The reason religion is so powerful

[brewer]

I don't remember Neo stating anything about actualized or potential.

I do remember me stating "potential humans". Go back and read posts 23,25,26.

I don't recall if Neo used those exact words or not. Sometimes if a person is clearly not understanding the argument, it helps to rephrase the same idea in different language. But that's what the argument is about, and Neo, who understands the foundation and history of the argument, knows that.

Again, we are not talking about "potential humans" -- things or elements which have the potential to change into humans. We are talking about discrete objects which already contain the necessary qualities to develop as humans develop. 

If you can prove (and not only assert) that an embryo at some point in its development goes from being non-human to human, as you seem to think it does, then you can talk about "potential humans." Under that belief, then an embryo is a potential human. But that's not what I mean when I talk about the actualization of potential. I'm talking about the potential already contained in an object which then undergoes continuous development, not ontological change.

Of course you don't recall, wouldn't let you prattle on. I requested that Neo define the issue/terms, he did not respond.

That's just the thing, he said "conception" (fertilization/embryo) which does not necessarily already contain the necessarily qualities to develop as humans (mole embryo). Other have the qualities and then lose them during development (acardiac twin).

I'm claiming either, never a human(proof-mole, no potential), or human to non human(proof-acardiac, loses potential). That is the proof.

You're kind of dense.