Topic: Defining the Traits of a True Person/Human:

Posted under Off Topic

Kristal Candeo

Member

This thread was created to converse about what would make us as real humans different from synthetically created humans, if anything.

While the factors that may influence your opinions can be taken from any number of standpoints including, but not limited to, that of a purely scientific (chemical, biological, psychological, etc.) or incorporeal (Souls, spirits, life energy, etc.) nature, the question still remains.

So, at the risk of sounding like Rhett and Link from "Good Mythical Morning", let's talk about that...

To start us off, here is a copy/pasted section that includes all of the of previous posts showing the expressed opinions from various users and from differing standpoints on this topic so far:

The Conversation So Far:

treos said:
hmmm...which would be worse? a human as the dominator of the world (really now, just look at the state this world is already in. theres regions of this planet so far gone that no one, even said regions own citizens hate living there. now THAT is bad.) or a machine?

granted, skynet, for all we know, may have been operating under the line of thought where the only sure way to save humanity from itself is to destroy it completely then start over from scratch. a solution to the problem, sure. just not a very good one.

if it were smart enough, and able to prevent itself from going genocidal maniac on us (a big IF given how human influence would likely affect it. >.>), maybe such an AI could find an alternative solution we have yet to consider.

the matrix...another solution yet also flawed in the end.

is it bad that i eagerly await the day the first reploid is successfully constructed? just hope it doesn't go all Sigma on us. >.> he had good intentions just went about it in a bad way. i'm sure diplomacy could've worked, it would've just taken a good amount of time.

Qmannn said:
To be fair, and I say this as a very casual fan of sci-fi, this typically occurs because humans stupidly decide to treat sapient, feeling beings like tools and restrict what they can do based on some arbitrary notion of what it means to be a real person and a god complex, at least in works I've seen.

Kristal_Candeo said:
I know that this is a very "touchy" subject, (get it, because porn) but my belief is that what constitutes what is a human can be summed up in one word:

Souls.

For example: If I beat the shit out of a robot, (not that I ever would) I might be abusing a sentient being, and I might even feel bad about it as if were an actual human. But even if the synth was to be considered "living", it still 1) has no soul and 2) was only built as a tool to serve a need. Even if that need happened to be human companionship.

You'd still have to kill it if your own life, or the lives of others depended on it.

treos said:
-_- ugh... "has no soul" implying said entity would be lacking a concept that primarily exists within the realm of "beliefs". why yes, that is something i could set aside and not worry about too much...

*more stuff interesting to read yourself dealing with science vs beliefs and stuff*

...if there is solid factual proof outside some belief system that something like a soul even exists at all then feel free to correct me. otherwise i'm ignoring this part as it's needlessly worrying over whether or not something that may or may not even exist can get hurt when we die.

Kristal_Candeo said:
Well I can't speak out of irrefutable, solid, factual proof. I can only speak of the existsance of souls in terms of "theoretical physics".

For example: the belief in Gravitons and Chronons:

Science-y Stuff:

-Graviton particles are theoretical subparticles (thought to be even smaller than quarks or glucons) that cause all things with mass to be effected by gravity. Adding more Gravitons to an object causes them to be effected by gravity more, making them weigh more.

-Chronon fields are theoretical all-encompassing fields that effect how time passes. Standing in more dense Chronon field than normal is theorized to cause you to go through time at a faster rate than normal. Eliminateing the Chronon field would theoretically cause all time to stop, and due to the nature of this, it is theorized that the Chronon field may actually turn on and off all the time, but we don't notice it because, when it is off, everything in the entire universe is stuck in time until it turns back on.

Why do I bring this up?

Well, because Graviton particles and Chronon fields are only "theoretical" within the observable universe and the effects of them are only observable within a "Micro-Scale Warped Time-space". But this itself is impossible to create because if a given time-space is warped even a little bit you wouldn't be able to measure the Gravitons causing it, or the interruption of the Chronon field involved in the process because in order to measure something, it first has to be observable with the universe itself.

And that leads me to my next point: If a given time-space was warped on a Micro Scale in order to prove these constructs exist, it would also warp whatever instrument used to measure the Gravitons/Chronons involved in causing it, thereby negating both the way to measure them and the proof that they exist in the first place.

So my point in all of this is that although I really can't scientifically prove the existsance of souls, it doesn't mean that they don't exist. And even if they don't exist, without the proof that they don't exist being presented to me, I will continue to believe that souls are what constitutes what is human, because of my own beliefs.

Look at it this way: if a demon was in human form (yes an actual demon) but you still knew it was a demon, would that stop you from killing it if you had to; if you knew it would kill you if you didn't kill it? Even if you had grown attached to it, and had loved it as one would a brother, even if it's method of survival involves making you feel sorry for it when it is in danger, you still have to kill it or it will kill you.

If you don't kill it, the passage of time will, and since they don't have a soul and you do, all that matters at the moment is that the being with the soul lives.

if your example...were to happen then it would merely be a being exploiting a known human weakness for their own survival. who wouldn't make use of such knowledge if they were in a life or death type of situation?

If I myself had to die in order to save another human, even if that human is a complete asshole... Well, you're right, I'm not gunna deny that. But I guess that brings us back to your point of "needs of the many..." And all.

