A few cells in a Petri-dish

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abrosz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A human blastocyte is a rational animal. It just has not reached the stage of development in which it manifests the properties that naturally follow from rationality.

Stem cells in a petri dish are a different question. Whereas a blastocyte is a unified organism that is developing towards its ends, stem cells are just detached parts being kept alive. While human cells, they’re not really human organisms insofar as I understand it. If we tampered with them to encourage them to start developing that would be a different story which would allow them to be classified as human beings.

A human being with mutations isn’t necessarily something other than a member of the same species, anyway.
And why should the “animal” part be considered essential? If there is a being, which is not composed of animal cells, but is able to think and act rationally, would that being become an “honorary” human?
Click to expand...
The use of animal in this case predates the understanding of different types cells, some with cell walls and some without, etc… The point of metaphysical interest is whether the being has essential operational powers that include sentience (not sapience) and locomotion. Whether they have mitochondria or cell walls or what have you isn’t part of the equation (I’m not saying the biology classifications aren’t true or important in themselves, but in regards to philosophical point of interest, it’s a different type of classification system). Rationality is the specific difference in the broader genus of animal that sets human beings apart from other animals, if we agree with this definition of a human being as a rational animal. And some philosophers are perfectly comfortable in include any biology species that is a rational animal under the definition of human being in the broad, philosophical sense. From a real essentialist metaphysical perspective they’d be fine saying they belong to the same genus and species, even if they’d be considered different species under other classification systems.
 
Last edited:
Wesrock said:
A human blastocyte is a rational animal.
Click to expand...
How do you measure rationality? This is the central question. A blastocyst does not have a brain which would enable it to think.
Wesrock said:
If we tampered with them to encourage them to start developing that would be a different story which would allow them to be classified as human beings.
Click to expand...
They can be tampered with to grow into a new organ. Again, it is the decision of the experimenter.
Wesrock said:
A human being with mutations isn’t necessarily something other than a member of the same species, anyway.
Click to expand...
“Necessarily”? No. Not all mutations result in a new species. The definition of a “species” is that its members are able to procreate with each other. If some new entities are able to procreate with one another, but unable to procreate with “run of the mill” humans, then they are a brand new species… NOT humans. Neanderthals could be for example, if we could recreate them from some fossils. Or maybe some space aliens, if they exist.
Wesrock said:
The point of metaphysical interest is whether the being has essential operational powers that include sentience (not sapience) and locomotion.
Click to expand...
Sentience is merely the ability to be able to feel… using specialized nerve endings. Sapience is the ability to conceptualize, to think. Of these sapience is primary. There are some people with defects who cannot feel any pain, heat, cold or any other sensation. They are definitely not sentient.
Wesrock said:
Rationality is the specific difference in the broader genus of animal that sets human beings apart from other animals
Click to expand...
As I said, how do you define and measure rationality?
 
Freddy said:
It’s a religious concept. Proposed when we thought we were separate from the rest of creation.
Click to expand...
That might be an explanation of what you imagine the soul to be.

That is not an explanation of the fact that many people are talking about something you consider not merely fictional, but nonsensical, and obviously so:
Freddy said:
It’s a concept that makes no sense to me. It would be like you saying that the colour blue smells like fresh baked bread.
Click to expand...
Let’s look at the possibilities.

First, let’s ask if the situation is truly as it has been described. If “No.”, we get an explanation “It was all a dream.” or some similar. If “Yes.”, we go further.

Second, let’s ask if that “something” truly is nonsensical, and obviously so. If “No.”, then you are wrong, probably because you do not truly understand what that “something” is supposed to be. If “Yes.”, we go further.

Third, let’s ask if those people understand that this “something” is obviously nonsensical. If “No.”, we get an explanation that this multitude is completely insane (or something like that), for mere “delusion” is inadequate here.

And if “Yes.”, the fourth explanation is that people are just pretending, as if playing a practical joke on you.

So, as you can see, those four explanations I gave (with some “expansion” - for example, “theatrical play” could take place of “practical joke”, but it changes little, so I do not list it separately) exhaust all possibilities. You cannot evade all of them. You have to choose one of them.

And yet you write (after seeing three of them, without “dream”):
Freddy said:
Why didn’t you add an explanation that you thought might be acceptable to me?
Click to expand...
So, why is the explanation that you do not know what this “something” (soul) is supposed to be not “acceptable” to you?

What does that tell about you?
Abrosz said:
The circumstances or “correct conditions” are decided by the experimenter.
Click to expand...
Obviously not.

Nor do you get a say in that. It is our definitions, we write them as we please. 🙂
Abrosz said:
And this thread went astray in just under 40 posts. The “soul” cannot be demonstrated, so its presence of absence is immaterial (pun intended). The question is the “status” of a few cells in a Petri dish. That is all.
Click to expand...
An what does that “cannot be demonstrated” actually means? That your mind cannot be changed? Oh, sure.

But then, there wasn’t much doubt that you aren’t going to change your mind on any relevant question in the nearest future.

And thus “the thread went astray” in such way while you were writing your original post. 🙂

And it also has not been demonstrated that you know what you are talking about here, that you are unbiased, that you have good judgement. Yet you talk as if all that was undoubtable. After all, all this talk about “a few cells in a Petri dish” is not supported by anything else, just by your judgement.

