, but I'll go through it again:. Evidence is NOT a synonym for proof. OF COURSE absence of evidence is evidence of absence .What it is not is proof.


Main Difference – Evidence vs Proof
Evidence and proof are two words that we commonly use interchangeably in general parlance. However, there is a subtle difference between evidence and proof. Evidence refers to information or facts that help us to establish the truth or existence of something. Proof is the sum of evidence which helps to prove something. The main difference between evidence and proof is that proof is more concrete and conclusive than evidence. However, it is important to note that these two words can be used interchangeably in common usage despite this difference.


Accept what I have shown or not, I don't care. Having now ben through this same nonsense twice, I have nothing further to add.
Sorry- but you cite a distinction that makes no difference.

Above find highlighted in Red the proof that your argument is Circular.

Proof is a SUM of Evidence which helps prove something. What moron wrote that bit of drivel?
If, as you quote, proof is some quantity of evidence, then Proof is comprised of nothing BUT evidence.

And the Quantity of evidence that amounts to proof is not specifically defined.

For example, a SINGLE piece of evidence Against an hypothesis can invalidate the entire hypothesis.
Proof a given hypothesis is incorrect.



If I can prove a theory wrong with one piece of evidence, then the SUM of evidence required for proof is 1.

And if there can be no proof without evidence- then Proof must consist entirely of evidence.

ALL Proof is EVIDENT- meaning it can be demonstrated.

The only difference between evidence and proof is that you can cite evidence without argument about what concept that evidence supports or undercuts, but all evidence DOES implicitly support or detract from some theory or model about the observable world.

A pencil leaves an Evident mark on paper. You can argue about what that evidence proves about the pencil, and you can argue about what it proves about the paper and you can argue about what it proves about light reflection... But the mark is PROOF in and of itself of something about all three.
And if you just make a pencil mark and leave it at that- without even thinking about it... that does not change the fact that the mark is evidence that proves several things. Proof does not require you to even consider it.

Early man never came up with a 'theory' of how a spear worked. How it worked was evident and that was proof a spear could kill game.


Proof is evidence that proves something.
Its meaningless.... but as circular reasoning goes- its concise.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,498
Florania
#56
We will never end the debate of pure speculations and metaphysics; let's discuss the real challenges of creating "ghost in the cell" artificial body and fully repairing damaged human bodies.
A few current approaches exist today, and they are far calls from replacing the human bodies:
Transplantation is to replace damaged organs or body parts with functional ones; this approach is rather imperfect, and most people with transplanted body parts survive rather than thrive.
Replacing body parts with artificial ones isn't perfected, either; most people with artificial body parts live worse than people with transplanted body parts.
Attempts to regrow missing or damaged body parts is still very far-fetched.
Let's be clear: we may not be able to extend human lives indefinitely; then, extending health and realizing negligible senescence will unleash very substantial human potentials.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#57
@VHS

Yeah, I think discussion will continue for decades.

"Ghost in the shell' is a fascinating concept. I have no idea how close we are to achieving that goal.

i understand we currently use pig's organs in some transplants. THE problem with transplants as practiced today seems to be that of organ rejection. That even with a successful transplant, the recipient needs to take anti rejection medication for life.

One way to go could be to clone replacement organs using the recipient's DNA. I believe stem cell research is moving in that general direction

I suspect we may be a long way from such technology being available under any health plan. However, human potential as it stands right now is pretty impressive. Assuming we don''t manage to make our planet uninhabitable, who can even guess where we will be in even 100 years?

Over the years, I've read.predictions from quite a few futurologist. (not alleged psychics) . They have a poor track record.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,498
Florania
#58
@VHS

Yeah, I think discussion will continue for decades.

"Ghost in the shell' is a fascinating concept. I have no idea how close we are to achieving that goal.

i understand we currently use pig's organs in some transplants. THE problem with transplants as practiced today seems to be that of organ rejection. That even with a successful transplant, the recipient needs to take anti rejection medication for life.

One way to go could be to clone replacement organs using the recipient's DNA. I believe stem cell research is moving in that general direction

I suspect we may be a long way from such technology being available under any health plan. However, human potential as it stands right now is pretty impressive. Assuming we don''t manage to make our planet uninhabitable, who can even guess where we will be in even 100 years?

Over the years, I've read.predictions from quite a few futurologist. (not alleged psychics) . They have a poor track record.
I heard of the 2030 end of humanity videos on Youtube.
 

Port

Ad Honorem
Feb 2013
2,087
portland maine
#59
If people were made in the image of g-d then he/she probably has back problems. too heavy a head on top of a not strong enough spine.
f held up by a narrow spine.
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
4,498
Florania
#60
Even Abh humans in The Seikai series is a little difficult for today's technologies:
150-200 years of lifespan, lifelong youth (health, beauty and vigour of 20-30 after adulthood; only about a month of weakness before death.)
 

Similar History Discussions