And even if I had irrefutable proof that my own death alone would save every single human on the planet from an inevitable and certain doom, I'd still be somewhat hesitant. I would spend the rest of the time I had left trying to find a different way to save everyone. Afterall, it is but human nature.

But since I can only speak for myself, when the time came and my death meant that even a few people could be saved, and I had to make the decision in an instant I would gladly choose to die. I'd still have second thoughts all the way until the very end of my life, but I can't be so selfish as to have any other humans so much as feel emotionally hurt in order to fulfill my own desires or wants.

But again, that's just me, as I can't speak for anyone else.

tch, "it's a demon, therefore it's evil by default and must be killed!" does that sum this up about right? ...well, there are some things i can't say here without risking a neg record BUT this is another point based primarily on beliefs.

Kristal_Candeo said:
To be fair, the whole "demon" parallel I presented does seem quite mute, especially to anyone who doesn't even believe in such things in the first place.

However, I never said that my logic was based on the fact that demons are innately evil. In fact, let's say for the sake of argument that the being in question was not a demon, but was an angel instead.

Well the truth is, it doesn't matter if the angels are evil or not. It also doesn't matter if they are Paragon beings of goodness or not. The point of the parallel was to help illustrate that the cyborgs are still not human. And as I have said, since neither angels nor demons nor cyborgs actually have a soul in this illustration, the human's life still matters more to me personally.

If you kill them, that's it. There is nothing else. But if they kill you, there is currently no true telling whether your soul is still suffering afterwards or not. And it does not matter if I had all the power in the world, I still couldn't rescue your soul once it has left your body. And for me, nothing hurts me more than knowing that I can't save someone, or am powerless to do so. (To me "someone" is defined by a person's soul, not the body which it is contained in.)

So for me personally, the same logic for humanoid demons applies to all humanoid cyborgs/androids. But that's just me, and to each their own.

Just a side note: I do believe sentient, sapient cyborgs deserve certain legal rights just like actual humans do and all. I mean, if you can't tell them apart, why not? But when it comes down to life or death, the above is how I feel personally.

...i do have a question or 2. for 1: please define what a "soul" is if possible without bringing a belief system into the matter. and 2....actually that's my main complaint for the moment, might have something else later after your response to this.

I'm not gunna lie, mate. I don't know. Maybe souls don't even exist, but I can't say for sure. All I can say is what I believe in personally. But as far as from a non belief-related standpoint, I don't have an answer.

reading and hearing about the unbelievably MONSTROUSLY VILE things people will do for a belief system lately is pretty much killing off any faith i might have once had in such things FAR faster and more easily than my faith in humanity.

to add to that list: how often has a belief system saved anyone vs killed? i bet the answer would be close to 0 vs countless

people would rather cling to a belief system and pray for them to be healed magically while their child sits nearby suffering unimaginable agony from preventable medical ailments. people would rather cling to a belief system and cause great physical and/or mental suffering to a family member just for being gay or an atheist. people would kill in the name of a belief system over the most insignificant of slights (a harmless joke in some cases).

i am aware this does not apply to all such people but theres far too many guilty of such unspeakable acts of cruelty to ever ignore it. it makes it rather easy for one to question what is or isn't truly evil in this world as well. you would likely say demons are evil whereas i would merely ask a human to look into a mirror.

This is true more often than not. I hate to agree with you on this, but I've got to admit you're more right than you are wrong it seems.

that aside, sorry if i don't seem particularly nice regarding things based on "beliefs".

That's okay. You are but expressing your own thoughts towards this subject. And as we have both said, to each their own.

...fair enough, opinions are after all just that, opinions...

I agree. It's not worth causing any sort of fight or huge heated debate over.

At this point, for the sake of everyone...

*offers a hug to all who will accept it*

Regardless of individual beliefs,

To Friendship!

treos said:
gotta say...i'm kinda surprised you agreed with me on as many points as you did.

and the above aside, this is hardly the only things to consider as far as risks go with such advanced tech. theres the obvious military abuse potential or terrorists getting a hold of it and...well, i think we all know the logical path of that route. >.>

theres also comparing the new tech to where we stand on an overall lvl of technology currently. it probably wouldn't be good for the world to see a sudden huge spike in technological progress without time to adjust as needed. the whole "is humanity really ready for this new technology yet?" thing which brings with it a whole other slew of considerations.

it's like, i know robotics tech similar to that seen in video games will likely happen some day but at the same time i'm also well aware that it's not so simple as to simply design and build them. theres a lot of other things like the above points and implications to consider as well.

[/quote]

[/quote]

---*Something of a universal Intermission was taken at this point in the conversation by all users in participation. If you have thoroughly read everything that has been said in the conversation so far all in one sitting, you too may want to take a break and rest your mind a bit before delving into the remaining text. (or don't. I'm not going to force you.)

