91–95 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If metaphysics were real, it'd just be called physics.
Physics is about matter. If you were only matter, you'd have no free will.
The sheer number of interactions in our environment per femtosecond is astounding. They're dynamical inputs into our brain that compound over time. It's certainly enough to approximate "free will" at our level of detection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don’t appear to be able to say anything helpful about what “model” means in this discussion. The only explicit claim you made (that they were different because they would have been implanted in a womb for a week already) was incorrect. Some would likely have been implanted for a day.
Your timeline is off, the egg can take nearly 2 weeks to implant but that requires a delay in fertilization. This 14 day timeline is specifically in reference to fertilization not the release of the egg. The discrepancy exists because people can track the day of ovulation and hormonal changes from implantation but actual fertilization has no obvious signs, unless your doing IVF or something and looking at the actual…
Here's an example of how IVF embryos are graded at day 6, prior to implantation:
https://flo.health/getting-pregnant/trouble-conceiving/ferti...
I think you missed the fact that these models start at the equivalent of day 7, so we're right in the same time window of implantation. Unless you are claiming that exactly at 6 days after fertilization is when every single embryo implants, and at 7 days it is simply too late. But your whole point seems to be that the window is hard to observe, so I doubt that's what you mean.
At any rate, I still see nothing to indicate that these "models" are not simply embryos. I think they are intentionally calling them models so that they can skirt the legal requirements about embryo research.
Unless of course you can point me to something that is actually different about one of these models vs an embryo. The whole article is about how they are the same.
"we are summoning things that cannot be easily unsummoned"
"and for no good reason besides that we can and profit"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"in vitro/ex vivo methods of reproduction only entrench human alienation" I absolutely disagree with your view. Infertility is a medical condition much like cataract or myocardial infarction. In my view, it is profoundly unethical to deny unhealthy people efficient treatment of their disease for philosophical reasons. You are straying dangerously close to the "life unworthy of life" eugenics that is, fortunately, ove…
There's a chasm between banning people from procreating and not going to extraordinary lengths to guarantee them their own biological offspring . That type of bate and switch is used for other medically and transactionally complex situations that future humans have to deal with.
In absence of a ban, you can be almost sure that someone will go to the extraordinarily lengths to develop such techniques for human use.
The hard part of children is the womb and available parents, not creating an embryo. The UK needs to finish their artificial womb work.
The truly hard part is raising them to be decent human beings. There is more to procreation than fertilization and carrying to term. While an artificial womb could be very useful as a medical device to save the life of the child, in vitro/ex vivo methods of reproduction only entrench human alienation. Support for them bespeaks an absence of a sound philosophical anthropology. And I mean not just the alienation of the…
We have ChatGPT for that.