B
Bagheera
Guest
Supposing that you have a child… did you “design” it? No? And still you produced it.
- Status
B
Bahman
Guest
We don’t produce children.
B
Bagheera
Guest
Ah, sorry. I don’t want to ruin your innocence, so if you believe that children are found in a cabbage patch, or delivered by a stork, then please disregard my post.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
No problem for most people but a problem for many. That is part of the reason I am vegetarian. You would have to ask the meat eaters about talking animals. i am already on board.
G
GEddie
Guest
A nervous system would seem to be the sine qua non of biological sentience, therefore, at least on this planet, the plant kingdom is excluded from sentience.
Now, it is possible that on an alien world there could be plants with a nervous system, just as in ours there are animals (sponges, etc) without one. But as the purpose of a nervous system is to operate the “body” rather than to generate sentience, I’d guess that a sense of pain will always come before sentience. Pain is necessary to protect biological life; sentience (except for the human body) is not.
ICXC NIKA
G
GEddie
Guest
I for one will worry about that when it happens. This world is not a set in “Doctor Doolittle”.
Do you think other species know or care that we are sentient?
ICXC NIKA
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
I’m probably less sanguine than you are, Ed, about humanity’s ability to make good ethical decisions when it comes to science and life. Euthanasia, abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and other decisions regarding human life would once have been considered unthinkable. The litany of crimes against humanity that humans have conducted in the name of science is long and painful to read, not only by the Nazi scientists but here in America as well, such as the injection of syphilis into unsuspecting African-Americans in Tuskeegee, or the injection of other diseases into people considered as having less than full human dignity - lepers, children, Jews, orphans, prisoners, and the mentally handicapped: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
A more disturbing, and scientifically feasible, project would be to cross-breed a human and a chimp using in-vitro fertilization. Stephen Jay Gould has said this would be very useful scientifically, but completely against scientific ethics (in the west, at least, and currently - abortion was also once against medic–scientific ethics, don’t forget). Scientists have admitted it would be wrong, but you can tell some of them salivate at the idea: wired.com/magazine/2011/07/ff_swr/7/. Would such a creation have a human soul, or the rights of a sentient being?
There are a number of advanced biological engineering projects that have been tried in lower species but not (yet) in humans, like 3-parent embryos (which could prevent certain genetic diseases, but are ethically forbidden). Cloning of a human I think is probably coming, to allow same-sex couples to reproduce. These also create tricky ethical dilemmas regarding parental rights.
Another ethical issue in line with the OP’s examples is biological templating - if your body is gradually replaced as you age with artificial prosthetics or transplants, and the components of your central nervous system are gradually replaced over time by synthetic components or vat-grown organic replacements (like certain cars I have owned, where eventually almost none of the original parts remain) and you gradually become wholly synthetic - at what point do you cease to be you, or do you lose rights and enter into another legal category? If an argument is made that consciousness arises solely as an artifact or epiphenomenon of the chemical and electrical processes of the brain, does one cease to have an actual or legal original identity if that brain is completely replaced, part by part?
This actually is happening, in a sense, with all of us right this moment - the transmigration of atoms in and out of our bodies (and all matter) means that we don’t have single original atom that we had 7 years ago - yet our consciousness remains continuous and unchanged from before that time, despite the complete replacement, at an atomic level, of all supporting organic structures…which seems to me a decent argument for substance dualism.
If one believes in strict materialism, does one have legal responsibility for a murder committed prior to 7 years, if not a single atom of the body that caused it still remains? Or do we recognize at a basic level that consciousness, or the “soul,” is a thing that exists apart from the material substance?
Yet another issue is whether we are even able to make any informed decisions on sentience in another creature - if any of the OP’s thought experiments, including a software program, can pass a Turing Test that allows them to pass as sentient in all interactions with a human being…are they sentient, and do they possess a soul? Do we legally decide its better to err on the side of caution and proclaim that if it might be human, we should grant the apparent sentient being full human rights? (And if so, isn’t that an argument for granting a fetus full human rights? If it might be a human, should we take the risk of allowing a human life to be terminated?)
If I can create a synthetic duplicate of you, down to the cellular and DNA levels, and download your mental software so that it acts and responds exactly like you, and follows you around and apes your every move…is it also “you” if no scientific test can differentiate the two of you, or can we say we still recognize that there is an essential “You-ness” that you maintain and that your zombie doesn’t possess, despite all the outward appearances and the inability of your senses and all the sciences to tell the difference?
