What is a "person" ?

[JDaniel]

Well, even animals have a range of cognitive function, up to and being able to both recognize themselves and learn language.

Dude! You have a problem with Hubbard and you make a statement like this? I love ya, but, please explain both parts of the above.

However, I agree there is a major difference there between animals and humans. The question is how to define it? One approach might be to not try for a hard definition, but instead use ourselves as the definition itself. Basically, we could start with an assumption (considering we are making the distinctions here) and say all humans are people. From there, we can use ourselves as the standard, and say that anything non-human with the potential to reach the typical human cognitive function (including consciousness, language, etc) within it’s lifespan should also be considered human. What do you think?

You still have the problem of the zygote. If it meets that definition of human (being-ness) at the moment it is a zygote, which it seems that it does, it possesses the same inalienable rights to life, et al, that ALL of the rest of us have.

Morality we should stay away from I think… I believe morality is based on social order, like a wolf pack, and one can hardly consider wolves to be human beyond some primitive similarities.

Out of cruelty and viciousness comes love and caring. Interesting.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Lets see… he started a “religion” based on space aliens

Document or retract.

that operates as a pyramid scheme

Document of retract.

while harassing and suing any person or organization that attempts to call them out for what they are,

Document or retract.

and that were investigated by the IRS and FBI.

Like such notable entities as the NFL, NBA, American Baseball, and many more harassed, but, not necessarily guilty companies/entities you respectfully buy things from daily.

I can go into specifics if you want.

A few specifics would be appreciated. (Remember, you have a foot problem you have to take care of!)

By the way, none of that pertains to his scientific endeavors. No one from the scientific community has come out to prove him wrong in his scientific conclusions. Be aware of one thing, I am not a scientologist. But, I am familiar with some of Hubbard’s experiments and conclusions. One such scientific discovery, called remote viewing, was grabbed hold of by the United States Government, to try to counter similar discoveries thought to be in the possession of the Russians.

jd

 

[liquidpele]

Dude! You have a problem with Hubbard and you make a statement like this? I love ya, but, please explain both parts of the above.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language
koko.org/world/signlanguage.html

You still have the problem of the zygote. If it meets that definition of human (being-ness) at the moment it is a zygote, which it seems that it does, it possesses the same inalienable rights to life, et al, that ALL of the rest of us have.

Right, that’s why I talked about the potential to consciousness instead of just having it.

 

[JDaniel]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Here’s a quote from the first paragraph from the above site:

“Darwin noted that the significance of these expressions was ambiguous, and could either signify that the primate was making expressions at what it perceived to be another animal, or it could be playing a sort of game with a new toy.”

I underlined and bolded the important parts of the sentence. Seems ambiguous to me.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_language

Here’s a quote from the first paragraph of this site:

“Primatologists argue that the primates’ use of these tools indicates their ability to use “language”, although this is not consistent with some definitions of that term.”

Here’s another paragraph or two:

"Many scientists, including MIT linguist Noam Chomsky and cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, are skeptical about claims made for great ape language research. Among the reasons for skepticism are the differences in ease with which human beings and apes can learn language, questions as to the whether there is a clear beginning and end to the signed gestures, and whether the apes actually understand language or are simply doing a clever trick for a reward.

While vocabulary words from American Sign Language are used to train the apes, native users of ASL note that mere knowledge of ASL’s vocabulary does not equate to ASL, but more closely reflects Pidgin Signed English which is not a full-fledged language. In the research involving Washoe, all researchers returned lists of signs Washoe used, with the exception of the one deaf native ASL user who reported no signs but many gestures. Native users of ASL make clear distinctions about what handshapes, palm orientations and places of articulation signs must have to constitute linguistic activity. Signs must also be used combinatorially and in the correct grammatical sequence. Thus apes are seen as attempting to approximate these complex rules but are considered to be failing because of such malformations in the production of ASL signs. (However, proponents argue that such limitations might indicate instead that great ape ASL use more closely approximates a rudimentary stage of a young child’s language development, or an early stage of an adult second language learner.)"

Seems VERY inconsistent with most definitions of that term to me.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

koko.org/world/signlanguage.html

C’mon, man, you know better than this junk.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Right, that’s why I talked about the potential to consciousness instead of just having it.

But, you lean towards abortion rights?

jd

 

[liquidpele]

But, you lean towards abortion rights?

jd

I was trying to find some common ground for the sake of discussion. It being a catholic forum, arguing otherwise was not really an option.

 

[liquidpele]

Document or retract.

Document of retract.

Document or retract.

Like such notable entities as the NFL, NBA, American Baseball, and many more harassed, but, not necessarily guilty companies/entities you respectfully buy things from daily.

