My Kidney Challenge

[Strathos]

Again, this is a paradox, because if there is no one instances at which it becomes a person, then how do you ever get to a person ?

It's actually not a paradox if you apply the logic of calculus, which also resolves Zeno's paradox.

 

[devolved]

It's actually not a paradox if you apply the logic of calculus, which also resolves Zeno's paradox.

Ok. Go on...

 

[Strathos]

Ok. Go on...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_of_a_sequence

 

[devolved]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_of_a_sequence

I'm not sure how the concept of convergent and divergent limits resolves the paradox of personality. Personality is a not a mathematical concept, so I'm not quite sure that math applies. You can say that by certain analogy this paradox if avoided (not resolved) using imprecise and formulaic mathematical definition that output a function plot for every X when X -> certain limit (or infinity). Thus, we merely describing a broader tendency, and not all of the possible precision points, which still would take forever and more.

In that sense, a personality would be equivalent to a "whole number" on a continuum of minimal to none, to a full blow personality. The objection here is that we don't really know when such concept materializes into fruition, therefore we are justified as discounting that as "non-human" or "not yet human".

The problem is that it's an argument out ignorance of some subject. We don't know therefore my position is justified.

Or, in this position, it's even more brutal, I don't have to support a life of another human against my will, even if it's my own child.

 

[Strathos]

I'm not sure how the concept of convergent and divergent limits resolves the paradox of personality. Personality is a not a mathematical concept, so I'm not quite sure that math applies. You can say that by certain analogy this paradox if avoided (not resolved) using imprecise and formulaic mathematical definition that output a function plot for every X when X -> certain limit (or infinity). Thus, we merely describing a broader tendency, and not all of the possible precision points, which still would take forever and more.

In that sense, a personality would be equivalent to a "whole number" on a continuum of minimal to none, to a full blow personality. The objection here is that we don't really know when such concept materializes into fruition, therefore we are justified as discounting that as "non-human" or "not yet human".

The problem is that it's an argument out ignorance of some subject. We don't know therefore my position is justified.

Or, in this position, it's even more brutal, I don't have to support a life of another human against my will, even if it's my own child.

It's always human, I doubt that is the issue.

 

[devolved]

It's always human, I doubt that is the issue.

I think the issue is largely with confusing semantics.

One side detaches personhood from humanity. The other side doesn't. It seems like you imply that one can be a human, but would not be a person? Perhaps you can clarify?

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think the issue is largely with confusing semantics.

One side detaches personhood from humanity. The other side doesn't. It seems like you imply that one can be a human, but would not be a person? Perhaps you can clarify?

A corpse can be human and not a person.

 

[devolved]

A corpse can be human and not a person.

i don't think that's the case in a sense of various semantics we generally employ. If you go to a funeral, you go to a funeral of a person, and not a corpse that's no longer a person. It doesn't even work in context of legal semantics, because corpse have some "rights" in terms of proper burial, and estate distribution wishes, etc... as that person.

Hence, it's very difficult to separate humanity from personhood.

 

[Tinker Grey]

i don't think that's the case in a sense of various semantics we generally employ. If you go to a funeral, you go to a funeral of a person, and not a corpse that's no longer a person. It doesn't even work in context of legal semantics, because corpse have some "rights" in terms of proper burial, and estate distribution wishes, etc... as that person.

Hence, it's very difficult to separate humanity from personhood.

Would you have trouble assigning personhood to an alien whose physiology differed from ours?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

A corpse can be human and not a person.

What's the difference between a corpse and a carcass?
Using a Bible concordance, this is the amount of times I found those words, both in the Sing and Plur:

http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

"corpse"
occurs 1 time in 1 verses in the KJV.
occurs 20 times in 16 verses in the NKJV.
occurs 9 times in 9 verses in the NASB.
occurs 5 times in 5 verses in the NIV.
occurs 6 times in 6 verses in the ESV.

"corpses"
occurs 4 times in 3 verses in the KJV.
occurs 11 times in 10 verses in the NKJV.
occurs 1 times in 1 verses in the NIV.
occurs 16 times in 16 verses in the NASB.
occurs 4 times in 4 verses in the ESV.

"carcass"
occurs 0 times in 0 verses in the KJV.
occurs 20 times in 16 verses in the NKJV.
occurs 10 times in 9 verses in the NIV.
occurs 11 times in 8 verses in the NASB.
occurs 18 times in 15 verses in the ESV.