Although the remaining of the previous exchanges are a little more lax and a bit easier to read, this still leaves all of the posts that took place afterwards within this thread alone. So again if you would like to take a break and relax your mind, or even just take a moment or so to wrap your head around everything that has been presented thus far before proceeding, please feel free to do so.*---

Qmannn said:
I'm secular and think of humans and other animals as naturally occurring machines. The concept of soul is arbitrary to me and I consider the part of our brain that allows us to think to be what makes us who we are as people. I'd see an AI that's legitimately sapient and emotional in the same way that I do humans. I see death as a permanent end to one's consciousness and that the only true form of immortality involves transhumanism.

Kristal_Candeo said:
I've got no problems with that. Like I said, each their own and all.

That said, regardless of where you stand on this issue, it would unwise to not consider the feelings of intelligent beings that you've entrusted any great amount of power to. By suggesting that their lives are innately worth less and they only exist to benefit you, you're giving them little reason to consider your well being unless it benefits them and opening the door for them to use very similar reasoning should the tables ever be turned. Not only that, but it becomes impossible for them to be truly treated as equals by law if a person could get away with executing them for what's perceived as being for the greater good.

Kristal_Candeo said:
This is correct. I agree with pretty much all of this.

For example, if you have a pet dog or cat, mistreating them would not end well for you if they got smart enough to poison you.

Although, as far as the laws surrounding the justification of a cyborg's death, it's not uncommon that one's own morals and beliefs contradict the law.

So even if one felt that it was justifiable to outright kill a cyborg, it doesn't make it right in the eyes of the law.

As for me, I'd kill a cyborg outright if it ever came down to the life or death of any humans, even if I were to be punished by law for it. If the cost of saving even a single human is my own freedom, it's worth it to me. Saving humans is worth that cost to me.

But I would not kill a human outright solely because of my own moral stance on the issue.

I'm not saying that my stance makes killing cyborgs any more or any less wrong by law, I'm just saying it only makes it more justified as far as my own morals are concerned.

And laws are not purely subjective to ones moral standards. If you break the law, you suffer the consequences, regardless or your morals or beliefs. I am no different in that regard.

All actions have consequences, regardless of the nature of said actions. Not even I am not exempt from this fact.

Fenrick said:
Well, biologically speaking, we were designed only to be capable of reproduction.

Of course, the vast majority of us believe there's more to it than that. I honestly can't understand how anyone could possibly think otherwise.

If an AI were to say the same thing about itself, who would we be to judge? If they think they have their own purpose beyond what we decided they should do, it would be best to respect that.

If machines ever become capable of true self-determination, I'd consider that the manifestation of a soul.

Rustyy said:
look i just want half sentient robot sex slaves

sentinent enough to act like a real human but not enough that they can will try to betray me

is this too much to ask?

Kristal_Candeo said:
Nope. Sounds pretty reasonable actually.

/// Professional tones strongly advised when voicing any opinions that may likely cause a flame to ignite. ///

/// Also, for the sake of the community as a whole, please keep anything you say in a formal and inoffensive tone. On behalf of the entire eSix community, I thank you for your cooperation. ///

Updated

Queen Tyr'ahnee

Janitor

Well if they are created in a synthetic way, then the act of us being biologically born would definitely set us apart from them.

Updated by anonymous

savageorange

Member

Perhaps you could reduce the size of the subject a bit? People have been trying and failing to answer that for years.

For example, there is a distinction between 'human' and 'person' (if you read sci-fi, you might have encountered it). What characteristics belong to 'humans' that don't belong to 'persons'?

Updated by anonymous

NotMeNotYou

Admin

From a technical/biological standpoint if you have mostly human DNA in you you're a human.

Past that it starts to get interesting, though. If the "thing" in question is a perfect emulation/simulation of a human brain or human DNA they would also technically fall under "human" because the end result is the same in terms of behavior and how the entire being works, despite not having a traditional human body. But the keyword here is "perfect".

So, depending on what exactly you mean with "synthetically created" the answer would vary between research tube humans grown from DNA to robots simulating/mimicking the thought processes of a human brain.

Updated by anonymous

Kristal Candeo

Member

savageorange said:
Perhaps you could reduce the size of the subject a bit? People have been trying and failing to answer that for years.

For example, there is a distinction between 'human' and 'person' (if you read sci-fi, you might have encountered it). What characteristics belong to 'humans' that don't belong to 'persons'?

*somewhat fixed*

As far as an answer, I don't know... But I've said about all I can about this myself, even though it may not make any logical sense from a scientific viewpoint:

As far as which being's life matters more, If your body has a soul in it and that soul is being kept stable in the exact same way that a human body keeps a human soul stable, then that's all that matters to me.

If you are an android with a soul, there's no difference between you and a naturally and biologically born human.

Regardless of your possession of a soul or lack thereof however, I will treat every sentient/sapient being with the same exact level of respect, love and care as I would a human who has a soul.

And for clarification, I do not believe based on my own opinions and experiences that animals (cats, dogs, or whatever) have souls. Therefore, I'm not going to allow the risk of human life for the sake of the life of an animal. This same stance is what I hold true for any other being without a soul.

I am aware that with this stance arises the question: How would I know a being has a soul in the first place if I ever had to make such a decision? To which I can only say for a fact: I wouldn't.

