Since you said any organism pass conception is a person, then if I killed a mouse for example, I should be hit up with murder since murder is the killing of a person.
Since you said any organism pass conception is a person, then if I killed a mouse for example, I should be hit up with murder since murder is the killing of a person.
Well slight correction: Some animals are actually bisexual, some can change *** spontaneously and some do asexual reproduction so the idea is not so universal . . . . . . Also I think your mixing up 'life' with 'person' here . . . .
Well slight correction: Some animals are actually bisexual, some can change *** spontaneously and some do asexual reproduction . . . . . . Also I think your mixing up 'life' with 'person' . . . .
Okay, my fault... I'll use different words.
However, now I'm going to be folks- especially since I'm going to need an early start tomorrow. Not abandoning, just putting MY part on pause
So being a person is just being genetically human? If you think so, answer these questions
1. When alien life is found to exist, under what circumstances would they be counted as persons? Do we have to consider any "willing and communicative (capable to register its own will) autonomous body" in the universe, no matter the species, an individual (a person)?
2. If artificial intelligences, intelligent and self-aware system of hardware and software, are eventually created, what criteria would be used to determine their personhood? Likewise, at what point might human-created biological life be considered to have achieved personhood?
3. How much of a human can be replaced by artificial parts before personhood is lost, if ever? If having a mind is the reason most humans can be considered persons, then if the mind and all its thought patterns, memories and other attributes could also in future be transposed faithfully into some form of artificial device (for example to avoid illness such as brain cancer) would the patient still be considered a person after the operation even though this entity is no longer the member of the species homo sapien?
So far, you presented no philosophical case for what constiutes a person. You never explained your position and took a simpleistic position with no internal coherency to it.
This is why personhood changes from being biologically human to this question, What capabilities/attributes a being needs to have to be considered a person?
Last question, do you know what a subject to a life is? If you don't, I will tell you.
So being a person is just being genetically human? If you think so, answer these questions
1. When alien life is found to exist, under what circumstances would they be counted as persons? Do we have to consider any "willing and communicative (capable to register its own will) autonomous body" in the universe, no matter the species, an individual (a person)?
2. If artificial intelligences, intelligent and self-aware system of hardware and software, are eventually created, what criteria would be used to determine their personhood? Likewise, at what point might human-created biological life be considered to have achieved personhood?
3. How much of a human can be replaced by artificial parts before personhood is lost, if ever? If having a mind is the reason most humans can be considered persons, then if the mind and all its thought patterns, memories and other attributes could also in future be transposed faithfully into some form of artificial device (for example to avoid illness such as brain cancer) would the patient still be considered a person after the operation even though this entity is no longer the member of the species homo sapien?
So far, you presented no philosophical case for what constiutes a person. You never explained your position and took a simpleistic position with no internal coherency to it.
This is why personhood changes from being biologically human to this question, What capabilities/attributes a being needs to have to be considered a person?
Last question, do you know what a subject to a life is? If you don't, I will tell you.
1. Alien life will not be found. There's no evidence to uphold this. In fact, there's evidence contrary to it. And, as a Christian, I know that only the Earth is inhabitable. The only other life in existence isn't found within the physical realm, and would constitute of angels and the Godhead Itself. This discussion is not about aliens, but any being with the ability to rationalize, think, and is above instinct and survival, such as animals, is considered a "being" in my books. But, alien life will never be found anyway, so this is irrelevant. For proofs on this, we can discuss another time, or over PM/VM/etc. But until then, this point can be disregarded.
2. Such is not possible, because of something known as the mind. Not the brain, not the cerebrum, but the mind. The mind is something unique to human-kind, and something that can not be created. We can create an artificial, gimmick, mock-of-a brain, but the mind is of a different sort of creation, and cannot be replicated. It's not a material part of the brain.
3. If the entire person was artificial, but the mind intact, then that is a person. What a person is is not tied to how physically close they are to an ideal homo sapien, but rather their mind.
------------
I don't understand the great controversy over what a person is...
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
Those are people. Anything that is that is a human, no matter in what stage of development. So I suppose, by your standards, any being with the mind of a homo sapien is a person.
As for that last ?, I don't understand what you're asking, so go ahead .-.
