Human, mutant, cyborg, android, robot?

[NovusFidem]

:yup: Nice, do you mind if I use this for my class?

Why, feel free! I am truly glad you liked it, and blushing like crazy here Thank you!

 

[DCNBILL]

Why, feel free! I am truly glad you liked it, and blushing like crazy here Thank you!

No, thank you from both me and my students.

 

[GEddie]

I think this was a problem Pallas Athena was trying to illustrate. In fact, this philosophical error: type 2 is non-human is what allowed slavery to go unchecked for hundreds of years and allowed the preborn to be exterminate until even after nuclear medicine showed how human they are, the misclassification still exists and justifies their deaths.

I’m not denying that.

But if you are going to argue that apes and dolphins (if they are shown to possess a rational mind) or putative space-aliens should be thought of as “human,” then the word “human” would lose its meaning altogether. One thing “humans” have always been held to share is essentially the same design of body.

The “human body” has a head, neck, hands, legs, skin, etc. Not fins, blowhole, fur, or tail.

If other species of large enough mind are to be called “human,” then a new word would be required for those of strictly “human” body.

ICXC NIKA

 

[NovusFidem]

But if you are going to argue that apes and dolphins (if they are shown to possess a rational mind) or putative space-aliens should be thought of as “human,” then the word “human” would lose its meaning altogether. One thing “humans” have always been held to share is essentially the same design of body.

I have to agree with this. If aliens or such came to us, the question would be if they are deserving of the same rights as those of humans. But they certainly are not humans, by definition.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Of course there are problems with “functionality”. You have tried to use it and you cannot find out what is a chair, a tank, a human. Yes, those are significant disadvantages. It’s like object-oriented programming without classes (for yes, essences are a bit like classes in OOP).

The problem is not with the method, the problem is to apply it to something which simply does not exist.

1. Building material is not “accident”. It is “matter”.
2. “Accident” is not “something that doesn’t matter”. It is a “property”.

I have no problem with this. There are two kinds of “properties”, some are important or significant ones, others are irrelevant. But which are important and which are irrelevant are not “innate” to the object, they are contingent (relative) to the examination.

By the way, I have already told you that the term “accident” is not used in the way you use it:

I would be happy if the term “accident” would be reserved to a “traffic accident” and the like. Maybe in the times of Aquinas the meaning was different, but we do not live in those times.

I have to agree with this. If aliens or such came to us, the question would be if they are deserving of the same rights as those of humans. But they certainly are not humans, by definition.

They would be a subclass of a broad class of beings, the “intelligent beings”. There might be a biological difference, but that is not a relevant factor.

But if you are going to argue that apes and dolphins (if they are shown to possess a rational mind) or putative space-aliens should be thought of as “human,” then the word “human” would lose its meaning altogether. One thing “humans” have always been held to share is essentially the same design of body.

You are right. The difference is simply too large to use the “label” of human. But the interesting part is always on the “border”. Big changes can be achieved by small steps.

 

[NovusFidem]

They would be a subclass of a broad class of beings, the “intelligent beings”. There might be a biological difference, but that is not a relevant factor

They might be a subclass of a broader class - humanoids, perhaps? But the biological difference is relevant. Other primates may belong to the same Order as us, but they are not humans, as they belong to different Sub-orders and Families. And these are all biological differences that keep us apart from other primates.

Any other humanoid that may land here will be just that: humanoid, “human-like”. But not human. They don’t even belong to our evolutionary line, how could they belong to the same Genus or Species as us?

 

[GEddie]

The problem is not with the method, the problem is to apply it to something which simply does not exist.

I have no problem with this. There are two kinds of “properties”, some are important or significant ones, others are irrelevant. But which are important and which are irrelevant are not “innate” to the object, they are contingent (relative) to the examination.

I would be happy if the term “accident” would be reserved to a “traffic accident” and the like. Maybe in the times of Aquinas the meaning was different, but we do not live in those times.

