When does a human cease to be a human?

[Jasper]

It depends on how they're being implemented.  Is it under one title deed as well as one roof?  Who lives in it?  What is done there?  Does it have many bedrooms?  Is it a duplex?  Apartment?

I would say the main ingredient in that metaphor is the difference between number of homes in any given house.

[Bharlion]

Usually I would define it as viablility of genetic recombination. If you can't crossbreed and create indefinately viable offspring then it wouldn't be defined as human. Which would mean something could be not totally human and still be under the classification of "human."

[Jasper]

So my nuts make me human?

[saint aini]

So my nuts make me human?

//performs a KTC on Felix.

[Jasper]

//suplexes Aini

[Bharlion]

//Performs bumrush

up right down left a b a b start!

[The Apex, The Harmony Of]

ideal of automation,
mechanics to emptiness,
process the equipment,
sounds like im just human.
the restraint.
compensate.
equipment.
not good fleshy equipment.


erm yea

[LMNO]

I'm of the opinion that most of these domesticated primates haven't even made it up to the status of "human".



You can't stop being something you never were.

[Cramulus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

[Bharlion]

I feel that it is what you believe as well as the physical aspect.

If you think you are human. You are human. Because if you think, therefore you are. In the Descarte way.

For that instance. A person who may not be entirely "Human" or GATTACA could logically fulfill all these requirements.

However to biologists most of it revolves around Human definition as in "Homo Sapien" or genetic material floating around in a soup. Logically you could tweek a few cells in a chimp and have something that is "human" as well. Which is why I don't subscribe to that belief. Just because you can pump out more copies of our kind doesn't nessisarily mean you are actually a human in the psychological or spiritual sense.

This has troubled man kind since its beginning why do we consider some people mongrel races to be exterminated because they are sub human while other people are elevated to the rank of godking.

[Cain]

Loaded definition of the word human.  Implicit assumption that humans = the only theoretically sentient and self-aware beings around.  If talking in strict biological terms, defining homo sapiens sapiens is easy.  Any other definition becomes tricky though, when it comes to, say, mental illness, genetic engineering, human rights law etc because of the basic assumptions.  If a human is a biological construct, then genetically engineered beings are a new species (or subspecies), which makes their legal standard somewhat tricky.  If we go with the latter sort of description, based around ability and function, then we may have to discard certain genetically defective or mentally ill people from the definition, as well as people in persistent vegetative states, as well as perhaps rethink our attitude towards some animals capable of higher functions (chimps, dolphins etc).

Peter Singer deals with the latter in some detail and while he is in some ways a PETA-esque nutter (and crypto-Yiffer, look at his views on zoophilia) he does raise some interesting points and questions.

[Jasper]

I wasn't really seeking a philosophical or scientific answer, so much as to look at how lawmakers will try and treat it once it starts going places.

[The Apex, The Harmony Of]

If you think you are human. You are human. Because if you think, therefore you are. In the Descarte way.

What about what I cant 'think' about, but has affects?

I think (at least I think I do), but thats probaly not all.

Because if you think, therefore you are.

If there is a clear cut 'instant' of time, that allows that.

The mechanisms that have to process information, in our bodies (brains, nerves etc) have to run finite asymettries. All instants get seemingly lost but gain attributes.


I have had the thought alot recently that time and instants are only products of our brains and bodies, but serve as auxilaries. Just like how we have language, but probaly dont need the novelty but it serves some purposes.

[Cain]

I wasn't really seeking a philosophical or scientific answer, so much as to look at how lawmakers will try and treat it once it starts going places.

And that's not a philosophical issue?

[Jasper]

I wasn't really seeking a philosophical or scientific answer, so much as to look at how lawmakers will try and treat it once it starts going places.

And that's not a philosophical issue?

Depends on how you want to treat it.  If you had a robotic arm that was noisy, people wouldn't want to hire you because they'd think it'd frighten customers.  For example.