What constitutes a human being?

[Betterave]

As for the attachment of the soul and the being to the body, I don’t know that there is any official Church teaching on this. We tend to assume that death occurs and the soul seperates from the body when the free will no longer controls the body in any way, though - right? Isn’t that why brain death is considered significant - because without the brain, how can the will act upon the body? However, I don’t know that there is any evidence of this, including philosophical or theological evidence - perhaps the soul actually lingers within the body for some time, but simply with the free will unable to act upon the body.

There is evidence: Testimony from people who have revived from alleged PVS and spoken of their conscious experiences while in ‘PVS’, which had been undetectable to all bystanders, and had thus been presumed to be non-existent.

 

[rfulks]

no they dont, they are simply responding to programming whether evolutionary or environmental, anthropomorphizing an animal doesnt mean it actually has a mind. simply assuming it does because it resembles one superficially, doesnt mean it actually has a mind.

If this is your thought about animals - that they have no will but their actions are only determined by evolutionary/enviromental influences - then how do you know that the same is not true for every other human being aside from yourself? To me, every human I know (including myself) is entirely influenced in its perceived “choice” of actions by nature and nurture. The actions of fully developed, mature humans are complex, sure, and human interaction is influenced by the incredible capacity of language, but all acts taken by humans are in some way influenced by the same evolutionary and enviromental factors that influence animals. Dogs, birds, worms, and humans all seek to eat, drink, sleep, mate, avoid dangerous stimuli, etc, just at different levels of complexity. One can think that humans are fundamentally different from animals because of a religious belief in an immortal soul, but biologically, neurologically, genetically, psychologically, evolutionarily, humans exist on the same continuum of life as every other animal on the planet.

 

[rfulks]

There is evidence: Testimony from people who have revived from alleged PVS and spoken of their conscious experiences while in ‘PVS’, which had been undetectable to all bystanders, and had thus been presumed to be non-existent.

A small point - people who had “alleged” PVS and were still partially conscious were not in PVS. They were misdiagnosed. In true PVS, there is no conscious activity as the higher cerebral hemispheres have been destroyed by anoxia (like Terri Shiavo) or severe brain trauma, but the lower brain structures responsible for generating a drive to breathe or sleep/wake, etc, remain intact.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

If this is your thought about animals - that they have no will but their actions are only determined by evolutionary/enviromental influences - then how do you know that the same is not true for every other human being aside from yourself?

i induct that other people are also exercising free will from my own subjective experience. i have no such way to induct that a different species has free will.

To me, every human I know (including myself) is entirely influenced in its perceived “choice” of actions by nature and nurture. The actions of fully developed, mature humans are complex, sure, and human interaction is influenced by the incredible capacity of language, but all acts taken by humans are in some way influenced by the same evolutionary and enviromental factors that influence animals.

do you have any evidence that this is the case? because i know of no evolutionary or environmental factors that put any restraint on my exercise of free will.

people tend to act rationally, but they are not forced to. they can choose any of an infinite number of reactions to stimuli. this isnt something seen in animals, they seem to be driven strictly by programming, evolutionary or environmental.

Dogs, birds, worms, and humans all seek to eat, drink, sleep, mate, avoid dangerous stimuli, etc, just at different levels of complexity. One can think that humans are fundamentally different from animals because of a religious belief in an immortal soul, but biologically, neurologically, genetically, psychologically, evolutionarily, humans exist on the same continuum of life as every other animal on the planet.

it has nothing to do with an immortal soul, but rather from the ability to exceed ones programming. to exercise free will.

 

[Betterave]

A small point - people who had “alleged” PVS and were still partially conscious were not in PVS. They were misdiagnosed. In true PVS, there is no conscious activity as the higher cerebral hemispheres have been destroyed by anoxia (like Terri Shiavo) or severe brain trauma, but the lower brain structures responsible for generating a drive to breathe or sleep/wake, etc, remain intact.

Why did you think I included the word ‘alleged’? By definition ‘permanent vegetative state’ implies that such a state is held to be irreversible. I have doubts about your claims about ‘true PVS’ - there is no such thing from what I understand; i.e., PVS is not a real diagnosis of a particular state of the brain, it’s just a name that is applied to people who have suffered from a certain reduced level of brain function for an extended period of time (if wikipedia is to be believed, they get the label ‘persistent VS’ after 4 weeks, ‘permanent VS’ after approx. 1 year - these are just legal terms, they don’t indicate any particular ‘medical reality’).