"carcasses"
occurs 0 times in 0 verses in the KJV.
occurs 15 times in 15 verses in the NKJV.
occurs 12 times in 12 verses in the NASB.
occurs 14 times in 14 verses in the NIV.
occurs 5 times in 5 verses in the ESV.

 

[Blade]

Hmm reading the 1st post.. my 1st thought is.. who is "I" as in "should "I""

 

[devolved]

Would you have trouble assigning personhood to an alien whose physiology differed from ours?

I don't have trouble assigning a provisional personhood to my cat in certain context. He has characteristics of a personal being, but that's not really what we are talking here about, right?

The context is not that we can't assign that characteristic to something or someone else. The context is that it's difficult to separate it from human being in terms of continuum of such concept from conception all the way to death.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I don't have trouble assigning a provisional personhood to my cat in certain context.

It seems you do separate personhood from being human.

ETA: My point is, of course, that being human and being a person are distinct concepts. An alien can be a person without being human. A corpse can be human without being a person. So the question to be answered, I think, is when is a human entity a person.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The context is not that we can't assign that characteristic to something or someone else. The context is that it's difficult to separate it from human being in terms of continuum of such concept from conception all the way to death.

(I should read more carefully.)

In general, we are willing to declare a brain-dead body a non-person--we have no trouble (objectively) agreeing that pulling the plug doesn't violate the former-person's rights. A blastocyst has none of the characteristics of a person. Surely, there is flexibility there.

 

[Strathos]

I think the issue is largely with confusing semantics.

One side detaches personhood from humanity. The other side doesn't. It seems like you imply that one can be a human, but would not be a person? Perhaps you can clarify?

Well human can simply mean genetically, or it can mean intellectually, or spiritually.

 

[devolved]

(I should read more carefully.)

In general, we are willing to declare a brain-dead body a non-person--we have no trouble (objectively) agreeing that pulling the plug doesn't violate the former-person's rights.

If you adopt a functional context of meaning of "a person", I would agree. But even in context of functional identity, a car doesn't cease to be car when it doesn't start. It's just a broken car. It's the same with a person. The brain-dead person is still a person in context of identity. Functionally it's not. I wouldn't argue anything beyond that.

A blastocyst has none of the characteristics of a person. Surely, there is flexibility there.

I'm not arguing on bases of inherent characteristics, but rather on basis of certain continuum of how we get there to begin with.

Let's say that we kill blastocyst, and that's ok. Why not killing something like that, which is merely 5 seconds older? Seems ok.

And after that, why not kill something that's 5 seconds older, etc, etc, all the way up till birth, or even after. So, there's a continuum there that's very difficult to ignore in context of development. We may choose to abstract that continuum by time-jumping, and say well it was not here, but now it is,but it doesn't magically do away with that continuum and rationalization solely based on characteristics of certain maturity state, which isn't clearly defined for that particular reason.

If we reverse the process, and say "it is now a person", then would that be the case 5 seconds ago, and 5 seconds before that, etc. On certain continuum it would be difficult to make that distinction, because a difference between each 5 second interval is minimal. Thus, at any step of the way, you couldn't clearly say as to how it would be so drastically different from 5 seconds ago that it would justify your label at this moment in time and not 5 seconds ago.

I hope it makes sense.

We can clearly make that distinction at conception. After conception, it's not something that we can do.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Let's say that we kill blastocyst, and that's ok. Why not killing something like that, which is merely 5 seconds older? Seems ok.

And after that, why not kill something that's 5 seconds older, etc, etc, all the way up till birth, or even after. So, there's a continuum there that's very difficult to ignore in context of development. We may choose to abstract that continuum by time-jumping, and say well it was not here, but now it is,but it doesn't magically do away with that continuum and rationalization solely based on characteristics of certain maturity state, which isn't clearly defined for that particular reason.

If we reverse the process, and say "it is now a person", then would that be the case 5 seconds ago, and 5 seconds before that, etc. On certain continuum it would be difficult to make that distinction, because a difference between each 5 second interval is minimal. Thus, at any step of the way, you couldn't clearly say as to how it would be so drastically different from 5 seconds ago that it would justify your label at this moment in time and not 5 seconds ago.

I hope it makes sense.

We can clearly make that distinction at conception. After conception, it's not something that we can do.

(Nuts. Clicked "Post" by accident.)

See I don't think we need to know absolutely. If it is clear a blastocyst is not a person, then we should not be outlawing the "morning-after" pill. It simply isn't an issue. The fertilized egg is not a person. Easy.

