I don't believe in Ghosts but I have seen one.

[Jaysyn]

Thread derailing motherfuckers.

[fuckass365]

Thread derailing motherfuckers.

Yes but this discussion is interesting...

Phil, my reply is on the previous page should you have happened to miss it.

[Phil]

Thread derailing motherfuckers.

Don't bring MILFs into this

MIRFs are fair game though.

---

Since you like wikipedia so much, how about looking up what it says under cognition and then look up what controls bottom up attention. You have no problem defining a person as something with cognitive thought but you can't define cognitive thought? Sorry but that just smells bad.

Lol, Phil it didn't come from wikipedia, but would it really matter if it did? I always find it interesting how people can discredit a Wiki that has links to 50-100 credible sources at the bottom of the page, but I digress.

If you don't know that you're thinking, then what good is what you're thinking? The child is not a person. He is something (human), not someone, (person). That's the bottom line man and I really don't know why it bothers you so much. I've expressed several times that this holds no bearing on how this child should be treated and even expressed my sympathy for this family. As a father of a young boy, I can't even imagine what it must be like.

You didn't define cognitive thinking yet you use that as part of your definition of what a person is. Then you should be able to define what it is. I told you where you could look it up, do so then look up attention (which is a part of cognitive ability). Then explain what controls bottom-up attention.

edit: So by your criteria of cognitive thought since Nicholas Coke has one aspect of cognitive thought by your definition he is a person so what are you still arguing for?

[fuckass365]

Phil, according to Wiki the brainstem is responsible for bottom-up attention. I don't know if I should trust it though, there's only 26 credible sources on the page.

"The first aspect is called bottom-up processing, also known as stimulus-driven attention or exogenous attention. These describe attentional processing which is driven by the properties of the objects themselves. Some processes, such as motion or a sudden loud noise, can attract our attention in a pre-conscious, or non-volitional way. We attend to them whether we want to or not.[16] These aspects of attention are thought to involve parietal and temporal cortices, as well as the brainstem[17]."

I don't really see where you're going with that as he has no ability to reason with what is "attracting his attention in a pre-conscious" way.

---

Just an fyi, I am at work and will be afk shortly so expect a slight delay on further responses.

[Phil]

I don't really see where you're going with that as he has no ability to reason with what is "attracting his attention in a pre-conscious" way.

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.

[fuckass365]

I don't really see where you're going with that as he has no ability to reason with what is "attracting his attention in a pre-conscious" way.

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?"

---

I'll be back in about an hour and a half, Phil.

[Phil]

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.

[fuckass365]

You showed me attention which is a portion of the "cognitive" part, however there is no "thought" involved. Hence, you have not shown me wrong.

---

I may have been wrong in phrasing it as "cognitive thought" when in fact they should have been separate, e.g. cognition and thought. Happy?

[Phil]

You showed me attention which is a portion of the "cognitive" part, however there is no "thought" involved. Hence, you have not shown me wrong.

---

I may have been wrong in phrasing it as "cognitive thought" when in fact they should have been separate. Happy?

Attention is a part of cognitive thought. Once again by your criteria, he is a person.

Oh, in case you're interested self-awareness (at least the base function) is controlled by the brain stem.

[fuckass365]

How can one be self aware if one cannot reason?

---

I need to focus on work, lol. I'll be back shortly.