What is Human?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Agathon


That sounds like a machine talking to me.

[mrmitchell]

So, by extension, we can simply kill babies and infants if they become bothersome, sorta like we can put down dogs, right?

Those babies eventually grow into (mostly) functional humans. Dogs don't.

(Not that putting down dogs is that pleasant either)

[Zero]

So, by extension, we can simply kill babies and infants if they become bothersome, sorta like we can put down dogs, right?

Those babies eventually grow into (mostly) functional humans. Dogs don't.

(Not that putting down dogs is that pleasant either)

interesting that you brought that up.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=97429

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I would argue that babies and infants aren't really human beings yet.

[David Floyd]

But our society finds such things deplorable and has outlawed such behavior.

Our society also outlawed slavery, finding it deplorable. This doesn't mean that there is no right NOT to be a slave, and just because we have laws against murdering babies in our society doesn't make murdering babies an acceptable practice in ANY society.

[Rogan Josh]

Who is human?

Anyone with human DNA, defined within a set of parameters which I am not qualified to say.

[Jon Miller]

nobody responded to my post

Jon Miller

[blackice]

Human-ity, a lot just don't get it....

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
nobody responded to my post

Jon Miller

You ask one of the deepest questions in philosophy and you're sad that no one has answered your question yet?

[Jon Miller]

yes?

Jon Miller

[Lincoln]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


I would argue that babies and infants aren't really human beings yet.

And the pro-choice side marches on...

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
nobody responded to my post

Jon Miller

What you asked was whether we are human when we cease to exercise control over our future 'selves'. This view of life leaves one constantly paranoid, incapable of even trusting oneself (if one can only be thought of as oneself because one's "self" is so transient according to your philosophy) I (personally) cannot subscribe to such a philosophy because I don't like the feeling of insignificance which it lends to life.

If you define human, therefore, as an entity which controls it's future selves, a being with absolute, uninfluenced free will. Since free will is not specific to humans this allows a broad defenition of 'human', since any entity can be said to have free will, with the exception of infants, drug addicts, the disabled, plant life and those living under the influences of despotism who are influenced in their free will not by the despots, but rather by their fear therof.

So... you do not really ask a question, you make a statement. My reply being that while it is possible that your philosophy is valid, it is rather bleak and I shall maintain my view of life which you may term 'simplistic, but why do I care? According to your philosophy you won't exist a moment from now.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lincoln


And the pro-choice side marches on...

I am pro-choice to an extent, but I recognize that infants and born babies are fully human.

I also oppose partial-birth abortion.



You quit with your ad-hominem attacks now -- Chegitz might be pro-choice, and stands behind his statement about infants and babies, but he certainly does not speak for all of us.

[Lincoln]

Well Fun, I am glad that you see the difference. Unfortunately some do not know where to draw the line and they extend the concept of "choice" one step further. If choice trumps the rights of the unborn because they hinder the mother's lifestyle then why stop when the baby is born? The concept of choice marches on without you anyway.

[SKILORD]

Since free will is not specific to humans this allows a broad defenition of 'human', since any entity can be said to have free will, with the exception of infants, drug addicts, the disabled, plant life and those living under the influences of despotism who are influenced in their free will not by the despots, but rather by their fear therof.

Rather I have rethought this, since your philosohy requires a 'human' to have unadaltured control of his future selves no man is truely 'human' noone is human in this defenition unless they are in complete control of the version of themselves immediately proceeding. Am I right now in control of myself .... well... now? Rather not, by dignifying you with a reply I have granted you a bit of influence oin my affairs and am therefore not human.

Unless I misunderstood your post this is what it comes out to be, a human being is an entity whose free will is imposed on his future selves free of outside influences (i.e. drugs, retardation, fear, etc). In such a case it is possible to be human only at specific points in your life, or rather there is a percentage of entities similar enough to be grouped as 'me' which are human, but I would daresay that a far larger percentage are not, by your defenition, human.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Well Fun, I am glad that you see the difference. Unfortunately some do not know where to draw the line and they extend the concept of "choice" one step further. If choice trumps the rights of the unborn because they hinder the mother's lifestyle then why stop when the baby is born? The concept of choice marches on without you anyway.

The concept of choice -- within mainstream advocacy -- does not state that babies and infants are inhuman.

[Ben Kenobi]

So what's the difference Mr. Fun?

6 inches from the womb to the world?

