Replies: 41 (Who?), Viewed: 11198 times.
Page 1 of 2
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#1 Old 19th Apr 2018 at 11:21 AM Last edited by keyqueen : 19th Apr 2018 at 12:30 PM.
Default Little thought experiment: biological life or sentient life
I've been struggling to fall asleep and thought this up. I figured it would be interesting it hear some options on it.

Let's say there is a scientist performing experiments on cultures of Mold/fungus like organisms. Mold and fungi qualify by the scientific and biological definitions of life as living life forms and are a good example of the simplest multicellular life on earth. Probably very few people will express moral objections against experimenting on organisms such as fungus even if they lead to the death of the whole organism. Surely not even the most radical non human rights groups would argue that the experiments undermine the organisms rights as lifeforms, But why is that? Is it because they are such a basic lifeform? Because they have no capacity by which to suffer from such treatment? Because they have nothing to lose from loss of life? Or perhaps because most see molds and fungus as disgusting?

Now let's say that the scientist gets clumsy and bracks one of the Petri dishes resulting in a spore from the culture coming into contact with a cut in his skin and taking root. For the sake of argument there is no way for the scientist to remove the organism from his body without causing its death. While it is pulling nutrants from his blood supply which could present a small chance of health complications such as infection and even very slimy the risk of death, it poses no immediate threat to his health and the situation will resolve itself in time once the organism reach the end of its relatively short lifespan. Mostly the organism presents is an inconvenience to him.
Again it is unlikely that anyone would object to the scientist ending the life of the organism prematurely to maintain his own “standard of living” or to elementat the reasonably small chance of harm to his own body. But why should the scientists health and inconvenience outweigh the life of the organism?

Now let's say (here it's going to get a little out there) that the experiments our good scientist was performing was to create a chemical compound that mutants the organisms causing them to develop intelligence and sentients comparable to a human child of food five years while still biologically belonging to their current species. As he has already successfully performed the experiment multiple times he knows that it in fact works. And spore that has taken up residence in his skin has already been exposed to the chemical. In sort it is almost certain that it will eventually become sentient , however as it has only beginning to develop as a separate organism it does not yet possess the physiological structures to support any such awareness. Does this in any way change the scientist right to remove the organism for his person? How come or why not?

The idea behind this though experiment it to examine the significance of biological life Vs sentient life. Clearly the experiment has many thinly valed metaphors to the abortion debt as it is one area where the two definitions of life frequently clash. As each side tends utilizes a different definitions. I thought this might be a good start to separate the bio Vs sen life debt and look at it as a separate issues.
Advertisement
Scholar
#2 Old 6th May 2018 at 9:44 PM
That's like saying foot fungus is part of you and shouldn't be removed, which is wrong because there isn't supposed to be any fungus growing or living on you. I don't think where the fungus would grow would change anything, it's still a biological organism that is not sentient. There's a reason why biological life and sentient life aren't the same thing. An extreme example would be saying that since a tumor is living (because it's growing) then you can't remove it because that might "hurt" it. That creates a problem because you could do something about it- remove it and the person gets better and continues to live, but by saying that the tumour is alive and should be allowed to remain in its place beacuse it "lives there" is morally questionable. Does a biological organism that is harmful to a senient being more important than the sentient being imply because it's alive?

I'm not sure of my response makes any sense because I have thoughts but I can't seem to get them out?
Lab Assistant
#3 Old 19th Nov 2018 at 4:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by keyqueen
I've been struggling to fall asleep and thought this up. I figured it would be interesting it hear some options on it.

Let's say there is a scientist performing experiments on cultures of Mold/fungus like organisms. Mold and fungi qualify by the scientific and biological definitions of life as living life forms and are a good example of the simplest multicellular life on earth. Probably very few people will express moral objections against experimenting on organisms such as fungus even if they lead to the death of the whole organism. Surely not even the most radical non human rights groups would argue that the experiments undermine the organisms rights as lifeforms, But why is that? Is it because they are such a basic lifeform? Because they have no capacity by which to suffer from such treatment? Because they have nothing to lose from loss of life? Or perhaps because most see molds and fungus as disgusting?

Now let's say that the scientist gets clumsy and bracks one of the Petri dishes resulting in a spore from the culture coming into contact with a cut in his skin and taking root. For the sake of argument there is no way for the scientist to remove the organism from his body without causing its death. While it is pulling nutrants from his blood supply which could present a small chance of health complications such as infection and even very slimy the risk of death, it poses no immediate threat to his health and the situation will resolve itself in time once the organism reach the end of its relatively short lifespan. Mostly the organism presents is an inconvenience to him.
Again it is unlikely that anyone would object to the scientist ending the life of the organism prematurely to maintain his own “standard of living” or to elementat the reasonably small chance of harm to his own body. But why should the scientists health and inconvenience outweigh the life of the organism?

Now let's say (here it's going to get a little out there) that the experiments our good scientist was performing was to create a chemical compound that mutants the organisms causing them to develop intelligence and sentients comparable to a human child of food five years while still biologically belonging to their current species. As he has already successfully performed the experiment multiple times he knows that it in fact works. And spore that has taken up residence in his skin has already been exposed to the chemical. In sort it is almost certain that it will eventually become sentient , however as it has only beginning to develop as a separate organism it does not yet possess the physiological structures to support any such awareness. Does this in any way change the scientist right to remove the organism for his person? How come or why not?

The idea behind this though experiment it to examine the significance of biological life Vs sentient life. Clearly the experiment has many thinly valed metaphors to the abortion debt as it is one area where the two definitions of life frequently clash. As each side tends utilizes a different definitions. I thought this might be a good start to separate the bio Vs sen life debt and look at it as a separate issues.


Like as science is given to the scientist, so is the filament to the fungus. Even so, they who are given to science, may understand nothing but that which is of science. As the filament is to the fungus.

There is only one path that leads to Life. For the scientist to remove the organism from his persons to attain life is vain, if the scientist does not proceed in the right way. Their understanding and judgement is clouded, knowing not the error thereof.

Remove the error that is in your own way first. Then will you be able to see clearly how to remove the fungus that has taken up residence in your own skin. Because there is only one path that leads to Life. For what need have you to remove the fungus, if you understand not the corruption that is evident in your sight? You will likewise perish if you persist on the path that leads to destruction.

If the scientist would walk honestly toward them that are without. Being not ignorant or anything in a small matter or great. That you would sorrow not as those who are without, but comforting the feeble-minded, supporting the weak, and being patient toward all men. Following that which is good both among yourself and all men. This is the Will of God in Christ concerning you. To prove all things and believe in that which is good. That we all, as members of civilization may profit as a whole.

Abstaining from all appearances of evil. Deceiving no man by any means, nor opposing or exalting themselves above that which is called God, to be worshiped as a God, and showing himself that he is God. For this cause God shall send you strong delusion, that you all should believe a lie. Walking after your own lusts, and with your own mouths speak great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.

But build up yourselves on the most holy faith. Giving thanks to God always, as the Word of God is the truth. Showing man how he is to exhort each other and the manner of walk that is pleasing unto God. So that your labors would abound more and more unto the glory of God. This is the Will of God, even your sanctification. Meditate upon these things, and give your mind entirely to them, letting your profiting appear unto all. For there is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God.

Do that which is good, and you will receive praise of the same. Let there be no divisions among you. Be of a sound mind and of a good conscience toward God. That you be perfect in mind and judgment. With much wisdom, abiding in the way that the Lord hath given unto men as he saw fit. For we labor not for ourselves only, but for all men who seek learning.

Give ear and understanding to these words you great men among the people. In all of your works keep the pre-eminence. Studying to show yourselves approved unto God, as a good workman that needed not to be ashamed. Striving not to be lovers of yourselves, boasters, proud, and unthankful. Having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. Becoming men of corrupt minds and reprobate concerning the teachings of righteousness in Life. Evil men and seducers who deceive the people and deceive themselves by the things that they have learned.

We know that we all have knowledge, but charity will edify the people. Do you have charity?

By your wisdom and traffic have you increased in riches, and your heart is lifted up because of your riches. If you would be perfect in your ways from the day that you were created, then would you have a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men, even the fungus that cleaves to the life thereof. Not being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish your own righteousness, without submitting yourselves unto the righteousness of God.

First, remove the error that is in your own ways. Then will you be able to see clearly how to remove the fungus that has taken up residence in your own skin. Because there is only one path that leads to Life. For what need have you to remove the fungus, if the path that you are on leads to destruction?

For the knowledge of the commandments of God is the doctrine of Life. Any man who does things that please God shall receive the fruit of the tree of immortality. There shall no weapon that is formed against you prosper. Not in thought, or in deed, and every tongue that will rise against you in judgment will be condemned.

