In the conversation below, liz and I discussed the debate, the issue of animal experimentation and the difficulty of defining "personhood"
I eventually conceded the formal debate because I felt that my position didn’t give me enough space to maneuver and I was up against a really good debater who had a position that’s a bit easier to defend
It’s a bit long but if you’re into the habit of prying into other people’s conversations, you might find this interesting
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:07:08 PM): I mean if animal testing doesn't involve suffering there really is no issue
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:07:22 PM): oh, but there is
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:07:31 PM): the moral angle to it
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:07:34 PM): I know
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:07:35 PM): but of course you cant bring that in
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:07:40 PM): that's what I'm trying to expoit
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:07:47 PM): also some holes in his arguments
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:07:59 PM): like?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:08:24 PM): I asked him what defines personhood
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:08:45 PM): and what makes human life objectively more valuable than animal life
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:08:56 PM): his answer was
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:09:48 PM): Persons are protected by rights against being used as means to an end, but non-persons are not entitled to these rights.
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:09:54 PM): there
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:10:00 PM): thats what h said
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:10:12 PM): wait let me read his arguments again
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:11:13 PM): how would you define a person
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:11:21 PM): there was a debate about that before in pex
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:11:42 PM): he or she would have reason
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:11:58 PM): and emotions
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:12:04 PM): what if it were proven that some animals have reason and emotions
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:12:09 PM): would that make them persons?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:12:24 PM): what IF
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:12:53 PM): have you heard of a disability that renders some people literally incapable of emotions
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:13:08 PM): and people with mental retardation...
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:13:08 PM): something of that sort, yes
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:13:24 PM): are they less human then everybody else?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:13:57 PM): I mean if we're gonna gauge humanity by higher cognitive preoesses like the ones you mentioned
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:14:12 PM): then a lot of "persons" cannot be considered as persons
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:14:19 PM): but that's a simple generalizations
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:14:28 PM): no one
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:14:48 PM): can define people by reason and emotions, not only that---there are other categories to satisfy
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:14:56 PM): like what
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:15:32 PM): genetic make-up
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:15:34 PM): aha
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:15:39 PM): ok
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:15:52 PM): would you say that a human skin is human
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:15:53 PM): ?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:16:11 PM): ^human skin cell
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:16:21 PM): would you say that a human skin cell is human?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:16:23 PM): no, if it doesnt cover a human being
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:16:45 PM): but human skin cells have human DNA and therefore genetically human
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:16:58 PM): but does it have reason and emotions?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:17:31 PM): so you define humanity as a genetically human organism wth reason and emotions
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:17:37 PM): do you believe in abortion?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:18:07 PM): dont get me into that. do you?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:18:19 PM): it's related
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:18:35 PM): i know
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:18:35 PM): so do you?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:18:47 PM): ill answer
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:18:49 PM): ok
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:18:50 PM): i do believe in abortion
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:18:53 PM): ok
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:19:15 PM): ok?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:19:25 PM): I do but only before higher cognitive functions are detected
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:19:41 PM): I have a question
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:19:51 PM): you define humanity as a genetically human organism wth reason and emotions
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:19:55 PM): yes?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:20:24 PM): there may be other categories i cannot name as of the moment
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:20:35 PM): so i wouldnt say thats a strict definition
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:20:38 PM): let's concentrate on those two for the moment
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:21:07 PM): but do bear in mind that those are not my strict definitions
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:21:22 PM): may i know your strict definitions then
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:21:46 PM): okay, thats not a properly relayed statement
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:21:53 PM): cause if we're gonna define humanity by his biological make up
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:21:57 PM): yes, thats my definition
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:21:59 PM): we're gonna run into problems
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:22:09 PM): like cells would also satisfy that definition
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:22:21 PM): but not the strict definition, ie, its not the ONLY one
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:22:27 PM): but theres an 'and'
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:22:32 PM): I know let's just explore the problem
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:22:36 PM): has reasons and emotions
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:22:50 PM): if we're gonna define humanity by higher cognitive functions like reason and intelligence
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:22:59 PM): we will again run into problems
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:23:11 PM): wait
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:23:17 PM): if we define humanity
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:23:43 PM): if we define a human organism as one that has a biological make up and higher cognitive functions
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:23:51 PM): we still run into the same problem
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:24:11 PM): some biologically human organisms
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:24:13 PM): like?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:24:49 PM): have limited cognitive abilities
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:24:54 PM): that would therefore
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:25:02 PM): nullify the "and" condition
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:25:23 PM): wait
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:25:25 PM): so
