Organic statue - human being?

[Spock]

Have you seen Blade Runner? This is much like the replicants of the movie.

I might have a very long time ago, but I cannot remember. However, androids are frequently used in sci-fi novels and movies.

I think such a creature would have a soul, if it really does have a human mind and consciousness (creating those is the hard part) - there’s no reason to say they aren’t human just because they weren’t born.

I agree that just because they were not born they should not be excluded from humanity.

The question of the soul can be viewed two different ways. One is, as you say that they may have a soul, since they are human. Of course here comes the question of “ensoulment”. At which point of their existence were they given a soul? The other way is that since there is no “conception”, and therefore no “ensoulment”, the concept soul is completely superfluous, for the androids. This is also underscored by the fact that there is no way to decide if someone has a sould or not. Moreover, we can hypothesize creating a human-like creature, which is composed of inorganic material. This being is not “alive” biologically, but it acts, behaves, functions exactly like a human. Since it is not biologically alive, it cannot have a “soul”. So there is no reason to assume a human soul either.

 

[razredge]

The question of the soul can be viewed two different ways. One is, as you say that they may have a soul, since they are human. Of course here comes the question of “ensoulment”. At which point of their existence were they given a soul? The other way is that since there is no “conception”, and therefore no “ensoulment”, the concept soul is completely superfluous, for the androids. This is also underscored by the fact that there is no way to decide if someone has a sould or not. Moreover, we can hypothesize creating a human-like creature, which is composed of inorganic material. This being is not “alive” biologically, but it acts, behaves, functions exactly like a human. Since it is not biologically alive, it cannot have a “soul”. So there is no reason to assume a human soul either.

These are difficult questions, no doubt but I would say a ‘philosophical zombie’ (the term for your hypothethical being that acts, behaves and functions exactly like a human) would not have a soul (this is much like John Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment).

I don’t know at what point a human is ensouled (neither does the Church for that matter - contrary to popular opinion the Church doesn’t teach that ensoulment occurs at conception).
Though, this ensoulment issue has come up quite often in recent discussion and I have
my own theories on when ensoulment occurs

The question is though - as an atheist this doesn’t really matter to you, so what is your purpose to this exercise?

 

[Spock]

These are difficult questions, no doubt but I would say a ‘philosophical zombie’ (the term for your hypothethical being that acts, behaves and functions exactly like a human) would not have a soul (this is much like John Searle’s Chinese Room thought experiment).

Yes, I am aware of this term and what it covers. If this “zombie” cannot be told apart from a “real” human, if there is no way to differentiate between the two (not just practically, but theoretically) then the distinction is without merit. (As I paraphrased before: “human is as human does”.)

Assume for a second that we have a perfect copy machine, which works of the atomic and sub-atomic level. Suppose it scans the “Mona Lisa” and creates an exact duplicate. Once the copying is done, there is no test that would tell which is the “original” and which is the “copy”. It is true that one of them was touched by Leonardo’s hand and the other one has not. But since we cannot tell (again, not even in theory) which is which, the question: “which is the original” loses its meaning.

I don’t know at what point a human is ensouled (neither does the Church for that matter - contrary to popular opinion the Church doesn’t teach that ensoulment occurs at conception).

Yes, I was aware of this, too (though many Catholic posters are ignorant of this fact). Let’s extend it: “no one knows (as opposed to believes) IF there is a soul or not”. And just like the question of “which is the original” is without merit in the previous paragraph, so is this. If we cannot tell if there is a soul or not, it is irrelevant if there is one or if there isn’t.

The question is though - as an atheist this doesn’t really matter to you, so what is your purpose to this exercise?

I am interested in your opinion. Learning is always useful. And I like to learn.

 

[razredge]

Yes, I am aware of this term and what it covers. If this “zombie” cannot be told apart from a “real” human, if there is no way to differentiate between the two (not just practically, but theoretically) then the distinction is without merit. (As I paraphrased before: “human is as human does”.)