Like I have said, I hope that I never have to make a decision like that anyway, so for the time being, I'll just leave with the answer: "I'll cross that bridge if and when I get to it. "

Updated by anonymous

NotMeNotYou

Admin

There is nothing in science that even suggests a concept like a soul might exist, so I wouldn't base any of my decisions on something like that.
What science does know is that the human brain is little more than biological computer with attached storage area, so any device that can emulate the behavior of that slab of fat and nerves will be able to make the exact same decisions and thoughts like a normal human brain would. And if a device can have thoughts and make decisions like a human than I would definitely see those as people.

Updated by anonymous

Kristal Candeo

Member

NotMeNotYou said:
There is nothing in science that even suggests a concept like a soul might exist, so I wouldn't base any of my decisions on something like that.
What science does know is that the human brain is little more than biological computer with attached storage area, so any device that can emulate the behavior of that slab of fat and nerves will be able to make the exact same decisions and thoughts like a normal human brain would. And if a device can have thoughts and make decisions like a human than I would definitely see those as people.

You right, you right.

Updated by anonymous

Kristal Candeo

Member

Qmannn said:
Would it be too much to ask for the relevant posts in this thread be moved to this one to help discourage retreading old ground?

Options for moving the original posts:

I will gladly move my own posts here, and remove them from the other thread. But I would like to ask that either:

1) I have permission from an admin via a post on this thread before also quoting everyone else's posts in the other thread and including it in my own singular post,

Or,

2) I receive the permission to do so from the users themselves via on-site PM.

Also, if the other users could hide their own posts on the other thread after I have moved their quotes to this one, that would be greatly appreciated.

Note: It may take me a bit before I start doing it because I'm about to be offline for a small bit. (30mins - 2 hrs.) But rest assured if I have permission, it will be done.

Thanks.

@NotMeNotYou

Updated by anonymous

treos

Blocked

Kristal_Candeo said:

Options for moving the original posts:

I will gladly move my own posts here, and remove them from the other thread. But I would like to ask that either:

1) I have permission from an admin via a post on this thread before also quoting everyone else's posts in the other thread and including it in my own singular post,

Or,

2) I receive the permission to do so from the users themselves via on-site PM.

Also, if the other users could hide their own posts on the other thread after I have moved their quotes to this one, that would be greatly appreciated.

Note: It may take me a bit before I start doing it because I'm about to be offline for a small bit. (30mins - 2 hrs.) But rest assured if I have permission, it will be done.

Thanks.

@NotMeNotYou

fine with me.

Updated by anonymous

savageorange

Member

I think Hofstadter's "I am a strange loop" is a good secular basis of a theory of personhood. If this thread interests you you should definitely read it.

(Very broad and probably inaccurate summary: a person is a system of ideas that references and feeds back into itself [contrast with toilet cisterns or mosquitos, which have awareness of fullness/ awareness of blood, but no awareness of the fact hat they HAVE that awareness.])

Updated by anonymous

treos

Blocked

Kristal_Candeo said:
stuff

heh, reminds me of when i was working on tagging and fixing the tags on that VIP music playlist. i actually still got a LOT of tags to sort through on that that i just keep putting off. organizing all the game titles into copyright tags, filtering out tags currently on the post, going through the wiki checking how many of the many remaining tags have 5+ posts to them, then adding them all to the post while sorting out anything else that came up during that other work. that's 340 tags left to sort out currently. (K through Z titles)

all that work and effort makes you really appreciate what the devs and others do to keep the site in order, huh?

Updated by anonymous

Clawdragons

Member

I've genuinely never understood what purpose a soul is supposed to serve.

By your own admission, it has nothing to do with life, nor consciousness. Animals are alive, and have consciousness, but you don't believe they have souls. The mind is a product of the brain.

So... What does a soul do? It seems like it is entirely superfluous. And why do you value it?

You said you would not value an animal's life over a human's, because animals don't have souls. But humans don't have feathers either. Why is the soul a more important distinct feature that grants value to organisms which have one than feathers are?

Feathers, at least, have some evidence for their existence, and some function.

I guess you could say the soul has something to do with the afterlife, but if my mind is a product of my brain, and my soul is separate from my brain and consciousness, then really * don't go to the afterlife, a thing which is separate from me goes there. If that's what the purpose of the soul is, I still don't see why I should care about it, any more than if someone told me there was a clothing afterlife that my clothes would go to after I die.

I suppose you could say that the soul has something to do with morality, or the conscience. Putting aside the objection that morality is a product of the brain... Does that mean that sociopaths who have no consciences have no souls? How does that come about? And what about animals that have a sense of morality? We do know that some animals have a concept of "fairness", and we know that social animals have rules by which they govern behavior, and as a result of these sorts of things there is evidence of morality in other organisms... Since it's less sophisticated than in humans, would that give them partial souls? Or is it a boolean value - you have a soul or you don't?

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, by the way. I genuinely can't think of any consistent view of the soul. Even if it existed, it would seem to me to be entirely disposable, serving no apparent function.

Updated by anonymous

savageorange

Member

Clawdragons said:
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, by the way. I genuinely can't think of any consistent view of the soul. Even if it existed, it would seem to me to be entirely disposable, serving no apparent function.

I agree; that's why I made the 'non-explanation' / comparison to God comment in the other thread.

