Without the Shedding of Blood There is No Remission of Sin

[GrandizerII]

What if consciousness is a spectrum? Where then is the line drawn between really conscious and not really conscious? Do human babies differ from non-human animals when it comes to consciousness?

No, because human babies are necessarily (it can be no other way) developing toward a known potential. Picking a point along the way to draw a line of value is arbitrary.

You quoted this from Wikipedia:

Consciousness is a loosely defined concept that addresses the human awareness of both internal and external stimuli. This can refer to spiritual recognition, psychological understanding, medically altered states, or more modern-day concepts of life purpose, satisfaction, and self-actualization.

Couldn't non-human animals be on the lower end of the spectrum of such consciousness, while humans are further along the spectrum? It doesn't seem like there is a strictly categorical difference between human and non-human consciousness. After all, empirical evidence has shown that, even in some non-human animals, there is some basic recognition of the self (mirror studies). Heard of Alex the parrot, who seemed to have been aware of the count and color of objects around him and even himself? You should google it.

[SteveII]

No, because human babies are necessarily (it can be no other way) developing toward a known potential. Picking a point along the way to draw a line of value is arbitrary.

You quoted this from Wikipedia:

Consciousness is a loosely defined concept that addresses the human awareness of both internal and external stimuli. This can refer to spiritual recognition, psychological understanding, medically altered states, or more modern-day concepts of life purpose, satisfaction, and self-actualization.

Couldn't non-human animals be on the lower end of the spectrum of such consciousness, while humans are further along the spectrum? It doesn't seem like there is a strictly categorical difference between human and non-human consciousness. After all, empirical evidence has shown that, even in some non-human animals, there is some basic recognition of the self. Heard of Alex the parrot? You should google it.

Sure there is a spectrum. But there very much is a significant difference between human and non-human consciousness. Awareness of self isn't the only thing (and I don't think there is empirical evidence that any animal comes close to the self-awareness we have). There are matters of introspection, the use of language, abstract objects/thoughts, reasoning/rationalizing/motivation, morality (difference between is and ought), investigation, invention, creativity, imagination, aesthetics, etc. 

Assigning a baby (unborn or newborn--doesn't really matter) value by trying to find the right animal to compare its current state of development to seems ludicrous to me.

[Chad32]

Some of which animals exhibit. There is a difference, but it's more a case of "we're farther along" than "we have something no other species can achieve, given enough time".

[GrandizerII]

You quoted this from Wikipedia:


Couldn't non-human animals be on the lower end of the spectrum of such consciousness, while humans are further along the spectrum? It doesn't seem like there is a strictly categorical difference between human and non-human consciousness. After all, empirical evidence has shown that, even in some non-human animals, there is some basic recognition of the self. Heard of Alex the parrot? You should google it.

Sure there is a spectrum. But there very much is a significant difference between human and non-human consciousness. Awareness of self isn't the only thing (and I don't think there is empirical evidence that any animal comes close to the self-awareness we have). There are matters of introspection, the use of language, abstract objects/thoughts, reasoning/rationalizing/motivation, morality (difference between is and ought), investigation, invention, creativity, imagination, aesthetics, etc. 

Assigning a baby (unborn or newborn--doesn't really matter) value by trying to find the right animal to compare its current state of development to seems ludicrous to me.

Just to note that I edited my previous response before your submission of this one to clarify a little that I was referring to mirror studies for the empirical evidence and to elaborate on what Alex the parrot was aware of.

Anyway, all these cognitive abilities you mentioned may just as simply be advanced versions of basic functions found in non-human animals. We don't know if these are indicators of categorical differences rather than differences in degrees.

As such, it is not clear there are inherent differences (in the sense that you intuit "inherent") between humans and other animals with regards to consciousness.

[SteveII]

Some of which animals exhibit. There is a difference, but it's more a case of "we're farther along" than "we have something no other species can achieve, given enough time".

If any animals do have one or two of these traits, they are order of magnitudes less, because they all work together.  Why do you think that other species could evolve those traits that set us apart? That's not my understanding of what evolutionary theory predicts. It natural selection acting on random mutations and errors. How would that work in the development of the non-physical world of consciousness?

[Chad32]

Some of which animals exhibit. There is a difference, but it's more a case of "we're farther along" than "we have something no other species can achieve, given enough time".

If any animals do have one or two of these traits, they are order of magnitudes less, because they all work together.  Why do you think that other species could evolve those traits that set us apart? That's not my understanding of what evolutionary theory predicts. It natural selection acting on random mutations and errors. How would that work in the development of the non-physical world of consciousness?

There are physical attributes to consciousness, given that it all goes back to brain function, which is a physical entity. If these traits are good for one species' evolution, it can be good for other species. Hence why animals have capacity to learn things like language, and morality, even though Humans have progressed farther than other animals.

[Drich]

Problemo, without free will what's the point of any of this?? You say god wanted people to be able to choose to be with him or not.

But again not all are His. The choice given are to His people.

Those babies would never get the chance to choose.

You are right in most of those type situations there isn't any choice. So why no pull the plug and reset the router?

So what's the ppint of choosing if babies can't choose and end up with him, or people who never herd the word of God get a free pass too? 

No one gets a free pass Jesus paid for all the passes they just don't cost us anything, not the same as being free. That said because Jesus paid he gets to judge/choose who honered the Spirit of what He said was worth redemption.

What's this making a distinction between "good" and "bad" babies?!

there are good seed and bad seed meaning some seed grow into wheat others grow into weeds, it is by out fruit or what we actually yield that determines whether we are good or bad not where or to whom we were born.

There is no such thing. Learned behavior and child bombers are innocents.

which God judges as such... So be it not better for them to meet with God now and get plugged into another life where they could do some good or be welcomed home? or grow up this go round as a weed?

Your heart has beer bared and it is made of stone!!

[Chad32]

Your heart is beer bared, Drich. Check your blood alcohol content.

[SteveII]

If any animals do have one or two of these traits, they are order of magnitudes less, because they all work together.  Why do you think that other species could evolve those traits that set us apart? That's not my understanding of what evolutionary theory predicts. It natural selection acting on random mutations and errors. How would that work in the development of the non-physical world of consciousness?

There are physical attributes to consciousness, given that it all goes back to brain function, which is a physical entity. If these traits are good for one species' evolution, it can be good for other species. Hence why animals have capacity to learn things like language, and morality, even though Humans have progressed farther than other animals.

It is very interesting that in order to defend the premise that we are not special (the product of deterministic naturalism), an argument for the possibility of additional emergent properties (the evolution of more self-aware minds) is proposed--which decidedly does not support the premise of deterministic naturalism.

[Chad32]

That sounds like a non-answer, more than anything.