NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't quite grasp why many people think that a human who has a body that that only has the basic functions, heartbeat, breathing, etc., yet has no conscious awareness, is actually a person.

The even more baffling thing about it, is that those people who define humans that way are the very same people who believe that humans have a soul.

How can someone have a soul even if they are incapable of being consciously aware of themselves or things around them? And if they can exist in this situation, do you believe that a soul would be best suited trapped in a body without the ability to experience?

I can't quite grasp why many people think that a human who has a body that that only has the basic functions, heartbeat, breathing, etc., yet has no conscious awareness, is actually a person.

The even more baffling thing about it, is that those people who define humans that way are the very same people who believe that humans have a soul.

How can someone have a soul even if they are incapable of being consciously aware of themselves or things around them? And if they can exist in this situation, do you believe that a soul would be best suited trapped in a body without the ability to experience?
well put. where do you live, brad?

I vote brain waves make a person a person.

well put. where do you live, brad?

Campus Square, on the corner of Campus Dr. and Wall St.

I vote brain waves make a person a person.

I would say a certain level of brain waves, yes, but not the brain waves themselves. Everything with a brain has brainwaves, but I would suppose that it takes a documented type of brainwave to support consciousness.

I would say a certain level of brain waves, yes, but not the brain waves themselves. Everything with a brain has brainwaves, but I would suppose that it takes a documented type of brainwave to support consciousness.
Agreed if we could define this it would solve the arguements of abortion and euthinasia

I can't quite grasp why many people think that a human who has a body that that only has the basic functions, heartbeat, breathing, etc., yet has no conscious awareness, is actually a person.

The even more baffling thing about it, is that those people who define humans that way are the very same people who believe that humans have a soul.

How can someone have a soul even if they are incapable of being consciously aware of themselves or things around them? And if they can exist in this situation, do you believe that a soul would be best suited trapped in a body without the ability to experience?
its because after the heartbeat gets its rythm, it means the fetus/veggie can function almost on its own (requiring only air and food, necessary for cell resp.)

its because after the heartbeat gets its rythm, it means the fetus/veggie can function almost on its own (requiring only air and food, necessary for cell resp.)

While that addresses my thread title, it doesn't really address the question in my initial post. My real question was why do people use bodily functions and not consciousness to define a person?

Did you know that you are legally considered dead when you lose brainwaves and not heartbeats.

Campus Square, on the corner of Campus Dr. and Wall St.
hmm. i still don't know quite where that is. though i suppose eventually i shall feel compelled to figure it out.

hmm. i still don't know quite where that is. though i suppose eventually i shall feel compelled to figure it out.


Is it in New York City?

While that addresses my thread title, it doesn't really address the question in my initial post. My real question was why do people use bodily functions and not consciousness to define a person?
Perhaps because there is no clear difinition of "consciousness."

hmm. i still don't know quite where that is. though i suppose eventually i shall feel compelled to figure it out.

From the Rec Center, go East on Grand, turn right at the first stoplight (intersection of Grand and Wall) and go two blocks.

Carbondale is confusing as hell, I have been here 4 years and there are still portions of Carbondale that I haven't got figured out.

Perhaps because there is no clear difinition of "consciousness."

Maybe, but it easy to define what isn't consciousness.

Maybe, but it easy to define what isn't consciousness.
Ok. Conscious or not: I've been in a coma for seven years, my body kept alive by artificial means.

Ok. Conscious or not: I've been in a coma for seven years, my body kept alive by artificial means.

Not.

From the Rec Center, go East on Grand, turn right at the first stoplight (intersection of Grand and Wall) and go two blocks.

Carbondale is confusing as hell, I have been here 4 years and there are still portions of Carbondale that I haven't got figured out.
and here i was about to take a job as a furniture delivery boy. in chicago, i have great sense of direction and have only been lost once, and that was at three in the morning and i was drunk in a part of town i'd never been in. in carbondale i can't find my ass with both hands, a map and a flashlight.

and here i was about to take a job as a furniture delivery boy. in chicago, i have great sense of direction and have only been lost once, and that was at three in the morning and i was drunk in a part of town i'd never been in. in carbondale i can't find my ass with both hands, a map and a flashlight.

There is absolutely no pattern to the roads. None of them seem to be perpendicular or parallel and more than have are one way.

its because after the heartbeat gets its rythm, it means the fetus/veggie can function almost on its own (requiring only air and food, necessary for cell resp.)

You don't know much about biology, do you?

Not.
This is from an actual case. The patient suddenly came out of the coma and was totally coherent within a few weeks. Now, I'm not saying that this is the norm, but it's kinda important when the patient could be YOU, don'tchathink? :)

This is from an actual case. The patient suddenly came out of the coma and was totally coherent within a few weeks. Now, I'm not saying that this is the norm, but it's kinda important when the patient could be YOU, don'tchathink? :)

Now, I am not advocating the killing of people in a coma. I would suppose that the potential to return to consciousness would play a key role in the decision.

How can someone have a soul even if they are incapable of being consciously aware of themselves or things around them? And if they can exist in this situation, do you believe that a soul would be best suited trapped in a body without the ability to experience?You are incapable of being conciously aware of yourself or things around you when you're asleep. But we don't administer lethal injections to people who're asleep, do we? You can't define the humanity/conciousness of a human being simply because of his awareness.