The fear of God is all wisdom, and in all wisdom is the performance of the Will of God, and the knowledge of his omnipotency. Wisdom shows man the things of old, and conjectures aright the things that are to come. Wisdom can reveal the subtleties of speeches and expound upon dark (unknown) sentences. Foreseeing signs and wonders. The events of seasons, and of the times. For wisdom is conversant with God. Let this knowledge be formed in you. For we can do nothing against the truth of God, but only for the truth of God. Not seeking to please man, but to please God.

If we walk in this light, we have fellowship one with another. If God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, who under the bondage of the elements of this world may receive the knowledge of Life, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? For it pleased God, that in his Son should all fullness dwell. Giving man the answer, and a good conscience toward God. If you do well, will your works not be acceptable? And if you do not the same, then error is found in your ways. Your understanding is clouded, and judgement is perverted. Damnation is brought upon you, negatively impacting the persons joined unto you.

Riches and honor are with God. Yes, durable riches and righteousness to purge all debt. If the scientist will follow the path that is right, God will give them understanding enough to guide their affairs with favorable discretion.
Mad Poster
#4 Old 19th Nov 2018 at 5:43 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 19th Nov 2018 at 6:16 PM.
If you get a case of foot fungus or any other variant of bodily fungus, you'd most likely get treatment for that. If the fungus was taking over your body, I'm pretty sure you'd also want to get rid of it no matter if it was sentient or not (unless we're talking some kind of mostly beneficial cartoon-like mutation like spiderman or Spiderplantman)

As for whether the fungus was sentient, I'd be even more worried if that was the case. Unless it was a siamese twin or a human baby, I don't think it would be in any way comfortable to know that something sentient (and probably not on the level where communication was possible) was living in or on you. Most likely the other lifeform would be more interested in using your body for its benefits, or even getting rid of you, than whether or not you could coexist happily together.

One can argue that animals are sentient and functioning more or less on the level of a child of so-and-so years. Animals are still killed for sport, for food or for safety (invading predatory animals like wolves). One can argue if it would be equally bad to get rid of that sentient plant/fungus-like thing as it is to kill another animal for sport, food or safety (I'd say this would go under safety). Most animals show some level of intelligence and have compassion for their younglings and fellow pack members, but all run on instinct first. Pets see their owners as part of their pack, they get used to you and may even come to care about you. If you'd happened upon a wild, predatory animal, they may see you as food if they're hungry. Small and non-predatory animals would see you as a threat, and either flee or attack through biting, kicking, venom, or other defense mechanisms. I'm pretty sure that this new, sentient lifeform that sprouted out of you wouldn't immediately be your friend. It would most likely see you as either a threat or a food source.

If the fungus hadn't yet developed sentience, but potentially could do so, maybe getting rid of it before it knew what was happening might be the best option. I think the thought experiment is sort of boarding on the discussion of whether or not abortion is right or wrong. A lump of cells wouldn't be sentient, but a few months later the previous lump of cells can exist on its own, and a couple of years later there's a human that hugs you and talks to you and you've probably developed a close relationship to it. There's also the question of whether you should get rid of a parasite (a baby is in a way a type of parasite) or a bacterial infection or any sort of infiltrating matter in your body.

Thankfully, evolution doesn't work like this, so there's very little chance a lifeform with no previous sentience outside of being good enough at surviving its usual environment would develop sentience in the span of days to a few years. The only times this happen is through the normal cell-to-adult delvelopment coded in the DNA of a lifeform when they get offspring. Evolution from one lifeform to a different lifeform take a lot longer (usually several thousands to millions of years). You couldn't go from fungus to sentient lifeform in the way the thought experiment above presents itself.

Also at thril1, I don't think you understood the thought experiment. I don't think the possibly sentient fungus would have any thought for your life in this or have any sort of compassion for you (it would need some level of emotional intelligence first), and I don't think it would even care that you believe in any sort of higher power, or believe in that higher power itself without high enough intelligence for learning and also having been exposed to some kind of religion at some point (religion and belief in a higher power is learned, it's not something you're born with), so throwing religion at the question is pretty much useless. Maybe you could show compassion for the sentient lifeform, but it's not certain that this would have an effect, at least not until the lifeform was sentient enough to show compassion, and by that time it could be too late for you.
Lab Assistant
#5 Old 19th Nov 2018 at 8:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
If you get a case of foot fungus or any other variant of bodily fungus, you'd most likely get treatment for that. If the fungus was taking over your body, I'm pretty sure you'd also want to get rid of it no matter if it was sentient or not (unless we're talking some kind of mostly beneficial cartoon-like mutation like spiderman or Spiderplantman)

As for whether the fungus was sentient, I'd be even more worried if that was the case. Unless it was a siamese twin or a human baby, I don't think it would be in any way comfortable to know that something sentient (and probably not on the level where communication was possible) was living in or on you. Most likely the other lifeform would be more interested in using your body for its benefits, or even getting rid of you, than whether or not you could coexist happily together.

One can argue that animals are sentient and functioning more or less on the level of a child of so-and-so years. Animals are still killed for sport, for food or for safety (invading predatory animals like wolves). One can argue if it would be equally bad to get rid of that sentient plant/fungus-like thing as it is to kill another animal for sport, food or safety (I'd say this would go under safety). Most animals show some level of intelligence and have compassion for their younglings and fellow pack members, but all run on instinct first. Pets see their owners as part of their pack, they get used to you and may even come to care about you. If you'd happened upon a wild, predatory animal, they may see you as food if they're hungry. Small and non-predatory animals would see you as a threat, and either flee or attack through biting, kicking, venom, or other defense mechanisms. I'm pretty sure that this new, sentient lifeform that sprouted out of you wouldn't immediately be your friend. It would most likely see you as either a threat or a food source.

If the fungus hadn't yet developed sentience, but potentially could do so, maybe getting rid of it before it knew what was happening might be the best option. I think the thought experiment is sort of boarding on the discussion of whether or not abortion is right or wrong. A lump of cells wouldn't be sentient, but a few months later the previous lump of cells can exist on its own, and a couple of years later there's a human that hugs you and talks to you and you've probably developed a close relationship to it. There's also the question of whether you should get rid of a parasite (a baby is in a way a type of parasite) or a bacterial infection or any sort of infiltrating matter in your body.

Thankfully, evolution doesn't work like this, so there's very little chance a lifeform with no previous sentience outside of being good enough at surviving its usual environment would develop sentience in the span of days to a few years. The only times this happen is through the normal cell-to-adult delvelopment coded in the DNA of a lifeform when they get offspring. Evolution from one lifeform to a different lifeform take a lot longer (usually several thousands to millions of years). You couldn't go from fungus to sentient lifeform in the way the thought experiment above presents itself.

Also at thril1, I don't think you understood the thought experiment. I don't think the possibly sentient fungus would have any thought for your life in this or have any sort of compassion for you (it would need some level of emotional intelligence first), and I don't think it would even care that you believe in any sort of higher power, or believe in that higher power itself without high enough intelligence for learning and also having been exposed to some kind of religion at some point (religion and belief in a higher power is learned, it's not something you're born with), so throwing religion at the question is pretty much useless. Maybe you could show compassion for the sentient lifeform, but it's not certain that this would have an effect, at least not until the lifeform was sentient enough to show compassion, and by that time it could be too late for you.


Are you also without understanding?
Do you not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without enters into the man, cannot defile him because it does not enter into his mind.
It is that which comes out of the actions of a man, that defiles the man.

For within the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile the man.

The fool hath said in his heart, that there is no God. These are corrupt souls who make not God their strength; but trust in the abundance of their riches, and strengthen themselves in their wickedness, and have done abominable works. For there are no bands in their death. While they live upon the Earth, their strength is firm. None of them do good.

Some men can be helped with compassion, others you must use fear to prevent them from entering into a pit of destruction. These sorts of men are sottish children and have no understanding. They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. Be not children in understanding, but in malice be children and in understanding be men.

Such manner of people are a naughty generation, and their malice is bred in them. A seed of evildoers whose cogitations would never be changed. Miserable are they who place their hope in dead things. Much groaning from the remembrance of things past will come upon them. When they hear of their own punishments, then will they have some feeling toward God, whom they have rejected with scorn. For the foolish devices of their wickedness, they have worshiped serpents void of reason, and vile beasts in vanity and vexation of spirit.

Was it not for the law, how would man know the error of their ways? Yet time and chance happens to all men, to discover and do that which is right in the sight of God.
The ear tries the words just as the mouth tastes meat. Set before them ordinances, that they may choose judgement that is good. Gathering instruction from their youth up, to obtain wisdom in their old age. Then will they learn the way wherein they must walk, and not depart from it. Fretting after the flood of religions cast out after men void of wisdom. By religious persons who seek to set in order many proverbs of acceptable words upright in posture. Even words of truth craftily fastened by masters of assemblies. They accomplish a diligent search. Both the inward thought of every one of them, and the heart, is deep.