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:25:25 PM): lets change it to
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:25:25 PM): 'or'
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:25:31 PM): or
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:25:32 PM): ok
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:25:39 PM): or
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:25:45 PM): still the same problem as above
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:25:46 PM):
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:25:53 PM): no
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:25:54 PM): a cell would still be considered human
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:26:26 PM): okay, let's rehash the statment
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:26:29 PM): ok
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:26:32 PM): let's do that
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:26:35 PM): biological mak-up
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:26:35 PM): reason
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:26:40 PM): emotions
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:26:44 PM): that's the three
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:27:24 PM): a human organism has the genetic make-up of one AND has reasons OR emotions
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:27:39 PM): what do you mean by "of one"
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:27:55 PM): well, the genetic make-up of a human being
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:28:03 PM): ahh
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:28:20 PM): that's still the same definition isn't it
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:29:07 PM): petitio principii, but its just the construction of the statement
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:29:11 PM): a human being may satisfy the biological make up of a human being but may lack reasoning and emotions
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:29:44 PM): we assume that the genetic make-up of the homo sapiens is established
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:29:55 PM): as unique to the species
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:30:10 PM): it is unique to the species
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:30:47 PM): so what i meant by 'of one', using incorrect words, was on the assumption that the genetic-mak-up is yes, unique to us
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:31:12 PM): you mean you unique to an individual?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:31:27 PM): unique to the species
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:31:38 PM): it is unique to the species
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:31:56 PM): human DNA is human DNA
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:31:59 PM): let me just rehash the definition
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:32:02 PM): cells though also have human DNA
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:32:02 PM):
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:32:18 PM): human cells that is
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:32:40 PM): a human being possesses the genetic make-up of the species and has reasoning or emotions
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:32:50 PM):
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:32:54 PM): what did you change?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:32:58 PM): you remember you logic subject, of course
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:33:09 PM): the 'of one'
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:33:15 PM): ?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:33:16 PM): its an error
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:33:39 PM): isn't that the same definition?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:34:26 PM): it is, but iv removed the misleading phraset which would make me guilty of petitio principii
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:34:38 PM): but isn't it a problematic definition
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:34:39 PM): lets move on
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:35:10 PM): coz some people are genetically human but lack reasoning and emotions
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:35:25 PM): kaya nga
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:35:31 PM): you remember your Logic subject, of course
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:35:37 PM): of course I do
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:35:50 PM): so
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:35:54 PM): there
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:36:07 PM): let me re rephrase that
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:36:11 PM): coz some people are genetically human but lack reasoning and/or emotions
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:36:32 PM):
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:36:49 PM): AND connective---if there's one false, fals na lahat
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:37:06 PM): OR connective---if theres one true, true na yung statement
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:37:11 PM): that's what i'm trying to say
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:37:21 PM): So
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:37:33 PM): if the genetic make-up is TRUE
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:37:56 PM): but there reasong is FALSE and so are the emotions
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:38:21 PM): then according to the AND connective, the statent, or what is human, ends up as FALSE
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:38:25 PM): so people who lack reasoning and emotions are not human?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:39:22 PM): by your definition severely mentally handicapped people are not human
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:40:35 PM): so people who lack R and E are not human---yes, for the skin cells and the DNA and the zygote
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:40:41 PM): as for the mentally handicapped people
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:40:46 PM): ...
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:40:50 PM): enters the other criteria
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:40:57 PM): which we havent discussed
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:41:04 PM): and what are those criteria
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:41:33 PM): wait you are for the experimentation of chimps right?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:41:39 PM): i was hoping you can name them
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:41:44 PM): me?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:42:32 PM): I had an argument with an evangilist before
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:42:38 PM): about how to define a human
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:42:45 PM): your thrust, it seems
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:42:54 PM): is simply criticizing my arguments
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:43:04 PM): i suggest you give yours
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:43:20 PM): no I'm trying to point out that it's difficult to objectively define a human being
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:44:35 PM): i know. that's why i told you that i have no strict definitions, per se, only a vageuly general one
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:44:46 PM): well anyway on with my story
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:44:59 PM): haha, okay
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:45:15 PM): the evanglist first defined a "human being" as an organism with human DNA
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:45:35 PM): but I've already pointed out the problem with that definition
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:46:02 PM): w8
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:46:10 PM): I'll just copy paste
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:48:16 PM): can't find the thread anymore
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:48:25 PM): anyway if I remember correctly
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:48:31 PM): He next defined a human being as a collection of cells bearing the same unique genetic identity.
