4 ms·

There's always the argument about "Playing God" but we do vaccinate ourselves right? I mean I think the real issue is inflicting a change to a being that will b

by vxxzy 8y ago

There's always the argument about "Playing God" but we do vaccinate ourselves right? I mean I think the real issue is inflicting a change to a being that will become "Sentient" or "Conscious". When we genetically alter that which has potential for "life", do we know, beyond a doubt, that the change we inflict will be positive for the individual AND positive for our species as a whole? If we cannot say for certain, then genetically altering sentient life (who have no choice), is not a good idea.

all2 8y ago
> There's always the argument about "Playing God" I come from a religious background and this is an argument that has ceased to have meaning to me. We can't possibly play God. We can't create something from nothing. All we can do is fiddle around with this existence we're in. Part of that happens to be genetics. What drove me to change my mind was the question "if you have the ability to treat a genetic disease, and you don't exercise that ability, are you complicit in the person's condition?"
- intralizee 8y ago
  I’m writing from a hard determinist mindset. I would argue that whatever is done in life is the will of God. Since choices are an illusion around oneself believing in free will. So basically life is predetermanism for every cause & effect. The phrase playing God just makes me think of something similar to how a bunch of game programmers have already created a simplified replication. The Sims. Who is to say the sims are any different than us. Anyway the create anything out of nothing is symbolic. I really do like your last sentence “last paragraph” and made me want to reply with mentioning this.
  - vxxzy 8y ago
    It’s interesting... I like to think that we have freedom to make decisions within the “hard bounds” of the system. I don’t think the existence of “hard bounds” indicate a system’s lack of potential for free will to exist. I do think “bounds” can limit an agents Choice, but not their ability to make a decision. Our current existence/system appears bounded in some aspects and unbounded in others. As we learn more, ideas and perception will be adjusted.
    - intralizee 8y ago
      Yah free will believers like to think they have choices/decisions in the system. The reality is no, when you become the person you are now from every preceding event making you the person you are now. I would only see the possibility of persons having responsibility or free will if they decided to live this life before birth and with beforehand knowledge of how everything would play out. The illustration of how a deterministic system is similar to clockwork with every part being moved by the whole clock is helpful. If something outside the system does something to the clock and makes the parts believe the reaction has no deterministic essence from the clock, such as quantum theory may show.. well it still doesn’t change everything being outside the control of the clock but is just hidden variables to the clock system, inobservable until it happens and would be like god deciding to alter the determanistic system slightly.

by vxxzy 8y ago

all2 8y ago

> There's always the argument about "Playing God" I come from a religious background and this is an argument that has ceased to have meaning to me. We can't possibly play God. We can't create something from nothing. All we can do is fiddle around with this existence we're in. Part of that happens to be genetics. What drove me to change my mind was the question "if you have the ability to treat a genetic disease, and you don't exercise that ability, are you complicit in the person's condition?"

intralizee 8y ago
I’m writing from a hard determinist mindset. I would argue that whatever is done in life is the will of God. Since choices are an illusion around oneself believing in free will. So basically life is predetermanism for every cause & effect. The phrase playing God just makes me think of something similar to how a bunch of game programmers have already created a simplified replication. The Sims. Who is to say the sims are any different than us. Anyway the create anything out of nothing is symbolic. I really do like your last sentence “last paragraph” and made me want to reply with mentioning this.
- vxxzy 8y ago
  It’s interesting... I like to think that we have freedom to make decisions within the “hard bounds” of the system. I don’t think the existence of “hard bounds” indicate a system’s lack of potential for free will to exist. I do think “bounds” can limit an agents Choice, but not their ability to make a decision. Our current existence/system appears bounded in some aspects and unbounded in others. As we learn more, ideas and perception will be adjusted.
  - intralizee 8y ago
    Yah free will believers like to think they have choices/decisions in the system. The reality is no, when you become the person you are now from every preceding event making you the person you are now. I would only see the possibility of persons having responsibility or free will if they decided to live this life before birth and with beforehand knowledge of how everything would play out. The illustration of how a deterministic system is similar to clockwork with every part being moved by the whole clock is helpful. If something outside the system does something to the clock and makes the parts believe the reaction has no deterministic essence from the clock, such as quantum theory may show.. well it still doesn’t change everything being outside the control of the clock but is just hidden variables to the clock system, inobservable until it happens and would be like god deciding to alter the determanistic system slightly.