My Blade Runner Challenge

[Shemjaza]

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.

No they can't. Very simple concepts can be communicated via sign language and they are socially and genetically unable to breed with humans.

So why under your apparently superior Christian definition of humanity are gorillas human and hypothetical replicants not?

 

[juvenissun]

No they can't. Very simple concepts can be communicated via sign language and they are socially and genetically unable to breed with humans.

So why under your apparently superior Christian definition of humanity are gorillas human and hypothetical replicants not?

Gorilla is not human. I know why, but I don't think you know why. So I challenge you. If you know clearly that gorilla is not human, then you will know clearly that replicant is not human either.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Gorilla is not human. I know why, but I don't think you know why.

So tell us, and we'll all know why.

 

[juvenissun]

So tell us, and we'll all know why.

I said I play offense first.
Do you know why is a gorilla not a human?
If you admit that you do not know, then I will play defense to explain it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I said I play offense first.
Do you know why is a gorilla not a human?
If you admit that you do not know, then I will play defense to explain it.

Let me guess: because humans have souls, and gorillas do not, blah blah blah the Bible says.... am I in the ballpark?

 

[Shemjaza]

Gorilla is not human. I know why, but I don't think you know why. So I challenge you. If you know clearly that gorilla is not human, then you will know clearly that replicant is not human either.

Look. There are different ways of defining humans. My definition includes us and replicants, but not gorillas.

Your definition of human, includes us but not replicants or gorillas (now)... and you are refusing to explain why. I am curious, and with your insultingly smug build up I know I will be disappointed.

I said I play offense first.
Do you know why is a gorilla not a human?
If you admit that you do not know, then I will play defense to explain it.

FOR GOODNESS SAKE!!!

I have no idea what your definition of human is! THAT'S WHY I ASKED YOU!

So, to be explicit:
No, I admit, I do not know why you do not consider a gorilla to be human. In addition I can not extrapolate this fact to why a replicant would not be human.

Let me guess: because humans have souls, and gorillas do not, blah blah blah the Bible says.... am I in the ballpark?

I'm expecting something along these lines.

 

[juvenissun]

Let me guess: because humans have souls, and gorillas do not, blah blah blah the Bible says.... am I in the ballpark?

No. According to the Bible, gorillas have soul too.

 

[juvenissun]

Look. There are different ways of defining humans. My definition includes us and replicants, but not gorillas.

Not surprise.
Atheist has many ways to define anything.
A baby may not be a human according to some of the definitions.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No. According to the Bible, gorillas have soul too.

So what's the answer?

 

[Thursday]

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 deserve at least as much respect and protection as a sperm whale!

 

[Herman Hedning]

So what's the answer?

It's obvious, isn't it? A gorilla has a baculum, a human doesn't. But that only distinguishes between males, so I guess a female gorilla may be human.

 

[juvenissun]

So what's the answer?

First, this is not a definition, but a criterion included in the definition:
Human is a natural life, not an artificial life.
This does not preclude gorillas, but it is enough to answer the question in the OP.

 

[TLK Valentine]

First, this is not a definition, but a criterion included in the definition:
Human is a natural life, not an artificial life.
This does not preclude gorillas, but it is enough to answer the question in the OP.

Except the question was "why is a gorilla not a human?" Post #64

 

[Shemjaza]

First, this is not a definition, but a criterion included in the definition:
Human is a natural life, not an artificial life.
This does not preclude gorillas, but it is enough to answer the question in the OP.

You just said that the reason gorillas and replicants weren't human was connected. So...?

In addition, it would have been easy to say: "Being a natural creature is part of my definition of human. So, a replicant with synthetically designed DNA and bodies would not be human."

What was the point of your whole ridiculous and time wasting "offense"/"defense" dance?

 

[juvenissun]

You just said that the reason gorillas and replicants weren't human was connected. So...?

So a second-class definition of human is: a natural occurrence of life form which dominates the current earth.

It is not the best definition. But it takes care of the questions.

 

[Shemjaza]

So a second-class definition of human is: a natural occurrence of life form which dominates the current earth.

It is not the best definition. But it takes care of the questions.

Interesting, I'll note that the vaunted singular Christian definition hasn't emerged.

To clarify your position, what is a "natural occurrence"? A fully designed organism based on human DNA isn't human, I'm not sure if modified, implanted and sustained in utero counts as natural or not.

 

[juvenissun]

Interesting, I'll note that the vaunted singular Christian definition hasn't emerged.

To clarify your position, what is a "natural occurrence"? A fully designed organism based on human DNA isn't human, I'm not sure if modified, implanted and sustained in utero counts as natural or not.

Natural occurrence means human hands-off on the system.

 

[Shemjaza]

Natural occurrence means human hands-off on the system.

So people born via IVF are not human then?

 

[46AND2]

So people born via IVF are not human then?

LOL.

 

[juvenissun]

So people born via IVF are not human then?

It is a good argument.
I don't like IVF exactly because of the reason.
In that case, the definition could be refined to include a cell-size level natural process.

Human being can make many exceptions to known natural processes. That is why atheists can never find a definite answer on anything.