But in vain do they worship God, teaching from doctrines comprised of the commandments of men. Honoring him with their lips, but having their hearts removed far from God. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. God is Power greatly to be feared, and there is only one path that leads to Life. Man, by his own ignorance chooses not to hearken or incline his ear unto the wisdom of God. His years are but few and passes away out of the world as grasshoppers, walking in the counsels and imagination of their evil heart.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes to the light, unless the error of their ways should be corrected. The man that does truth will come to the light. That his deeds may be made manifest unto all men, and his works wrought in God.

To open the eyes of men, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Christ. This is a rebellious people, unholy, and unthankful. A seed of lying children, disobedient unto the Word of God. Persons who put evil for good and make suicide an art. Putting darkness for light, and light for darkness. A nation of people laden with folly. Children who are corrupters, forsaking God.

Their whole head is sick. Their whole heart is faint. They have soundness in them from head to foot. They are proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and striving over words, from which come envy, railings, false accusations, evil surmising’s, perverse disputes. Men of corrupt minds, destitute of the truth and supposing that gain for them is godliness. Though they dig into the clefts of the Earth or climb up to heaven, God will not pardon them. Lest they repent of their evil deeds and do that which is right and acceptable in the sight of God. For man was created man to be immortal. God made him to be an image of his own eternity.

My understanding of the thought experiment is well understood. As for throwing religion at the question, the mysteries of God such men knew them not. Neither hoped they for the wages of righteousness, nor discerned a reward for blameless souls. The events in history that occurred aforetime were meant to serve as examples for our learning. That we through patience and comfort of the Word of God might have hope in attaining a better reward. God will not cast off his people. Honor and majesty are before him. Strength and beauty are in his holy sanctuary.
Mad Poster
#6 Old 19th Nov 2018 at 9:44 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 23rd Nov 2018 at 12:10 PM.
^ Uhm... Sounds like both your comments have a bad case of bible vomiting (which I've fortunately been inoculated against a long while ago, thanks to science and reasoning.



When all of that is said, trusting a higher power may be a person's preferred method of dealing with a situation like this, and believe what you want, but it won't solve anything. If there was a positive outcome of the "wait and see" method, it could simply be a random coincidence - for instance that the lifeform suddenly died and could be removed without consequences, or that it turned out not to be harmful in any way. Doesn't mean it's a miracle or sign from a higher power.

Now, can we please return to the actual scientific and ethical implications, maybe even just thoughts and opinions of the thought experiment, and leave the preaching for the church?

You can view the case from the scientist's point of view. He'd want to survive. Could he? What if the lifeform turns out to be dangerous? The lifeform might be nice, but before they know, nobody knows. It's a brand new lifeform. It could be predatory, could "eat him from the inside" like fungi and other parasites sometimes do. It could also be able to live a harmless symbiotic life together with him, but who knows? And what about his family? Would they be able to live with a half-man, half-plant father? Could the lifeform be contageous, or in other ways dangerous to his family? Would his health be at risk? Could the lifeform have the same effect as a cancerous tumor, gradually making the man sicker?

From the viewpoint of other scientists, the questions could be different. Is the lifeform contageous? Would they have to isolate this scientist from other people? They would probably want to study the lifeform and how it affects the man. Is it right to make the man or the lifeform into a test subject? Would it be ethically right to remove the lifeform if they suspected the lifeform would die from the procedure? Is it really ethically right to let them live in a symbiotic relationship, with unknown consequences? If the man wants to remove the lifeform from his body, and one scientist is for the removal, but another is against, does the scientist who doesn't want to remove the lifeform have the right to stop it from happening?

And considering the lifeform, it would probably want to stay alive - but how long does it take before it becomes scentient? Does it feel pain? Is it right to experiment on it and do tests, and if it's scentient enough to take decisions, is it right to perform experiments on it without its conscent? Is it righ to try to remove it if the scientist wants to do so? And is it safe or even ethically right to let this lifeform come out in the world, whether it's harmless or dangerous, or should it be kept safe from other people in a lab?

Not to mention when the public hears of this. Do people who neither have scientific background, nor know the man, really have an opinion when they start with their protests of "save the lifeform" or "get rid of the lifeform" or "his choice, not yours!" or whatever else they might protest? Which rules and regulations would be put in place? If the lifeform was somehow contagious or genetically transferrable but otherwise harmless, would it eventually become illegal to remove the lifeforms? And if so, what about those people who didn't want another lifeform living on their body? Would they have a say? Maybe they'd secretly search out treatments or surgery, and risk a life in prison? Or would they have the right to decide over their own body? (Yup, the parallels to abortion are there). Or maybe it would become illegal not to remove the lifeforms, and what about those who didn't want to take the risk of undergoing that procedure? What about those who became affected, but sided with the lifeforms and didn't want to remove them?

These (and many more questions) would be things the scientist/lifeform and the other scientists may have to consider.

I'm really sorry, but "throw a god's great mercy at it" doesn't answer a single one of these questions, and doesn't provide any valid solutions, at least not for a proper scientist
Lab Assistant
#7 Old 20th Nov 2018 at 6:31 AM Last edited by thril1 : 20th Nov 2018 at 7:32 AM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
^ Uhm... Sounds like both your comments have a bad case of bible vomiting (which I've fortunately been inoculated against a long while ago, thanks to science and reasoning. I pretty much view the bible as one of the world's first collection of fantasy novellas, and I've honestly found better quotes to live by in Harry Potter...). There's really nothing to comment from your comments, because most of it sounds like bible preaching and/or worshipping. By all means, believe in what you want, that's fine, but don't be surprised if everyone doesn't have the same world view as you do, and not everyone sees a god as the ultimate answer for everything, particularly not when science is involved. The whole "trust in god and everything will sort itself out" thing really doesn't work in a scientific setting where you have to weigh the consequences and view the ethics, often on multiple sides. Often, there isn't a simple and clear answer, and "throw a god at it" really isn't an acceptable answer within proper science.

Just a side note, but if that god of yours really was the creator of "everything", he created the problem in the first place, and let humans deal with the problem in their own way without any instructions or guidelines. That doesn't paint the picture of a "loving, kind higher being". More of a cruel, sadistic overlord who likes to muck about with people's brains. After all, that same higher being would be the same one who creates cancer in innocent children, and causes millions of people to starve to death every day, plus other various other unspeakable evil just to watch humans suffer. The only biblical so-called "miracles" you see these days are Jesus in a dog's butthole or Mary's face on toast, none of them with any practical use, and for some unknown reason this seems more important to the godly being than kindness and healing (unless it's just humans' tendency to face pareidolia, which is the theory I'm leaning toward). If you choose to kneel before such cruelty, then fine. You do you. Personally, I'm fine with thinking that higher beings don't exist. I still like to read about them, though. Godly beings screwing up allow for some pretty decent entertainment in the book world. Rick Riordan does a great job on that front, and the Jesus character in the Iron Druid books by Kevin Hearne is actually a pretty decent dude (plus, the Celtic godly beings were quite interesting, because I'd never heard of those before).

So if you (or anyone else) thinks throwing a god at the problem would be a valid solution from a scientist's standpoint, just be aware that it wouldn't be. If the scientist and his fellow scientist colleagues were so deeply religious they put trust in a godly being as their preferred method of dealing with the problem, they really shouldn't be called scientists at all. Yes, scientists can be religious, many of them are, but they're not doing valid science if they start throwing pseudo-science or religion in as their methods of choice. Belief or trust in a god is not a scientific method, nor is it a medical treatment (even if some people seem to think it is).

When all of that is said, trusting a higher power may be a person's preferred method of dealing with a situation like this, and believe what you want, but it won't solve anything. If there was a positive outcome of the "wait and see" method, it could simply be a random coincidence - for instance that the lifeform suddenly died and could be removed without consequences, or that it turned out not to be harmful in any way. Doesn't mean it's a miracle or sign from a higher power.

Now, can we please return to the actual scientific and ethical implications, maybe even just thoughts and opinions of the thought experiment, and leave the preaching for the church?

You can view the case from the scientist's point of view. He'd want to survive. Could he? What if the lifeform turns out to be dangerous? The lifeform might be nice, but before they know, nobody knows. It's a brand new lifeform. It could be predatory, could "eat him from the inside" like fungi and other parasites sometimes do. It could also be able to live a harmless symbiotic life together with him, but who knows? And what about his family? Would they be able to live with a half-man, half-plant father? Could the lifeform be contageous, or in other ways dangerous to his family? Would his health be at risk? Could the lifeform have the same effect as a cancerous tumor, gradually making the man sicker?

From the viewpoint of other scientists, the questions could be different. Is the lifeform contageous? Would they have to isolate this scientist from other people? They would probably want to study the lifeform and how it affects the man. Is it right to make the man or the lifeform into a test subject? Would it be ethically right to remove the lifeform if they suspected the lifeform would die from the procedure? Is it really ethically right to let them live in a symbiotic relationship, with unknown consequences? If the man wants to remove the lifeform from his body, and one scientist is for the removal, but another is against, does the scientist who doesn't want to remove the lifeform have the right to stop it from happening?