A few specifics would be appreciated. (Remember, you have a foot problem you have to take care of!)

By the way, none of that pertains to his scientific endeavors. No one from the scientific community has come out to prove him wrong in his scientific conclusions. Be aware of one thing, I am not a scientologist. But, I am familiar with some of Hubbard’s experiments and conclusions. One such scientific discovery, called remote viewing, was grabbed hold of by the United States Government, to try to counter similar discoveries thought to be in the possession of the Russians.

jd

It’s offtopic, so I’ll only reply once on this subject.

BBC Documentary: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8434368373830351271&ei=j_YpSt3JEoqCqQLA6OmbCg&q=scientology+and+me

cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/05/26/france.scientology.court/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_beliefs_and_practices
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freakout
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_and_the_legal_system
paperlessarchives.com/hubbard.html
cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html
brainz.org/16-victims-church-scientology/
xenu.net/cb-faq.html
xenu-directory.net/practices/brainwashing1.html
forums.whyweprotest.net/123-leaks-legal/official-scientology-site-announces-pyramid-scam-18193/
news.cnet.com/2100-1023-865936.html
en.wikinews.org/wiki/Norwegian_government_considers_prosecuting_Scientology?curid=127172
bible.ca/scientology-price-list.htm
altreligion.about.com/od/controversymisconception/a/scientology_cos.htm

You can view their internal documents (new members never see) here:
wikileaks.org/wiki/Church_of_Scientology_collected_Operating_Thetan_documents

Ron did no scientific things of any kind that I am aware of. He did claim a lot though… like the personality tests they give to get you interested that consist of what is basically an ohm meter: xenu.net/archive/oca/oca.html

As for “remote viewing”… hardly scientific with debatable experimentation results. The CIA would have certainly been interested in it’s claims, for interrogation purposes, so their involvement is not that unexpected.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

 

[liquidpele]

I agree there is a major difference there between animals and humans. The question is how to define it? One approach might be to not try for a hard definition, but instead use ourselves as the definition itself. Basically, we could start with an assumption (considering we are making the distinctions here) and say all humans are people. From there, we can use ourselves as the standard, and say that anything non-human with the potential to reach the typical human cognitive function (including consciousness, language, etc) within it’s lifespan should also be considered human (potential so that it includes embryos). What do you think?

I think that morality is built upon by social order and development, which no other animal does that I’m aware of… perhaps that extra boost of social morality is something that could be agreed on? Basically, having an idea of morality that isn’t totally based on biology?

To get this back on track… I’ve removed the controversial comments that JDaniel had issue with. Thoughts anyone?

 

[JDaniel]

I was trying to find some common ground for the sake of discussion. It being a catholic forum, arguing otherwise was not really an option.

OK. Well, darn, I thought we were converting you!

jd

 

[JDaniel]

It’s offtopic, so I’ll only reply once on this subject.

Ron did no scientific things of any kind that I am aware of.

“…that you are aware of …” I thought we were past unwarranted assertions, Pele.

He did claim a lot though… like the personality tests they give to get you interested that consist of what is basically an ohm meter: …

As I say below, “Try it.” There’s nothing like first-hand experience to get to the truth of a thing.

As for “remote viewing”… hardly scientific with debatable experimentation results.

Despite your baseless assertion, the government seemed to have been quite interested in and, although one test was skewed by the testors, other tests were pretty astounding.

The CIA would have certainly been interested in it’s claims, for interrogation purposes, so their involvement is not that unexpected.

It was not intended for use in interrogation. It was for “spying” on the enemies of America. By the way, Wikipedia is probably the worst source of information about Scientology, in my humble opinion.

I won’t go through each one of them to debunk, not all, but many, or most, of them. I will tell you that I am quasi-involved with them in Clearwater, FL. I have read numerous anti-Scientology blogs on the web and most of it is either mis-reportings or falsehoods. There are things about Scientology that I have problems with, particularly since Hubbard’s death.

I continue to read things about them and then I open my eyes to see those things and can’t find them. I have family that are scientologists. One, since the early 70’s. I have brought these accusations to their attention; they just shake their heads and invite me to see if I can find it. That being said, I do believe they are having survival issues and there are some adherents that probably take too much license. When found out, HQ tells them to stop.

The IRS - FBI issue was a matter of two government agencies gone awry. No one has a problem with Jim Traficant, an ex-senator from Ohio and his war against the intolerable practices of the IRS of old, but, Scientology, that’s another story. Why is that brought up as proof of Scientology’s wrongdoings?

Scientology is not for me, as I said, but, I have seen people who have been well helped by auditing. If you have had no experience with Scientology auditing, you should find a Life Improvement Center and test it out. To me, auditing is reconciliation on steroids. I think our way is better, for several reasons, but, really, that’s all auditing is.