After all, if you want to play an expert witness, we get to play a lawyer trying to impeach that witness. 🙂
 
Abrosz said:
Some apologists assert that a growing entity which has human “DNA” is a human being. Which would mean that a few human stem-cells in a Petri dish already counts as a human being. Even if they are grown to be a replacement for a failing organ. Or even if they are grown to be a twin of an already existing child.
Click to expand...
An organ being grown may be human tissue, but it is not a human organism that will develop like the rest of us if allowed to.

A twin, on the other hand, is in fact generally considered a human being and a distinct one from its sibling, even if it could be shown to have developed “second.” A clone is just a delayed twin and would operate by the same rules.

Your point about “human DNA” is interesting, but these examples are ridiculous.
 
MPat said:
So, as you can see, those four explanations I gave…
Click to expand...
Mine is best I think. And I think it’s incorrect because there is no need to differentiate us from animals by using the concept of a soul. Those who are religiously minded might see humankind as being specially created as opposed to an accident of the evolutionary process and would need that concept.

And if you believe in everlasting life then you also need something that will survive our bodily death. Hence ‘a soul’.

So if one understands this accidental appearance of humans and if one accepts that death is final and there is nothing after it, then the concept of a soul becomes nonsensical. That is, it makes no sense.

So nobody is pretending. Or lying. People, including yourself, believe it exists. So you’re not pretending. And you’re telling me something that you believe to be true, so you’re not lying either.
 
Freddy said:
Mine is best I think.
Click to expand...
Your “explanation”, while wordy, is not an explanation.

It “forgets” that you claimed this “something” (soul) is not merely fictional, but nonsensical, and obviously so:
Freddy said:
It’s a concept that makes no sense to me. It would be like you saying that the colour blue smells like fresh baked bread.
Click to expand...
For if it is so obviously nonsensical, how does saying it was invented long ago help you? It had to be just as obviously nonsensical then!

Thus your “explanation” avoids getting through those three questions.

Let’s repeat them:
  1. Is it true that a great number of people discuss “something” that something you consider not merely fictional, but nonsensical, and obviously so?
  2. If yes, is it true that this “something” truly is nonsensical, and obviously so?
  3. If yes, do those people understand that this “something” is nonsensical, and obviously so?
Try to answer those questions. Explicitly.

And one more: why is the explanation that you do not know what this “something” (soul) is supposed to be not “acceptable” to you?
 
The question should be, should dna be obtained from aborted fetus that if left undisturbed had potential to manifest into a human being.? Who cares what they can do with a particle dna if it was obtained first from the deliberate cessation of life of its origin?
 
MPat said:
40.png
Freddy:
Mine is best I think.
Click to expand...
Your “explanation”, while wordy, is not an explanation.

It “forgets” that you claimed this “something” (soul) is not merely fictional, but nonsensical, and obviously so:
Click to expand...
That’s right. It makes no sense to me. For the reasons given.
 
Last edited:
Elizabeth3 said:
Somewhere in all this speculation would be a human soul which only God can give to human matter. The Church teaches this is at conception.
Click to expand...
That was a helpful article provided also. The rational, immortal soul is the defining characteristic of a human person. The form of the body, seat of consciousness, moral conscience, rational thought. These things do not even require a mature brain - they are spiritual.
 
Freddy said:
And I think it’s incorrect because there is no need to differentiate us from animals by using the concept of a soul.
Click to expand...
Forget soul. I think we’re readily differentiated in reality, don’t you think?
 
Bill_B_NY said:
How are you differentiated from your non-human animal ancestors that you evolved from?
Click to expand...
Are you asking for help to identify the differences? Or do you mean “by what means”? My point to Fredy was to consider the first point. You need to go step by step with Fred.
 
Rau said:
40.png
Freddy:
Well, yeah. Different species etc.
Click to expand...
Species is Just a human notion. Ignore that. Think about people. Think about the smartest animals you know. The differences are mind-boggling immense!
Click to expand...
Well, I’m smart enough to not have to take baby steps in any discussion about the soul. You can skip a few if you like and go straight to the point you want to make. If I get confused I’ll ask you to slow down.
 
Freddy said:
That’s right. It makes no sense to me. For the reasons given.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know you do not want to answer questions. 🙂

Let’s repeat them again:
  1. Is it true that a great number of people discuss “something” that something you consider not merely fictional, but nonsensical, and obviously so?
  2. If yes, is it true that this “something” truly is nonsensical, and obviously so?
  3. If yes, do those people understand that this “something” is nonsensical, and obviously so?
And one more: why is the explanation that you do not know what this “something” (soul) is supposed to be not “acceptable” to you?

Because it is pretty obvious that you have next to no idea what it is supposed to be.

For example:
Freddy said:
It’s a religious concept. Proposed when we thought we were separate from the rest of creation. Before we knew that we were an accident of the evolutionary process. So we needed something to differentiate us from the rest of the animals so it was considered that that might be a soul. Something that endows us with ‘being human’. And because the corporeal body dies and decays it needed to be eternal.
Click to expand...
But we happen to believe that animals also have souls. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas writes about them in “Summa Theologiae”, First part, Question 75 (SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Man who is composed of a spiritual and a corporeal substance: and in the first place, concerning what belongs to the essence of the soul (Prima Pars, Q. 75))

Thus yes, it sure looks like you have next to no idea what “soul” is supposed to mean.

And, as I was arguing, it should not have been hard for you to suspect that.

Normally, all that would be just an opportunity to learn more.

But, since you proclaimed that it is “unacceptable” for you to consider a possibility that you are ignorant about this matter, it looks like you will learn nothing.

At least until your conscience will force you to face your fear.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top