While I agree with your Mona Lisa analogy - it does not exactly match the ‘philosophical zombie’ since there is a difference between a human and such a zombie, namely consciousness and self-awareness (as Searle and other philosophers have pointed out) - if the Mona Lisa analogy were to be properly applied to this situation, there would be no difference at all between a human and such an exact clone so they would both be humans with ‘souls’

Yes, I was aware of this, too (though many Catholic posters are ignorant of this fact). Let’s extend it: “no one knows (as opposed to believes) IF there is a soul or not”. And just like the question of “which is the original” is without merit in the previous paragraph, so is this. If we cannot tell if there is a soul or not, it is irrelevant if there is one or if there isn’t.

True, there is no empirical evidence for a soul (as far as I am aware of). Indeed there are even a few Catholic clergy and theologians who don’t believe in the existence of a soul as traditionally thought (ie. not a ‘ghost’ or ‘spirit’ inhabiting a physical body) and have rather interesting ideas on how life after death is handled in such a situation.

I am interested in your opinion. Learning is always useful. And I like to learn.

Simply, I think the soul is related to our consciousness and the mind - how exactly it is related I don’t know - but I think consciousness is necessary to have a soul. And yes I do follow that to conclusions like anencephalic babies don’t have souls.

I cannot think of any other criteria that would work, some have suggested DNA but I find that problematic.

 

[Spock]

While I agree with your Mona Lisa analogy - it does not exactly match the ‘philosophical zombie’ since there is a difference between a human and such a zombie, namely consciousness and self-awareness (as Searle and other philosophers have pointed out)…

The question is: “how do we know if the zombie has consciousness and awareness, or not”? Consciousness and self-awareness cannot be “measured”. It can be inferred from the behavior and the self-reporting of the being under consideration. That is why the Turing test is so important. If we cannot decide after a “sufficiently long” conversation if the other partner is a human, or a zombie or a computer then we must assume a human.

… if the Mona Lisa analogy were to be properly applied to this situation, there would be no difference at all between a human and such an exact clone so they would both be humans with ‘souls’

Yes, indeed (or, of course without souls).

Now, coming back to Earth we can consider an existing technology. In the case of some serious mental disorders there is recommended procedure: to separate the two halves of the brain. This operation has been performed on primates and humans. Now, the two halves do not work exactly alike, there is a “specialization”. Nevertheless, at the end we shall have two, not really identical but very close copies of the “original”. One of the two halves is usually dominant, but the other half can take over sometimes - and they behave quite differently. Now, theoretically it is possible to take one half, and transplant it into the corpse of freshly diseased person. (Yes, a tad gruesome, and technically challenging, but quite possible. And it has been perfomed on monkeys.) Now comes the question: what happened to the “soul”? Did the scalpel “cut” the immaterial soul in half? Did one half retain the original soul, and the other half was supplied by a “fresh” one? If so, which one? Questions like these, if pondered in depth will cast a serious doubt on the concept of “soul”.

True, there is no empirical evidence for a soul (as far as I am aware of). Indeed there are even a few Catholic clergy and theologians who don’t believe in the existence of a soul as traditionally thought (ie. not a ‘ghost’ or ‘spirit’ inhabiting a physical body) and have rather interesting ideas on how life after death is handled in such a situation.

Sure thing. I have no idea how a believer would handle it. For me the answer is easy. “Game over” - and unfortunately there is no slot to put in a quarter to get a new one.

Simply, I think the soul is related to our consciousness and the mind - how exactly it is related I don’t know - but I think consciousness is necessary to have a soul. And yes I do follow that to conclusions like anencephalic babies don’t have souls.

I find it quite reasonable.

I cannot think of any other criteria that would work, some have suggested DNA but I find that problematic.

Very problematic, indeed.

 

[JDaniel]

In the eyes of the law we certainly do.