Historically, Hubbard was understood to be a great non-theist. (Hey, he was in your camp! ) However, having read many of his writings, I believe he was having problems defending non-theism towards the end of his life. But, he got sick and died before he could inaugurate a turn around of any sort.

Also, upon his death, there was a rift, in the organization, that left some people on the outside. These are primarily the sour grapes attacking Scientology now. Also, the organization is very much hated by gay/lesbian groups. Why? Because they have been very successful at extricating gays and lesbians from their lifestyles.

Finally, there is plenty on the web regarding the take-over of the church by ex-top people from the IRS. If that’s true, then we have witnessed one of the worst government atrocities against citizens of this country that we know about. I don’t know if it is true, but, the internet is replete with it.

Then when I think about how the Catholic Church has been slaughtered by the media, in the recent past, it all registers a ring of truth for me. The pedophilia accusations against priests is still widely held despite proof to the contrary - at least with regard to its extent. The simply Catholic Church turns the other cheek. And, in so doing gets slapped again and again. If one believes in God, then it is not a stretch to believe that Satan exists, too. It would seem to me that much of this, as far as Catholicism is concerned, is squarely the doings of Satan.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

It’s offtopic, so I’ll only reply once on this subject.

Anyway, my purpose was not to propound the qualities of Scientology, if there are any, it was to bring to your attention that there are other lines of thought re. the subject herein, with at least as much credulity as “animals speaking with humans” Animals can’t talk. To believe that they can is infinitely more absurd than to believe in God, which is not at all absurd.

Animals can be trained to mimic, or respond to certain sounds and gestures. They can be trained to utter certain sounds and make gestures for the purpose of obtaining food or treats. They cannot form thoughts. They cannot juxtapose anything more than a minimum of sound-thing, or gesture-thing actions - during their entire lives. Those pseudo-scientists who work so hard at trying to get us to believe animals can talk, have ulterior and, perhaps, deleterious motives. This is such a silly off-topic discussion it is not worth further exploration.

nytimes.com/1995/05/15/books/books-of-the-times-animals-can-t-talk-but-can-they-feel.html

(BTW, I am an animal lover.) Now, can we get back to a serious discussion of What is a “person?”

jd

 

[liquidpele]

Now, can we get back to a serious discussion of What is a “person?”

Yes please.

 

[JDaniel]

If we want to maintain that self-consciousness is a unique aspect of personhood, which I do, we may have to make some distinctions. Clearly there is something lacking in the animal kingdom which humans have.

There is. I think the difference is that people hold and, what is more, juxtapose thoughts. IOW, we can take the pictures in memory and move them about at will, even to the grouping of jokes and absurdities.

Personally I’m not convinced recognition of yourself in a mirror constitutes the same self-consciousness humans have. There is a distinction between self-awareness and self-consciousness. Self-awareness is the recognition that one exists while self-consciousness is the preoccupation with oneself. Clearly man is self-conscious, this thread being all the example I need to prove it.

I agree with you here. In fact, except for the primates, no other animal has the ability to self-recognize, in a mirror. Ultimately, training a chimpanzee to self-recognize takes “training”, such as must be done for an animal to perform a circus trick.

I don’t want to get into all the technicalities of morality, but is man the only creature that abides by moral codes, be them revealed or created? Is man is the only creature that recognizes something as good or evil? Is a moral system more broadly encompassed by the ability to assign value to things? Maybe the next unique quality of man is that he has the unique ability to recognize and assign value.

I should think that the assignment of moral value would clearly be something unique to man. And, assigning trade value. On the other hand, certainly animals can value the foods they eat, preferring one over another.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Also a science fiction writer. Wikipedia says nothing about his scientific endeavours though.

Some of his books speak to his experiments. But, this is not to be construed as recommending them. (I add this caveat because it is hard to simply buy a Hubbard book. You have to go through someone who is a Scientologist and usually they want you to take courses.)

jd

 

[Thales]

There is. I think the difference is that people hold and, what is more, juxtapose thoughts. IOW, we can take the pictures in memory and move them about at will, even to the grouping of jokes and absurdities.

That is true. I wonder if we can label that as something or if all of it falls into a broader category of ability? Maybe it falls under free will. To “juxtapose thoughts" and do those other things we could say it is because of free will, since our thought patterns are not overwhelmingly ruled by instinct. Our power of belief can overrule instinct. I should think for most species the instinct for the preservation of the species would deter random killing but for man the ability is there to form a belief, not descending from instinct, which could drive him to kill out of senseless hatred as well as preserve life out of love.

Therefore, I suggest a person can form powerful beliefs and has free will.

