<p>
To be in someone else’s body but still be “you,” you’d have to have your own brain. If you could exactly duplicate the vision center of their brain in yours, then yeah. But who’s to say that while they have the same color set as you, there are others that are different?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>-____________________________-</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then test out a bunch of people! :D</p>
<p>^Wrong wording</p>
<p>You’re saying: I perceive it yellow and call it so. You call it yellow but perceive it as blue. </p>
<p>What you mean to say: I perceive it as yellow and call it such. They perceive it as what I would perceive as blue but still call it yellow.</p>
<p>The eyes are hooked up to the brain, and the brain is basically an organic supercomputer. If we were able to fully understand the supercomputer, we could fully test all of it’s components - e.g., the eyes.</p>
<p>All that’s left to do is wait until we are able to fully understand the computer. It’s not impossible, just not likely to happen within our lifetimes.</p>
<p>Whoops, too late. I’m typing this up on my phone while playing Black Ops xd</p>
<p>
I fear that our intimate familiarity with physics will do us in before we can gain an intimate familiarity with neuroscience.</p>
<p>When they tested the first atomic bomb (Trinity), they had calculated they had a 1/100,000 chance that when they detonated, the world would end. Later on, they decreased that chance to zero.</p>
<p>Igniting the atmosphere and such, yeah.</p>
<p>Hmm. Here are two interesting questions: </p>
<p>Do the ends justify the means?
(try not to do a depends on… answer)</p>
<p>What are emotions?</p>
<p>Will the rational nature of supercomputers recent artificially intelligent ones from feeling irrational emotions like love and anger? Without these emotions, could something be called human?</p>
<p>
In the last 30 years, a number of Australians have been celebrating Christmas on June 25th so that they can have Christmas in winter.</p>
<p>Which spelling is correct - color or colour? </p>
<p>If beauty is only skin-deep, how can some people be described as having an inner beauty?</p>
<p>What would happen if Pinocchio said his nose was going to grow?</p>
<p>Why do people waste time on Facebook?</p>
<p>Why shouldn’t high schoolers have zippers instead of laces on their shoes - or even Velcro?</p>
<p>Why is the public education system so bad?</p>
<p>Why is Beiber a pop star?</p>
<p>Why do millions of Americans tune in to watch the SuperBowl but we have such a low voter turnout?</p>
<p>
A false choice. Each should be assessed on its own, but the one does affect the other. Example: Torture one person to save 10? Ends: Saving 10 people. Means: Torturing one person. Ends: Good. Means: Bad. The good doesn’t justify the bad. One thing is good, one is bad. It’s a judgment call as to if it’s worth it.</p>
<p>Let’s rephrase that then:</p>
<p>Is it morally right to torture one person to save ten?</p>
<p>Would it be morally right to kill said person so you could continue saving lives?</p>
<p>This is a specific scenario - whatever your answer is, come up with another scenario and your thoughts on that one as well.</p>
<p>My apologies that these are more philosophical then stupid; whenever I bring these up IRL, I never get a satisfying answer.</p>
<p>Using whose morals as a reference?</p>
<p>To someone who thinks harming another being is NEVER okay, then it would not be morally right.</p>
<p>To me, I wouldn’t think it’s “morally right”, but it’s the best way to go in that situation.</p>
<p>To someone who believes murder is okay sometimes, then perhaps in this case, to them, it’s morally right.</p>
<p>Morality is subjective. Sorry.</p>
<p>Edit: Wait no, I don’t like what this thread is turning into D:</p>
<p>if pinocchio said his nose would grow, he would be saying the truth, and then his nose wouldn’t grow. but he’d be lying </p>
<p>ahhhhh paradox!!!</p>
<p>why does everyone say pi = 22/7 when 22/7 =/= 3.14159…?</p>
<p>Sorry then. Back on topic. </p>
<p>How much would could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?</p>
<p>As far as the color thing goes, we know that we are all seeing the same reflected wavelength of light. So scientifically and physically speaking, we are seeing the same color. Now, that isn’t to say that there is some room for differences in the way our brains interpret and perceive those wavelengths, but we SEE the same color because the same wavelength of light hits our retina. </p>
<p>But what we define as blue or red or green or yellow is very subjective. This can be seen best when comparing dark blues and dark purples, in my experience. What one person calls purple, another claims is blue. There are also several optical illusions that have this effect of changing perception of color. But we physically see and process the same wavelength of light. </p>
<p>Now, I can’t answer the question about killing few to save many… Hypothetically, I think it is wrong. In practice, I would have killed Hitler myself… I’m very conflicted. (Perhaps I think it is ok to kill someone that is murderous themselves if there is no other way to end the murder? Self defense/defense of others? But its never ok to kill innocent people in the hopes of saving many others…)</p>
<p>Why would a woodchuck chuck wood if a woodchuck could chuck wood?</p>
<p>Do the means justify the ends? Well, I’m in CA right now for the Berkeley debate tournament where I will undoubtedly discuss that over the weekend :-).</p>
<p>It isn’t a question without a “it depends” answer… because there are many scenarios on both sides and LaTina brings up a valid point “whose morals” because there are many philosophers and their opinions. In my opinion… morals are VERY individual and I answer only to myself on issues of morality, as do we all, IMO.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you kill Hitler, it’s wrong (just because I believe killing people, either purposefully or accidentally, is “wrong”). But it’s the best way to go, so why not? Doing something that’s wrong because it’s the best thing you can do in a situation doesn’t make it right… it just makes it THE BEST YOU CAN DO IN THAT SITUATION.</p>