but usually a bunch of neurons alone would not be a person. if i remove from you all 99% brain and let just what makes your host/tulpas/identity you woudnt be a person
what you cannot expect is a baby having a fully developed personality from before birth, they havent been exposed to society, that does not mean they dont have identity
Alejandro
Yeah, sure, I can't prove that children can't have imaginary friends before their first birthday. I give up.
I think the burden of proof lies on people who think that infants are capable of self-awareness. I agree it is not proven when exactly people gain self-awareness but I think it's safe to say newborns don't have it and it's unlikely for infants.
These moral issues are far more deep than the one dimensional question of "is it a person" - if you're looking for moral consistency between them you waste your time doing so
Alejandro
I think the burden of proof lies on people who think that infants are capable of self-awareness. I agree it is not proven when exactly people gain self-awareness but I think it's safe to say newborns don't have it and it's unlikely for infants.
These moral issues are far more deep than the one dimensional question of "is it a person" - if you're looking for moral consistency between them you waste your time doing so
i agree with Reg, focusing only on the question "is it a person" makes it very easy to justify morally whatever you want just by defining "person" differently(edited)
People are showing behavior proving ability to identify their mirrored image with themselves when they are 18 months old (after birth). And I think that kind of ability is necessary to even think about having an identity. Sure, it doesn't prove my point of infants not having an identity without any doubts but makes it more likely than not.
Alejandro
People are showing behavior proving ability to identify their mirrored image with themselves when they are 18 months old (after birth). And I think that kind of ability is necessary to even think about having an identity. Sure, it doesn't prove my point of infants not having an identity without any doubts but makes it more likely than not.
A headmate beyond the first one may be non-essential to the whole. It may be that they can be dissipated without a problem. But that headmate while active and functioning is still... something, which it becomes complicated to consider "person"" or "non person." If that headmate is sitting in wonderland drinking imaginary coffee, are they a person? Or are they more like a character in that state? If that headmate is switched in and controlling the body, are they a person? They are expressing a whole person, someone who can live as any person does.(edited)
Katie
for a real life functional one it is, for identity it isnt
I think for having identity it's important to be able to perceive your self.
Aya
A headmate beyond the first one may be non-essential to the whole. It may be that they can be dissipated without a problem. But that headmate while active and functioning is still... something, which it becomes complicated to consider "person"" or "non person." If that headmate is sitting in wonderland drinking imaginary coffee, are they a person? Or are they more like a character in that state? If that headmate is switched in and controlling the body, are they a person? They are expressing a whole person, someone who can live as any person does. (edited)
so is it the stopping of someones self-perception that would be wrong here?(edited)
9:07 PM
tbh, i just think morality doesn't have logical sense at all and it is impossible to make it consistent. its just something in our head to make us not destroy each other... and which barely works...
Aya
They can certainly sit in wonderland while the mind does think of them