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:48:42 PM): with that definition a cell is no longer human on its own
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:49:15 PM): but twins share the same genetic identity but they're considered as two human beings
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:49:17 PM): still there?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:49:32 PM): yes
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:49:38 PM): and so?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:50:18 PM): He next defined a human being as a collection of cells bearing the same genetic identity contained in a collection of body parts that define the human form.
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:50:29 PM): head, torso, limbs
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:50:41 PM): okay
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:50:45 PM): but that would be a problematic definition for people with missing appendages
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:51:12 PM): anyway the point is
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:51:13 PM): ok
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:51:34 PM): it's difficult to define a human being biologically
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:51:58 PM): so your definition of biology and cognitive abilities
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:52:14 PM): is problematic since it's difficult to define the former
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:52:43 PM): and that's where refinement comes in
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:52:48 PM): ok
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:52:57 PM): it's a very general definition
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:53:09 PM): what would be your more refined definition
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:53:14 PM): do you have classes already btw
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:53:32 PM): i would imagine subcategories under 'genetic make-up' and 'reason' and 'emotions' stretching under it
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:53:42 PM): yep. may pasok na ko
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:54:08 PM): I would like to know those subcategories
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:54:23 PM): so do i
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:54:34 PM): theyre as yet beyond me, though
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:54:48 PM): see
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:54:51 PM): that's the agnostic attitude
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:54:53 PM): so my point still stands
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:55:07 PM): that?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:55:11 PM): it's dfficult to define a human organism
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:55:22 PM): I mean a human being
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:55:38 PM): did i say its not?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:55:47 PM):
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:56:05 PM): I'd say it's near impossible
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:56:13 PM): without running into contradictions
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:56:29 PM): i agree.
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:56:37 PM): ok
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:56:41 PM): on to my next point
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:56:56 PM): say it's 2090AD
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:57:14 PM): and we've already discovered how to perfectly replicate human consciousness
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:57:22 PM): in a machine
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:57:33 PM): ok
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:57:34 PM): say the consciousness possesses reasoning and emotions
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:57:55 PM): would you say that that machine deserves rights
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:58:01 PM): and
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:58:14 PM):
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:58:19 PM): what?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:58:25 PM): that's not hte point yet
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:58:30 PM): baby steps baby steps
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:58:30 PM): have you ever read the positronic man?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:58:37 PM): or watched the movie
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:58:42 PM): not yet
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:58:58 PM): the bicentennial man with robbie williams
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:58:59 PM): all my points are interconnected
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:59:04 PM): ahh yes
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:59:05 PM): that one
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:59:15 PM): so?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:59:15 PM): that one
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:59:37 PM): he was given rights in the end
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:59:41 PM): ok
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 12:59:53 PM): after years and years of arguing in the courts
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 12:59:57 PM): and what's your opinion on that
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:00:01 PM): about what is human
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:00:08 PM): the same argument we are having now
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:00:13 PM): whether consciousness alone
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:00:37 PM): whether the possession of consciousness alone affords someone rights
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:00:52 PM): without the biological make up
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:02:45 PM): your argument rests on the fact that in the future we MAY know how to replicate human consciousness
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:02:51 PM): yes
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:02:55 PM): but we may also not
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:03:03 PM): it's irrrelevant if we do or not
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:03:16 PM): oh, but it is
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:03:45 PM): the point is do you believe that a non-biologically human entity that has consciouness deserves rights
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:04:22 PM): im not willing to argue on suppositions, because in the mean time, when humanity is not yet capable of it, the point you are trying to make is irrelevant
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:04:33 PM): it isn't
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:04:44 PM): it;s the conncept that I'm trying to argue
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:04:45 PM): fallacy of the future
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:04:51 PM): not the feasibility of the case
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:05:16 PM): but im not willing to argue on the concept if its not feasible
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:05:36 PM): and as of now it isnt
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:05:36 PM): jjust answer the quesiton will ya
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:05:37 PM): do you believe that a non-biologically human entity that has consciouness deserves rights
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:05:45 PM): whether that's a machine
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:05:55 PM): an alien entity etc
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:07:12 PM): would the machine have values? ethics? will the machine be able to love and hate?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:07:17 PM): as for the alien
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:07:29 PM): let's say it has the capacity for love and hate
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:07:49 PM): values and ethics?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:07:54 PM): sure
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:07:54 PM): morals?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:07:55 PM): why not
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:07:57 PM): ok
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:08:06 PM): yes let;s say it has morals
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:08:14 PM): does it deserve rights
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:08:29 PM): free will?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:08:37 PM): do we have free will?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:08:51 PM): ok it has free will by the general definition
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:08:55 PM): as we know it
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:09:31 PM): bear with me for the moment
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:09:33 PM): ok
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:11:09 PM): the point you are trying to make is this: my definition is wrong, not just generally and vaguely and ambiguously correct, in the argument you are putting forward now
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:11:11 PM): but
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:12:09 PM): still, your concept is not feasible, and i am not willing to answr your question based on a supposition that a machine can have human cognitive abilities
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:12:30 PM): I'm trying to argue that it is consciousness that pay respect to and that we afford rights to whether that consciouness is contained in a biologically human organism or not
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:12:46 PM): I'm trying to argue that it is consciousness that we pay respect to and that we afford rights to whether that consciouness is contained in a biologically human organism or not
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:12:50 PM): yes, i understand that.