Spock:

Yes, and the more powerful the law, the more atrocious can be their actions on lesser humans!

So the “breathing corpse”, before any other functionality is turned on, is already a “full-blown human”? And should be treated as such?

I am consistent with the idea of a fetus. I don’t view it as a “corpse” once neuromuscular activity begins. Of course, I am not a Catholic bio-ethicist.

Ouch. I doubt that you would endorse the practise of the Nazis who forced the Jews to wear the yellow star to differentiate them (and hopefully prevent their breeding). According to your response to the first question these beings should be treated as humans. Is it acceptable to mark them as different, just because they might start to practise propagating their genes?

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of one of the scientists putting in a genetic worm that might then spread to the human community, bringing with it some sort of horrible malady that might result in a tragic reduction of life span, among other things.

God bless,
jd

 

[Spock]

Yes, and the more powerful the law, the more atrocious can be their actions on lesser humans!

Yes, it is true, and very sad.

I am consistent with the idea of a fetus. I don’t view it as a “corpse” once neuromuscular activity begins. Of course, I am not a Catholic bio-ethicist.

It was artificially started, however, and it cannot sustain itself, unless other parts of the brain are also “booted up”. And then comes the necessity of intrvenous feeding… etc.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines of one of the scientists putting in a genetic worm that might then spread to the human community, bringing with it some sort of horrible malady that might result in a tragic reduction of life span, among other things.

That was not stipulated. The androids are just that, human-looking beings, grown in a vat, or assembled in a lab (or production line). Would it be proper to put a “mark” on them to distinguish them from the “real” humans?

 

[Spirithound]

Interesting. Other posters deny that this being has (or can have) a “soul”. Now the simple brain activity of making “breathing” is not self-sustaining. Without turning other parts “on” it will cease in a short time. Are we obliged to continue?

No, we are not obliged to continue. We are obliged to provide nutrition, as long as it is able to be metabolized. This does not include artificially turning on parts of the brain.

That is what we are talking about. What “is” human? The functional definition, which I suggested is something that can be used. Without it, what can we use to differentiate a human from a non-human?

Unfortunately this is not helpful at all. Since the “soul” cannot be detected, we can never know if any “being” has a soul or not.

Another champagne might be called for, but I don’t much like celebrating a lack of knowledge …

One definition of a human that I can provide is a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. I equate the terms ‘human’ and ‘person’. It precludes the possibility of God evolving other species and giving them a spirit-soul (as opposed to a merely animal or vegetative soul), but it does protect the lives of the privileged species from conception to natural death.

Perhaps it is possible to work a definition that involves both functionality and the soul. As I mentioned earlier, the soul confers functionality, barring any physical limitations. These limitations come in many forms, from the common, like someone being out of shape not being able to run quickly, to the empirically less-common, like someone being in a coma not being able to do anything.

Further, the species of the soul properly matches the species of the physical reality. Therefore, we can extrapolate that if one member of a physical species exhibits a certain functionality, all members of that species also possess that functionality, even though they might be physically impeded from exhibiting it.

 

[JDaniel]

The androids are just that, human-looking beings, grown in a vat, or assembled in a lab (or production line). Would it be proper to put a “mark” on them to distinguish them from the “real” humans?

Spock:

In order to answer that question, I think an exhaustive “list” of human-making qualities would have to exist within the thing. The list would have to be prioritized, i.e., such qualities as awareness of awareness of awareness, for example, would be high on the list of mental qualities required for human-ness. Whereas, such things as feet with but four toes would be way down at the bottom. IOW, an answer to your question would be tedious.

Bio-ethicists may have such a “list.” The perusal of which would be very interesting.

God bless,
jd

 

[JontheMaronite]

Have a quick question that I was asked recently (and I apologize if it’s slightly off-topic but I felt it was somewhat relevant):

If the consciousness is a “thing,” but all mental characteristics and personal identifiers are, as far as we can tell, specifically rooted in the physical structure of the brain, what is the actual appreciable difference between two consciousnesses?