 

[Doc_Keele]

PVS diagnosed properly is quite robust and certainly not a legal term

 

[rfulks]

i induct that other people are also exercising free will from my own subjective experience. i have no such way to induct that a different species has free will.

Why not? Why can’t you induce the same thing with regard to animals? When my dog shudders and tries to hide under the bed during a raging thunderstorm, I can be pretty sure that she feels fear, even though she is a different species than me. When she climbs the fence to escape our yard (she can do that), and I see her from the window looking back at the house to make sure no one is watching her, why can’t I induce that she is freely willing the decision to be a bad dog and get out of the yard?

do you have any evidence that this is the case? because i know of no evolutionary or environmental factors that put any restraint on my exercise of free will.

You must be superman, then.    I know that whatever choice I have (if any) is entirely constrained by natural and enviromental factors.      I am shy by nature, and I could never be the life of a party full of strangers, no matter how much I might want that.   My retarded uncle is never going to be a brain surgeon, no matter how much he tries to will it.      I have never in the slightest been tempted to participate in genocide.    However, if I had been born in Bavaria in 1920, I can imagine myself being influenced by that environment at that time and becoming a Nazi, readily participating in the Holocaust.   Is the difference "choice" or circumstance/environment?

people tend to act rationally, but they are not forced to. they can choose any of an infinite number of reactions to stimuli.

I disagree.   We, humans, can imagine a wide range of reactions to stimuli, which gives us the illusion of free choice, but the reaction "chosen" is more or less predictable.    Society would be chaos if people were running around, acting in an entirely unpredictable manner.     Psychology could not exist as a science, if there was some big variable called random choice or free will that determined our behavior.    But psychology can predict how individuals and groups of people will behave in various situations, and there aren't chapters in psychology textbooks devoted to the free will variable.

it has nothing to do with an immortal soul, but rather from the ability to exceed ones programming. to exercise free will.

What does this even mean? I am entirely a product of my programming. If I was born with the same DNA in Bavaria in 1920 or England in 1066 or Borneo in 10,000 BC, I would be a different person. If I was born with different DNA at the exact same place and time as I was, I would also be a different person. We all are pretty much products of “programming.” A child raised in an affluent, stable family, given a good education, etc is more than likely going to turn out differently than a child raised by poor, unstable, drug-addicted parents living in a trailer in eastern Kentucky. A child raised by wolves in the forest or in an isolated cage in a laboratory will barely be a human at all, if not given the requisite “programming” and not taught language or social interaction, etc.

 

[o_mlly]

If this is your thought about animals - that they have no will but their actions are only determined by evolutionary/enviromental influences - then how do you know that the same is not true for every other human being aside from yourself?

By observing behavior.

…The actions of fully developed, mature humans are complex, sure, and human interaction is influenced by the incredible capacity of language, …

Human language is not a difference in degree; it is a difference in kind. Only human language formulates propositional statements.

One can think that humans are fundamentally different from animals because of a religious belief in an immortal soul, but biologically, neurologically, genetically, psychologically, evolutionarily, humans exist on the same continuum of life as every other animal on the planet.

Animal intelligence is not rational intelligence but rather sentient. Therefore, animals have a spirtiual dimension and souls as principles of animation. Their minds are limited to perceptual thought; not rational wich is capable of conceptual thought. Without the ability to conceptualize, animals have not independently altered their mode of existence. The bear would never attempt to ride a bicycle in nature without man’s intervention.

 

[rfulks]

Animal intelligence is not rational intelligence but rather sentient. Therefore, animals have a spirtiual dimension and souls as principles of animation. Their minds are limited to perceptual thought; not rational wich is capable of conceptual thought. Without the ability to conceptualize, animals have not independently altered their mode of existence. The bear would never attempt to ride a bicycle in nature without man’s intervention.