Can we say that this essential “You-ness” that would exist, whether or not all your body parts (or atoms) are replaced, or the “You-ness” that would separate you from your zombie, is your essential substance that exists apart from the existence (or not) of your outward appearance…as the transubstantiated Eucharist has a true Substance that exists apart from Its outward appearance as bread and wine?
E
edwest2
Guest
I’ve read just about all there is to read about the above subjects. Euthanasia used to be called, and is still sometimes called, mercy killing. I have read about the uninformed consent experiments and other ghastly things. In the past, the Supreme Court allowed for the forced sterilization of those deemed unfit under certain criteria. After all, you didn’t want to pollute the gene pool.
Human cloning? I’ve read about the various possible uses.
Yes, our bodies are naturally designed to renew itself. That’s always been the case.
Body - mind transfer is an old science-fiction idea. Mind-cyborg transfer is an old science-fiction idea.
At the end of the day, it’s all about money. If it’s too expensive, you can’t get it. There is also the issue of long life. What would be the point of living a long time in a body with damaged organs replaced by organs grown using your own cells - prosthetics are more complex and more limited. I am not a futurist, but Social Security would be quickly depleted as more and more people lived past 100.
So, this is not about youness, it’s just about money. Sadly, there will always be people out there who will go beyond ethical boundaries. Some of them will be scientists. Take something as mundane as your personal information. That’s why everyone is seeing more, not less, notices about “how we use your personal information.” It’s about making money by selling and reselling your information. A non-lethal scientific discovery leads to a lethal follow-on discovery as one chemical or metal is replaced by something cheaper since making a bigger profit is the goal. It was an accidental discovery, but since you want to make money, you might privately offer the lethal version to the military.
Individual scientists have done valuable work to heal, reduce suffering and improve lives. On the other hand, scientific backing was behind many of the other things you mention.
Peace,
Ed
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
I think they care if they themselves are crammed by the thousands into filthy, windowless sheds and confined to wire cages, gestation crates, barren dirt lots, mutilated without painkillers, in short, live and die in misery and deprivation .
facts.randomhistory.com/animal-cruelty-facts.html
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
K
kantus12
Guest
I think what Bahman means when he says that we don’t “produce” children is that we didn’t invent them and can’t invent anything truly like them. In one sense, the most we can do is take pre-existing genetic material (a sperm cell and ovum) and allow them to do what comes naturally. In that sense, we can’t “produce” children, we can only control the circumstances under which they come to be. Now, I don’t know much about genetic engineering, but so far as I know you can’t do anything without using already-existent material, and so no scientist can rightfully be said to be the true originator of a human life.
Please correct me, Bahman, if I’ve misrepresented you.
Please correct me, Bahman, if I’ve misrepresented you.
P
polytropos
Guest
What is your point? The broad nature of the word “sentient” only widens the gap between sentience and human-like behavior. Neither is a sufficient condition for the other, for reasons that were not even responded to.
B
Bagheera
Guest
Michael Mayo:
GEddie:
Arizona Mike:
Arizona Mike:
kantus12:
When we produce a car, we simply manipulate the existing material. Also it is possible to “excite” a female egg and “nudge” it to start to split and multiply. With genetic engineering we can manipulate the genetic material. Hopefully soon we shall be able to “fix” defective genes, and thus prevent certain diseases or malfunctions.
I see your point.
Plants are alive and have no pain receptors. It is quite possible to have a “specialized” nervous system, which does not include pain receptors, only the part that is used for being “aware”. Instead of pain the plants have an excellent regeneration system. I wish I had one.
Arizona Mike:
You made lots of interesting points. I would like to reflect on this one. There is no need to for any kind of dualism. Consider your car example: all the parts are replaced, yet the car operates just as it did before. There is no need to posit some kind of a “soul” for that car, which “transcends” the material “infrastructure”. Since the mind is the activity of the brain, replacing one atom with an identical one has no bearing on the activity of the brain, just like it does not affect your “walking”, which is the activity of the legs.
Arizona Mike:
It simply means that “sentience” has no need for the assumption of a soul, thereby making the soul-hypothesis an unnecessary idea.
You can use that kind of reasoning to anything.