 

[Spirithound]

Have a quick question that I was asked recently (and I apologize if it’s slightly off-topic but I felt it was somewhat relevant):

If the consciousness is a “thing,” but all mental characteristics and personal identifiers are, as far as we can tell, specifically rooted in the physical structure of the brain, what is the actual appreciable difference between two consciousnesses?

It’s difficult to find a suitable analogy because consciousness/soul is not a tangible thing, but it might be along the lines of water in a bowl, with the water being the soul, and the bowl being the physical interface. Water generally needs some sort of container to be used. In the same way, the human soul uses the human body to interact with the world.

 

[Spock]

No, we are not obliged to continue. We are obliged to provide nutrition, as long as it is able to be metabolized. This does not include artificially turning on parts of the brain.

OK.

One definition of a human that I can provide is a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens.

Yes, but now you postponed the problem. Now you have to define what the “homo sapiens” is? Is it our DNA, which resides within some undefined limits? The biological classification is pretty much arbitrary, and it is quite vague. First, we have no idea what the limits can be to call the being a “human”. Imagine that someone’s DNA is different from the “norm”? And what is the “norm”, anyhow? No, this approach does not work.

I equate the terms ‘human’ and ‘person’. It precludes the possibility of God evolving other species and giving them a spirit-soul (as opposed to a merely animal or vegetative soul), but it does protect the lives of the privileged species from conception to natural death.

That could be a good definition for you. But it will not be a good definition for someone, who does not accept the concept of a soul. First, I have never seen a coherent definition of this “soul”, and much less a method to decide if someone has a soul or not. Furthermore it does not provide a useful method for dealing with other possible sentient beings (organic or not, or maybe coming from a different planet).

I would suggest a different approach. The term human designates a being, which is part of the group called “sentient beings”. A sentient being is something that has the ability to behave in a certain manner. This certain manner is roughly the same as we, biologically humans behave. Admittedly, this is also vague, but there is no need to make it more precise, since then we might exclude others, who are much higher or much lower than we are.

What about those animals, which (who?) exhibit stunningly human-like behavior? They can speak via sign language, they express desires, emotions, they behave in an altruistic manner. The “moral” code of animals is much higher that that of humans. They do not torture other animals. They only kill to get food, never for “fun”. If some mutation would happen which would raise the intelligence of these animals to include a higher level of abstraction (because they already exhibit some level of abstraction) then what would we do with them? Should we include them into the family of sentient beings, or should we label them as inferior beings, since they lack that questionable “immortal soul”? How could someone find out if they have an “immortal and rational” soul?

Perhaps it is possible to work a definition that involves both functionality and the soul. As I mentioned earlier, the soul confers functionality, barring any physical limitations.

Why would we need a special word: “soul”, when the term “functionality” is already there, and unambigous? And what kind of functionality are you talking about? When someone “walks”, that means that the leg muscles are functioning in a certain manner (differerently from “kicking”). Why call this a “soul”? It is superfluous to create a new word if it is just a synomym for an existing one.

Further, the species of the soul properly matches the species of the physical reality. Therefore, we can extrapolate that if one member of a physical species exhibits a certain functionality, all members of that species also possess that functionality, even though they might be physically impeded from exhibiting it.

I don’t understand what you say here. What is the species of the “soul”? How many different kinds of “soul” are there? And most importantly, what is the objective, repeatable method, which can be used to detect them, and tell that a “specific soul” belongs to “this” specific “species”?

 

[Spock]

In order to answer that question, I think an exhaustive “list” of human-making qualities would have to exist within the thing. The list would have to be prioritized, i.e., such qualities as awareness of awareness of awareness, for example, would be high on the list of mental qualities required for human-ness. Whereas, such things as feet with but four toes would be way down at the bottom. IOW, an answer to your question would be tedious.