So what makes a person a person. Surely a discussion can be had. If we a agree (arguendo) that the rudiments of consciousness are required for personhood and that a fetus has those at, say, 30 weeks and doesn't at 24, then we could agree that prior to 24 weeks abortion harms no persons.

We don't have to define when a heap begins to exist down to the grain of sand.

 

[devolved]

See I don't think we need to know absolutely. If it is clear a blastocyst is not a person, then we should not be outlawing the "morning-after" pill. It simply isn't an issue. The fertilized egg is not a person. Easy.

Well, I'm not really in favor of outlawing abortion. It didn't seem to be effective deterrent in countries where it was made illegal. It arguably made the issue worse, because it put more pressure on women who would otherwise approached this with more calm and assurance.

We should address this issue at the level of cultural debate and adequate allocation of public funding and our collective support for a wider range of institutions that serve as a viable alternatives to abortion, of course that would depend on where one sands on the issue.

So what makes a person a person. Surely a discussion can be had. If we a agree (arguendo) that the rudiments of consciousness are required for personhood and that a fetus has those at, say, 30 weeks and doesn't at 24, then we could agree that prior to 24 weeks abortion harms no persons.

I'm not sure we all would agree on that . I think we can at the very least agree to provide support for women who are in pregnancy crisis.

 

[Kylie]

You are correct, but if you can take steps to avoid becoming pregnant successfully, then there wouldn't be any need for me modifying the incorrect analogy that you are framing to begin with.

Likewise, why would you need an analogy to discuss something that should be rather obvious?

Do you understand that no form of birth control is 100% effective? It is possible to get pregnant even if you use birth control.

Of course, given the popularity of abstinence only sex ed in the USA, I'm not surprised that many Americans are woefully uninformed on how birth control works.

 

[Kylie]

IMO analogies are only appropriate and viable when we are discussing contextually-unknown concepts that need to be explained in terms of what we already understand.

So, if we are attempting to explain what a behavior of electron is like, we use terms like "spin" and "polarity", etc, as analogies to our existing context.

What you are attempting to do is to force a context of meaning on a situation that doesn't warrant such context, and you are attempt to say "because we behave like so in this situation, therefore similar behavior in other situation is justified"... but that's not the case until you can demonstrate that these situations are analogous in any the same way you are framing an analogy.

It's not.

You can redefine words all you want. But don't start crying when other people think your arbitrary redefinition is pointless. "Analogy" already has a solid definition, and that's the one I'm using, not the one you think it should be. Language does not revolve around your opinions.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=.....69i57j0l5.2052j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Yes.

Sure there is. Would you care to give me a link to this source of commentary about this thread?

I did not say that they are "broken". I say that there's a lot of mental twist games here in order to justify something that should otherwise be fairly obvious.

You said I am "not waking up." You said I am not "thinking through philosophy of human being."

Newflash: People can disagree with you without being wrong. It would be to your benefit to learn this.

I think it's much more arrogant to treat people here as though they are in a first grade and need your extensive analogies to understand your position on this issue, especially when the analogy you frame is not analogous at all.

Once again - the fact you don't think it is an analogy does not mean it isn't one.

I'm not claiming that I understand a mindset of any given woman who wants to do that, but a part of my work I actually involved in this issue of interviewing at least 30 women on camera about their experience. So, I'd say I don't have a full understanding, but I have a very good sample to derive some generic understanding as to why.

Since you will never have to go through it, I'd say your opinion is pretty much irrelevant.

I'm not lecturing you. I'm merely pointing out that none of us are "ready" or always in a position of joy.

No, you are just telling me that my position as a woman and my opinion about something only a woman will ever face is less important than your opinion.

How far are you willing to take that ideal? What would be viable exceptions to that concept?

So, if someone is jumping from a bridge, we should not attempt to stop them? Suicide clinics are ok? At which point do we intervene in addiction and dependency problems? Would you be ok with someone selling their heart or kidney on the open market to feed their family?

Do we have any viable responsibility to society and other people apart from our individual boundaries?

Do you think people who attempt suicide WANT to die? By far, most of them don't. It's very difficult for them to do it. They only make the attempt because their lives have gotten to a point where to continue living with what they're facing is even harder.

But if someone is facing a debilitating illness that will leave them in constant pain, with no hope for recovery, I do support their right to die.

I mean, we let our pets die peacefully if they are facing such an illness, why should we insist people suffer?