Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
May 13, 2010 at 9:15 am (This post was last modified: May 13, 2010 at 9:16 am by Xyster.)
I read somwhere some science magazine been a while now but if you broke the human body down to its core components we would sell for a whopping 35 cents on the open market... but that was in the early 90's so we might be worth a dollar So what is a human? about a dollars worth of this planets resources......
Did I make a good point? thumbs up I cant help it I'm a Kudos whore. P.S. Jesus is a MYTH.
May 13, 2010 at 9:22 am (This post was last modified: May 13, 2010 at 9:24 am by Violet.)
(May 13, 2010 at 9:13 am)tackattack Wrote: Good adding variables is why he're here.
So what we have is :
worth is a value of function based on the objects place in the space time continuum.
That seems like a fine definition to me Let's go with it
Quote:When we relate that to a person within our perception of "our world" we can also include our percetption of the credibility and reputation, physical ques as to trustworthiness and mannerisms. Also the fact they're in the time space of "our wolrd" (meaning near enough to us physically to interact and currently have an ability [alive] to interact) fixes the point of reference and allows us to compare values of multiple individuals.
Is that about where we are?
I think that's indeed a good summation of 'where we are' One might consider their credibility/reputation/etc as part of the person itself... though admittedly, to do so would be not unlike to considering a rock 'blue' because the gecko sees it as so
(May 13, 2010 at 9:15 am)Xyster Wrote: I read somwhere some science magazine been a while now but if you broke the human body down to its core components we would sell for a whopping 35 cents on the open market... but that was in the early 90's so we might be worth a dollar So what is a human? about a dollars worth of this planets resources......
"Core components" being carbon and the like?
Why break it down so far? I can sell it macroscopically for much, much more
May 13, 2010 at 9:33 am (This post was last modified: May 13, 2010 at 9:33 am by tackattack.)
so now that we've agreed upon the worth of a person as a formula... that includes elements that must be part of the defintion.
A person must have a place on the space time continuum.
Be able to interact with others of similar speices
Must have a function
Must have mannerisms.
Be defined as homo sapien by genus and phylum
without the last one, I'm sure that our gorrila friends see other gorrillas as the gorilla equivelant to humans, but we wouldn't, nor would they see us as part of their society with value. By giving worth to things outside theese parameters (like hippie tree lovers and fanatic animal worshiper.. I mean advocates) we impart on them a sense of being a part of society thus having value to it, but not human. That's why some people feel dogs have souls, and go to heaven... and digging up a tree "hurts" it. We impart human characteristics on things we see as part of society.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
Tacky Wrote:Be able to interact with others of similar speices
I don't agree with this one... say that every other human on earth dies right now. Does that depersonalize you?
#1: "A person must have a place on the space time continuum."
^ This one is good.
Quote:Must have a function
It depends... does that mean 'can act' or does it mean 'intent in it's existence'? If it is the former, then I would agree. The latter would be much harder to 'sell' though
#2: "Must have mannerisms."
^ This one is good. I suppose that without mannerisms, an thing could hardly have a personality, and with no personality: how would a thing be a person? (rhetorical)
Quote:Be defined as homo sapien by genus and phylum
Why would this be necessary? That seems like it would remove androids, extraterrestrial sapient organisms. gods, and what have you... for no apparent reason (beyond that they are not human... to which 'human' already describes).
Quote:without the last one, I'm sure that our gorrila friends see other gorrillas as the gorilla equivelant to humans, but we wouldn't, nor would they see us as part of their society with value. By giving worth to things outside theese parameters (like hippie tree lovers and fanatic animal worshiper.. I mean advocates) we impart on them a sense of being a part of society thus having value to it, but not human. That's why some people feel dogs have souls, and go to heaven... and digging up a tree "hurts" it. We impart human characteristics on things we see as part of society.
Hmmm... an interesting view. And yet, we are all one great society... without the other creatures/plants on this planet: we could not survive. Indeed... they impact and shape our cultures as much as we shape their environment/needs.
Are they perhaps not 'human' characteristics... but rather characteristics that we also possess? Indeed... the differing cultures among Sol IV humans alone contain significant differences in morals/ideals. I have heard it suggested that there are no civilized or savage peoples: only different cultures... to which my experience (Especially regarding Bioware games I've played over the last year) appears to concur.
