Religion III

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Theft is theft, whether the stolen item is tangible or intangible. Algorithms are products of someone's mind.

So take it up with SCOTUS.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Oh...so Antifa does all their homework before deciding who they're going to kill?

How many has Antifa killed? How many have white supremacists killed?

There seems to be damned little information available about Antifa. For all I know Antifa could be a hoax.

Hoax or not Antifa does not seem to be a threat to me.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

How many has Antifa killed? How many have white supremacists killed?

There seems to be damned little information available about Antifa. For all I know Antifa could be a hoax.

Hoax or not Antifa does not seem to be a threat to me.

For all Slo Jo knows, Antifa is just an idea.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

So take it up with SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of right and wrong. And that's what we're talking about here -- not whether a thing is legal or not. Something can be morally wrong and perfectly legal, such as abortion on demand to name but one example.

And we know that morality does not have its source in man, neither can it be legislated. How can the Golden Rule, which is the highest expression of the Law of Christ which is love, be legislated and enforced? How do you legislate the sins of the heart such as impatience, unkindness, anger, enviousness, hostility, pride, etc., etc.?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Supreme Court is not the arbiter of right and wrong. And that's what we're talking about here -- not whether a thing is legal or not. Something can be morally wrong and perfectly legal, such as abortion on demand to name but one example.

But abortion on demand is not morally wrong.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And we know that morality does not have its source in man, ...

Correct. Its source is Darwinian evolution, i.e., natural selection.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

But abortion on demand is not morally wrong.

Premeditated murder is always wrong.

Correct. Its source is Darwinian evolution, i.e., natural selection.

How did that which was innately amoral become moral? Can biologists observe morality hanging out in people's cells or genes? If not, then intangible, non-material morality is beyond the purview, scope, focus and expertise of the physical sciences.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Premeditated murder is always wrong.

A fetus which does not yet exhibit brain activity is not yet a human being, ergo terminating the pregnancy is not murder.

Originally Posted by boxcar

How did that which was innately amoral become moral? Can biologists observe morality hanging out in people's cells or genes? If not, then intangible, non-material morality is beyond the purview, scope, focus and expertise of the physical sciences.

Morality is a behavior pattern, period. Behavior patterns can be observed and are therefore within the scope of the biological sciences.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

For all Slo Jo knows, Antifa is just an idea.

I.e., a hoax!

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

A fetus which does not yet exhibit brain activity is not yet a human being, ergo terminating the pregnancy is not murder.

Says who? Who set that arbitrary rule?

Morality is a behavior pattern, period. Behavior patterns can be observed and are therefore within the scope of the biological sciences.

But human beings exhibit many different and contradictory behavior patterns. So, biologists get to determine right from wrong? Also, morality is a doctrine or system of moral conduct -- of ideals of right human conduct. So, biologists get to determine this? What qualifies biologists as experts? Other fields of science specialize in human behavior. In fact, that field is called Behavioral Science and consists of a few different disciplines.

Again, Biology is a physical science. Has nothing to do with human behavior. Biologists are not qualified to speak authoritatively on human behavior. Behavior is well beyond the scope of any physical science.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Says who? Who set that arbitrary rule?

Where would you set the boundary? Every sperm in sacred? Would you outlaw condoms? Birth control pills? Vasectomies?

Originally Posted by boxcar

But human beings exhibit many different and contradictory behavior patterns.

One of which is called war.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Also, morality is a doctrine or system of moral conduct -- of ideals of right human conduct.

Mohammed commanded his followers to conquer the world. They are still trying to.

Originally Posted by boxcar

What qualifies biologists as experts?

University degrees.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Behavior is well beyond the scope of any physical science.

Sigmund Freud disagreed. So would most psychologists and psychiatrists.

Morality is a human invention. What is or is not moral is determined by groups greater than the individual. In 2015 SCOTUS declared that same sex marriages must be recognized by all 50 states, effectively making homosexuality moral. The Hopi required that a woman give birth before being allowed to marry. Was that immoral? The Hopi did not think so. Is premarital sex immoral? Apparently about half of Americans do not think so.

If morality is not a human invention then why do morals differ so much around the world and throughout time?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

How did that which was innately amoral become moral?

Can you give an example of such an event?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Algorithms are products of someone's mind.

I refer you to Clearance and Copyright by Michael C. Donaldson.

• Facts cannot be copyrighted. The clearest example of this is history. Whitley Strieber claimed to have been abducted by aliens. He wrote a book about the experience titled Communion. A movie based on the book was produced and the producers paid Strieber nothing. He sued. The case was thrown out of court. The judge cited than in the book Strieber had stated that the events described actually happened. Strieber's attorneys countered that the story was obviously fiction. The judge rebutted that the court was not in the business of deciding what was or was not "obviously fiction." Strieber claimed it was true and that was the end of that.
• You cannot patent or copyright the obvious. This applies to the algorithm for extracting the square root of a number by the method of successive approximations. It does not matter that it is obvious only to experts or only to the brightest students. Your hypothetical computer program for beating the ponies might come under this category.
• Reverse engineering a device is definitely a no-no. However, proving a computer program was reverse engineered is probably a hard sell, particularly if the reverse engineering shows that the programmer used previously published ideas: Beyer, Scott, Quirin, etc.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Can you give an example of such an event?

That's what I'm asking you. Pay attention.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I refer you to Clearance and Copyright by Michael C. Donaldson.

• Facts cannot be copyrighted. The clearest example of this is history. Whitley Strieber claimed to have been abducted by aliens. He wrote a book about the experience titled Communion. A movie based on the book was produced and the producers paid Strieber nothing. He sued. The case was thrown out of court. The judge cited than in the book Strieber had stated that the events described actually happened. Strieber's attorneys countered that the story was obviously fiction. The judge rebutted that the court was not in the business of deciding what was or was not "obviously fiction." Strieber claimed it was true and that was the end of that.
• You cannot patent or copyright the obvious. This applies to the algorithm for extracting the square root of a number by the method of successive approximations. It does not matter that it is obvious only to experts or only to the brightest students. Your hypothetical computer program for beating the ponies might come under this category.
• Reverse engineering a device is definitely a no-no. However, proving a computer program was reverse engineered is probably a hard sell, particularly if the reverse engineering shows that the programmer used previously published ideas: Beyer, Scott, Quirin, etc.

Once again, you're conflating legality with morality.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Where would you set the boundary? Every sperm in sacred? Would you outlaw condoms? Birth control pills? Vasectomies?

One of which is called war.

Mohammed commanded his followers to conquer the world. They are still trying to.

University degrees.

Sigmund Freud disagreed. So would most psychologists and psychiatrists.

Morality is a human invention. What is or is not moral is determined by groups greater than the individual. In 2015 SCOTUS declared that same sex marriages must be recognized by all 50 states, effectively making homosexuality moral. The Hopi required that a woman give birth before being allowed to marry. Was that immoral? The Hopi did not think so. Is premarital sex immoral? Apparently about half of Americans do not think so.

If morality is not a human invention then why do morals differ so much around the world and throughout time?

Proving once again that there are many immoral laws on the books.

Regarding the last paragraph -- because human nature is corrupt.

And if morality is in the sphere of any physical science, then Shirely by now science has discovered the morality gene, right?