Does a Human Being have a body?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I stated that your argument that size has no bearing on whether or not a being was a person. A zygote may be a person even though it is invisible to the naked eye. You yourself stated that my argument was true "if it is ever a person." IOW, if it meets other criteria for being a person, then its size is irrelevant, you agreed.

IF it is ever a person, means it might fail to be by not meeting certain criterion. AND these include the one criterion mentioned, so what I say does NOT mean I agreed with you that size is irrelevant, whether or not other other factors are or are not present. You are wrong on that.

I certainly think it is relevant to any claim about personhood that something purported to be that, a person, is about the size of invisibility.

Have you not heard of the noble creature a human being is, transcending all other creations of God, having attributes like unto God? And you think this can be found in one invisible cell, exists as something too small to be even seen with the naked eye?
Do you really find those two ideas reconcilable?
I think you are essentially calling human beings PINHEADS if you insist a zygote is a human being.

 

[SPF]

The OP question is: Does a Human Being have a body?

Now, obviously after 8 pages of discussion, we know that Douglas, the author of the OP has a very unique perspective about what defines both a "human being" and a "body". From what I've seen, no comments from Douglas have actually supported any known definition of either. I think therefore, if this conversation is to have any progress going forward we need to spend some time with definitions.

Body (Merrian Webster):
1a : the main part of a plant or animal body especially as distinguished from limbs and head
1b : the main, central, or principal part: such as
(1) architecture : the nave of a church
(2) :the bed or box of a vehicle on or in which the load is placed
(3) : the enclosed or partly enclosed part of an automobile
- the truck's body, hood, and fenders

2a : the organized physical substance of an animal or plant either living or dead

Body (Dictionary.com):
1.the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant,living or dead.
2.a corpse; carcass.
3.the trunk or main mass of a thing:

Body (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry):
The physical structure that carries the life of an organism. Bodies differ in types, structures, sizes, etc.

Douglas, do you accept these definitions? If not, can you explain your issue with them, and then provide us with an alternative working definition of body?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

One should be aware that what we are talking about is the human being body, not for instance the "body" of literature, and manifold other ways "body" is used.
Wikipedia is a good place to start. Human body
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia corpus humanum

The human body is the entire structure of a human being. It is composed of many different types of cells that together create tissues and subsequently organ systems. They ensure homeostasis and the viability of the human body.

It comprises a head, neck, trunk (which includes the thorax and abdomen), arms and hands, legsand feet.

The study of the human body involves anatomy, physiology, histology and embryology. The body varies anatomically in known ways. Physiology focuses on the systems and organs of the human body and their functions. Many systems and mechanisms interact in order to maintain homeostasis, with safe levels of substances such as sugar and oxygen in the blood.

The body is studied by health professionals, physiologists, anatomists, and by artists to assist them in their work.

Please note: the human body is the entire structure of a human being. It is composed of many different types of cells [NOT ONE CELL for sure!] that together are tissues and organ systems.

And there is homeostasis that ensures the viability of the human body.

Interesting how "human body" helps define what a "human being" is.
In case you are wondering what their relation is.

 

[SPF]

Douglas, let's try to follow along. I provided for you some working definitions of body. Can you address the questions that I provided? I'll say them again:

1) Do you accept the definitions I provided
2) If not, can you explain your issue with them and then provide an alternate definition that you would be comfortable with?

Also, here's a great paper from Princeton regarding the beginning of a human being. When Do Human Beings Begin?

 

[Meowzltov]

Have you not heard of the noble creature a human being is, transcending all other creations of God, having attributes like unto God? And you think this can be found in one invisible cell, exists as something too small to be even seen with the naked eye?
Do you really find those two ideas reconcilable?
I think you are essentially calling human beings PINHEADS if you insist a zygote is a human being.

I think you radically underestimate the glory of the potential of a zygote.

How deplorable it is to insult the mentally challenged. New low.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I think you radically underestimate the glory of the potential of a zygote.

How deplorable it is to insult the mentally challenged. New low.