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:13:15 PM): a biologically human organism without consciousness is just meat
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:13:32 PM): but where's the relevance? it is not possible now, not in the near future.
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:13:37 PM): a consciousness without a biologicaly human body still is human and deserves rights
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:13:56 PM): should I go to my next point now
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:13:57 PM):
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:14:34 PM): have you heard about studies on chimps
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:14:51 PM): not much
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:15:08 PM): you should watch national geographic
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:15:28 PM): nah, i dont watch tv too much
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:15:42 PM): dude you should sometime
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:15:50 PM): you;'ll learn stuff
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:16:09 PM): one higher apes posses self awarenes
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:16:09 PM): s
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:16:38 PM): they posses significant cognitive abilities
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:17:13 PM): what else
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:17:22 PM): do you agree with experimentation on chimps btw
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:17:50 PM): im not well-versed on the subject
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:17:56 PM): ok
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:18:04 PM): but chimps are convered in the debate
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:18:22 PM): my debate with ischaramoochie
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:18:39 PM): yes. teka.
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:18:40 PM): eto
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:18:40 PM): That's what I'll try to concentrate on
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:18:56 PM): teka lang
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:18:56 PM): uh
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:19:15 PM): uh?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:19:47 PM): alam mo, my definition, in light of your argument---
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:19:54 PM): ok
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:20:06 PM): connectives. they must be fixed.
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:20:16 PM): what do you mean
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:20:22 PM): AND OR IF IF AND ONLY IF
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:20:42 PM): i'll think about it.
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:20:54 PM): could you complete the sentence
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:21:06 PM): ___AND OR IFAND ONLY IF____
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:21:59 PM): in light of your argument regarding consciousness, i think the definition i gave you still has hope of being true, if only generally and vaguely
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:22:05 PM): ok
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:22:08 PM):
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:22:22 PM): bah, go on
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:22:37 PM):
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:23:31 PM): you have no position on experimentation on chimps because you don't know enough about them right?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:24:28 PM): but if they are self aware, intellectually and emotionally complex (which they probably are) would you agree with experimentation on them
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:25:47 PM): you will know they are self-aware, intellectually and emotionally complex by experimenting on them
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:25:54 PM): and your debate partner
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:26:16 PM): what kind of experimenation are we talking about here/
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:26:24 PM): well not the sort of experimentation that my debate partner described
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:26:46 PM): which involves killing
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:26:47 PM): so there's your problem
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:27:08 PM): Those are the only points where you can attack him
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:27:14 PM): his position covers higher apes
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:27:26 PM): and his position involves the termination of life
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:27:59 PM): let me trace this
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:28:02 PM): you can't really argue against experimetation if there is no suffering or loss of life involved
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:28:23 PM): we were debating about the definition of what is human
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:28:29 PM): yup
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:28:39 PM): that is connected to animal experimentation
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:28:46 PM): and then you moved on to detaching consciousness from the human genetic make-up
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:28:49 PM): and now
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:29:19 PM): ...
