What is a person?

[Never]

Disregarding the idea of a soul, for it’s impossible to place characteristics on something immaterial, what is it that makes us, us? Is it our physiological characteristics? Is it our memories and personality? Is it our physical body?

I lean toward the physical body. Memories can be destroyed. Personality can be altered. Your body can age and be injured but it is the same DNA as ever and it’s destruction is the only ending point of a person.

That said, what is a body? One’s DNA can be copied but not one’s body, for even if you were to make a clone of me right now and age it to 21 years it still would not be the same body which is typing these words, and therefore, not the same person.

 

[Guru]

 

[Never]

While DNAs confer a type of genetic ‘immortality’, a person is not their child, nor visa versa

 

[Starfish]

My mind just exploded.

 

[Guru]

 

[Never]

We then come to the problem of whether a non-organic being can be a person. As personhood is intimately linked to a body and non-organic, or more specifically, artificial intelligence are without bodies in the conventional sense the easiest conclusion would be ‘no’ an artificial intelligence cannot be a person.

I'm sorry Starfish..

 

[ma_guy]

This is a question that has been written about for ages...

Are our thoughts really any less a possibility than the body?
Just like our body, they can be destroyed but, they can also be preserved in the written or spoken word. As long as our word are properly attributed they remain our "mental DNA"..

 

[Never]

Guru:
”So, a person is *not* their DNA, according to your belief. I agree with you.

I believe that a person is their "mind." A friend of mine had a motorcycle wreck, which basically destroyed his brain's frontal lobe. He wasn't the same "person" afterward. In fact, he is quite different.”

That is not what I said. I said that half a person’s DNA did not make that person.
One, the mind is just a part of the body. Two, are you saying he was a different person afterwards, or that he had a different personality? Do you still call him by the same name? Is he still the person you were friends with, even if that friendship has changed?

 

[Guru]

 

[Angel]

 

[Never]

Ma_guy:
“Are our thoughts really any less a possibility than the body?
Just like our body, they can be destroyed but, they can also be preserved in the written or spoken word. As long as our word are properly attributed they remain our "mental DNA"..”
But are they you? Do you anticipate their survival as much as you would your body? If you had the choice of having a limb removed or having a book of yours burned, which would you pick?

”So, is DNA a necessary, but not sufficient piece of material that makes a person?”
No, I’m saying that my DNA is an important part of what makes me the same person I was yesterday, or the day before. Because the fact that I have the same body as I do yesterday is how I know I’m the same person as I was yesterday.

” My friend is a completely different person. He has the same name, but a different personality and manner. Not completely, totally unlike he was, but enough where he isn't the same man anymore.”
So, if he has children, they’re not related to him anymore?
If he is a completely different person, why does he have the same name? How do you know this is the same friend with a different personality? How are you even able to identify him if personality and manners are the different? If you see him walking down the street, why do you assume it is him?

 

[ma_guy]

Ma_guy:
“Are our thoughts really any less a possibility than the body?
Just like our body, they can be destroyed but, they can also be preserved in the written or spoken word. As long as our word are properly attributed they remain our "mental DNA"..”
But are they you? Do you anticipate their survival as much as you would your body? If you had the choice of having a limb removed or having a book of yours burned, which would you pick?

Obvioulsy, as long as I remain living I'd prefer to keep myself intact. But the moment my physical self ceases functioning a good idea of who I was remains in my ideas and thoughts that are recorded.

Hmmm.. I'm not saying this well..

 

[Guru]

 

[Never]

ma_guy:
"Obvioulsy, as long as I remain living I'd prefer to keep myself intact. But the moment my physical self ceases functioning a good idea of who I was remains in my ideas and thoughts that are recorded.

Hmmm.. I'm not saying this well.."

If you had a choice between your idea and thoughts surviving or your physical self, which would you pick?

I'll admit that the idea of books and artistic works produced by me being enjoyed by people hundred of years after I die is appealing, but, that's specifically because *I* do die.

 

[patient1]

Here goes...

I think that the mind is the person, even if it's determined genetically. A "Person " lacking a mind is commonly called a "vegetable".

I don't expect to have children. I already have some thoughts in The Library of Congress- I'm practically immortal.

 

[Never]

Guru:
"So, what *is* a person?"

A person is a body. The death of the body is the death of the person. An identity is the body's concept of itself.

 

[Laurel]

A person is a brain - the physical brain, which houses all memories, all thoughts, all emotions. Everything important is in your head. The body exists to feed sensory data to the brain.

 

[Never]

patient1:
“I think that the mind is the person, even if it's determined genetically. A "Person " lacking a mind is commonly called a "vegetable".”
I think that the mind is part of the body. A body without a mind is called vegetable; a mind without a body is called dead. Neither are considered persons.

 

[Guest]

Everything important is in your head.

I would argue that the heart, lungs, blood vessels and other organs and systems contribute equally important functions.

If any of those were to cease working, so would the brain.

And a mind without a body is not dead. I bet Stephen Hawking and others whose torso and limbs no longer work might argue that point.

 

[Lancecastor]

Disregarding the idea of a soul....

You've disregarded the answer to your question, Never.

Ever watch somebody die?

You know when they've left the building, my friend.

Lance

 

[Never]

Re: Re: What is a person?

Lancecastor:
"You've disregarded the answer to your question, Never.

Ever watch somebody die?

You know when they've left the building, my friend."

There is a difference between faith and reason. Souls function in a religious context, and I am not saying that religious answers are incorrect, however, it’s difficult to have a logical discussion based on faith.

 

[lavender]

Re: Re: Re: What is a person?

 

[Never]

Unregistered:
"And a mind without a body is not dead. I bet Stephen Hawking and others whose torso and limbs no longer work might argue that point."

There's a difference between losing mobility and losing your body. We won't know if a mind can exist without a body and remain a person until we actually communicate with a mind existing without a body.

 

[Never]

lavender:
”Souls do not function in a religious context, they function in a spiritual context. You must differentiate between the two.”

Elaborate please.

 

[Lancecastor]

Re: Re: Re: What is a person?

Lancecastor: Ever watch somebody die?


Never: it’s difficult to have a logical discussion based on faith.

Lance: We only doing easy questions tonite?