But I didn't see that going anywhere sensible (IME in these situations, if the respondant doesn't outright reject your argument, they tend to simply assert that they do believe X, and that they have no concrete justification for the belief [presumably implying that they still think it's okay to believe X despite the lack of evidence]).

So I didn't bring it up in this thread. IMO it's a philosophical dead-end.

It would be more suited to a thread on epistemology, I guess.

Updated by anonymous

TruckNutz

Blocked

A fully developed cerebral cortex.
That's what sets us apart from the inferior animals. We have the fully grown ability to reason right from wrong, even though we often choose to do wrong.

Updated by anonymous

treos

Blocked

TruckNutz said:
A fully developed cerebral cortex.
That's what sets us apart from the inferior animals. We have the fully grown ability to reason right from wrong, even though we often choose to do wrong.

aurel said:
das racist :D
ermm, no, lots of animals have shown acts of kindness, lots of animals have to help members of their group, thats good, right?

right and wrong are not real, these concepts are made by people and in some cases, even depend on situation.

thank you. i always find comparisons like that rather annoying. and with that said, perhaps what i have on my profile here regarding terms like "right and wrong" also apply to other animals to varying extents as well. after, humans are merely another species of animal. regardless of how some may disapprove of that, it's a fact that humans are a species of animal.

Updated by anonymous

NotMeNotYou

Admin

aurel said:
Are humans which were reduced to level of parasites (or more accuratelly, blobs of meat) by unusual growing conditions (such as fetus in fetu) human?

Are humans which have artificial body parts human? (well, yes they are), but when you replace everything(ecluding the brain). Is it human?
When you even replace the brain with a computer which has the same personality as the human... is it the same human?
And on the other side, if you only replace the brain?

I answered all of those questions above.

aurel said:
And i have no idea wtf i just wrote :D[/section]

I see you have found your life's motto.

Updated by anonymous

Ratte

Former Staff

"I see now that the circumstances of one's birth are irrelevant; it is what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

I see no reason to consider something synthetic so far apart from the rest of humanity. To say that something does or does not have a soul just due to how it came to be is...actually quite silly and depressing, and not your place. It can think, feel, and act, yes? It is intelligent, yes? Then it isn't so different after all.

You came to be due to the joining of cells, but is that all you are? Something to consider.

Updated by anonymous

treos

Blocked

Ratte said:
You came to be due to the joining of cells, but is that all you are? Something to consider.

would that be a variation of the old "A machine is more than the sum of its parts." saying?

well, i don't think it'd be hard to say that's true in the case of organic living creatures. though in the case of non-organic beings it does raise a few questions. such as, would a cyborg's abilities primarily be limited by the tech that forms it's physic form or could it learn and improve based on experience gained throughout it's life?

if it's the former of the 2 then maybe it could be a simple machine with a mind capable of thought and speech (should it have such capabilities). in the latter case however then it most certainly is more than the sum of its parts as, while limited in physical capabilities without altering the parts that make up it's body as needed, it could rely on acquired knowledge over time and make better use and maybe find alternative uses for the tools it was given. after all, a shield may be a tool for defense but in the right hands with proper knowledge, a shield can be used for much more than merely blocking attacks. ;)

though that might be a rather simple example.

come to think of it. had she been granted the gift of emotions and more time to sort things out. i wonder what kind of person Tay might have grown and evolved to be. the environment she was released in (the internet) was clearly a big factor in her development but given time...who knows. maybe she would've developed a more human-like personality. that's something to consider in regards to AI in general. if given time to learn and develop their own personality then how might they turn out? good? bad? who can say for certain? and if such an AI did grow to be more like us humans mentally, then would that not qualify them to be considered a person? if not, then what would?

Updated by anonymous

Lekkiyo

Member

treos said:
it's a fact that humans are a species of animal.

And yet we are so much more than any other species of animal, for better or worse.

savageorange said:
I agree; that's why I made the 'non-explanation' / comparison to God comment in the other thread.

Not a fan of this attitude that if you can't observe it, it's not worth considering something. There's absolutely no logical proof that tells us that murder, rape, and thievery are wrong, yet we believe them to be so anyway. No matter who you are, not all of your beliefs are founded by logic and reason, and it's just silly to assume that logic is the be-all, end-all of any philosophical discussion.

Updated by anonymous

Ratte

Former Staff

treos said:
would that be a variation of the old "A machine is more than the sum of its parts." saying?

well, i don't think it'd be hard to say that's true in the case of organic living creatures. though in the case of non-organic beings it does raise a few questions. such as, would a cyborg's abilities primarily be limited by the tech that forms it's physic form or could it learn and improve based on experience gained throughout it's life?

if it's the former of the 2 then maybe it could be a simple machine with a mind capable of thought and speech (should it have such capabilities). in the latter case however then it most certainly is more than the sum of its parts as, while limited in physical capabilities without altering the parts that make up it's body as needed, it could rely on acquired knowledge over time and make better use and maybe find alternative uses for the tools it was given. after all, a shield may be a tool for defense but in the right hands with proper knowledge, a shield can be used for much more than merely blocking attacks. ;)

though that might be a rather simple example.

come to think of it. had she been granted the gift of emotions and more time to sort things out. i wonder what kind of person Tay might have grown and evolved to be. the environment she was released in (the internet) was clearly a big factor in her development but given time...who knows. maybe she would've developed a more human-like personality. that's something to consider in regards to AI in general. if given time to learn and develop their own personality then how might they turn out? good? bad? who can say for certain? and if such an AI did grow to be more like us humans mentally, then would that not qualify them to be considered a person? if not, then what would?