I am no animal behavior scientist, but from watching “Nova” I know that animals in the lab and in the wild can solve problems, invent tools, do a limited amount of arithmetic, and communicate in ways not dissimilar from that of man. A few years ago, chimps in Africa were observed sharpening sticks for use in hunting. With tool-making like that, along with every other aspect of chimpanzee behavior and biology, it is impossible not to see such a chimp on a biological continuum with man, especially early man. If chimps exist on such a continuum with us, then other great apes must as well, and then other mammals, and ultimately all animals.

 

[Betterave]

PVS diagnosed properly is quite robust and certainly not a legal term

It certainly is a legal term, just as many ‘medical terms’ are, and sure it’s ‘robust’ as such, as a term with a more or less strict legal definition - so what? - but it doesn’t mean anything beyond that, does it? And what do you mean by adding ‘diagnosed properly’? - sure, presumably if it’s ‘diagnosed properly,’ ipso facto it’s ‘robust.’ That’s just begging the question, you’re not saying anything substantive here.

 

[Betterave]

I am no animal behavior scientist, but from watching “Nova” I know that animals in the lab and in the wild can solve problems, invent tools, do a limited amount of arithmetic, and communicate in ways not dissimilar from that of man. A few years ago, chimps in Africa were observed sharpening sticks for use in hunting. With tool-making like that, along with every other aspect of chimpanzee behavior and biology, it is impossible not to see such a chimp on a biological continuum with man, especially early man. If chimps exist on such a continuum with us, then other great apes must as well, and then other mammals, and ultimately all animals.

Of course there’s a biological continuum: that’s just to say that there are significant similarities between all animals. But that doesn’t mean that there are not also discontinuities, both between each species, genus, phylum, etc., as well as particularly notable discontinuities between man and the other animals. Right?

 

[Doc_Keele]

It certainly is a legal term, just as many ‘medical terms’ are, and sure it’s ‘robust’ as such, as a term with a more or less strict legal definition - so what? - but it doesn’t mean anything beyond that, does it? And what do you mean by adding ‘diagnosed properly’? - sure, presumably if it’s ‘diagnosed properly,’ ipso facto it’s ‘robust.’ That’s just begging the question, you’re not saying anything substantive here.

I can assure it isn’t a legal term, but believe what you like. I’m only a medical lawyer doing research on medical law, what could I possibly know about the subject?
Medical diagnoses don’t have a legal definition.

 

[o_mlly]

I am no animal behavior scientist, but from watching “Nova” I know that animals in the lab and in the wild can solve problems, invent tools, do a limited amount of arithmetic, and communicate in ways not dissimilar from that of man. A few years ago, chimps in Africa were observed sharpening sticks for use in hunting. With tool-making like that, along with every other aspect of chimpanzee behavior and biology, it is impossible not to see such a chimp on a biological continuum with man, especially early man. If chimps exist on such a continuum with us, then other great apes must as well, and then other mammals, and ultimately all animals.

The rule of parsimony in scientific inference … proscribes the positing of an unobservable entity unless positing it can be shown to be necessary in order to explain observed phenomena.

To say, for example, that only men make things, or that only men make tools, is false; for beavers make dams, spiders make webs, birds make nests, and apes make tools. However, the following more precise statements are true and are so regarded by leading anthropologists.
Only men fashion tools not for immediate use but for future action in remote but foreseeable contingencies. Other so-called tool-making animals improvise instruments that they immediately employ in the same perceptual context which led to the improvisation.

Only men machinofacture products as well as manufacture them; i.e., produce things, first, by making blueprints that incorporate the specifications of the product to be made, and then by creating dies for the reproduction of the specified item out of plastic materials. No other animal machinofactures to any degree.

Only men make totally useless (though enjoyable) works of fine art; the productions of other animals always serve a biological purpose or have some biological utility for the survival of the individual or the species, as human works of fine art do not.

Only man makes artistically, that is, by free choice as well as by conceptual thought. All other animals make instinctively. The observable evidence for this point of difference is the wide range of variability in human productions of every sort, as compared with the uniformity of the productions of other animals, uniform within a given species because instinctively determined and therefore species specific.

It is an egregious error, yet one made by eminent scientists, to align the instinctive (and therefore uniform) performances of other species of animals with the voluntary (and therefore variable) performances of men, thereby concluding, for example, that both men and the bower-birds of Australia make artistically because the latter decorate their nests, or that both men and the dancing bees make complicated statements because the dances of the latter indicate the distance and direction of the place where nectar can be found.

