You know, this discussion has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. Sanity, maybe. (LOL) Is there a thread on SI that would be more appropriate?
Perhaps there is. I unfortunately have time to participate in but one thread. I choose this one, as it seems more loosely moderated than most.
Yes, at the moment of conception, most fertilized eggs do begin the process of developing into human beings. That is a fact. The point at which the dividing cells (potential) become a human being (actual) is an opinion, like it or not.
One cannot reasonably ignore the natural impetus behind the promotion and survival of the human organism. And one cannot reasonably ignore the fact that that naturally striving organism derives its biological identity directly from human beings. In that the organism has the fundamental biological character of humanity and in that it fundamentally strives for actualisation as does all of the rest of humanity, reason demands one consider it an extension of humanity. What you attempt to do is say "Sure. It is biologically an organism that naturally seeks expression, just as do we all, and it indeed derives its biological identity directly from us, but it is not human until the natural force that builds its arms and legs keeps developing it to the point that it gives it a brain. Even here it is not human, even though it is growing and actualising, until electrical impulses start moving through its brain cells such that it becomes aware of its feelings and thoughts." You completely ignore the crucial facts of the thing's fundamental biology and character (how it mirrors that of every other human being even before thought arrives), to instead insert hocus pocus as a possible explanation. That is not reasonable.
A fetus does exist and develop (in the majority of cases), but self-promotion implies active cognitive direction and is the wrong choice of words in this context, IMO.
I use the term "self-promotion" as something of a concession, so as not to argue one way or other as to the source of that promotion. If you will note, I have several places in my last post gently referred to this thing as either "God" or "chemistry," also referring to it as a peculiar "Life Force" or "thing." This is not the issue of the moment. The fact is, whatever the cause of promotion, the human organism, from the moment of conception, takes on the fundamental biology and character of humanity. Its body parts, including its brain, are mere tools it uses to propagate itself.
That an "I" can exist before the brain (thoughts and feelings) develops or after it dies is pure conjecture.
This paltry cognitive "I" is nothing but a result of thought, which is itself but a result of a natural propensity of the human organism to find expression. There is no conjecture that the organism naturally strives for expression, and that it naturally derives is fundamental biological character from humans, and that this striving biological identity is established at conception. This is nature's "I." To ignore it and claim it possibly inhuman, is to ignore crucial facts.
One can believe [that a person exists prior to thought], based upon faith, but not prove or disprove it, based upon science.
Well of course ultimately there is nothing but faith. I speak here on the street, where we employ the illusion of reason. Here, there is no debate as to the biological identity and, just as importantly, the character of the human conceptus. It is not possible to stare flatly at the nature of the conceptus and then dismiss it as possibly non-human, that is, unless you employ some weird faith-based hocus pocus or other illogic.
"I am a human, but when my sperm unites with an human ovum (just as happened in my own origin), and when my sperm/ovum union instantly causes an organism to possess a fundamental biology that is just like mine, and when that organism begins to perpetually strive toward expression (just as I have done and just as I do currently) even to the eventual point of acquiring the same kind of hair and eye colour as I, well, that thing is not fundamentally like me."
My friend, this is pure ridiculousness.
I strongly doubt it, personally, but will eventually find out (or not find out, as the case may be) when my time comes. :-)
You can find out ahead of time. A sad thing to wait until death to find what you might find while you live, IMO.
Why humbly bow down [to the Force that causes things to be]? I'd rather stand on my feet and strive to solve mysteries with an open mind.
Well, one reason is that those of us who think we have opened minds, typically do not. And so, while knowledge might flow in torrents beneath us, we proudly stand on our own two feet searching the thin air, thinking ourselves too grand to ever bend the knee.
Not quite sure what you're getting at here. A developing fetus is exactly what it is, not a rock or a cabbage.
My friend, you use the term "developing foetus" as if the human organism simply floats in space, for a time with no origin and no identity, perhaps eventually acquiring human status by hocus pocus. You ain't no atheist. You are a religionist.
[This is opinion, unless] you mean (which I don't think you do) the genetically directed cell divisions that usually result (except when errors occur) in a human being.
Well of course this is what I mean. We may argue about God at a later time. You may claim the process of humanity merely genetically directed and I may claim something otherwise. This is certainly open to debate. But the fact of the human organism's fundamental human character and biology is beyond reasoned dispute. We can reduce fundamental humanity to something purer than mere thought. We find thought merely rests on the foundation of an entity that is actualising and developing, living and striving long before thought arrives. This is your fundamental character and biology, and we cannot logically deliberate "personhood" while dismissing it. |