Undoubtedly so. That is why I offer a much simpler method: “human is as human does”. It is intuitive and simple.

Bio-ethicists may have such a “list.” The perusal of which would be very interesting.

I wonder if there is such a list. I have never heard of one.

 

[razredge]

The question is: “how do we know if the zombie has consciousness and awareness, or not”? Consciousness and self-awareness cannot be “measured”. It can be inferred from the behavior and the self-reporting of the being under consideration. That is why the Turing test is so important. If we cannot decide after a “sufficiently long” conversation if the other partner is a human, or a zombie or a computer then we must assume a human.

We might not be able to discern a difference, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference. This is much like the problem of other minds, it could well be possible that only our minds exist and everyone else is a philosophical zombie - we tend to reject that hypothesis for simplicity’s sake though. Same with the brain in a vat or ‘Matrix’ argument.

Of course, it could also not be possible to create a philosophical zombie in the first place.

Now, coming back to Earth we can consider an existing technology. In the case of some serious mental disorders there is recommended procedure: to separate the two halves of the brain. This operation has been performed on primates and humans. Now, the two halves do not work exactly alike, there is a “specialization”. Nevertheless, at the end we shall have two, not really identical but very close copies of the “original”. One of the two halves is usually dominant, but the other half can take over sometimes - and they behave quite differently. Now, theoretically it is possible to take one half, and transplant it into the corpse of freshly diseased person. (Yes, a tad gruesome, and technically challenging, but quite possible. And it has been perfomed on monkeys.) Now comes the question: what happened to the “soul”? Did the scalpel “cut” the immaterial soul in half? Did one half retain the original soul, and the other half was supplied by a “fresh” one? If so, which one? Questions like these, if pondered in depth will cast a serious doubt on the concept of “soul”.

Perhaps they’ll both have souls - whether they share memories or personalities is a different question.

Sure thing. I have no idea how a believer would handle it. For me the answer is easy. “Game over” - and unfortunately there is no slot to put in a quarter to get a new one.

Actually they have some pretty interesting ideas

 

[Spock]

We might not be able to discern a difference, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a difference.

Wait a second. The point is not that we - at our level of development - cannot tell the difference, but that it is impossible - even in theory - to tell the difference. Since the soul cannot be seen, detected, measured under any and all circumstances, why even postulate its existence? If something cannot be observed directly or indirectly then it cannot be measured.

This is much like the problem of other minds, it could well be possible that only our minds exist and everyone else is a philosophical zombie - we tend to reject that hypothesis for simplicity’s sake though. Same with the brain in a vat or ‘Matrix’ argument.

Indeed! Not just for simplicity’s sake, even though it plays an important role, but also because it has no explanatory value.

Of course, it could also not be possible to create a philosophical zombie in the first place.

Yes, of coruse.

Perhaps they’ll both have souls - whether they share memories or personalities is a different question.

If the process I described is performed very slowly, then both halves of the brain will become an almost perfect replica of the original. If a part of the brain sustains some damage, the rest will “pick up the slack”, so to speak. The brain has a huge redundancy built into, a lot of unused capacity, so at the beginning the two halves would share the same memories and personality. Later on they would diverge. But this is just technical detail. The main question is: what happens to the soul, if there is one?

Actually they have some pretty interesting ideas

I bet so.

 

[Spirithound]

Yes, but now you postponed the problem. Now you have to define what the “homo sapiens” is? Is it our DNA, which resides within some undefined limits? The biological classification is pretty much arbitrary, and it is quite vague. First, we have no idea what the limits can be to call the being a “human”. Imagine that someone’s DNA is different from the “norm”? And what is the “norm”, anyhow? No, this approach does not work.