They would be a subclass of a broad class of beings, the “intelligent beings”. There might be a biological difference, but that is not a relevant factor.

You are right. The difference is simply too large to use the “label” of human. But the interesting part is always on the “border”. Big changes can be achieved by small steps.

Well, between human life and dolphins, or aliens, there is no border.

Methinks with apes, the human world will see that border soon enough.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Pallas_Athene]

They might be a subclass of a broader class - humanoids, perhaps? But the biological difference is relevant. Other primates may belong to the same Order as us, but they are not humans, as they belong to different Sub-orders and Families. And these are all biological differences that keep us apart from other primates.

Any other humanoid that may land here will be just that: humanoid, “human-like”. But not human. They don’t even belong to our evolutionary line, how could they belong to the same Genus or Species as us?

The problem is that all these “boxes” are arbitrary. We created them for the purposes of categorization. In a sense they are like borders on a map, arbitrary an irrelevant distinction. Going back to reality, if some being would exhibit “human-like” behavior, they should be accepted as “honorary humans”, even if they do no exhibit the biological traits we usually associate with the term “human”.

 

[GEddie]

The problem is that all these “boxes” are arbitrary. We created them for the purposes of categorization. In a sense they are like borders on a map, arbitrary an irrelevant distinction. Going back to reality, if some being would exhibit “human-like” behavior, they should be accepted as “honorary humans”, even if they do no exhibit the biological traits we usually associate with the term “human”.

There is nothing arbitrary about the human body, nor the physical human species.

ICXC NIKA

 

[yppop]

A human is created when a male gamete (sperm) containing the DNA from a human male fertilizes a female gamete (ovum) containing the DNA from a human female to form the zygote,which has been infused with an immortal essence. He/she is human in potentia for about 10 weeks when the full Sapien form as a fetus becomes a human in utero. It doesn’t much matter the source of the gametes as long as they both came from humans; the resulting birth is human and nothing else is or ever can be. Any attempt to describe mutants, cyborgs, androids, robots and anything else as human is nothing but anthropomorphic science fiction.

From the Catechism:
364 “The human body shares in the dignity of “the image of God”: it is a human body precisely because it is animated by a spiritual soul, and it is the whole human person that is intended to become, in the body of Christ, a temple of the Spirit.”

In my view the “immortal essence” = the spiritual part of the “spiritual soul”.
Yppop

 

[Pallas_Athene]

There is nothing arbitrary about the human body, nor the physical human species.

It is arbitrary to choose which attributes are important and which ones are irrelevant. Is someone with an IQ of 50 (way below the vegetative state) a “human”, or not? All I am saying is that the biological material is not relevant, the ability of act like a “human” is important.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

In my view the “immortal essence” = the spiritual part of the “spiritual soul”.

If only there would be some evidence for this “immortal essence”… we could have a discussion. But there is none.

 

[GEddie]

It is arbitrary to choose which attributes are important and which ones are irrelevant. Is someone with an IQ of 50 (way below the vegetative state) a “human”, or not? All I am saying is that the biological material is not relevant, the ability of act like a “human” is important.

IQ of 50 below the vegetative state? I doubt it.

But if they are bodily human, then they are human, full stop, even if in a coma.

ICXC NIKA

 

[NovusFidem]

The problem is that all these “boxes” are arbitrary. We created them for the purposes of categorization. In a sense they are like borders on a map, arbitrary an irrelevant distinction. Going back to reality, if some being would exhibit “human-like” behavior, they should be accepted as “honorary humans”, even if they do no exhibit the biological traits we usually associate with the term “human”.

We categorize them for the sake of simplicity. So that I don’t have to say: “multicellular eukaryotic organism, possessing a dorsal nerve cord protected by vertebrae, whose offsprings feed from their mother’s milk, omnivorous, bipedal hairless creature, descended from/related to primates, capable of advanced rational thinking”. Instead, I can simply say “human” and you’ll know what I am talking about.

