From: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt)
Subject: A couple of agnostics chewing the fat...
Reply-To: bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com
Organization: Abiogenesis 4 Less
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:43:50 GMT

frank@D012S658.uucp (Frank O'Dwyer) writes:
# bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
# >Indeed.  *I* have no idea when anyone's hopes or dreams come into
# >being, but I'm an agnostic -- and as such have to entertain the
# 
# ...notion that there are things you don't know about?  The notion
# that your guess is as good as the next guy's?  Hard isn't it?  (I'm an
# agnostic too - pleased to meet you :-)

Hard to stop, actually.  I've read somewhere that an agnostic is like
a flaming arrow flying straight to hell -- and I can easily understand
the similarity.

-----

# >incredible notion that human personality may be entirely immanent in
# >some kind of nonphysical abstraction (I generally file it right next
# 
# Why is this incredible?  Many - probably most - people believe that.  And
# their guess is as good as yours.  You wouldn't be one of those science
# fundies, would you?

No. No. No.  That's a trip I don't enjoy taking.  I find it an
incredible concept because of experiences I've had and observations
I've made.  I will describe below.

(Furthermore, just because I'm an agnostic, does not mean I think my
guess isn't better than anyone else's. <insert smiley here>)

# >to the notion that all the Apollo moon landings were faked in a
# >Hollywood studio).  I suspect that those who *do* make fundamental
# >leaps of faith can claim to *know* such things.
# 
# They can claim it, in much the same way that you can claim to *know* (a claim
# which you may attenuate by appealing to the mystical faith of 'probability',
# which is nonsense in this context) that a z/e/f lacks awareness.

(It gets worse when you have to repudiate faith in `probability'...)
However, it serves no purpose to reduce every debate into an argument
over belief systems.  At some point, principle has to be sacrificed
for cold, hard, pragmatism -- and I doubt I shall have too much
trouble supporting my argument that the assertion that zygotes,
embryos and fetuses before myelination have no awareness because they
lack the physical material `necessary' to support such things, is more
easily supported in a pragmatic sense than is the assertion that human
personality can exist independent of a functioning brain.

-----

# >Furthermore, it *is* unreasonable to say that one's individuality
# >derives from one's genetic uniqueness -- otherwise identical twins
# >would only constitute one individual.
# 
# "derives from", not is defined by.  I think that genetics is closely
# correlated with individuality, freedom and lots of other good stuff.  Of
# course, I'm only guessing, just like you.

Hmmm.  Mea culpa.  I read more into what you wrote than was intended.

Allow me to share my personal observations that lead me to take an
opposing view.  Please.

I had a friend once, in college, who was shot through the head with a
.38 revolver at close range.  The shell passed through his left eye
and emerged behind his right ear.  He survived.  Strangely, he was
mostly functional afterward, if quite epileptic.  He retained much of
his memory.  However, his personality, mannerisms, idiosyncracies,
etc. changed remarkably -- much more so than one would expect from,
say, psychological treatment.  It was night and day.

I have observed similar changes in personality as a result of changes
in diet and the ingestion of psychotropic drugs.  All of this lines up
with what I've learned from conventional sources about personality
disorders, brain damage, and how the human memory works.  I see a lot
of reasons to believe that much of what we consider to be facets of
human personality (memory, emotions, analytical skills, etc.) are
dependent upon the physical brain, which is not merely a product of
genetics, but environment as well.  Zygotes have no memory.  They have
not learned emotional responses.  They have no analytical skills.  I
see nothing remarkable about a zygote that tells me I should expect to
see such things in them.  To believe otherwise means I have to adjust
my entire reality to suit it, thus making it into a reality I don't
find very useful.  Do you see why I challenge your argument?

-----

# twins, triplets, etc, are further proof of a zygotes superior intelligence...
# too smart to be just _one_ person. :-)
# 
# ># I think that it's rather demeaning to be told that a fertilised egg is no
# ># more important than an animal.  I think that to unecessarily bring a z/e/f
# ># into being and then destroy it is - all other things being equal - an act of
# ># vandalism.
# >
# >Vandalism?  Hmmm.  Vandalism is the willful or malicious destruction
# >of public or private property.  Maybe you didn't mean `vandalism' --
# 
# Maybe I was using a metaphor, I dunno.
# 
# >or did you really intend to imply that z/e/f's should be thought of as
# >property?  Whose property?  Private or public?  I would also point to
# 
# Maybe I intended to imply that to _unnecessarily_ call something into 
# existence and then destroy it is wantonly destructive, and stupid.  Who
# knows what I intended?

Finish your vegetables -- there are starving children in Somalia who
would be grateful for half of what you're throwing away.

I don't know about `wanton' destruction -- nor do I leap to the
judgement that its stupid.  Sometimes it simply makes more sense to
create and destroy, rather than reuse -- though I would agree that we
humans tend to reuse less than we should.

# >the phrase `unnecessarily bring' in your sentence above, as evidence
# >of disguised moral judgement -- who is better qualified to decide
# >whether the act of conception is unnecessary than the primary
# >participant(s)?
# 
# There's no moral judgement in 'unnecessarily bring' intended by me.  There
# _are_ circumstances in which conception is unnecessary, but these aren't
# everyone's circumstances.  Hence I said 'all other things being equal'.
# 
# Maybe an example will clarify.  Imagine a choice (and it should be a choice,
# lest anyone misconstrue) of contraceptive A and contraceptive B, equally
# effective, equally safe, equally convenient, equally cheap, equally pretty
# picture on the package - but B is an abortifacient.  Doesn't it seem utterly
# stupid and unnecessary to use B, possibly calling a zygote (which is
# certainly more valuable and rare than a sperm or ovum, no matter what you
# think of its personhood) into existence and immediately destroying it?
# Doesn't it sound similar to vandalism, if there is no _need_ to do that?

I dispute your claim that a zygote is `certainly' more valuable than a
sperm or an ovum regardless of what one thinks of its personhood.  In
fact, I might argue that it is *less* valuable by analogy to chicken
eggs -- which are more valuable when they are *not* fertilized.

Furthermore, I notice that contraceptives A and B have to be equally
effective, save, convenient, cheap (and presumably available), before
the question of vandalism in the case of the abortifacient seems to
enter the picture.  Is this an admission of the trivial nature of the
argument we're engaged in?

# >-----
# >
# ># Of course, this is wholly irrelevant to a woman's abortion rights,
# ># but that's what I think.
# >
# >I left this quote intact so that anyone who follows up knows the
# >context of this debate.  I agree that it's important to separate the
# >issue of abortion from the issue of abortion rights -- and the greater
# >issue of reproductive rights.  It's fine to discuss both at the same
# >time, but it's wrong to confuse the two.
# >
# >| J H Woodyatt              


-- 
+---------------------------+  ``But I think that until MAGOG can get
| J H Woodyatt              |  some solid Financing, and an exchangeable
| bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com |  currency, we can postpone the second
+---------------------------+  coming for a while.''
                                                  -- drieux, just drieux