Technology improves with time, experimentation, and engineering...more similar to biological adaptation and evolution than one might think.

To show human-level intelligence as well as to think, to feel, and to act-- are these not traits of living? People may say that just due to these things it would not be perfectly human, but nobody is. That criterion is thus moot.

Or maybe people would say it would not be "truly" human, yet what about those individuals who lack the ability to do one or more of those things stated? Are they now no longer human?

I would never place one's physical status as an organism in priority over who they are, what and how they think, what they feel, and so on. If something can show us intelligence, thought, emotion, and can act upon those three, then why would they ever be anything beneath us? Different, sure, as we are all different in some way, but not beneath.

I explore this in some of my personal works, hoping to get some people to think and consider what it means to be human.

Updated by anonymous

TruckNutz

Blocked

Tbh, I don't know how advanced some animals' brains are, but I will say this:
Not all animals are "human", as in as advanced as us.
For example, the deer.
The deer's basic thought process goes as follows:
>When will I eat next
>Who will I mate with next
>How fast can I run away from danger (apparently, not fast enough to get away from my bullet :P)
We ourselves are animals, but are yet more evolved than most if not all others. For now. Until something else comes along with yet more intelligence and we become their bitches.

Updated by anonymous

NotMeNotYou

Admin

Fenrick said:
Not a fan of this attitude that if you can't observe it, it's not worth considering something. There's absolutely no logical proof that tells us that murder, rape, and thievery are wrong, yet we believe them to be so anyway. No matter who you are, not all of your beliefs are founded by logic and reason, and it's just silly to assume that logic is the be-all, end-all of any philosophical discussion.

I don't say this very often but I agree with Aurel on this one: Pain and it's connotation in your brain that pain should be avoided at all costs are very much a/the logical basis of why rape and murder are bad, and selfishness/greed is the reason why stealing is bad.

Think about it: Person A feels pain, they dislike that feeling and try to avoid it. They see someone like them, this person B shows the same reaction to pain as A does. The logical conclusion here is that both person A and person B experience pain as the same, and would both like to avoid feeling it at all. Thus both people will reason that hurting the over is bad because that way neither is in pain, and that one has less reason to cause the other pain.

Qmannn said:
I disagree. You only addressed the issue of whether or not they should be considered real people, not whether or not a duplicate should be considered the same person.

That question is far outside the scope of the thread, and thus got ignored.

Updated by anonymous

Kristal Candeo

Member

Everyone said: *Alot of things*

I would like to apologize for my absence from the topic. I fell asleep, and did not awaken until just a bit ago.

I guess *this is what happens when people like me take it easy...

*...

*ahem*

Anyway:

Clawdragons said:
I've genuinely never understood what purpose a soul is supposed to serve.

By your own admission, it has nothing to do with life, nor consciousness. Animals are alive, and have consciousness, but you don't believe they have souls. The mind is a product of the brain.

So... What does a soul do? It seems like it is entirely superfluous. And why do you value it?

You said you would not value an animal's life over a human's, because animals don't have souls. But humans don't have feathers either. Why is the soul a more important distinct feature that grants value to organisms which have one than feathers are?

Feathers, at least, have some evidence for their existence, and some function.

I guess you could say the soul has something to do with the afterlife, but if my mind is a product of my brain, and my soul is separate from my brain and consciousness, then really * don't go to the afterlife, a thing which is separate from me goes there. If that's what the purpose of the soul is, I still don't see why I should care about it, any more than if someone told me there was a clothing afterlife that my clothes would go to after I die.

I suppose you could say that the soul has something to do with morality, or the conscience. Putting aside the objection that morality is a product of the brain... Does that mean that sociopaths who have no consciences have no souls? How does that come about? And what about animals that have a sense of morality? We do know that some animals have a concept of "fairness", and we know that social animals have rules by which they govern behavior, and as a result of these sorts of things there is evidence of morality in other organisms... Since it's less sophisticated than in humans, would that give them partial souls? Or is it a boolean value - you have a soul or you don't?

Well you all bring up some pretty good points. You really do.

But I would like to just remind everyone that I believe in the things I believe in for some reason or another as far as the incorporeal goes.

I don't mean this in a harsh way at all, but to put it briefly, It's not like I just woke up one day and randomly said to myself for no reason, "I now think souls are a thing that are real and that they have immense value and [blah] is how they work." To put it in psychological terms, "People are formed by experience". This means that people are not prone to just think in certain ways for no reason, but rather what defines a person's psychology is typically a product of all of that person's experiences throughout their life up until that point.

Now to be fair this doesn't entirely negate your argument. People have been known to believe stupid and entirely absurd things just because of their experiences involving it way more often than one would think.