You are incapable of being conciously aware of yourself or things around you when you're asleep. But we don't administer lethal injections to people who're asleep, do we? You can't define the humanity/conciousness of a human being simply because of his awareness.

Consciousness is not a moment to moment thing. It is something that builds throughout your life. Hence, even though fetuses have the ability to have a conscious, there is not one there yet.

Now, I am not advocating the killing of people in a coma. I would suppose that the potential to return to consciousness would play a key role in the decision.
And this "potential" would be measured how??

And this "potential" would be measured how??

I am not a doctor and I cannot feasibly come close to answering that question.

I can't quite grasp why many people think that a human who has a body that that only has the basic functions, heartbeat, breathing, etc., yet has no conscious awareness, is actually a person.

It goes further - a foetus which does not breathe, has no heartbeat (no heart) etc. is also considered a person by them. That they seem to be engaging in doublethink by applying two fundamentally different stances on when something is alive does not occur to most though..

What maks aperson a person. Its a difficult philosophical question and it is impossible to answer. However, it is easy to hypothesise and spout rehtoric about. Those untestable hypothesises and accompaning rehtoric are easily used to justify all kinds of atrocities. Therefore, I don't make a distinction. I put all life on the same level.
Sure fetuses are people. Its stupid to claim otherwise. The error of both sides in the abortion debate is the belief that it is inatly wrong to kill humans. If it were addressed on that level one would see that pro choice is a superior position.

Sure fetuses are people. Its stupid to claim otherwise.

Why ? What makes a 1 minute old foetus objectively different from a cancer cell ? When it has developed organs and a neural net - then yes. But before that ?

The error of both sides in the abortion debate is the belief that it is inatly wrong to kill humans. If it were addressed on that level one would see that pro choice is a superior position.

The side pro-choice advocates take is that when viewed logically it is not possible to harm something that both is and was incapable of having experiences - unless you state that people have a right to be conceived. Therefor a foetus without neural net cannot be harmed, while the mother can. The mothers choice therefor takes precedence.

However, to continue this I suggest we find one of the few dozen abortion threads ;)

Consciousness is not a moment to moment thing. It is something that builds throughout your life. Hence, even though fetuses have the ability to have a conscious, there is not one there yet.

You cannot have the ability to have a consciousness until you have enough of a brain to develop it.

I vote brain waves make a person a person.
I agree, to an extent, the way I see it once someone is a person they are always a person or at least a human being which is pretty much the same.

Why ? What makes a 1 minute old foetus objectively different from a cancer cell ?


Nothing. But it is hypocritical to respect multicellular life and not unicellular life.

Why ? What makes a 1 minute old foetus objectively different from a cancer cell ?


Nothing. But it is hypocritical to respect multicellular life and not unicellular life. I provide cancer cells, bacterial, humans with the same level of respect. That doesn't mean that I would disagree with killing the former two when it is advantageous. I wouldn't disagree with killing the latter when it is adventageous either.

Consciousness is not a moment to moment thing. It is something that builds throughout your life. Hence, even though fetuses have the ability to have a conscious, there is not one there yet.
How do we know their isn't any consciousness yet at this point, namely by the time they can have consciousness? How conscious would you consider a new born infant? Would premature births be less conscious than an infant that is born on time? If so, is it all right to kill premies? At what point does consciousness occur? Is it when one is able to move? to communicate? How do we measure consciousness? Intelligance? Responsivness? Its realy a complex question.

You cannot have the ability to have a consciousness until you have enough of a brain to develop it.
At what point is the brain developed enough for this? When it begins producing measurable brainwaves? when it can order physical motions? when it can construct comprehensable comunication patterns?

You cannot have the ability to have a consciousness until you have enough of a brain to develop it.

Yes, I should have said "potential" and not "ability", it makes that post a lot clearer.

How do we know their isn't any consciousness yet at this point, namely by the time they can have consciousness? How conscious would you consider a new born infant? Would premature births be less conscious than an infant that is born on time? If so, is it all right to kill premies? At what point does consciousness occur? Is it when one is able to move? to communicate? How do we measure consciousness? Intelligance? Responsivness? Its realy a complex question.

You are correct that it is a very complex question, and I don't know the answer to it. Perhaps one of our more research prone posters can find out when it can be assumed that humans have developed self-awareness, and when that point is reached in life.

At what point is the brain developed enough for this? When it begins producing measurable brainwaves? when it can order physical motions? when it can construct comprehensable comunication patterns?

Brainwaves are the best measurement we have of consciousness.

Yes, I should have said "potential" and not "ability", it makes that post a lot clearer.

Using potential puts you in dangerous ground. By that argument, each of my egg cells has the "potential" for consciousness.

Using potential puts you in dangerous ground. By that argument, each of my egg cells has the "potential" for consciousness.
yeah...if we say a fetus is a baby because it has the potential to be one, then why not say it's an adult? it's got plenty of potential to be an adult, too, so shouldn't we be allowing it to vote and drive and drink if it wants? :)

yeah...if we say a fetus is a baby because it has the potential to be one, then why not say it's an adult? it's got plenty of potential to be an adult, too, so shouldn't we be allowing it to vote and drive and drink if it wants? :)
heehee drunk baby drivers :D

I provide cancer cells, bacterial, humans with the same level of respect.
That sentence reminded me of this (http://www.mikeoverbeck.com/osama/anthrax.html).