My Blade Runner Challenge

[HitchSlap]

Who in their right mind would grant Data the rights of a citizen?

(Other than those who take it away from the unborn, that is.)

Surely, not the same ones who would take rights away from a woman?

 

[HitchSlap]

Figures.

One "world" government?

What problems might you foresee with a one world government?

 

[AV1611VET]

What problems might you foresee with a one world government?

It will be run by the Antichrist.

 

[HitchSlap]

It will be run by the Antichrist.

And that's a problem? It couldn't be worse than Trump, could it?

 

[AV1611VET]

And that's a problem? It couldn't be worse than Trump, could it?

If only you knew!

 

[HitchSlap]

If only you knew!

I'm not convinced you know.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not convinced you know.

IMO, he will perform an act of abiogenesis, convincing scientists and scientific methodists to take the Mark.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

 

[HitchSlap]

IMO, he will perform an act of abiogenesis, convincing scientists and scientific methodists to take the Mark.

Revelation 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Just as I thought.

 

[juvenissun]

My challenge is this: Is a replicant with embedded memories a human being -- yes or no?

No.

It is not a challenge at all. It is a question of definition.
Is this a human being?

 

[TLK Valentine]

No.

It is not a challenge at all. It is a question of definition.

Agreed -- there's really no challenge, once you think about it.

Is this a human being?

Nope. Looks like an ape to me.

 

[Shemjaza]

No.

It is not a challenge at all. It is a question of definition.

Out of curiosity, what is it about the concept of replicants that doesn't match your definition of human?

Does your definition exclude individuals with genetic changes made before implantation or those who have been conceived via IVF and carried by surrogate?

Is this a human being?

I doubt many definitions of human being include gorillas.

 

[juvenissun]

Out of curiosity, what is it about the concept of replicants that doesn't match your definition of human?

Does your definition exclude individuals with genetic changes made before implantation or those who have been conceived via IVF and carried by surrogate?

I doubt many definitions of human being include gorillas.

There are two parts in the problem:

1. What is my definition of human being?
2. Why is a gorilla not a human being?

I will go for an offense, which is #2:
A gorilla can do whatever a human being can do. So a gorilla is a human.

 

[Larniavc]

For those of you unfamiliar with Ridley Scott's 1982 classic, in the film, a "Replicant" is an artificial person that both looks and behaves like a real human:

Used primarily as slave labor, Replicants led a murderous rebellion and are now illegal on Earth. Undaunted, the Tyrell Corporation has found a way to implant false memories into new replicants -- not only do they look and act human, but now some actually believe they are human.

My challenge is this: Is a replicant with embedded memories a human being -- yes or no?

No.

But they would be sapient and thus ascribed exactly the same rights and obligations as humans by a right thinking society.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No.

But they would be sapient and thus ascribed exactly the same rights and obligations as humans by a right thinking society.

Sounds like a case of "separate but equal." We tried that once...

Thinking right isn't enough -- one must also do right.

 

[Larniavc]

Sounds like a case of "separate but equal." We tried that once...

Thinking right isn't enough -- one must also do right.

But if we were visited by aliens who we ascribed the same rights humans have that would not then make them human but they would be equal, would they not?

 

[TLK Valentine]

But if we were visited by aliens who we ascribed the same rights humans have that would not then make them human but they would be equal, would they not?

On paper, yes -- but again, it's nothing but words unless we actually live up to it.

It took 90 years and a bloody civil war between the writing of "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," and actually putting that into law... some might argue (correctly, IMO) that we still have a lot of work to do...

 

[Shemjaza]

There are two parts in the problem:

1. What is my definition of human being?
2. Why is a gorilla not a human being?

You aren't making any sense. You definition of human didn't include replicant, not mine.

As you said, it's about definition and I'm curious about yours, not attacking you.

I will go for an offense, which is #2:
A gorilla can do whatever a human being can do. So a gorilla is a human.

A gorilla is considerably less intelligent then a human, the entire population has almost no ability to think in abstractions or understand symbols. In addition they have such different DNA that they can not interbreed with humans so are a clearly separate species.

(But I fail to see the purpose of this tangent in the first place.)

 

[juvenissun]

A gorilla is considerably less intelligent then a human,

You need to quantify it. If you do, you may make many humans not qualified either.

I don't think you really know what a human is.
That is why the Christianity is needed to answer this question.

 

[Shemjaza]

You need to quantify it. If you do, you may make many humans not qualified either.

Okay, all gorillas are unable to breed with humans; unable to talk; and unable to read.

That's enough for me to lump them outside human.

Why does your definition include them?

I don't think you really know what a human is.
That is why the Christianity is needed to answer this question.

Then please describe your definition, and why the concept of a replicant falls outside of it.

 

[juvenissun]

Okay, all gorillas are unable to breed with humans; unable to talk; and unable to read.

That's enough for me to lump them outside human.

Why does your definition include them?

Because some of them can. In particular, many gorillas can be educated to do that. And some humans can not do those. A definition does not allow exceptions. You are pushing the definition to its edge. So exceptions become very important.