(May 18, 2012 at 11:18 am)Mosrhun Wrote:(May 18, 2012 at 11:16 am)Phil Wrote: Where I am going with this is that by your criteria of cognitive thought defining a person, since Nicholas has attention and that is an aspect of cognitive thought, you can either accept he is a person by your definition or give it another go with a different definition of person.
He has not met the required criteria, he cannot think about what has grabbed his attention. It's like a reflex, some plants react when you touch them too. That doesn't mean they're aware of their existence. The plant doesn't stop and think, "Oh, I wonder what touched me?"
You gave cognitive thought as a criteria. If you want to expand on it now that you have been shown wrong you can but be honest about it. I am not going to continue to converse with you if you deny what you said.