I should think that the assignment of moral value would clearly be something unique to man. And, assigning trade value. On the other hand, certainly animals can value the foods they eat, preferring one over another.

Animals do have preference to that which is vital to their survival. They may prefer a certain food, a certain location for shelter, certain nest building material is better than others. All of these things have some kind of inherent value to survival. Man on the other hand assigns value to things which are not vital to survival. Art is probably the best example. Artwork is not necessary as far as merely surviving goes, yet it has been valued by mankind since prehistory. Man is the only creature where survival is not enough. Life needs to be embellished. Man is never content, and never satisfied with just living. It seems that man is the only creature that yearns for something more than what life can give him. By adding value to things around him, man tries to manufacture the higher thing which he cannot find.

Food, shelter, and rest are necessary for survival, but do not satisfy us. We set up the belief structure to say gold is valuable, diamonds are valuable, or marks made in a certain way on paper is valuable. If we amass as much of this value as possible maybe we can satisfy our desire. Time and countless examples before us have shown, this is a wasted and destructive effort.

So, I conclude, another aspect of a person is having an insatiable desire. I will leave it at that, even though I’m willing to bet some will want to extend it to say “for happiness”, but I think the state of happiness can be defined as the fulfillment of this unique human desire, which is always longing and always searching.

 

[JDaniel]

That is true. I wonder if we can label that as something or if all of it falls into a broader category of ability? Maybe it falls under free will. To “juxtapose thoughts" and do those other things we could say it is because of free will, since our thought patterns are not overwhelmingly ruled by instinct. Our power of belief can overrule instinct. I should think for most species the instinct for the preservation of the species would deter random killing but for man the ability is there to form a belief, not descending from instinct, which could drive him to kill out of senseless hatred as well as preserve life out of love.

Therefore, I suggest a person can form powerful beliefs and has free will.

Animals do have preference to that which is vital to their survival. They may prefer a certain food, a certain location for shelter, certain nest building material is better than others. All of these things have some kind of inherent value to survival. Man on the other hand assigns value to things which are not vital to survival. Art is probably the best example. Artwork is not necessary as far as merely surviving goes, yet it has been valued by mankind since prehistory. Man is the only creature where survival is not enough. Life needs to be embellished. Man is never content, and never satisfied with just living. It seems that man is the only creature that yearns for something more than what life can give him. By adding value to things around him, man tries to manufacture the higher thing which he cannot find.

Food, shelter, and rest are necessary for survival, but do not satisfy us. We set up the belief structure to say gold is valuable, diamonds are valuable, or marks made in a certain way on paper is valuable. If we amass as much of this value as possible maybe we can satisfy our desire. Time and countless examples before us have shown, this is a wasted and destructive effort.

So, I conclude, another aspect of a person is having an insatiable desire. I will leave it at that, even though I’m willing to bet some will want to extend it to say “for happiness”, but I think the state of happiness can be defined as the fulfillment of this unique human desire, which is always longing and always searching.

Good. So, what do we have for a beginning description, or definition?

jd

 

[Thales]

Good. So, what do we have for a beginning description, or definition?
jd

First, I think we have to understand, which liquidpele hinted at earlier, this definition is of the “ideal” man in the Platonic sense of ideal form, or standard. Despite what some Pragmatists might say, there has to be some ideal form or essence of a thing in order to describe it, or else we will have to qualify every aspect by saying, “has the potential for” or “has some degree of”. For instance, if we say a person has the unique ability to use language, a 1 year old cannot use language at the moment but has the potential to at some time in the future, to some degree.

However, only that which has the reasonable expectation of becoming or continuing along its natural course should be considered. A toad cannot be considered because there is no reasonable expectation it can ever have certain qualities, also a sperm or unfertilized egg cannot be considered a person because, continuing on its natural course, neither develop into anything until they combine to form something else. The zygote, following its natural course is destined to develop and grow into a fully formed human being.

 

[AndyF]

My wife says I’m sentimental. I can’t speak for computers, but I experienced a twinge of guilt when I finally brought in my 'ol 86 Comanche to the scrap yard after 15 years service. I left it running to show the guy he can still plow snow with it even the the (skin?) was decrepid and falling off. The engine(heart?) was idling just like new and I was expecting it to get even and stall out in front of me. Alas, when I returned a couple months later I learned it was cubed and sent off for reincarnation somewhere in China.

That machine did everything I commanded of it. In spite of the abuse I gave it the old work horse took what I gave it and payed for itself many times over. I somehow come away with the feeling that a debt is owed.

(Those feelings transfer to my ancient tractor.)

Anyone care to take up a “bound on earth” petition to the Church and request that certain machines should have souls.?

AndyF