Hmm, I suppose I have rather postponed the question. Good thing I continued writing…

That could be a good definition for you. But it will not be a good definition for someone, who does not accept the concept of a soul. First, I have never seen a coherent definition of this “soul”, and much less a method to decide if someone has a soul or not. Furthermore it does not provide a useful method for dealing with other possible sentient beings (organic or not, or maybe coming from a different planet).

No, this approach does not work for someone who does not accept the concept of the soul. But again…good thing I continued writing!

I would suggest a different approach…

Yes, you would, because you’ve already proposed this in Post #6, which is why I put forth the hypothesis involving the soul and functionality.

What about those animals, which (who?) exhibit stunningly human-like behavior? They can speak via sign language, they express desires, emotions, they behave in an altruistic manner. The “moral” code of animals is much higher that that of humans. They do not torture other animals. They only kill to get food, never for “fun”. If some mutation would happen which would raise the intelligence of these animals to include a higher level of abstraction (because they already exhibit some level of abstraction) then what would we do with them? Should we include them into the family of sentient beings, or should we label them as inferior beings, since they lack that questionable “immortal soul”? How could someone find out if they have an “immortal and rational” soul?

Why would we need a special word: “soul”, when the term “functionality” is already there, and unambigous? And what kind of functionality are you talking about? When someone “walks”, that means that the leg muscles are functioning in a certain manner (differerently from “kicking”). Why call this a “soul”? It is superfluous to create a new word if it is just a synomym for an existing one.

No, “soul” and “functionality” are not synonymous, precisely because function can be blocked by physical impediments.

I don’t understand what you say here. What is the species of the “soul”? How many different kinds of “soul” are there? And most importantly, what is the objective, repeatable method, which can be used to detect them, and tell that a “specific soul” belongs to “this” specific “species”?

By “species of the soul,” I meant to convey that the species of the soul is the same as the species of the body. Humans have human-souls, dogs have dog-souls, etc. Of course, we have already passed over the rather superficial test that calls a thing by what it merely looks like. Thus the functionality of the being can be evaluated to decide whether it is “human,” with the understanding that we are evaluating the species of the soul, and the soul might be impeded by the physical reality. This is where generalizations must be utilized. Just as a species normally identified by various physical features is still that species if those parts have been cut off, still so is a human a human, even if it doesn’t display the full functionality of a human. That sounds supremely unhelpful again, doesn’t it? However, consider again that I identify a particular species of soul with a particular species of body. Remember “human=person”? So the identification is bilateral. A particular species of soul is identified with a particular species of body, and equally, that species of body must be identified with that species of soul.

 

[Jvrlns]

Let’s consider a thought experiment. Suppose that biochemists, and associated other scientists figure out a way to build or grow a biological “statue”, which looks like a human being. It is all composed of organic material, it has a DNA which falls into the category of “human DNA”. It has a brain, too, but it does not function, there is no chemical-electical activity. (As such, none of the other organs “work” either.) I think we can all agree that it is truly just a statue, nothing more.

Now the fun begins. Let’s suppose that the experimenters are able to “switch on” some very limited brain activity, namely the area of the brain, which controls breathing. Now the statue’s muscles, which control the rise/fall of the rib-cage are active, the statue is “breathing”, the air moves in and out of the lungs. Breathing consumes energy, so now the heart must be “turned on”, to deliver the nutrients to the muscles. So the experimenters switch on the area of the brain, which controls the heart. To produce the necessary nutrients, the statue is hooked up to an IV tube and fed intravenously. Now we have a partially active statue.

Now, making the process short, the experimenters keep “turning on” different parts of the brain. At the end of the process the “statue” will become fully functional, “it” can be “decoupled” from the sustaining machinery, and “it” start “its” independent life. No outsider can ever know how “she” (assuming the gender was female) came into existence.

There are a few questions here, worthy to be contemplated.

The first one: “Should she be granted a fully human status?”.

The second one: “At which point of the process does she become a human?”. (provided, of course that one answers the first one affirmatively).