"The glory of the potential"? How glorious is that?
NO REAL GLORY - only potential glory. How glorious is that?

On your accusing me of insulting the mentally challenged, what I said is like unto saying THERE IS NO DOG IN A PREGNANT DOG, especially early on when there is nothing having any of the qualities of a real dog. That would not be insulting a dog zygote, say. Only stating what is actually the case.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Douglas, let's try to follow along. I provided for you some working definitions of body. Can you address the questions that I provided? I'll say them again:
1) Do you accept the definitions I provided
2) If not, can you explain your issue with them and then provide an alternate definition that you would be comfortable with?

In #143, just before you posted this,
I already explained my issue with them.

WHAT WE ARE AFTER is the definition of human being body, i.e. human body.

I gave you a definition, an encyclopedia definition of that, which I think is a good starting point. (I take issue with a couple of things in their definition, and perhaps you do too. What do you think of it's use of "create"?)

In all your definitions, what can you point to as particularly about the human body? (Bearing in mind the real definition of "human body" right here in front of you.) [Being defined by his writing I was thinking.]

 

[Meowzltov]

"The glory of the potential"? How glorious is that?
NO REAL GLORY - only potential glory. How glorious is that?

Like I said, you don't see it.

On your accusing me of insulting the mentally challenged,

You used the derogatory term "pinhead."

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

↑
"The glory of the potential"? How glorious is that?
NO REAL GLORY - only potential glory. How glorious is that?

Like I said, you don't see it.

SO YOU AGREE ! Nothing to be seen. No real glory. NOTHING TO BE SEEN !

 

[Meowzltov]

↑
"The glory of the potential"? How glorious is that?
NO REAL GLORY - only potential glory. How glorious is that?


SO YOU AGREE ! Nothing to be seen. No real glory. NOTHING TO BE SEEN !

Just because I don't see it doesn't mean it isn't seen by God and his angels.

And honestly, the awe of what's under a microscope or out of a telescope can be transcendent.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

On your accusing me of insulting the mentally challenged,

You used the derogatory term "pinhead."

I never knew "pinhead" to be a derogatory term for "mentally challenged? I don't think I ever knew that. Thought it was a term for one with normal mentality who does not use it or uses it foolishly.

In the case I used it, it was to notice that "if' there was any head at all, it was pin size or smaller."
NOTHING about the disabled or mentally challenged.

Just grasping at straws to try to discredit me, without making any actual argument.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Just because I don't see it doesn't mean it isn't seen by God and his angels.
And honestly, the awe of what's under a microscope or out of a telescope can be transcendent.

Look, what you are talking about is not real, never to be seen anywhere.

That is what "potential" means, that it is NOT actual.

 

[Meowzltov]

I never knew "pinhead" to be a derogatory term for "mentally challenged?

Then I take back what I said, as it appears you made a coincidental mistake. Just as a FYI, it's good to avoid the word pinhead, as it is a nasty word that refers to those who who are mentally challenged, especially those who are microcephalic.

 

[Meowzltov]

Look, what you are talking about is not real, never to be seen anywhere.

That is what "potential" means, that it is NOT actual.

Many things that aren't seen are quite real. Love, justice, truth.

I feel like we are speaking different languages. Do you know your MBTI type?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Many things that aren't seen are quite real. Love, justice, truth.
I feel like we are speaking different languages. Do you know your MBTI type?

Is that something of your fabrication, so my response would be, don't have a clue what it is?

Love, truth, and justice, yes they are real and not normal seen objects.
But suppose you said "potential truth." Would you then take yourself to be speaking of the same thing as "truth"?

The "potential" you used implies "not actual."
It has nothing to do with what can be seen or not seen.

btw, your "different languages" seems to be the difference between talking about the unseen, and on the other hand talking about what is only "potential." I thought we were talking about your claim of "potential" something or other. Not the same as merely "unseen."

 

[Meowzltov]

Is that something of your fabrication, so my response would be, don't have a clue what it is.