And considering the lifeform, it would probably want to stay alive - but how long does it take before it becomes scentient? Does it feel pain? Is it right to experiment on it and do tests, and if it's scentient enough to take decisions, is it right to perform experiments on it without its conscent? Is it righ to try to remove it if the scientist wants to do so? And is it safe or even ethically right to let this lifeform come out in the world, whether it's harmless or dangerous, or should it be kept safe from other people in a lab?

Not to mention when the public hears of this. Do people who neither have scientific background, nor know the man, really have an opinion when they start with their protests of "save the lifeform" or "get rid of the lifeform" or "his choice, not yours!" or whatever else they might protest? Which rules and regulations would be put in place? If the lifeform was somehow contagious or genetically transferrable but otherwise harmless, would it eventually become illegal to remove the lifeforms? And if so, what about those people who didn't want another lifeform living on their body? Would they have a say? Maybe they'd secretly search out treatments or surgery, and risk a life in prison? Or would they have the right to decide over their own body? (Yup, the parallels to abortion are there). Or maybe it would become illegal not to remove the lifeforms, and what about those who didn't want to take the risk of undergoing that procedure? What about those who became affected, but sided with the lifeforms and didn't want to remove them?

These (and many more questions) would be things the scientist/lifeform and the other scientists may have to consider.

I'm really sorry, but "throw a god's great mercy at it" doesn't answer a single one of these questions, and doesn't provide any valid solutions, at least not for a proper scientist


Hi Simmer. Blessings and Peace Be unto You.
You have very well said that you choose to follow after the knowledge of man, which is evident in its outward corruption before our eyes this very day.

There are hospitals on every corner, yet none are cured. Little villages which possess doctors on the outskirts of society who cure cancer off the grid. Yet men in secret, blinded by the illusion of their reality choose to seek after the doctors and expend the life of the physician. Men who make open efforts to cloak the works of these physicians so that no man can see what they have accomplished, nor benefit from it holistically. Petitions go out as a flood into the high places of America. Man beseeching other men for aid, that they may share their knowledge and miraculous works that can prevent their beloved ones from going down into the grave, but none adhere.

All knowledge is given by inspiration from God.
We are not born speaking English. It is a thing learned in the process of time. However, we do understand things spiritually without knowing the speech of a tongue that we have not learned, like body language or emotions for example.

Any man that touches the pitch (black glue-like substance) shall be defiled there with, and the man that has fellowship with a proud man shall be likened unto him.

Are we not born with the knowledge of good and evil? Or, is it a thing acquired in the process of time? How then can a child understand the influences of this world that mold, mend, and shape their minds without the ability to discern the error that is set before them?

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still. The man which is filthy, let him be filthy still. Those who are righteous, let them be righteous still. And the holy man that is holy, let him be holy still. It is not wise to strive in a manner that concerns you not. Every man must deliver his own soul by his own righteousness.

There is only one that is good, and that is God. His ways are truth, righteousness, judgement, and mercy. For all knowledge is passed down from that which came before us. If you savor the things of man, and mind not the things of the Spirit, you will reap of the corruption evident in man, and not the immortality evident in God. Can the blind lead the blind? Will they both not fall into the ditch?

What does it mean to be a Scientist? Do they which practice prognostically not manipulate the elements that are already set before them? What do they know? What have they created, attempting to discover hidden knowledge through ritualistic or preternatural means? From where does their knowledge come?

Two men promised a king that they would vote for him in the coming election, to ensure his re-appointment as king over the people. One man cast his vote, and the other man cast his vote. Both as they had promised the king. When the time for the election to take place was at hand, the king was not re-elected by his people. Therefore, grew the king wroth with is people. Afterward he went to inquire diligently after the two men how it was possible for him to lose the election where only two men cast their vote? One man spoke on this manner, and the other man spoke on that manner. The administrator who had handled the votes finagled the lot. To set in order an arrangement that would declare him as the new king over the people. When the king learned of this madness, he grew wroth with the administrator that stood against him. And the king asked the administrator why he had committed such atrocious acts against him. The administrator said boldly, "I too sought to be as you are. To remove you from rule that I might cleave to the life that you have.". The king said unto the administrator, because you have done this, you will not be elected as the new king over the people. You and your lot will depart from me, counted as accursed and forbidden to enter into my kingdom. For you have not dealt truthfully with the people, and by your sorceries and great enchantments were the people who dwell in my kingdom deceived by the means of those miracles which you had power to do in their sight. I have set you up as the administrator in my kingdom, giving you great power and riches as I saw fit. You were perfect in your ways until folly was found in you. You used your power to give life unto the corrupt vision of your heart. To force the people both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond to worship your image. An ideal that has not submitted itself unto the righteousness of God, but seeks to establish its own righteousness by resisting the ordinances that have been ordained of God. That a just ruler should not reign over a just kingdom. He who rules over this kingdom must be a just man, and filled with the spirit of wisdom, and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge, and the fear of God. For there is no power but of God. The fear of God will make the king that rules over these people of quick understanding. Judging not after the sight of his eyes, neither reproving after the hearing of his ears. But with righteousness shall he judge the poor and reprove with fairness the meek. So, the king banished the administrator and his lot by decree, separating the unclean from the clean. Afterwards, set in order a second election. That the people might elect a new ruler according to their customs. And the people cheered greatly when their chosen king was elected as the rightful ruler over their kingdom. For the people loved the righteous king and delighted in his ways which were just and right. As for the two men who were over their portion of the people, they were nominated as joint heirs in the kingdom of the king. To serve as administrators over his people. They were rewarded according to the extent of their works. Wealth and riches are found in their house, and the righteousness of God that endures forever in the glory of their Majesty who rules in the heavens.

The ox is a very dumb animal, but the ox knows who his owner is. The ass is a very stubborn animal, but the ass knows where his master's house is. How is it that man does not know where all knowledge comes from? Where he gets his power from? Why is it that man does not consider the First Author of Beauty? That He who created the creature is mightier than the creature itself?

Can the creature not discern that it waits for the Power of God to manifest in man, that it may be delivered from the bondage of corruption evident upon the Earth today? All nations are governed by a set of laws, principalities, powers, and thrones that unify the people under a common vision. Where does the knowledge that they govern with come from?

Why do the people love the fruit of the tree, but hate the tree that the fruit comes from? They say, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have much knowledge, and am in need of nothing", knowing not that spiritually, they art wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked. The remembrance of death is bitter to the man that lives at rest in his possessions. Unto the man that has nothing to vex him. Who has prosperity in all things that he sets forth his hands to do.

The man that occupies his mind in the Wisdom of God will seek out the wisdom of all the ancient, and occupy himself in prophecies. He will keep the sayings of renowned men, and where subtle parables are, he will be there also. He will seek out the secrets of grave sentences and become conversant in dark parables. He will give his heart to resort early to the God that made him.

When God commands, man will be filled with the spirit of understanding, and pour out wise sentences, giving thanks always in prayer unto God. He will show forth what he has learned. For we all know that we have knowledge. But the man who has charity will edify the people. That they may all learn and be comforted in the profiting of mankind. A wise man will instruct the people, and the fruits of his understanding fail not.

By what define do you understand a man to be a proper scientist?
Mad Poster
#8 Old 20th Nov 2018 at 2:37 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 23rd Nov 2018 at 12:07 PM.
More bible vomit, I guess *cringes*.



I don't know about anyone else, but I'm more interested in hearing people's actual opinions, than random vomit from the bible, because none of the bible quotes above have anything to do with the actual question or thought experiment. All I can see is "trust my personal god to take the decisions for you", and that's about as far from science as it's possible to come.

Your personal beliefs may not be the same as his personal beliefs. What if the scientist in question was Buddhist? Hindu? Atheist? Do you honestly think that if presented with all the various options he'd care what a book compiled of a plethora of conflicting plural-of-thousand-and-something year old texts circling around one out of many godly characters had to say? Don't you think he'd rather apply scientific methods to the question instead?
Lab Assistant
#9 Old 20th Nov 2018 at 4:29 PM Last edited by thril1 : 20th Nov 2018 at 7:36 PM.
God has set a difference between the clean and the unclean.
As the clay is in the potter's hand, to fashion it at his pleasure. So is man in the hand of him that made him.
Therefore, good is set against evil and life against death.

Oh wicked imagination, when did you come in to cover the Earth with deceit?

All of the gods of the nations are idols, but the LORD our God made the heavens. For the gods of the other nations came newly up, modeled after the resemblance of pagan rulers from ancient civilizations known to hunt the souls of men. They were destroyed because they had no wisdom and perished through their own foolishness.

Young men who dwell on this Earth have seen light, but the way of knowledge they have not known. Nor do they understand the paths thereof, or lay hold of it.

Would the scientist fear fungus if no weapon formed against them would prosper? Would he need to worry about the taint of the infectious filaments?
Had he knowledge of truth and wisdom, surely he would see into these things. What more is a scientist than to see in to things? Is it not evident in their way?
Yet the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness is in their heart while they live, and after that they go to the grave.