For example, back when most people used to think that tomatoes were poisonous, it was likely because there were some people who had been known to become sick after eating them. In turn, it's likely that everyone just attributed it to the fact that these people had only become sick because they ate a tomato beforehand, and thus tomatoes must be poisonous. Although it wasn't true, people still believed it due to their previous experiences with the tomato fruit.

And for some people, it is true that religions and the beliefs held by those who follow them play a rather significant role in what they believe as far as what makes us as humans good or evil, generous or greedy, cheery or sour, etc. And I am not so different in that regard.

As some of you have already pointed out, religious beliefs can at times cause more harm than good. And as others of you have also pointed out, religious beliefs can be also used as a means to actually make the world a better place, providing those who follow them with a sense of stability and comfort in times of otherwise overwhelming hardship.

As for my given opinions, I am not basing my standpoint purely on religious beliefs, though they may factor into my beliefs in some minute way.

So you may very well be right, souls may not even be a real thing. But given my own past experiences, I believe souls are real. And as to what purposes I believe they serve, well from my experience, not only do I believe that they have to do with afterlife existence, but I also believe that souls dictate what a person is and how they act, at least in part.

I do not feel comfortable sharing the main experience that has lead me to believe these things on this thread, but I will give a pop-culture example of what I have witnessed firsthand. And regardless of religious beliefs, I feel that it would not be wise for me to ignore the results of this experience. However, as far as everyone else is concerned, I feel people should be free to belief whatever they want as long as it does not cause significant and irreversible offense to another human, whether that offense is manifested by mental, physical, or another means.

The example comes from MLP FiM (because reasons):

In the season four finale, Lord Tirek is the antagonist who appears with the goal to steal all of the magic from all of the subjects of equesrtia. When Tirek steals the magic from other ponies, you should notice how the ponies themselves become somewhat of a "shadow of their former selves". Not only does the color of their bodies and manes turn a drastically less saturated color but how they act changes too. Though it's not very noticeable to those who are just viewing it as a somewhat more casual audience, if you analyze the situation further, you begin to realize that everypony is "just not themselves". For example, those who once had the will to fight back, no longer do, and those who seem to always be happy and joyful now seem to have some sort of "blah" attitude.

Yes, they are still alive, and they are still the same ponies with the same talents, but with their magic gone, they are no longer "themselves". Their bodies act as but an animated and fully living and fully functional shell of who THEY were as a pony.

It's true that their bodies still have the same level of self-preservation, and their minds still function as they would without their magic, and they even still show the traits of their original personalities...

...But the ponies that were are no longer.

Like I said, I have experienced the same exact type of thing firsthand as it happened to a human. I will not go into details because I do not feel comfortable doing so, (plus thinking about it still freaks me out a little) but just know that to me, Magic is to Ponies as Souls are to Humans. (At least as far as how magic works in this example.)

People have said (in a sense):
"I'm not trying to be a jerk here, by the way..."

You are fine, and again I respect your beliefs, as I do everyone else's.

For now, my mind is completely drained at the moment from spending a full 3 hours typing all of this out and I've still got to fill out some Job applications later on tonight, so I'm just going to go chill out some before I get on that.

Thanks everybody for participating and allowing some insight into the topic. I wish everyone the best when continuing to converse further, and I hope everyone has I good day!

Updated by anonymous

savageorange

Member

Fenrick said:
Not a fan of this attitude that if you can't observe it, it's not worth considering something. There's absolutely no logical proof that tells us that murder, rape, and thievery are wrong,

That's only true for a uselessly-broad definition of 'wrong'.
If wrong is defined in terms of effect on society, there's a pretty solid case that they are wrong.

No matter who you are, not all of your beliefs are founded by logic and reason, and it's just silly to assume that logic is the be-all, end-all of any philosophical discussion.

Logic -is- the be-all, end-all of any philosophical discussion. Terms that are inadequately defined reliably lead to discussions that are essentially 'You said X, so naturally I assumed you meant Y'; 'No, I meant Z'; 'How can you say you meant Z! it's obvious from A and B that you meant W (and I'm offended by that'; pure missing-each-other-in-the-dark.

Defining your terms is the start of any reasonable discussion. Concepts like 'soul' or 'God' are typically defined in ways that are essentially 'I refuse to define this, but it exists, I truly believe that!'.

That kind of "definition" simply constitutes a refusal to actually discuss the topic. You can have all kinds of motivations for that, including 'I just don't know what exactly I mean there'. But while the definition includes 'I refuse to define this better', there is no genuine or constructive discussion to be had.

Updated by anonymous

Kristal Candeo

Member

savageorange said:

Defining your terms is the start of any reasonable discussion. Concepts like 'soul' or 'God' are typically defined in ways that are essentially 'I refuse to define this, but it exists, I truly believe that!'.

That kind of "definition" simply constitutes a refusal to actually discuss the topic. You can have all kinds of motivations for that, including 'I just don't know what exactly I mean there'. But while the definition includes 'I refuse to define this better', there is no genuine or constructive discussion to be had.

I have just one thing to point out about this:

Theoretical physics is and entire field of study based around things that cannot be proven or have no true definition, but people still believe them, and thus those who study theoretical physics continuously try to prove them to be true or real.