When we produce a car, we simply manipulate the existing material. Also it is possible to “excite” a female egg and “nudge” it to start to split and multiply. With genetic engineering we can manipulate the genetic material. Hopefully soon we shall be able to “fix” defective genes, and thus prevent certain diseases or malfunctions.
E
edwest2
Guest
No soul is the core of the issue. It is against Church teaching to develop beings that have intelligence but no soul. We are part spiritual and part physical.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
G
GEddie
Guest
We cannot develop another being except via procreation.
There is no evidence that we can reproduce the human cognitive mind mechanically, given we don’t even know how our soul generates our own minds in our heads.
If genetic tampering with an animal yielded a human-class mind, that would not be intelligence without soul, as animals possess soul from the onset of life, as we do. Soul is life, and the word for soul in Latin is “anima.”
And it remains to be seen if we will be able to do that anyway. Not everything than human life attempts is allowed to happen. Consider the Tower of Babel.
ICXC NIKA
A
Aloysium
Guest
I love science fiction.
Imagine creating an animal that had our intelligence. I’m not sure what kind of instincts it would have. Monkeys are not the most pleasant of mammals. It is unlikely that it would be like a dolphin on two legs, but then with the mixing of various genes, who knows what one will end up with.
Of the dystopic/post-apocalyptic movies that touch on the subject, Alien Resurrection sums up my view of how it would all turn out.
M
Michael_Mayo
Guest
I read this novel some years ago just because I likes the picture on the cover.
Interesting plot but disappointing outcome.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
W
wanstronian
Guest
1 and 5 are the same thing, of course. Along with 7.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
Yet in the case of the car, I may still consider it “my” car, but it is not - it is a new collection of parts. A few car aficionados may disagree, but no one thinks cars have souls. Humans are quite different, and we still consider you “you” even if none of your original atoms (or parts) remain. You seem to be jumping to the conclusion about what is argued - how do we know that the mind is the activity of the brain? It logically seems to be a mechanism by which consciousness orders the body - how can you make the assumption that it is the other way around, that the mind is a by-product of the physical activity of the brain? Do you believe the latter but not the former? If you believe both, would that not be an example of circular reasoning which lacks explanatory power?
Let’s say “consciousness” rather than soul in this case - the “You” that thinks and makes decisions, and in the view of most, has free will.
M
MPat
Guest
Are you sure? Adding an artificial organ is not that different from putting on glasses. But a human with glasses is, well, a human with glasses, not a “being”, whose part is the “original” human.
Thus I would offer an analogy. Let’s say we solve some sugar in the water. We get a solution of sugar. Now let’s replace one of molecules of sugar with molecule of water. It is still a solution with water. Let’s repeat the process many times. Finally we will get many molecules of water and one molecule of sugar. Is it still a solution of sugar? Well, I suppose… Let’s remove the last molecule of sugar. Do we still have a solution of sugar? Well, no. There is no sugar left.
So, what we have here could be similar. Before the last step we had a human (consisting of one cell; I assume that it would be a human and not a corpse, as that would make the example uninteresting) with a huge machine meant to keep the human alive. If we remove the human, we are simply left with a machine that does not do what it was meant to. Of course, it might still be used for something else. Maybe it would make a good hammer…?
So, I’d say that there is a clear limit between cases 8 and 9. Assuming that by “sentient” you meant “rational” (normally correct terms wouldn’t matter that much, but here they make the solution much easier), cases 1 to 8 are clearly describing “rational animals” of some kind. Now, as kantus12 has said, “rational animal” is a definition of a human - therefore, in those cases we would be dealing with humans (not some kind of “honorary humans”). On the other hand, while in case 9 it is asserted that the beings are rational, it is not asserted that they are animals… Thus that might be a harder case…
By the way, it could be assumed that in this case “sentient” means “rational”, as normal animals are “sentient” (able to feel) right now (from “Catholic Encyclopedia” article “Man” (newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm): “According to the common definition of the School, Man is a rational animal. This signifies no more than that, in the system of classification and definition shown in the Arbor Porphyriana, man is a substance, corporeal, living, sentient, and rational.”; article “Cruelty to animals” (newadvent.org/cathen/04542a.htm): “In imparting to the brute creation a sentient nature capable of suffering — a nature which the animal shares in common with ourselves”). However, they are not “rational”.
- Status