I say unto you Simmer, do you not know that an honest man is surety for his neighbor, but the impudent man will forsake him.
The beginning of pride is when one departed from God, and his heart is turned away from his Maker.

Why are you companion to a guide in whom you cannot put your confidence?
It is evident to the learned and unlearned alike, there is one event that comes to them, but a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, drink, and be merry.
Mad Poster
#10 Old 20th Nov 2018 at 7:32 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 23rd Nov 2018 at 12:03 PM.


I do wonder what a non-believing scientist would do faced with possible death when a lifeform may or may not cause it. A non-believer most likely wouldn't believe in an afterlife. They may not be willing to sacrifice the only life they have on the offchance that this other lifeform really is harmless. Personally I'd probably be all "get that thing away from my body ASAP!" - but if possible, I wouldn't be opposed to try and save the lifeform in some other way than using my body as a host, as long as it wasn't obviously harmful to anyone. I'd be the same way with a cancerous tumor, parasite, harmful bacteria, a virus, or anything else that would cause harm or disease - though I wouldn't mind if those were eradicated in the process. Religion is probably the only thing that can trick you into thinking that death is a happy occurrance. I'm pretty sure that most believers are only into it for the promise of an afterlife. People have on multiple occasions commited suicide just because they think they'll have a better life "at the other side". If that isn't scary, I don't know what is. I can understand the parents' mindset when they tell their dying child they'll be meeting Jesus and everything will be happy without worries, or that they'll see their dying mommy or daddy in heaven - but it's a fairytale told in the aid of comfort, perhaps even in what they see as personal truth. Without the promise of an afterlife, I'm pretty sure most religions would already have been more or less eradicated by now, because it's what keeps most people inside the loop.



Back to the problem - a bacteria is just as much of a lifeform as a human, but while some bacteria are perfectly harmless and even beneficial to the point where we'd probably not survive without them, some bacteria are harmful, even deadly. Some bacteria are beneficial up until the point where they aren't, and start causing problems instead. All life is opportunistic, and is going to do what it can to survive up until a certain point where they either win, lose, or reach a symbiosis or harmony of some sort. That's how nature works, and that's how the relationship between the scientist and the lifeform would be. Winner, loser, or symbiosis. Whether or not the lifeform was sentient may not even count to the scientist if he was losing, because his instinct would tell him to do whatever he could to survive. Would it be a moral choice? Maybe not. It may be more a question of survival. Ask any American who is against stricter gun politics why they have that opinion, and they'll probably all say "to protect me and my family". Which, in its essence, means they could be willing to kill another human being if challenged in such a way it became neccessary. Some of these peope are probably also devout Christians, but these do seem willing to close their eyes just a little bit for the commandments they say they follow. Various laws around the world have self-defense or defense for another person as reasons why killing may not strictly be against the law in certain cases, and one might wonder why. Which life is more precious if all life is precious - the life of the person who is attacks, or the attacker? Or, in this case, the scientist who gets "attacked", or the lifeform that "attacks"?
Lab Assistant
#11 Old 20th Nov 2018 at 11:41 PM Last edited by thril1 : 21st Nov 2018 at 5:06 PM.
Per chance there is need for some insight to be provided here.

There was only one Heaven and Earth created in the beginning. The Heavens can be broken down into 3 different major divisions.

The First Heaven - Realm where we live. (Heaven on Earth)
The Second Heaven - Outer space (where you may have learned in science class at school that the sun, moon, and stars are.)
The Third Heaven - The most high God's dwelling (Beyond outer space)

Man has been relegated to go as far as the second heaven, and no further by reason of restriction. The book which so many people upon Earth reject will tell you all about the history of events that have occurred upon the Earth.

By reason of strong delusion, the inhabitants that dwell upon the Earth are taught that mankind is advancing through the ages, and in their advancement making significant breakthroughs in science and technology. The most common forms of education even cauterize the invention of the wheel, fire, etc... as important benchmarks in the timeline of mankind.

This is evident in the social responses of many inhabitants who dwell upon the Earth.

Ever heard of the firmament?

DEFINITION(S)
Firmament
n. ferm'ament. L. firmamentum, from firmus, firmo.

The region of the air; the sky or heavens. In scripture, the word denotes an expanse, a wide extent; for such is the signification of the Hebrew word, coinciding with regio, region, and reach. The original therefore does not convey the sense of solidity, but of stretching, extension; the great arch or expanse over our heads, in which are placed the atmosphere and the clouds, and in which the stars appear to be placed, and are really seen.

END DEFINITION(S)

The rockets that you make mention of. There is a popular phrase coined, "The Eagle Has Landed". Why the "eagle"? Why not America? What does the eagle represent? Could it represent the fungus that seeks to inconveniently take up residence in the body of the scientist? Now if the biological life form's existence within the good scientist’s body causes the organism to develop intelligence and enhance sentient capacities capable of transcending any prior biological credence, while still retaining its inherent digenetic roots, certainly these be they who seek to remove the confines of their mortality and don immortality. Why else would the fungus cleave to the scientist?

keyqueen wrote:
Quote:
Does this in any way change the scientist right to remove the organism for his person?


Touching the things that you have asked, it is evident that the mystery of iniquity is already at work. As for the tokens of removal, consider how great the seed of infection is being wrought forth by the fungus. For the fungus was not sown in corruption, but the infection is evident in its corruption. So also is the biological life form's existence within the good scientists body. It is sown in corruption and raised in incorruption.

With man not all things are possible until God be formed in you. The knowledge of he whose dwelling is not presently with man, in whom all wisdom and righteousness is fulfilled.

KEYNOTE: It tells you right there on your money in who you should trust.
https://i.imgur.com/lBM9XHE.png

SOURCE: uscurrency.gov
https://www.uscurrency.gov/denominations/100
Mad Poster
#12 Old 21st Nov 2018 at 1:59 AM
"The Eagle has landed" has one, perhaps two very simple meanings. The simplest explanation is that the lunar landing module was named "Eagle". Possibly named after the eagle symbol America uses.

As for the 3 heaven divisions - Until I see evidence of a third "heaven" outside the universe, I don't buy into that. I understand that you believe in it, and that's up to you.

I honestly don't think a new lifeform would have any knowledge of what is and isn't corruption. It would most likely just be interested in surviving, and while the scientist may have other thoughts or motives, I think he too would first and foremost be interested in surviving as well. I also don't think that any lifeform that has just come into being is in any way corrupt. Evolution and natural selection is a much better explanation, in that species will do what they can to survive - if they don't adjust to changes in the environment, they'll die. If they adapt, they'll live. Nothing in nature is ultimately corrupt, but may seem so from the standpoint of someone who doesn't understand how nature, evolution and natural selection works. Even plants can over time develop poison to deter animals from eating it, even though plants don't even have brains (in the sense that we think of a brain). And over time there'll usually be that one insect or animal species that over time develops some way to be able to eat that plant. Neither the plant nor the insect is corrupt. They just do what they need to survive. A lion is not corrupt when it hunts down a gazelle. It's just hungry. It instinctly knows that if it can't capture that gazelle, it goes hungry another day, and if that continues, it'll eventually die. The gazelle doesn't want to be eaten, so it does what it can to get away from the lion, because if the lion gets it, it'll die. Nature is mostly a horrifying place to live. Ultimately, life is about survival and carrying on genes to the next generation. Only we humans have high enough thoughts about ourself to think we've found a deeper meaning in life (and for some reason, some people insist this meaning includes an even higher being or beings of some sort).

Lab Assistant
#13 Old 21st Nov 2018 at 2:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
"I honestly don't think a new lifeform would have any knowledge of what is and isn't corruption."


Foremost, that all depends on what you classify as a new lifeform.
Mad Poster
#14 Old 21st Nov 2018 at 2:27 AM Last edited by simmer22 : 21st Nov 2018 at 11:33 AM.
It depends. It could be classified as a completely new species not previously seen or studied by humans (because if it's not previously seen or studied, we can't know if it existed prior to discovery), but one that still has ties to existing species via its "cousins" lower down or higher up on the "family tree". Maybe DNA mutations that divert from its closest relative in such a way that you could no longer clearly say this species is X or Z, but is something in between (I'll let Donald Prothero do that explanation, here), or a species with ties to fossile records of extinct species but previously not observed, or any of the sort. You know - something not previously seen, possibly new, possibly with the properties of two distinct known species.

It could also be a new specimen within a certain group of known species, like a never before seen type of fungus, but still clearly having the properties of a fungus.

It could also be classified as a lifeform completely new to the human species, without any links to previous species. For instance a silicon-based lifeform (which scientists think may be one out of a few other options to carbon-based lifeforms on other planets, because like carbon, silicon atoms have certain properties that lets them bind with other elements in such a way that they could hypothetically form structures that could be building blocks for lifeforms on other planets under the right circumstances. Carbon-based lifeforms (like on Earth) is still more likely, because silicone has certain drawbacks that carbon doesn't have).