Which is why I said: I can understand giving another creature equal rights/treatment to that of humans, but they can’t be humans anymore than I can be a cat. It is just a word, no need to get worried that our friendly aliens won’t be included in our exclusive human-club.

 

[Antegin]

If you believe the evolutionary theory of cognition, (I do) whales, dolphins, simians who ambulate on all fours and do not fish, can not develop the higher order intelligence because they lack the physical size of the brain and the space in the brain needed for advanced thought. In order to develop intelligence, they would have to give up some ability that has allowed them to survive.

If you believe what the Bible says, (I do) only man has the higher order intelligence because God blew His breath into man making him more like Himself where as all other creatures were just created by the Word of God.

Aliens? I say, let them work and be treated like humans because they are humans

If aliens did exist with the knowledge needed for space travel, they would have to be humanoid in appearance and form in order to support intelligence. They would have to have been animated by the breath of God. They would also have to be saved.

 

[GEddie]

needed for space travel, they would have to be humanoid in appearance and form in order to support intelligence. They would have to have been animated by the breath of God. They would also have to be saved.

They would need a large head, and hands, but it does not follow that they would look human.

Consider the 3 Malacandran races in Lewis’ Spave Trilogy. All had minds and hands; none would have been taken for human.

On a planet with a different atmosphere and gravity, our beloved head-hands-and-feet upright body architecture might not be the best pattern for a minded body.

And given our track record with other humans, we’d zero in on precisely the differences as a reason for prejudice.

ICXC NIKA

 

[yppop]

If only there would be some evidence for this “immortal essence”… we could have a discussion. But there is none.

Define “evidence”, please.
Yppop

 

[GEddie]

Define “evidence”, please.
Yppop

Presumably something physically measurable.

ICXC NIKA

 

[MPat]

The problem is not with the method, the problem is to apply it to something which simply does not exist.

That is, you are saying that chairs do not exit?

I would be happy if the term “accident” would be reserved to a “traffic accident” and the like. Maybe in the times of Aquinas the meaning was different, but we do not live in those times.

Feel free to speak Lithuanian in that case. In Lithuanian “traffic accident” would be “avarija” and “Thomistic accident” would be “akcidencija”.

But the mere fact that English is not comfortable in this respect is no excuse for misusing the terms.

If only there would be some evidence for this “immortal essence”… we could have a discussion. But there is none.

Really? For, you know, it is not like your claims have been supported by any evidence.

For example:

The problem is that all these “boxes” are arbitrary. We created them for the purposes of categorization.

Please note that no evidence is cited for this claim. Not even bad evidence.

On the other hand, we do have evidence for existence of essences. It’s just that you haven’t asked for any.

For example, the mere fact that we do classify things in suspiciously similar ways is evidence that classifications are not as arbitrary, as you think. Then there is the “scientific classification” of species, Mendeleev’s Periodic table of elements…

Since you have declared classification of artifacts arbitrary as well, we can cite even more uses of essences. Every shop catalogue that lists chairs and tables is evidence. Every intelligence report or paper by military historian, counting tanks and tank destroyers, mortars and infantry fighting vehicles by type is evidence.

That also answers this your claim:

There are no problems with the “functionality”, but since the “essence” is fluid, it is useless.

So, now, how many pieces of evidence or uses can you list for your theory about all classification being arbitrary…?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Define “evidence”, please.

I don’t want to limit you by specifying what tools you wish to use. Obviously we live in a physical reality, so the best evidence would be physical, which is objective and repeatable. But, as I said, the ball is yours, present whatever evidence you find most compelling. There is one requirement, however. The “evidence” cannot presume what you wish to demonstrate. Circular reasoning is not allowed.

So the question is: “what evidence is there for an immaterial and immortal soul, which exist in humans, but does not exist in animals”?