1. Alien life will not be found. There's no evidence to uphold this. In fact, there's evidence contrary to it. And, as a Christian, I know that only the Earth is inhabitable. The only other life in existence isn't found within the physical realm, and would constitute of angels and the Godhead Itself. This discussion is not about aliens, but any being with the ability to rationalize, think, and is above instinct and survival, such as animals, is considered a "being" in my books. But, alien life will never be found anyway, so this is irrelevant. For proofs on this, we can discuss another time, or over PM/VM/etc. But until then, this point can be disregarded.
2. Such is not possible, because of something known as the mind. Not the brain, not the cerebrum, but the mind. The mind is something unique to human-kind, and something that can not be created. We can create an artificial, gimmick, mock-of-a brain, but the mind is of a different sort of creation, and cannot be replicated. It's not a material part of the brain.
3. If the entire person was artificial, but the mind intact, then that is a person. What a person is is not tied to how physically close they are to an ideal homo sapien, but rather their mind.
------------
I don't understand the great controversy over what a person is...
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see images
Those are people. Anything that is that is a human, no matter in what stage of development. So I suppose, by your standards, any being with the mind of a homo sapien is a person.
As for that last ?, I don't understand what you're asking, so go ahead .-.
1. Ok so where is the ''evidence''? The closest star to us is about 16.3 light-years from the Solar System we are currently living in so the claim that there is no life out there that could be like us is ignorant at best. There is no way we're the only lifeforms in the whole universe. So, a person is a being who has the ability to rationalize, think etc so the unborn don't fit it for personhood since they're not rational and don't have the ability to think. While the pictures you listed are beings who can rationalize and think thus they're considered people not because they're members of the species homo sapien. The pictures of the beings you listed are more then genetically human
2. It sure will be possible. It is a material part of the brain the cerebro cortex allows the mind to exist. Thus it is possible to replicate the mind in the future. How technology is vastly advancing at a extraordinarliy rate it will happen. The mind btw is the complex of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, learning, reasoning, and judgement.
3. Ok so having a mind is what makes a being a person. Now tell me when does the mind begin to exist in a primitive state in humans?
Here is what I mean by subject of a life. To be a person you need to be a subject to a life which the pictures of the beings you listed are subjects of a life thus I would consider them to be persons not because they're humans though
Subjects of a life have beliefs and desires, perception, memory and a sense of the future, including their own future; an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain and the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them.
The unborn are not subjects of a life so they can't be considered people which is the plural for persons. Beings who are already subjects of a life get immediate moral consideration when it comes to perserving life. This is also one reason most are worried about poverty and starvation around the world then abortion because beings who are already subjects of a life have more to lose then those who are not subjects of a life which includes the unborn.
If AIs become people or alien life is found to exist, the facade will eventually break on this. Pro-lifers like you will cling to anthropocentrism for longer than we think. But it will eventually die out. Robotic sentience, being of human origin, I think will have a deeper impact.
However there are some pro-choicers who are also anthropocentric, but simply do not view the human fetus as important as a grown human woman. But anthropocentric attitudes are more widespread and more deeply believed by pro-lifers and religious people than by other demographics like you for example.
1. Alien life will not be found. There's no evidence to uphold this. In fact, there's evidence contrary to it. And, as a Christian, I know that only the Earth is inhabitable.
This discussion is not about aliens, but any being with the ability to rationalize, think, and is above instinct and survival, such as animals, is considered a "being" in my books. But, alien life will never be found anyway, so this is irrelevant. For proofs on this, we can discuss another time, or over PM/VM/etc. But until then, this point can be disregarded.
Apes taught sign-language have shown the capacity for emotional empathy. My cat regularly attempts to bait me into playing with her (she'll run up, smack me in the face, and run off) and enjoys the classic child's game of "cops and robbers" (I chase her around until she's cornered, then she chases me until I'm cornered).
In many regards - I've met many more animals that show signs of being sentient beings than most humans.
Even when not considering "alien" life - there most certainly is life around us that bears consideration.
2. Such is not possible, because of something known as the mind. Not the brain, not the cerebrum, but the mind. The mind is something unique to human-kind, and something that can not be created. We can create an artificial, gimmick, mock-of-a brain, but the mind is of a different sort of creation, and cannot be replicated. It's not a material part of the brain.
I'm quite certain that the genetics governing the formation of proteins used in my neurons (brain) are considerably different from the majority of the population. It is one of the reasons why I am a 'human tape recorder' with excellent procedural memory that has been instrumental in my ability to learn in real-time what takes others days and weeks of drilling to retain information.