(There are probably other and better ways to classify new lifeforms - but I'm not a biologist or zoologist, so I'm not going to pretend I know a lot more than I've read/watched purely for enjoyment in my spare time).
Lab Assistant
#15 Old 21st Nov 2018 at 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
It depends. It could be classified as a completely new species not previously seen or studied by humans (because if it's not previously seen or studied, we can't know if it existed prior to discovery), but one that still has ties to existing species via its "cousins" lower down or higher up on the "family tree". Maybe DNA mutations that divert from its closest relative in such a way that you could no longer clearly say this species is X or Z, but is something in between (I'll let Donald Prothero do that explanation, here), or a species with ties to fossile records of extinct species but previously not observed, or any of the sort. You know - something not previously seen, possibly new, possibly with the properties of two distinct known species.

It could also be a new specimen within a certain group of known species, like a never before seen type of fungus, but still clearly having the properties of a fungus.

It could also be classified as a lifeform completely new to the human species, without any links to previous species. For instance a silicon-based lifeform (which scientists think may be one out of a few other options to carbon-based lifeforms on other planets, because like carbon, silicon atoms have certain properties that lets them bind with other elements in such a way that they could hypothetically form structures that could be building blocks for lifeforms on other planets under the right circumstances. Carbon-based lifeforms (like on Earth) is still more likely, because silicone has certain drawbacks that carbon doesn't have).

(There are probably other and better ways to classify new lifeforms - but I'm not a biologist or zoologist, so I'm not going to pretend I know a lot more than I've read/watched purely for enjoyment in my spare time).

Have you considered this as a classification of a new lifeform.

A lifeform that undertakes a new physiological routine (not necessarily unseen or studied) in contrast to it's previous predictive motions of biological fundaments.
Mad Poster
#16 Old 21st Nov 2018 at 1:16 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 21st Nov 2018 at 1:59 PM.
(Keep in mind that my definitions above are not proper scientific definitions, but rather paraphrased and/or loosely based from memory - for the proper definitions you'd have to consult zoology or biology sources, or simply start googling it).

Depends what you mean by "new physiological routine". In some cases I think that would go somewhere in either the first or second category. If it was a new type of behavior for that particular species, it could still be caused by influence from the environment or from humans. You have any examples?

If you watch the video about animal evolution I linked to above, you can see or instance how some types of land-dwelling animals found the way back to the sea through evolution, and that's where whales come from. Over time and through transitional forms, their legs gradually disappeared, and they went from walking on four legs to swimming in the ocean. If you mean that kind of "new physiological routine", then I'd think yes, that would be a new (or several new) species. For large animals this isn't really something we see happening naturally, because it usually takes a lot of time. But you see one version happening in things like dog breeding, where you start with two types of dogs with different looks and properties, and end up with a mix of both dogs. They're still dogs, though (and would probably go under the second definition). It's not like they're a completely different species. More like a variant within that species.

One definition of species (animal related, but I think it can also be applied to plants and natural pollination) is that if two individuals are able to have healthy offspring, and that offspring can get healhy offspring of its own, then they belong within the same species. If they're not able to have offspring, they're not the same species. If they're able to have offspring, but that offspring can't have offspring of its own, then they may be different species but related enough so that their genes can mix, just not comatible with later offspring. (I'm paraphrasing after memory here, but if you're interested it's easy to look up). For instance, if you paired a dog and a cat, they wouldn't be able to have offspring, because their genetics are incompatible. If you pair a horse and a donkey you get a mule, and most mules can't have offspring with other mules. If you paired two variants of dogs you'd get a mix between those dogs - but that mixed variant would have compatible genetics and could easily have offspring with another exact mix of those previous breeds (or another dog of another variant).

The thing is that this new, relatively complicated lifeform couldn't just have appeared out of thin air complete with the properties it showed. It would have had to come from somewhere (through evolution), and couldn't just poof!Appear! out of nowhere (also known as a miracle).
Lab Assistant
#17 Old 21st Nov 2018 at 1:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
Depends what you mean by "new physiological routine". I think that would go somewhere in either the first or second category. If it was a new type of behavior for that particular species, it could still be caused by influence from the environment or from humans. You have any examples?

Not necessarily requiring the imbuing of any physical change to alter the fungus's biological makeup, but behavioral changes in the circadian rhythms of its regular habitual routines. For example, life on a day-to-day basis.
Mad Poster
#18 Old 21st Nov 2018 at 1:50 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 21st Nov 2018 at 2:17 PM.
That wouldn't be a new species. I'd assume those day-to-day changes would be a cause-and-effect happenstance, where something in its environment causes the lifeform to change its rhythm or habits out of neccessity. You see this happen often, both in nature and with pets. For instance, it's not natural for a horse to have something sitting on its back - this is a learned behavior. A wild horse in a natural elements would think the creature sitting on top of it was a predator out to get it, and would try throwing it off.

A new species would have a change to its biological makeup and some kind of physical change. Usually there would be some difference in DNA from its predecessors, mutations that in some or another way would be beneficial to the new species in such a way that it was transferrable to the next generation.

By the way, copy/pasta dictionary definition of species from Dictionary.com:
Quote:
Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.

Horticulture. pertaining to a plant that is a representative member of a species, one that is not a hybrid or variety.


And a more in-depth (easy to find) explanation at Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species (which I haven't bothered reading before writing any of this, so if there's contradictory information, it's most likely not the fault of the article, but rather my slightly cloudy memory of other articles, videos and textbooks)

(Btw, I find Wiki a nice place to figure out things quick, as long as you're not writing a scientific text of some sort - because if the article lists resources, it's possible to find out whether the information is reliable or not, and if it's new or outdated information).
Lab Assistant
#19 Old 21st Nov 2018 at 4:20 PM Last edited by thril1 : 21st Nov 2018 at 5:00 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
That wouldn't be a new species. I'd assume those day-to-day changes would be a cause-and-effect happenstance, where something in its environment causes the lifeform to change its rhythm or habits out of neccessity. You see this happen often, both in nature and with pets. For instance, it's not natural for a horse to have something sitting on its back - this is a learned behavior. A wild horse in a natural elements would think the creature sitting on top of it was a predator out to get it, and would try throwing it off.

A new species would have a change to its biological makeup and some kind of physical change. Usually there would be some difference in DNA from its predecessors, mutations that in some or another way would be beneficial to the new species in such a way that it was transferrable to the next generation.

By the way, copy/pasta dictionary definition of species from Dictionary.com:


And a more in-depth (easy to find) explanation at Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species (which I haven't bothered reading before writing any of this, so if there's contradictory information, it's most likely not the fault of the article, but rather my slightly cloudy memory of other articles, videos and textbooks)

(Btw, I find Wiki a nice place to figure out things quick, as long as you're not writing a scientific text of some sort - because if the article lists resources, it's possible to find out whether the information is reliable or not, and if it's new or outdated information).


New classification as in physically, the fungus will look the same. However, on a sub-divide of observation, the physiological routines that the fungus demonstrates has changed. Not conformed to the previous behavioral patterns exhibited before. Ultimately, translating the fungus into a new livelihood that renders extinct its previous biological standard of living, making all things new.

For what it is worth, when a scientist conducts an experiment, typically the specimen is divided into a debasement of cellular classifications from which a series of routine processes are executed to draw valid conclusions established by the general observances of fungal biorhythms. In short, the cyclic patterns of change that occur in the physiological activity of a fungus.

As it pertains to multicellular organisms that feed on organic matter, when there is a change in the physiological behavioral patterns of such specimen, new conclusions are typically drawn. Fungus usually perpetuate a definitive lifespan received of the saprophytic existence they are commonly associated with. Parasitic by nature, the specimen can be divided into new categories of classification equivalent to the diversification exhibited by their fungal genomics. Not necessarily requiring any corporeal change to occur in the fungus's biological makeup, but the common behavioral patterns evident through its daily physiological routines.

KEYNOTE: Seriously, it tells you right there on your money in who you should trust.
https://i.imgur.com/P6t608L.png


SOURCE: uscurrency.gov
https://www.uscurrency.gov/denominations/100
Mad Poster
#20 Old 21st Nov 2018 at 4:59 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 23rd Nov 2018 at 12:00 PM.
I guess we can discuss the variants of organisms, lifeforms, species, etc. until our faces turn blue. Let's just for argument's sake say it's some kind of new variant of a lifeform/species/organism, whatever it would be classified as (like I said above, I'm neither a biologist nor a zoologist, so I'm not tuned into the spesific details of how to classify various species or organisms, and I'd say the spesific and in-depth details of the classification systems may not be too relevant for the main thought experiment).

