Have a fantastic new paper detailing some aspects that tie in with Penrose “new theory”.

At the “heat-death” of our Universe (the major contributing factor would be accelerated expansion), the 2nd Law is forced to equilibriate over all Universe distances, and a Phase Transition is imminent, a big-crunch/contraction is the “last-instant” of a previous Universe, and thus is also the “first-instant” of the following Universe?

What is meant by a continuum? Does this mean that there is constant change between a blastocyst and a human being? A newborn baby is a human being, right? So when does that happen? Are you saying that the blastocyst gradually grows to become a human being? What exactly is it in the middle of this process? Is it anything at all?

“Some rather ideological people tend to insist that this continuum cannot be. ”

Ideological? I would say that many people have given this issue some serious thought, without appealing to any sort of ideology or religion. Are you being “ideological” when you assert that this continuum does exist?

“A blastocsyst is no more a person than a four year old is an adult.”

But you would agree that a four year old is a human being, right? So is an adult. But these are just labels we give to human beings to describe their level of physical and mental sophistication. An adult is more developed than a baby, no doubt. But both are considered human. Perhaps a blastocyst is to a baby as a baby is to an adult. Why can’t I say that and assert that they are all human. You’ve given me no argument for blastocysts not being human.

“Those are the facts, and no amount of whining or arm chair amateur philosophy on your part will change them.”

Gee thanks. I’m not whining. Nobody’s whining. Both sides of the debate have very clear, thought-out and logical arguments. There’s lots of good thinking going on. It all depends on which are the correct premises, if such exist.

A blastocsyst is no more a person than a four year old is an adult. But there is no clear point-dividing line between the two other than that we create. Those are the facts, and no amount of whining or arm chair amateur philosophy on your part will change them. But if you insist, then I expect you’ll also have to support treating four year olds as adults with all the benefits and responsibilities therein.

— = —

You need to escape characters that are interpreted as HTML (and XML) markup by replacing them with the appropriate “character entities”:

& = &
> = >
< = &lt;

Escaping single and double quotes is also recommended, and in some contexts (HTML element attributes) essential:

" = &quot;
’ = &rsquo;
‘ = &lsquo;

Another useful character is the em-dash:

— = —

Note the use of a numeric character code. This is always an option, and some browsers will honor it but not the corresponding mnemonic.

(I hope I’m not being misled by the Wordpress preview, which shows the above as intended. More info, plus lists of standard character entities may be found here.)

I’m not sure what you mean, Thomas. What do you mean by ‘pleasant’ and ‘unpleasant’? Blastocysts and babies fall on what side? What do you mean by ‘even’ in the last sentence? Thanks.

backreaction’s blog is fantastic. thanks for sending me that way

I remember Penrose’s change of heart?

That doesn’t mean that life should be fun or pleasant or fulfilling; it does mean that what we call ‘life’ has to be able in principle to distinguish between what is pleasant and unpleasant. Blastocysts fall on one side of this, babies the other. Human life is slightly more even than that: it involves a particular form of consciousness.

Now perhaps someone will come along and ask for a definition of the exact biological moment when this first occurs - and if we can’t give a rigorously correct account of this moment we are not allowed to make any distinction at all.

But actually, all we need to do is make sure we stay sufficiently far from the edge, then the exact moment does not matter.

Let me make it very simple: it is generally socially acceptable to nudge someone in the ribs. It is not acceptable to punch someone in the stomach. But where is the exact dividing line between these two?

It doesn’t matter. Just stay sufficiently far away from it.

In any case, anyone who allows fertility clinics to operate but vetos stem cell research cannot be operating on any moral principle about saving lives. It is as cynical a political calculation as you will ever see.

Now, where are the results for the FQXI grants? They were due out five days ago.

A ‘human life’ is too vague a phrase for the significant claims. The nine months of gestation represents millions of years of human evolution and as alluded above, many conditions must be met along the way. A person using such a term is on a slippery slope to try to equate a blastocyst with a fully formed human being.

At the “heat-death” of our Universe (the major contributing factor would be accelerated expansion), the 2nd Law is forced to equilibriate over all Universe distances, and a Phase Transition is imminent, a big-crunch/contraction is the “last-instant” of a previous Universe, and thus is also the “first-instant” of the following Universe?

At least this is what Penrose appeared to be leaning towards in a interview this January?

I don’t know.

“I think there is a vast gray area here, which can be summed up in the word “potential.” As in, a blastocyst is a potential human being.”

So when does that potentiality become actualised? Also, how does this happen? What exactly happens which causes this transformation? Why is it that exactly the same stages occur at roughly the same times in each pregnancy, whether or not the pregnancy reaches full term — a human newborn baby?

Also, if it’s just potentially a human being, what is it before this potentiality is actualised?

“Not every blastocyst becomes a baby (or even a fetus), even under the best possible conditions.”

What are those?

The logic is that if you accept the premise that a blastocyst is a human life, then it is wrong to use that life as a means to an end (one which involves its destruction), and not treat it with respect, just as it is wrong to use the person on the street in the same way.

But isn’t it then also wrong to simply dispose of that life if one doesn’t need it? Apparently this happens all the time at fertility clinics. If blastocysts are human beings, they are the most innocent human beings imaginable. Why aren’t those who think that blastocyst = human protesting this merciless death sentence, this gross waste of sacred humanity?

I think there is a vast gray area here, which can be summed up in the word “potential.” As in, a blastocyst is a potential human being. Not every blastocyst becomes a baby (or even a fetus), even under the best possible conditions. While acknowledging this semantic difference doesn’t remove all the ethical difficulties involved here, I think it does help us to distinguish between the child and the fertilized clump of cells in the refrigerator. Posturing and devil’s advocacy aside, I’m pretty sure we’d all acknowledge that there is a difference between the two. One has some probability of becoming a human being; the other already is one.

End of my “real” comment:

Everyone applauded loudly after the talk which probably less than 5 percent understood. The whole affair was too “commercial” (can’t think of a better adjective). One would think the talk was by a movie or rock star. I wonder if he was embarrassed?

I’ll be really embarrassed if this does not post correctly. Looks fine in the PREVIEW window below.

Bob.