Similarly, to say that only man is a social animal or that only man lives in a highly organized society is false; for many other species of animals are manifestly gregarious, and the social insects, such as wasps, ants, and termites, live in highly organized societies. However, the following more precise statements are true in the light of all available evidence.

In addition to being gregarious as other animals are, only man is a political animal; that is, only man frames constitutions and makes laws for the organization and conduct of the societies in which he lives, prescribing right conduct and prohibiting wrong conduct.

Only man associates voluntarily, as is evidenced by the great variability within the human species of the forms of social organization, in families and tribes as well as in states. All other species of gregarious animals associate instinctively (especially those with the highest degree of social organization, such as the social insects), as is evidenced by the uniformity of their species specific modes of association or patterns of social organization.

Of the two foregoing points, the first is the basis for an inference to man’s possession of the power of conceptual thought; the second is the basis for an inference to man’s possession of the power of free choice.

The Confusion of the Animalists
by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D.

 

[rfulks]

The rule of parsimony in scientific inference … proscribes the positing of an unobservable entity unless positing it can be shown to be necessary in order to explain observed phenomena.

To say, for example, that only men make things, or that only men make tools, is false; for beavers make dams, spiders make webs, birds make nests, and apes make tools. However, the following more precise statements are true and are so regarded by leading anthropologists.
Only men fashion tools not for immediate use but for future action in remote but foreseeable contingencies. Other so-called tool-making animals improvise instruments that they immediately employ in the same perceptual context which led to the improvisation.

Only men machinofacture products as well as manufacture them; i.e., produce things, first, by making blueprints that incorporate the specifications of the product to be made, and then by creating dies for the reproduction of the specified item out of plastic materials. No other animal machinofactures to any degree.

Only men make totally useless (though enjoyable) works of fine art; the productions of other animals always serve a biological purpose or have some biological utility for the survival of the individual or the species, as human works of fine art do not.

Only man makes artistically, that is, by free choice as well as by conceptual thought. All other animals make instinctively. The observable evidence for this point of difference is the wide range of variability in human productions of every sort, as compared with the uniformity of the productions of other animals, uniform within a given species because instinctively determined and therefore species specific.

It is an egregious error, yet one made by eminent scientists, to align the instinctive (and therefore uniform) performances of other species of animals with the voluntary (and therefore variable) performances of men, thereby concluding, for example, that both men and the bower-birds of Australia make artistically because the latter decorate their nests, or that both men and the dancing bees make complicated statements because the dances of the latter indicate the distance and direction of the place where nectar can be found.

Similarly, to say that only man is a social animal or that only man lives in a highly organized society is false; for many other species of animals are manifestly gregarious, and the social insects, such as wasps, ants, and termites, live in highly organized societies. However, the following more precise statements are true in the light of all available evidence.

In addition to being gregarious as other animals are, only man is a political animal; that is, only man frames constitutions and makes laws for the organization and conduct of the societies in which he lives, prescribing right conduct and prohibiting wrong conduct.

Only man associates voluntarily, as is evidenced by the great variability within the human species of the forms of social organization, in families and tribes as well as in states. All other species of gregarious animals associate instinctively (especially those with the highest degree of social organization, such as the social insects), as is evidenced by the uniformity of their species specific modes of association or patterns of social organization.

Of the two foregoing points, the first is the basis for an inference to man’s possession of the power of conceptual thought; the second is the basis for an inference to man’s possession of the power of free choice.

The Confusion of the Animalists
by Mortimer J. Adler, Ph.D.

Regardless, man still exists on a continuum with all other animals on the planet.

 

[o_mlly]

Regardless, man still exists on a continuum with all other animals on the planet.

Really? “Regardless” is not a premise for argument so I assume your posting your opinion.

Since philosophical reason moves you less than “Nova” programming, I’ll appeal to your faith: which animal is made in the likeness of God?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why not? Why can’t you induce the same thing with regard to animals?

because that would be anthropomorphization.