Lab Assistant
#21 Old 21st Nov 2018 at 5:02 PM Last edited by thril1 : 21st Nov 2018 at 5:39 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
I guess we can discuss the variants of organisms, lifeforms, species, etc. until our faces turn blue. Let's just for argument's sake say it's some kind of new variant of a lifeform/species/organism, whatever it would be classified as (like I said above, I'm neither a biologist nor a zoologist, so I'm not tuned into the spesific details of how to classify various species or organisms, and I'd say the spesific and in-depth details of the classification systems may not be too relevant for the main thought experiment).



That's not my money (because I'm not American), so since it says "in god we teust" and not "everybody should trust in god", I'd say that particular argument ends right there. Besides, money is a human invention, and so is that statement. My money does not have such a statement (because where I live we're generally not so religiously tuned as Americans that we put obviously religious messages on our money).

It's basically like pointing to the bible and say "you should believe everything in this book because the book says you should believe everything written in it. It's a cicular argument that goes nowhere.

You are not American.
What nation do your people come from?
Mad Poster
#22 Old 21st Nov 2018 at 6:08 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 22nd Nov 2018 at 1:28 AM.
I generally don't like to give my location (be it just the country) on forums, but I'm from an European country, and we generally do have a much more relaxed relationship to religion and biblical influence here (not saying it doesn't exist, because it does, but it's overall more relaxed).



Lab Assistant
#23 Old 22nd Nov 2018 at 9:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
I generally don't like to give my location (be it just the country) on forums, but I'm from an European country, and we generally do have a much more relaxed relationship to religion and biblical influence here (not saying it doesn't exist, because it does, but overall more relaxed.

Understood.
I was born in the Americas, but that is not the homeland of my people's origin. By citizenship was I born free in the land of America according to birthright.

There is something to note about the inhabitants of America though. You would need to possess some degree of knowledge about the events that have transpired upon the Earth in the process of time. According to history, Americans and Europeans, Caucasians in particular, descend from a feudal bloodline that can be traced back to the Bible's historical records. Records that are documented in museums, libraries, government institutions, educational facilities, being kept as artifacts and family heirlooms. Fascinating if you ask me. Howbeit, majority of the people upon the face of the Earth are unaware of their true identity.

Let's say that God is the scientist in this thought experiment. Have you ever heard it told that scientist are always trying to play god? Let's say that man symbolically represents the fungus in this thought experiment. The common man follows a way of life that is not disciplined in the same knowledge and wisdom of a scientist. In fact, the scientist usually resides in a domain that is partitioned off from the existing environment than man inhabits. Man will utilize the crumbs of knowledge that fall from the scientist's table.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
The Eagle has landed" has one, perhaps two very simple meanings. The simplest explanation is that the lunar landing module was named "Eagle". Possibly named after the eagle symbol America uses.

The Eagle has been wrought significantly throughout the course of history in the symbolism of the nations of men. Just as you stated, America's symbol is the eagle. It is not a coincidence why that name was chosen to represent America.
Here is a short list of American symbols that associate American identity with the eagle.

1. The top of the American flag pole.
2. On the back of the quarter.
3. On the back of the $1 bill.
4. The United States Postal Service symbol.
5. The side of the US Postal Service mail truck.
6. The Great Seal of the United States.
7. Seal of the President of the United States.
8. Seal of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
9. Seal of the United States Department of Homeland Security.
10. Seal of the United States Department of Defense.
11. Seal of the United States Navy or US Department of the Navy.
12. Seal of the US Military Armed Forces.

This is just the use of the symbol of the eagle in some of the governing institutions found in the America society. What other nations used the symbol of the eagle? Are there any European nations that have used the symbol of the eagle to identify with their people?
What about the Romans? Did they use the eagle as a symbol to identify with their people? You bet. Look at their heraldry, shields, flags, banners, and on the back of their coins.
What about the Greeks? Yes, they did. They used the eagle on the back of their coins and as symbolism in their military forces as well.
Spain? Yes! Even the Spanish Empire used the symbol of the eagle to represent their people. Just check out their flags and Heraldic symbols.
Same with the Byzantine Empire, German Empire, Italians, French, Greeks, and more. All of these nations have roots that trace back to the records that have been recorded in the Bible identifying who they are.

People tend to ignore the Bible when the pastors fraudulently represent the church. Therefore, the examples of righteousness exhibited by the pastors is counted as dung.

Let's say that the Eagle represents the multicellular organisms that feed on organic matter. It is was the scientist who defined the species of fungus, and not vice-versa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
Christianity is the main religion,

Some key insight on the religion of Christianity flooding the world today.
The religion of Christianity that exists today was taught by the precepts of man who westernized the Gospel of Christ to illegitimately fuse ritualistic pagan customs with that of the true followers of Christ. Historical records document Constantine the Great as the first Roman Emperor to successfully implement Christianity as a religion among the people in 325 AD. A religion of considerable difference from that which is practiced by Jesus Christ, the apostles, and his disciples. This westernized style of Christianity was spread throughout the world by the notoriously famous Roman Catholic Church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
Like I said above, I'm Christian by tradition (celebrating a vaguely Christian Christmas, getting christened at birth, going to Sunday school, confirmation in the teen years, church funerals, weddings and christenings, etc. - mostly because my family still buys into all of it, and it goes under the whole "traditions we observe in this family" thing), but I'm not, and I don't think I really ever was Christian by faith. I just didn't fully realize it until I was in my early-to-mid 20s. Even at sunday school I was secretly like "Do they honestly expect me to believe these fairytales to be true?" and singing most of the "we love Jesus" songs felt entirely wrong to me all the way from around 7-8 years old (there were a few I did like, but for other reasons). It mostly felt like like trying to fit together two pieces from two vastly different puzzles.

Keeping in mind that God is the scientist, and man is the fungus. The fungus cleaves to the scientist so that it may continue to live. Certain customs and traditions that Christianity endorses are not Christian at all, according to the Bible.

Consider Christmas for example. This holiday is widely celebrated by many people throughout the world. Why? Are real Christians supposed to celebrate Christmas?
A Christian is called a Christian because they follow the Bible, right? That's what it means to be a Christian, a follower of Christ. A man or woman who lives according to the Word of God. In relationship to the fungus and the scientist, the fungus is cleaving to the scientist. By cleaving to the Word of God man prolongs their life, just as the fungus is prolonging its life by cleaving to the scientist.

What does the Bible (Word of God) say about Christmas?

Jeremiah 10:3 (KJV)
2 “Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.”
-
The Bible is telling those who keep the commandments of God not to learn the customs of the other nations, but to do what it says to prolong your life.
That is the reward for keeping the commandments, right? They should be teaching this in church on Sundays.

What is the definition of a nation?
NATION, n. to be born

1. A body of people inhabiting the same country, or united under the same sovereign or government; as the English nation; the French nation. It often happens that many nations are subject to one government; in which case, the word nation usually denotes a body of people speaking the same language, or a body that has formerly been under a distinct government, but has been conquered, or incorporated with a larger nation. Thus the empire of Russia comprehends many nations, as did formerly the Roman and Persian empires. Nation, as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe, but by emigration, conquest and intermixture of men of different families, this distinction is in most countries lost.

Jeremiah 10:3 (KJV)
3 “For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.”
-
The Word of God is telling you that the customs of the people who do not keep the commandments of God are empty.
By tradition, a man goes into the forest to chop down a tree with an axe.

Jeremiah 10:4 (KJV)
4 “They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.”
-
They take the tree that they cut down out of the forest and decorate it with silver and gold, secured by a platform so that the tree does not move of fall over.

Today, what holiday do you see where people all over the world will go out every year and pick out a tree to decorate as a yearly tradition? Is that not your Christmas Tree?
This is talking about Christmas, right? Today, the holiday where men traditionally decorate a tree year after year in the winter time is known as Christmas.
Openly before God, man vainly walks after the traditions of their own imagination, despising the commandments of God, running headstrong towards death. Just as the fungus inconveniently cleaves to the scientist in order to sustain it's life. Instead of abiding peacefully with the scientist, it presents itself as an inconvenience by acting in opposition to the will of the scientist. If God is the scientist and man is the fungus, why is man trying to prolong their life by cleaving to God, while still resisting the commandments of God?

The Word of God clearly states not to follow after the customs of the other nations, however men come in the name of Christ teaching men to keep their traditions while ignorantly failing to hearken unto the Word of God. Hopefully, I have refined my speech to words that are easily understood.

But wait! Where does Christmas come from? Wasn't it created to celebrate the birth of Christ? That is what man teaches in the churches on Sunday at the pulpit right?
Was it always called Christmas?

Historical records reveal that Jesus Christ was born in the spring time and died in the spring time around the time that the Jews were to celebrate the Passover. The Word of God bears record of this too. The spring is marked as the beginning of the year when life springs forth. Not in January during the dead of the winter. So if Christ was born in the time period between March and April, why celebrate his birth in December? Nimrod, The ancient ruler of Babylon is the birthday who man is actually celebrating. Yup you guessed it. Another pagan holiday that is going to anger the most high God and get man killed.