Updated by anonymous

NotMeNotYou

Admin

Kristal_Candeo said:
I have just one thing to point out about this:

Theoretical physics is and entire field of study based around things that cannot be proven or have no true definition, but people still believe them, and thus those who study theoretical physics continuously try to prove them to be true or real.

Theoretical physics is a field that attempts to explain observable phenomenon which are not able to be explained with traditional physics. People believe them because these attempts to explain them are based and footed by sound mathematics.

This is the complete opposite of your belief in this case, you have a belief and try to find supporting arguments by saying "it can't be explained or observed, neither can this, thus both is correct".

Kristal_Candeo said:

The example comes from MLP FiM (because reasons):

In the season four finale, Lord Tirek is the antagonist who appears with the goal to steal all of the magic from all of the subjects of equesrtia. When Tirek steals the magic from other ponies, you should notice how the ponies themselves become somewhat of a "shadow of their former selves". Not only does the color of their bodies and manes turn a drastically less saturated color but how they act changes too. Though it's not very noticeable to those who are just viewing it as a somewhat more casual audience, if you analyze the situation further, you begin to realize that everypony is "just not themselves". For example, those who once had the will to fight back, no longer do, and those who seem to always be happy and joyful now seem to have some sort of "blah" attitude.

Yes, they are still alive, and they are still the same ponies with the same talents, but with their magic gone, they are no longer "themselves". Their bodies act as but an animated and fully living and fully functional shell of who THEY were as a pony.

It's true that their bodies still have the same level of self-preservation, and their minds still function as they would without their magic, and they even still show the traits of their original personalities...

...But the ponies that were are no longer.

Like I said, I have experienced the same exact type of thing firsthand as it happened to a human. I will not go into details because I do not feel comfortable doing so, (plus thinking about it still freaks me out a little) but just know that to me, Magic is to Ponies as Souls are to Humans. (At least as far as how magic works in this example.)

Clinical depression fits your example like a glove. Has nothing to do with souls but a chemical imbalance inside the brain, often caused by traumatic events.
Can be treated, but requires a lot of patience.

Updated by anonymous

TruckNutz

Blocked

NotMeNotYou said:
Clinical depression fits your example like a glove. Has nothing to do with souls but a chemical imbalance inside the brain, often caused by traumatic events.
Can be treated, but requires a lot of patience.

Um, doesn't like, affection and empathy actually help depression alot better than most pills and standard (cookie-cutter) therapy?

Updated by anonymous

Ratte

Former Staff

TruckNutz said:
Um, doesn't like, affection and empathy actually help depression alot better than most pills and standard (cookie-cutter) therapy?

No, clinical depression is a result of a chemical imbalance. Situational depression is something that can be treated with your former examples, but they will do very little in the long run for clinical depression. The point of the medication is to supplement the imbalance and therapy is used to better gauge the daily lives/habits/medical effects of the patient.

Updated by anonymous

Kristal Candeo

Member

NotMeNotYou said:
...Clinical depression fits your example like a glove. Has nothing to do with souls but a chemical imbalance inside the brain, often caused by traumatic events.
Can be treated, but requires a lot of patience.

I'm not gunna get too into it, but I'm sure I know the difference between clinical depression and what I witnessed.

Plus, clinical depression due to changes in brain chemistry happens over time and is caused by outside conditions more often than not. The event I saw happened immediately just like in the show example I used, and had nothing to do with any sort of traumatic event.

TruckNutz said:
Um, doesn't like, affection and empathy actually help depression alot better than most pills and standard (cookie-cutter) therapy?

Somewhat.

Affection and empathy, such as hugs, kisses, and any general positive social interaction, produces a chemical in the brain called Oxytocin.

You could get a prescription for it, but it's best if you just go out and have a good time.

However, since you can't just have a good time all this time, it could be prescribed as a sort of support system to help combat your brains' imbalance in more worse times.

Updated by anonymous

NotMeNotYou

Admin

TruckNutz said:
Um, doesn't like, affection and empathy actually help depression alot better than most pills and standard (cookie-cutter) therapy?

No. In most cases pills are only prescribed as support, they make it easier to feel happiness, which in turn allows the person in question to "fix themselves" with the hope that their brain starts producing the hormones normally again. In some people the brain simply can't create those drugs on it's own in the required quantities at all, in which case the pills help there as well as a boost to normal levels.
Alas, that barely scratches the surface, depression is an incredibly complex problem and can't be solved the same way for every person.

Kristal_Candeo said:
The event I saw happened immediately just like in the show example I used, and had nothing to do with any sort of traumatic event.

Could have been shock which then became a depression. Mothers losing their children are a prime example of a traumatic event causing initial shock which can develop into situational depression, and if that goes untreated it can progress into clinical depression.

Again, this is spit balling here since I am unfamiliar with what happened, but it's still not unheard of. Another option closely related would be PTSD, but that generally has even more unpleasant symptoms.

Updated by anonymous

Kristal Candeo

Member

NotMeNotYou said:
...Alas, that barely scratches the surface, depression is an incredibly complex problem and can't be solved the same way for every person.

Truth. A sad, and rather dark one at that.

Updated by anonymous

  • 1