When my dog shudders and tries to hide under the bed during a raging thunderstorm, I can be pretty sure that she feels fear, even though she is a different species than me. When she climbs the fence to escape our yard (she can do that), and I see her from the window looking back at the house to make sure no one is watching her, why can’t I induce that she is freely willing the decision to be a bad dog and get out of the yard?

because that would be anthropomorphization.

You must be superman, then.    I know that whatever choice I have (if any) is entirely constrained by natural and enviromental factors.      I am shy by nature, and I could never be the life of a party full of strangers, no matter how much I might want that.   My retarded uncle is never going to be a brain surgeon, no matter how much he tries to will it.      I have never in the slightest been tempted to participate in genocide.    However, if I had been born in Bavaria in 1920, I can imagine myself being influenced by that environment at that time and becoming a Nazi, readily participating in the Holocaust.   Is the difference "choice" or circumstance/environment?

being influenced by your environment doesnt change your ability to exercise ytour free will. it shapes what you amy considetr a rational choice, but it doesnt force you.

I disagree.   We, humans, can imagine a wide range of reactions to stimuli, which gives us the illusion of free choice, but the reaction "chosen" is more or less predictable.    Society would be chaos if people were running around, acting in an entirely unpredictable manner.     Psychology could not exist as a science, if there was some big variable called random choice or free will that determined our behavior.    But psychology can predict how individuals and groups of people will behave in various situations, and there aren't chapters in psychology textbooks devoted to the free will variable.

the reaction is only predictable insofar as people are willing to act in a rational manner, given a particular set of circumstances. they are not forced to.

now if you dont believe in free will, thats a whole different argument.

What does this even mean? I am entirely a product of my programming. If I was born with the same DNA in Bavaria in 1920 or England in 1066 or Borneo in 10,000 BC, I would be a different person. If I was born with different DNA at the exact same place and time as I was, I would also be a different person. We all are pretty much products of “programming.” A child raised in an affluent, stable family, given a good education, etc is more than likely going to turn out differently than a child raised by poor, unstable, drug-addicted parents living in a trailer in eastern Kentucky. A child raised by wolves in the forest or in an isolated cage in a laboratory will barely be a human at all, if not given the requisite “programming” and not taught language or social interaction, etc.

many people have these or similar situations, yet they can and do exceed their programming. im pointing out that one need have a religious belief to understand that animals seem to be exercising no free will.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Regardless, man still exists on a continuum with all other animals on the planet.

if we are allowed to group by taxonomy, then all matter is one big family, there is little difference on the purely material level than a rock and a person.

 

[Betterave]

I can assure it isn’t a legal term, but believe what you like. I’m only a medical lawyer doing research on medical law, what could I possibly know about the subject?
Medical diagnoses don’t have a legal definition.

There’s obviously a lot you could know, and probably even more that could stand to learn. You probably think, as a lawyer, that ‘legal’ can only mean made up by a lawyer or enacted by a legislator, or enshrined in a legal code that is studied by lawyers and interpreted by judges (all terms being understood in the usual narrow jurisprudential senses). Hate to disillusion you, but that’s not the case.

 

[Betterave]

I could decide to ‘diagnose’ my refrigerator as being in PVS if the same vegetables have been in it for 4 consecutive weeks. So what? Such a diagnosis is a stipulated definition that does not pick out a natural kind. But I would make this kind of ‘diagnosis’ because I wanted to think about my refrigerator in a new way after a certain amount of time during which it contained the same vegetables. The invention of such stipulative definitions are acts of positive law-making that don’t pick out any natural turning point or state of affairs: “I declare that henceforth, after 4 weeks of such-and-such, the fridge will be declared so-and-so.” Sure, why not?.. go ahead, right? Just don’t pretend your posited definition or ‘diagnosis’ is anything more than it really is.

 

[Doc_Keele]

There’s obviously a lot you could know, and probably even more that could stand to learn. You probably think, as a lawyer, that ‘legal’ can only mean made up by a lawyer or enacted by a legislator, or enshrined in a legal code that is studied by lawyers and interpreted by judges (all terms being understood in the usual narrow jurisprudential senses). Hate to disillusion you, but that’s not the case.

Lots of words to say very little.
PVS is not a legal term.
Insanity is a legal term, not a medical term.
PVS is a medical term, not a legal term.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
PVS is not a term of art for the legal profession.