The third one: “Should these artificial humans (androids) be forced to wear a distinctive sign so that they could be told apart from the ‘real’ humans?”.

Caveat: I am aware that this scenario is very farfetched. It may never come to pass, even if the technology will be there (why wouldn’t be?). But it has serious philosophical implications. What makes us human? If you wish to bring in the concept ou growof the “soul” into the analysis, by all means, do so. However, tell us, at which point of the process the “ensoulment” takes place? (I would very much prefer not to see empty posts declaring that this scenario is impossible, and should not even be contemplated. If that is what you think, please don’t post. Empty posts only waste bandwidth and they are annoying. But, of course, it is your choice.)

How will you grow this statue? How will you be able to keep it at room temperature without going off? I can’t imagine the stink

 

[Spock]

How will you grow this statue? How will you be able to keep it at room temperature without going off? I can’t imagine the stink

The statue does not grow until activated. And until its gets activated it needs to be kept at a sufficiently lower temperature to prevent the decay and forestall the stink.

 

[Spock]

No, “soul” and “functionality” are not synonymous, precisely because function can be blocked by physical impediments.

Let me see if I understand you: do you mean that the “soul” is the ideal functionality? Which would be exhibited if there were no physical impediments? I am not sure what you mean.

By “species of the soul,” I meant to convey that the species of the soul is the same as the species of the body. Humans have human-souls, dogs have dog-souls, etc.

I wonder if you mean by the word “species” the biological classification. If so, then I must point out that this classification if arbitrary and merely descriptive. Dogs are merely domesticated wolves and jackals, and sometimes they even interbreed. Is there now a dog-soul and wolf-soul? I simply do not understand your proposition.

Of course, we have already passed over the rather superficial test that calls a thing by what it merely looks like. Thus the functionality of the being can be evaluated to decide whether it is “human,” with the understanding that we are evaluating the species of the soul, and the soul might be impeded by the physical reality. This is where generalizations must be utilized. Just as a species normally identified by various physical features is still that species if those parts have been cut off, still so is a human a human, even if it doesn’t display the full functionality of a human.

Yes, this is very true. And what you show here that these classifications are not really useful. We need to look at the functionality, or behavior, and based upon that we see if that other being exhibits signs of sentience. If it does, it should be considered to be an “honorary human”. It does not matter if its a carbon-based life-form or not. It does not matter if it was born here on Earth or not.

Remember “human=person”? So the identification is bilateral. A particular species of soul is identified with a particular species of body, and equally, that species of body must be identified with that species of soul.

Sorry, but that sounds like a circular definition or tautology to me. I think, my basic problem is that I do not comprehend what the word “soul” is supposed to mean.

 

[levinas12]

What does it mean to be human? This is a question that has dominated the history of philosophy. Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger. They all addressed this question.

But not by using the methods of modern science. No repeatable laboratory experiments. No weighing, measuring or testing.

Take Aristotle. He used the philosophical concept of “form” to explore what it means to be human. What is a “form”? A principle of operation which enables a being to engage in certain activities. “Form” is not a thing … more like a structure, except that structure is too static a word.

The human soul is a type of “form” which makes possible specific human activities. For example, conversation. We can talk about things, ask questions, tell jokes, issue commands, consider hypotheticals, etc. The evidence for these activities is immediate, i.e, no need for inference, no need for a Turing test. This immediacy is what defines everyday life.

As philosophy “evolved”, the notion of “person” became an explicit theme. Aristotle did not really articulate this. “Person” is different from Aristotelian “form” because “person” is not a sortal noun, not a type of being. The Aristotelian form is common to a plurality of beings. But “person” is a singularity. There are not many Abraham Lincolns, each of which exemplifies the person of Abraham Lincoln.

Where’s the proof for all of this? The everyday world we all have in common. It is this “world” which is the ground, the foundation for the more limited perspective of modern science.

N.B. Copernicus did not invalidate perception.