So... given the vast chasm in intellectual performance between people such as myslef and the average person... how does your concept of the mind account for this?
I can assure you - the difference between the brain of individuals like myself and the average person is the difference between a tablet and a desktop computer in physical and operating architecture.
If the mind is what makes us human... and it can be part of such fundamentally different architectures.... how can you then exclude some other architecture from also being able to inherit the mind?
3. If the entire person was artificial, but the mind intact, then that is a person. What a person is is not tied to how physically close they are to an ideal homo sapien, but rather their mind.
So... a fetus before the first trimester has a mind?
Before it has really even begun to develop its own neural tissue?
Let's be consistent.
I don't understand the great controversy over what a person is...
Those are people. Anything that is that is a human, no matter in what stage of development. So I suppose, by your standards, any being with the mind of a homo sapien is a person.
1. Ok so where is the ''evidence''? The closest star to us is about 16.3 light-years from the Solar System we are currently living in so the claim that there is no life out there that could be like us is ignorant at best. There is no way we're the only lifeforms in the whole universe. So, a person is a being who has the ability to rationalize, think etc so the unborn don't fit it for personhood since they're not rational and don't have the ability to think. While the pictures you listed are beings who can rationalize and think thus they're considered people not because they're members of the species homo sapien. The pictures of the beings you listed are more then genetically human
2. It sure will be possible. It is a material part of the brain the cerebro cortex allows the mind to exist. Thus it is possible to replicate the mind in the future. How technology is vastly advancing at a extraordinarliy rate it will happen. The mind btw is the complex of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, learning, reasoning, and judgement.
3. Ok so having a mind is what makes a being a person. Now tell me when does the mind begin to exist in a primitive state in humans?
Here is what I mean by subject of a life. To be a person you need to be a subject to a life which the pictures of the beings you listed are subjects of a life thus I would consider them to be persons not because they're humans though
Subjects of a life have beliefs and desires, perception, memory and a sense of the future, including their own future; an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain and the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them.
The unborn are not subjects of a life so they can't be considered people which is the plural for persons. Beings who are already subjects of a life get immediate moral consideration when it comes to perserving life. This is also one reason most are worried about poverty and starvation around the world then abortion because beings who are already subjects of a life have more to lose then those who are not subjects of a life which includes the unborn.
If AIs become people or alien life is found to exist, the facade will eventually break on this. Pro-lifers like you will cling to anthropocentrism for longer than we think. But it will eventually die out. Robotic sentience, being of human origin, I think will have a deeper impact.
However there are some pro-choicers who are also anthropocentric, but simply do not view the human fetus as important as a grown human woman. But anthropocentric attitudes are more widespread and more deeply believed by pro-lifers and religious people than by other demographics like you for example.
1. First, I won't be discussing the alien stuff, unless be become derailed. That's why I said we should put that argument to the side, unless it comes to that. Otherwise, "homo sapiens" are the only one's who CAN think, and a person is any being that is a homo sapien, no matter the stage of development. Also, as time goes on, albeit simple, thought processes are being shown even with the unborn. Of course, as they mature, they learn more, and, well, mature. But they are still a human being, not matter the stage of their development. Otherwise, those who are less mature wouldn't be considered humans. Yet, a 5-year-old is just as human as a 50. "Human" isn't a state of mind, it's a group of beings who can have that state of mind.
2. We know "where" the activities of personality, judgment, etc. take place, but we can not pin-point the actually way it is done, how it is done, why it is done, and why animals with that same brain lobe can't do it. All we know is ours is larger, not all the mechanics on how it functions different. I'm convinced that is because it reaches outside the physical realm.
3. The mind begins when the being is formed via egg&sperm. As time goes on, that being will develop more and more until full maturation.
4. (subject of life) But here is the difference: that fetus can BECOME subject of life. A bird/alligator/worm/etc. never can. To kill it is to deny it a chance to become just as you, and therefore is killing of your own kind, a fellow human, just early in development.
But yes, if alien life or AI got like that, then that would change everything. But I personally know for a fact that neither can be accomplished, because of the information I already know.
EDIT: I'll be back, but i have a bunch of work to do as of now. I will also reply to you Aim64C. Sorry about this guys...