Please don't accuse me of fabricating. I don't enjoy being insulted. I refer you to the CF rules.

Love, truth, and justice, yes they are real and not normal seen objects.
But suppose you said "potential truth." Would you then take yourself to be speaking of the same thing?

No, because truth is either a yes or no, it doesn't appear on a spectrum the way life does.

The "potential" you used implies "not actual."

I think that in some cases you are correct, and in others you are not. But in all cases, potential is REAL.

btw,

your "different languages" seems to be the difference between talking about the unseen, and on the other hand talking about what is only "potential." I thought we were talking about your claim of "potential" something or other. Not the same as merely "unseen."

The different languages has to do with what we consider real. According to Myers Briggs, the Sensing person consider what they can hear, see, smell, taste, feel, and measure to be real. The iNtuitive on the other hand considers abstractions such as Love, Joy, or X to the power of 7, to be more real, IOW eternal ideas trump temporary features of the sensory world.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Please don't accuse me of fabricating. I don't enjoy being insulted. I refer you to the CF rules.

Come on, you can do better than that.

It it is not just your fabrication, what does it mean. What are the initials supposed to stand for?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I think that in some cases you are correct, and in others you are not. But in all cases, potential is REAL.

Well, it's real potential I suppose, but what does that mean?

Consider a field of wheat, ripe unto harvest. It is a potential harvest.
It is not yet harvested, so only potentially at that point. It has real potential.
Suppose next day hail destroys the crop, so no wheat remains to harvest. It then has been transformed from a potential harvest to there being no longer any possible harvest, no potential harvest.

So yes, the potential is real - WHEN IT IS REAL. When the potential is no longer real, it is not real, not a real potential.
The potential in this case never became actual, the potential harvest was never an actual harvest.

So a big difference between "potential" and "real." Never real, never actual, in this case. Only (at one point) potential.

 

[Meowzltov]

Come on, you can do better than that.

It it is not just your fabrication, what does it mean. What are the initials supposed to stand for?

Sorry, I sometimes assume that the whole world has already heard of it. MBTI stands for Myers Briggs Type Indicator. It is the personality assessment used by psychologists. It scores you on four scales:
Introversion/Extroversion (what charges your battery)
Sensory/iNtuitive (what is real to you)
Feeling/Thinking (how you make decisions)
Judging/Perceiving (what do others see about you)

If you google "MBTI online test" you will get any number of free tests that take around 20 minutes to complete. You'll learn a lot about yourself. Personally I recommend getting a book called, "Please Understand Me" by Kiersey. That way you not only come to understand yourself, but others in your life as well. It really turned around my relationship between me and my mom.

I am an INFJ -- an extremely rare personality, which is why I don't fit in much, and tend to keep to myself. It means I am:
Introverted: I get my energy replenished with alone activities like reading books and doing online forums. I'm friendly, for sure and really like people. I just can't take large groups for very long before I get tired.
iNtuitive: I like ideas and imagination. I prefer science fiction over historical fiction. I focus a lot on possibilities, and see what things mean and where they are going.
Feeling: It's not that I'm irrational; I really do care about truth. But I so care about people's feelings, I try to let them down easy if I know the truth will hurt them. I see myself as part of groups like family, church, office, friends...
Judging: I am decisive -- I know what I want, and I know what is right and wrong. I don't like putting off decisions -- it makes me anxious. I also at least try to be organized (though I have to work at it). I make to-do lists, and use calendars and stuff. I don't think I could survive without my I-Phone alarms.

Put INFJ together and the unique personality you get is a Counselor and Ethicist.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The different languages has to do with what we consider real. According to Myers Briggs, the Sensing person consider what they can hear, see, smell, taste, feel, and measure to be real. The iNtuitive on the other hand considers abstractions such as Love, Joy, or X to the power of 7, to be more real, IOW eternal ideas trump temporary features of the sensory world.

Now you've changed the subject to "what is real?"

Could not admit you had changed it from "what is potential" to "what is unseen," and now to "what is real?" What next?