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:29:44 PM): you are trying to assert that since chimps also have cognitive abilities, they have rights like humans?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:29:51 PM): hmm
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:29:54 PM): that is the qiuestion isn't it
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:29:59 PM): equal to are lesser than?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:30:23 PM): are you asking for my real position or my debate position
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:30:45 PM): your debate position
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:30:50 PM): hmm
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:31:30 PM): just read the debate thread
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:31:41 PM): you'll see my position there eventually
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:32:05 PM): if i may say
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:32:07 PM): I didn't outline my position right away did I
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:32:17 PM): you have good points
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:32:23 PM): of course
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:32:46 PM): but the problem with them is that while it is hard to define what is human, it is easier to define what is animal
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:33:02 PM): but humans are also animals
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:33:20 PM): I agree but how would you define an animal
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:33:24 PM): but animlas are not human
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:33:46 PM): from a collective standpoint it's easier to define animals I think
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:34:09 PM): humans are also animals, but animals are not human
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:34:15 PM): so there
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:34:27 PM): your example kanina, the one that's feasible
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:34:32 PM): is it because of what man has achieved?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:34:33 PM): NOT feasible i mean
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:34:36 PM): technology etc
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:34:45 PM): teka lang
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:35:51 PM): your example kanina, it's not feasible, but not totally impossible. a machine with human morals, values, ethics, human emotions such as love and hate
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:36:02 PM): but animals?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:36:06 PM): they may eventually evolve
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:36:06 PM): but
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:36:09 PM): ?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:36:21 PM): like i told you kanina, that point is irrelevant to your debate
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:36:31 PM): which point
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:36:46 PM): we are talking about NOW
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:36:50 PM): that it's consciousness that defines humanity?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:36:54 PM): not the biological make up
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:37:02 PM): yes.
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:37:07 PM): no
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:37:07 PM): mali mali
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:37:15 PM): what's mali
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:37:42 PM): yes, consciousness defines humanity, but youd be hard-pressed to prove that such consciousness exists within the chimps
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:37:47 PM): not now anyway
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:37:48 PM): it won't make the case for any side but it's raises issues that I may exploit later
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:37:58 PM): but there's hard evidence
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:38:11 PM): that chimps have consciousness
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:38:33 PM): such as humans, which may in turn earn them rights?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:39:17 PM): biut there is hard evidence that reasonably supports the conclusion that chimps have consciousness
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:40:11 PM): okay, that's given
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:40:24 PM): but such consciousness wont be anywhere near the human kind, would it?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:40:28 PM): aha
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:41:04 PM): psychological tests also support the conclusion that chimp intelligence is AT LEAST equivalent to that of young chilren
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:42:21 PM): chimp intelligence, how about chimp emotions? chimp morals and values and ethics?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:42:30 PM): what are morals miss liz
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:42:33 PM): would they also be equivalent to young children?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:42:40 PM): what are ethics?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:43:17 PM): a believer may argue that morals are god given gifts that are unique to humans
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:43:25 PM): but we're not believers are we?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:43:45 PM): an evolutionist would probably look at morals as
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:43:53 PM): morals are the absolute and over-reaching standard among human beings
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:44:08 PM): no need for religious overtones
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:44:21 PM): you agree not to kill people---that's a moral
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:44:25 PM): an evolutionist would probably look at morals as qualities we evolved for the preservation of our species
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:44:51 PM): qualities that would be destructive to society would be detrimental to the cause of the species
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:44:57 PM): yes. but such morals would still be unique only to humans, and not to chimps would it?
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:45:02 PM): therefore evolution would try to weed out such qualoities
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:45:51 PM): chimps have complex societies
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:45:53 PM): thats far from the point
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:46:37 PM): the average chimp would not kill an individual within its social group
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:46:51 PM): wait
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:47:20 PM): emotions are more difficult to quantify than intellect
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:48:04 PM): sorry gor disconnected
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:48:07 PM): and/
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:48:15 PM): what was my last message
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:48:24 PM): thats ok
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:48:38 PM): chimps have complex societies
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:48:56 PM): dude, your ym is screwed
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:49:00 PM): it is
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:49:19 PM): am I invisible there?
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:49:34 PM): nope
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:50:07 PM): emotions are more difficult to quantify than intellect
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:50:30 PM): but chimps have shown emotions such as guilt, empathy etc
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:51:00 PM): besides I don't view morality as a byproduct of higher intellect
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:51:15 PM): i dont either.
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:51:27 PM): I think of it as an ensurance by evolution so that we would not kill each other
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:52:04 PM): but what im trying to say is that while chimps may have such cognitive functions, there are not of the human kind.
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:52:15 PM): hmm
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:52:36 PM): liz do you have classes already
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:52:46 PM): I do
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:52:48 PM):
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:52:58 PM): this has been a most interesting conversation miss liz
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:53:18 PM): and so it has.
lizette lanuzo (1/10/2007 1:53:25 PM):
Jonathan Davis (1/10/2007 1:53:25 PM): we will continue this later