1. First, I won't be discussing the alien stuff, unless be become derailed. That's why I said we should put that argument to the side, unless it comes to that. Otherwise, "homo sapiens" are the only one's who CAN think, and a person is any being that is a homo sapien, no matter the stage of development. Also, as time goes on, albeit simple, thought processes are being shown even with the unborn. Of course, as they mature, they learn more, and, well, mature. But they are still a human being, not matter the stage of their development. Otherwise, those who are less mature wouldn't be considered humans. Yet, a 5-year-old is just as human as a 50. "Human" isn't a state of mind, it's a group of beings who can have that state of mind.
2. We know "where" the activities of personality, judgment, etc. take place, but we can not pin-point the actually way it is done, how it is done, why it is done, and why animals with that same brain lobe can't do it. All we know is ours is larger, not all the mechanics on how it functions different. I'm convinced that is because it reaches outside the physical realm.
3. The mind begins when the being is formed via egg&sperm. As time goes on, that being will develop more and more until full maturation.
4. (subject of life) But here is the difference: that fetus can BECOME subject of life. A bird/alligator/worm/etc. never can. To kill it is to deny it a chance to become just as you, and therefore is killing of your own kind, a fellow human, just early in development.
But yes, if alien life or AI got like that, then that would change everything. But I personally know for a fact that neither can be accomplished, because of the information I already know.
EDIT: I'll be back, but i have a bunch of work to do as of now. I will also reply to you Aim64C. Sorry about this guys...
I don't think I'll ever be able to fully express my dislike for how you simply assume and assert things that you seem to have no knowledge about.
Homo sapiens are the only ones who can think? So Homo Erectus was, what, a drooling vegetable?
So size is what decides whether or not one can be classified as human? So elephants and whales should, per your assertion, have more 'rights' than the average human being?
Reaches outside the physical realm? How would you go about proving that? Care to tell me how you know monkeys can't see the 'spirits of the dead', as some humans claim to be able to?
The magic 'egg&sperm' is called fetilization. You should look it up in a biology textbook and then tell me that a newly-fertilized egg is capable of 'thought'. Heck, tell me that it's capable of anything besides cell-division.
And you know for a fact? There are billions of solar system out there and many more planets. You mean to tell me that Earth was the lucky number 1,000,000,000,000,000? You mean to tell me that no other planet has any chance of supporting even microorganisms?
And A.I.s? Well, they said the internet wouldn't last a decade and look at it now.
1. Otherwise, those who are less mature wouldn't be considered humans. Yet, a 5-year-old is just as human as a 50. "Human" isn't a state of mind, it's a group of beings who can have that state of mind.
3. The mind begins when the being is formed via egg&sperm. As time goes on, that being will develop more and more until full maturation.
4. (subject of life) But here is the difference: that fetus can BECOME subject of life. A bird/alligator/worm/etc. never can. To kill it is to deny it a chance to become just as you, and therefore is killing of your own kind, a fellow human, just early in development.
But yes, if alien life or AI got like that, then that would change everything. But I personally know for a fact that neither can be accomplished, because of the information I already know.
1. A 5 year old is a subject of a life and has a mind. A 50 year old is a subject of a life and has a mind. The unborn are not subjects of a life and I will answer the mind part in point 3 here.
3. Incorrect the fetus does not become truly neurologically active until the fifth month. This activity might only be a generative one, the spontaneous nerve pulses could merely be autonomous or spontaneous reflexes aimed at stimulating and developing muscle and organ tissue. Nevertheless, it is in this month that a complex cerebral cortex begins to appear and is typically complete. What is actually going on mentally at that point is unknown, but the hardware is in place for a mind to exist in at least a primitive state. So really now it's either something has a mind or not and the unborn have no trace of it until 21 weeks into pregnancy. So if both sides want to reach a consensus on this, protection should be given during the last four months of pregnancy while the women should be able to make the choice to continue or not during the first 5 months. The first 5 months of pregnancy is where 99.9% of abortions are done.
4. I don't really care if it is a human. My framework isn't around being genetically human. Beings who are already subjects of a life should be getting immediate moral consideration first. I ain't worried about beings who could become subjects of a life I am more interested in saving the lives of beings who already are subjects of a life they have more to lose then the unborn. So extreme poverty areas is where you should be at if you are soo worried about saving lives not force women to bring more humans to the planet for no apparent reason.
You know, I'd really love to read your arguments but the walls of texts repel me..
Is it that hard to sum-up your arguments? In my eyes, the more you type, the less you know what you're talking about. Straight to the point please..