Nimrod's birthday was on December 25th. His mother would bring a tree each year on his birthday and decorate it with silver and gold by tradition. After the death of Nimrod, it was certain that the men of Edom had set their hearts to become a greater nation than ancient Babylon. Over the process of time, began mimicking their customs and following sun worship, officially establishing Nimrod as the sun god of their pagan nation. Sunday was actually known as the first day of the week. At the time of Constantine's rule, the Roman Empire decreed On March 7, 321, that Sunday would be the new day of rest. The day of sun worship. The Bible is not just a fairy tale as many people would like to believe. It is the actual history book of prophecy that shows you the past, present, and future.

Napoleon himself made this statement:
"The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature, with a power that conquers all that oppose it."

Additional Quotes made by Napoleon:
"The nature of Christ’s existence is mysterious, I admit; but this mystery meets the wants of man. Reject it and the world is an explicable riddle; believe it, and the history of our race is satisfactorily explained."

"I know men; and I tell you that Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between Him and every person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded His empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men would die for him."

"I marvel that whereas the ambitious dreams of my self, Caesar, and Alexander should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant—Jesus—should be able to stretch His hands across the centuries and control the destinies of men and nations."

"I see in Lycurgus, Numa and Mohammed only legislators who, having the first rank in the state, have sought the best solution of the social problem but I see nothing there which reveals divinity...nothing announces them divine. On the contrary, there are numerous resemblances between them & myself, foibles and errors which ally them to me and to humanity.
It is not so with Christ. Everything in Him astonishes me. His spirit overawes me, and His will confounds me. Beside Him and whoever else in the world, there is no possible term of comparison. He is truly a being by Himself. His ideals and His sentiments, the truths which He announces, His manner of convincing, are not explained either by human organization or by the nature of things.
His birth and the history of His life; the profundity of His doctrine, which grapples the mightiest difficulties, and which is, of those difficulties, the most admirable solution; His Gospel, His apparition, His empire, His march across the ages and the realms, is for me a prodigy, a mystery insoluble, which plunges me into a reverence which I cannot escape, a mystery which is there before my eyes, mystery which I cannot deny or explain. Here I see nothing human. The nearer I approach, the more carefully I examine, everything is above me, everything remains grand—and of a grandeur which overpowers.
His religion is a revelation from an intelligence which certainly is not a man. There is a profound originality, which has created a series of maxims before unknown. Jesus borrowed nothing from our sciences. One can absolutely find nowhere, but in Him alone, the imitation or the example of His life."

There are historical records documented in the Bible and in public domains with events that line up with the Bible. The judgments proclaimed by God stir men of a guilty conscience to rebel, because it's prophecies indicate a bad outcome for the men who refuse to hearken unto the Word of God. The elite use the knowledge and wisdom of God as a foundation for their governments. Yet men walk the Earth openly professing to reject the Bible. Unaware that such trending behavior is taught to them by their predecessors, just as language is first learned and then spoken. These are the sheep counted for the slaughter all the day long. Used as a resource necessary to sustain the vitality of the image that the beast gave life to.

If God is the scientist in this thought experiment and he has given man who is the fungus a way to prolong their life by cleaving to him in his knowledge and wisdom, which is the doctrine of Life. Why does the majority of man continue to rebel openly against the Word of God, if this is the only reason why man keeps dying? The fungus must change and renew itself functionally if is to cleave to life. It must harmonize with the life-stream of the scientist.

You stated that you feel you have never been a Christian by faith. This is accurate considering you do not know the secrets of the word revealed in the Bible. To be a Christian by faith means that you believe in the Word of God, and hope to receive the rewards obtained by bringing forth works meet for repentance. Giving glory unto God always for the wisdom, knowledge, and understanding that he gives, and teaching your fellow man good doctrine. Now is high time to wake up out of sleep the more you see the Day of the LORD approaching. No matter what nation you are from, God will accept your works if you do well, for it is written. Salvation will not be the same for all nations. But, the fungus can sustain it's life by cleaving to the scientist. As man can sustain it's life by cleaving to God. Cleave unto knowledge. Cleave unto life. Sustain your livelihood and prolong your life. Why should you be stricken any more?

The truth in the Bible is meant for all men, according to the grace of God. His grace is sufficient. And his strength is made perfect in weakness. If the fungus had knowledge enough to abide on it's own apart from the scientist, why cleave unto him? It is not possible. God is the higher power. Man can only describe and manipulate the elements of his works. That is why you see theories about Big Bang and Evolution. So much knowledge to interpret, but the truth will cause much insurrection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
"If the fungus hadn't yet developed sentience, but potentially could do so, maybe getting rid of it before it knew what was happening might be the best option. I think the thought experiment is sort of boarding on the discussion of whether or not abortion is right or wrong."

The scientist would not want to give the fungus power over him. Life could not be sustained by an inferior state of development that would jeopardizing life through the persistence of it's infection. God is a higher power. Do you understand where this is leading? There will always be powers in this existence which will ensure the survival of life. Whether we can see them or not. Those power exist to ensure that eternity remains eternal. Else all would suffer and be destroyed. In addition, it would be wise to develop the fungus and enhance it's physical capacities to function in the body of the scientist. Man needs this growth and development. That is why Christ was sent in the flesh. Literally, Pontus Pilate was a Roman governor who testifies of the events of Christ and man still refuses to believe. The works written in the Bible document these historical records. Do you think it strange that evil men adorn the house of God taking person's money through tithes and free will offerings? When tithes were originally crops, cattle, oil, and wine offered at the temple?

John 2:13 (KJV)
13 “And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem,”
14 “And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:”
15 “And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;”
16 “And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.”
17 “And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.”

You bet! While Christ walked the Earth man was still acting like a wild ass used to the wilderness, snuffing up the wind at his pleasure. This anger Christ to see this. So what do you think he is going to do when he returns? As the scripture has said, he came as a lamb but he is coming back as a lion. The people who believe not the works of God from the beginning, the Words of Moses, or the prophets who are sent before them this day will be as the gazelle in that day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
"A lion is not corrupt when it hunts down a gazelle."

If you only knew.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
I admit I still have a weak spot for angels as a symbolic thing, but not for biblical reasons, and I don't actually believe in them."

Brother, You are the angel. There be different angels created for different reasons. Some made to be holy, others made ministers of good tidings, certain to give praise unto the most High, and certain fitted for the wrath of destruction.

Matthew 25:33-34 (KJV)
33 “And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.”
34 “Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:”

Matthew 25:41 (KJV)
“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:”

If the fungus would slowly incorporate the embodiment of change necessary to adapt to the devise of the scientist, the alleviation of virulent factors presenting an inconvenience would vanish and place for the fungus would be welcomed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by simmer22
" I also love science, and since atheism and science go so well together, I think the switch was pretty much a natural progression for me, and it came quite easily. "

As you have very well stated. Are you aware that the intelligence of God far supersedes that of man? This is the reason why the inhabitants upon the Earth conspire and thwart each other. Gadding about like mad men, sparing none. As a whore envies a right-honest and virtuous woman, so are the sons of men ashamed before their accuser, who think themselves to be in good case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Napoléon Bonaparte
"His religion is a revelation from an intelligence which certainly is not a man. There is a profound originality, which has created a series of maxims before unknown. Jesus borrowed nothing from our sciences. One can absolutely find nowhere, but in Him alone, the imitation or the example of His life."

Napoleon is a European. Even he understood that the Will of God is imparted unto man. Any man who does the Will of God needs not to follow after the practices of science established by man in order to obtain knowledge. Instead, it is man who studies the creations of God to obtain knowledge. Napoleon even goes on to further state it is evident that Christ is the Word of God. His life is like no other man, and the example that he left behind is evident in his legacy that we bare witness to this day.

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

It is God who made man, and put his heart in the midst of the body, and gave him breath, life, and understanding. How shall it not be God who takes care of man as He takes care of all things, opening the windows of heaven to pour out a blessing? Is it not so even with the fungus, to whom the scientist has by choice prepared a place for?
Mad Poster
#24 Old 22nd Nov 2018 at 1:56 PM Last edited by simmer22 : 23rd Nov 2018 at 11:58 AM.


So. Just for the sake of doing a proper scientific experiment - what if we cut god out of the equation? What if we pretend (well, I don't need to pretend, but you probably do) that this is a purely human, no religion of any kind, accident that happened in a laboratory - a lifeform of some sort that starts to grow on a scientist (who happens to never have heard of a god). What would the scientist, and other scientists (who also hadn't heard of a god) do with the situation? What would be possible moral and/or ethical solutions to the problem (without any religion thrown in)? Or maybe let this happen on a planet in a different solar system, where their society and science has come as far as we've done without influence of any religion we know of, perhaps without any religion.
Lab Assistant
DELETED POST
22nd Nov 2018 at 3:15 PM
This message has been deleted by thril1.
Lab Assistant
#25 Old 22nd Nov 2018 at 3:18 PM
Matthew 10:14 (KJV)
“And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.”
Page 1 of 2
Back to top