I think I'll leave fictional movies about an imaginary mind-web thingy out of rational discussions, thanks. And I'm not particularly biased against viruses. I think the same thing about things such as insects, arachnids and whatever else that don't pose any particular threat to me, like, butterflies or something. It's not just "on a smaller scale", really, as they're missing things completely. I'll have to get someone else who knows more about how the brain works to back me up on this one, but if I remember my biology correctly there are something like five main parts of the brain, fish have two, and things like that. Bacteria etc. don't have anything more than a rudimentary "brain" that allows them to live and process information on a very basic level. Could you clarify on this "wireless communication" they have, incidentally? Can't say I've been made aware of that before.

Universe is a big brain. Atoms, particles are neurons and forces are information, impulses sent between them. We're thoughts of it. It's all about scale, we just don't know it.

The matrix is just as valid of a source for philosphical information as anything else.

This may be due to quatum non=locality (incdidently labled as a bug by a certain joke) but small things such as viruses are able to seemingly 'coordinate' activities in just about any environment. Meaning instead of each virus going to the closes point of attack, they will circle around what they are attacking. Much like velociraptors in Jurasic Park.

There are 3 brain layers. The Primitive, Reptilian, and Mamal.

Jellyfish however have no brain strcuture whatsoever. Most creatures in existance have no known brain structure. However your talking about sentience not brain activity levels.

A person using 90% of thier brain is not any less sentient than a person using 2% of thier brain. You also only assume other things do not have sentience, however, most people will attribute sentience to machines that exhibit certain 'life preserving' behaviros.

What are you talking about? You said murder was controlled by religion, I said it was infact shunned cross-culturally regardless of religion. Then you crap on about choice, which was on the topic of suicide and not murder. Pay attention. I don't even know what the funk you are talking about.

I said that a societies religion will dictate its views on things such as murder.

The Killing of a woman by the hands of her brother because somoene thinks she slept with someone is not considered Murder in Sudan, Saudi Arabia and other such countries.

Also, I was not responding to you.

Well, I was hoping someone smarter would field this one for me, because I have no idea what quantum nonlocality is, but okay.

Most people only use what, 15% of their brains anyway. And someone who's in total catatonia isn't using any of the more cognitive processes, just the ones that keep you alive, right? So there is a difference. And I didn't really understand your last sentence, because if I interpret that how it looks, I'll have to counter with the point that no, most people don't think life-support machines are sentient.

I think one has the right to terminate onself. One is spawned into the world and then one is meant to procur for oneself, care for oneself, and even though many other beings may contribute throughout one's life formation... By no means does that make them own you, nor you owe them. There are many reasons why people would suicide, out of disgrace, depression (a touchy subject to discuss, imo), for becoming obsolete, etc. There are all valid reasons, unfortunately, even when some reasons may seem more absurd and vain than others.

Of course, many would argue that the human experience is too precious to self-destruct, but in reality that experience can be so varied that many may believe (often times mistakenly) that there is no way out other than suicide. Is suicide an act of cowardice or just a last act built out of pure desperation? In reality, I believe that everyone has a death wish, but to some this is more developed than in others leading to the actual manifestation of said wish with the total termination of oneself.

Maybe I'm just rambling. Ignore.

From a purely biological standpoint, all human ideals aside.
Your job as an organism is to survive and reproduce, once that is done, you are free to die, thus completing the cycle of your organism-hood.
Just wanted to add that to see if we could get this going again, I'm enjoying reading this one.

I read this book called the Mind's I. Its a series of stories and essays written no later than the 80s. Two stories that relate to this are called the Beast and Beast II. In those accounts they show how people will relate to machines as if they were sentient animals.

The Grey Parrot's brain is more capably of knowing the difference between Self and Other, and being able to empathise with another being than any Mamal other than humans. Brain size clearly does not have a bearing on the functions of the brain, only on the amount of functions that brain can handle.

So far, there has not been a single task found that humans can do that some animal does not. The Only difference would be that the Smartest Human can do More of those tasks than any of the smartest animals. However, the dumbest human can often do less than the smartest of those animals.

If a human baby found itself at the endge of a high place, it will crawl right off, and fall to its death. Why does that baby not owe anything to the people who stop them from doing that? Is it perfectly moral to live your life as a Con -artist?

I've saved three lives in my lifetime. Do those people I saved owe me their lives or anything at least? No. The same applies with birth or any other fantastical example you can come up with.

Regarding suicide, suicide is regarded as a maladaptive trait. Still, what you see out there are organisms constantly competing for survival some at the very expense of their offspring/sibling. Suicide isn't much difference, personally, I agree with Rhysus' cold view or my interpretation of his view at the very least(I don't care if he were being sarcastic or not). Suicide is a good choice, weeding out of the "inferior" lifeforms by their own doing so the more apt give continuation to the species.

Morrally, I think those people do owe you something. Normally that something is a 'thank you' or an appreciation for what you did. I do believe you would be most irate if those people turned around and tried to sue you for not saving thier lives the best way you could have. (its been done before, and the person who sued won)

If suicide is the best way to weed out those who are bad for the species why heal the sick? Why get glasses or wear braces? Such activities weaken the genepool and in many ways 'fool' the genepool into thinking genes exist that don't. Infact, why not just kill everyone who does not have an IQ over 140? Sure in a few generations you'll have to change the IQ ratings, but it would be worth it.

Yeah, maybe we should slay all those that are inferior and save the gene pool . In all seriousness, sight and things like that if not faulty through a disease or impedimnt will degrade over time. But if a person is still functional, then it's not obsolete therefore capable entirely of survival. I think for humans are past the crucial factor of an impediment completely crippling one's life. Still, past the overcoming of said handicaps, if a person would want to terminate themselves they have the option to do so and a million of choices of how to accomplish their termination. BUT, even when we literally don't terminate someone thanks to their impediments, in many cases we do socially murder them. Which can lead to depression which can lead to suicide, etc.

Regarding the thank you. No, they don't owe me a thank you. They simply were the victims of bad circumstances and I was able to pull them out. Simple as that. The same thing is with birth. Your parents spawn you, big deal. It's your life, you don't owe them. Many species spawn their offspring and tend them. You can be grateful for them taking care of you, but in many other cases people are born into a nightmare. You can be grateful about your life, if you wish, and then realize that your life is 100% yours. As such you can dictate whatever you do including commiting suicide, in a method that doesn't harm others. (i.e. not exploding your house and you in it).

Society would be much more advanced if we didn't spend so much time and energy on medicine or corrective anything.

In America for example, healthcare is the number one cause for budge deficits. Most technologies that people use on a daily basis were invented for such uses as War or exploration, medicine has benefited from technologies but not inspired any.

If someone doesn't get credit for making and sustaining a life, why do they get credit for making anything else? Once your 100% independant, then maybe there is an argument, but no human is ever 100% independant.

Normally though, a single human being is 80% dispensable, completely organic and disposable. If a person wishes to terminate oneself, they have the freedom to do so and a large majority of the persons that do decide to commit suicide aren't beings others depend 100% on. Therefore, by killing themselves they don't really obstacle other's advancement at all.