[Ben Kenobi]

basically every person is a different person than the person who went by the same name and had many of the same moeculeswho inhabited the space he is currently in a moment ago (we won't go into what a moment is)

Jon:

I had hoped Agathon would be able to provide a better rebuttal, but you will have to do with me.

You are right, in that if a person is merely a collection of molecules, that from one moment to the next, they would become an entirely different person. The answer then lies in the first portion of your statement.

Is a person merely a collection of molecules? There are a number of terms for this position, the most common being a reductionist view of humanity.

Now, there are several problems with this perspective, in that it fails to adequately account for personal identity. You do not change from one day to the next, though your body changes, you are still the same Jon Miller from the day you are born to the day that you die. Physically you may change, but your essence does not.

Now, this is where I need Agathon's help. I'm not that familiar with Aristotle's arguments about forms. This is where we come across the argument that people are much more than just the sum of their parts.

[Jon Miller]

you are missing my point

I am sorry I put the molecle bit im there

just think about conciousness

Jon Miller

[Q Classic]

if you're human, you realize the world would be better off without your species, and therefore support VHEMT.

otherwise, you're just a viral parasite.

[Elok]

This is one of those questions whose best answer is, "why do we care?" What you are proposing is a different view of the model of reality we all accept, phrased to be more difficult to understand. Since, as human beings, we think in terms of the present, the future as far as we are concerned does not literally exist; define existence, if you can, as anything other than the essential state of being an aspect of the *present*. The future is abstract for a reason, and until we develop time travel, which I don't believe we ever will, it doesn't matter. Not trying to put you down, it just doesn't.
And just to contribute to the most interesting of this thread's several jacks, I challenge any programmer out there to develop software that can reliably answer threads like, say, St. Swithin. Betcha can't!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So what's the difference Mr. Fun?

6 inches from the womb to the world?

No, the different stages of development, smart*ss.

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
you are missing my point

I am sorry I put the molecle bit im there

just think about conciousness

Jon Miller

Dude, how many OT posts do I have to make before people respond to me, rather than simply making disparaging comments regarding my Avatar?

:sigh:

[Jon Miller]

what I meant is that I didn't mean to refer to molecules

if you think about it, after doing something you (your consciousness) is sort of different than before

that is what I meant

Jon Miller

[SKILORD]

Thought you were talking to the esteemed Kenobi, sorry if you were referring to me. :gasp: Disproves my 'None of them are human, they are programmed to ignore me' theory.

Unless you didn't actually read my post and simply commented based on where I quoted you, in which case you aren't reading now, (so :nannnynannnypthoopthoo:, Canada sucks.)

If you were reading that I apologise, Canada is a fine nation.

Back to the matter at hand, My arguments were never made against your view of humanity as a collection of particles, mine didn't attack your philosophy at all but rather labeled it as a bleak view of the world in which you cannot even trust yourself (but.... he's not yourself, reread this in case the moth******er who was you before you made you read it wrong, or maybe something got lost in the transfer. Get my point?) The way you propose to live life therefore is to conceive of ways to manipulate future versions of yourself, this seems awfully petty to be doing but then again you are inherintly a petty person who exists only right now.... better get rereading again*.

It also alleiviates you from the guilt from any transgression a past version of you committed, meaning that it is immoral to incarcerate someone for the sins of his former versions, your philosophy has a lot of flaws, none of them pertaining to physicists view of humanity.


*-In case you have been purged of this particular memory by a former version I propose that you look up 2 lines from the star.

[Japher]

John Miller, that is something to think about. What if human conscience was non-mutable, but merely replaced...

Reminds me of "Sliders"

What is human?

The ability to change and adapt readily to situations in a cognative manner, is one aspect... Isn't it?

[Snotty]

Jon, Outside effects will always affect you against your will. The offhand comment that makes you paranoid, or anything more serious. You can try to minimize the effect the outside world has on you, but by doing this you limit your chance for experience, good and bad. You cant just live in a fireproof room.

[Jon Miller]

this has nothing to do with physics or science

in fact, I beleive that it is currently outside of the realm of science (but may soon not be as neurology advances)

Jon Miller

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Agathon


But the same goes for a child. You have to teach it language first.

The word "make" is doing too much undefined work in that sentence.

I have sometimes wondered if the state of a child is _the only_ time when humans can come up with something new and not just repeat things like computers do.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, the different stages of development,

Have your reached the peak of your development, Mr Fun?