Of course... this from the girl who is attracted to SI constructs...
May 13, 2010 at 10:24 am (This post was last modified: May 13, 2010 at 10:25 am by tackattack.)
(May 13, 2010 at 9:49 am)Saerules Wrote:
Tacky Wrote:Be able to interact with others of similar speices
I don't agree with this one... say that every other human on earth dies right now. Does that depersonalize you?
well you do have your own intrinsic value inate to yourself. But as I said before, when talking about worth within society or from the extranious perspective, another similar entity would be a necessity/
#1: "A person must have a place on the space time continuum."
^ This one is good.
Quote:
Must have a function
It depends... does that mean 'can act' or does it mean 'intent in it's existence'? If it is the former, then I would agree. The latter would be much harder to 'sell' though
Ok we'll reword it then to Must have an intent to it's existence (not necessarily including only conscious intent or precluding a consciousness)
#2: "Must have mannerisms."
^ This one is good. I suppose that without mannerisms, an thing could hardly have a personality, and with no personality: how would a thing be a person? (rhetorical)
go to bed then, lol. There's no time limit to the pursuit of understanding
Quote:
Be defined as homo sapien by genus and phylum
Why would this be necessary? That seems like it would remove androids, extraterrestrial sapient organisms. gods, and what have you... for no apparent reason (beyond that they are not human... to which 'human' already describes).
Then we'll include being human as part of the definition of being a person
Quote:
without the last one, I'm sure that our gorrila friends see other gorrillas as the gorilla equivelant to humans, but we wouldn't, nor would they see us as part of their society with value. By giving worth to things outside theese parameters (like hippie tree lovers and fanatic animal worshiper.. I mean advocates) we impart on them a sense of being a part of society thus having value to it, but not human. That's why some people feel dogs have souls, and go to heaven... and digging up a tree "hurts" it. We impart human characteristics on things we see as part of society.
Hmmm... an interesting view. And yet, we are all one great society... without the other creatures/plants on this planet: we could not survive. Indeed... they impact and shape our cultures as much as we shape their environment/needs.
Are they perhaps not 'human' characteristics... but rather characteristics that we also possess? Indeed... the differing cultures among Sol IV humans alone contain significant differences in morals/ideals. I have heard it suggested that there are no civilized or savage peoples: only different cultures... to which my experience (Especially regarding Bioware games I've played over the last year) appears to concur.
Of course... this from the girl who is attracted to SI constructs...
I think we attribute value to them and thus attempt to give them characteristics we define as part of being a person (like ai's with manerisms and androids shaped like humans, mimmicking human triats) But I don't think it intrinsically make them a person because they don't fit the definition of a person. They can righlty be humanoid.. human like.. but I don't know where this would go if we through clones into the mix.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
March 5, 2013 at 3:13 am (This post was last modified: March 5, 2013 at 3:14 am by Mystic.)
(March 5, 2013 at 3:04 am)jstrodel Wrote: If naturalism/atheism is true there really is no objective difference between people and rocks, as it relates to moral reasoning.
I think reason is a light/ocean/tree/garden and that it is both unified and complex. Language makes it complex but it's reality is one and indivisible.
Reason includes logic, morality, praise, honor, and value.
When you try to apply it to all sorts of things, it is divisible and complex.
When you reflect upon it's nature it's a vast ocean that is a light. It is a upside down tree that is rooted deep in unity but branches out in complexity.
March 5, 2013 at 4:13 am (This post was last modified: March 5, 2013 at 4:16 am by paulpablo.)
I would say it's a human being, any human being.
Quote:jstrodel Wrote: If naturalism/atheism is true there really is no objective difference between people and rocks, as it relates to moral reasoning.
It's a good job you do believe in god jstrodel because you obviously have no natural empathy, the way you speak makes me think that without a belief in god you would behave like a psychopath and probably be in prison.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
So what is a human? about a dollars worth of this planets resources......
![[Image: final1361807471121.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=www.forum-signatures.com%2Fwizard%2FSigs%2F2010%2Ffinal1361807471121.jpg)
![[Image: YgZ8E.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.imgur.com%2FYgZ8E.png)
