SHOUD PEOPLE BE DEEMED HUMAN WITHOUT A MATERIAL BODY?

"Humanity" is not a collection of individuals. "Being human" involves membership of a species, one of whose characteristics is having a particular physiology, but another being the sharing of intellectual concepts via a socially acquired language. Some argue that such a language accounts for our concept of "self" ...of being individuals with "free will" etc. However, unless we resort to theism which grants "transcendental uniqueness" to "self-hood", we are faced with the fact that we owe our "humanity" to group membership alone, which ceases to exist when the body ceases to function, thereby cancelling our group membership. This can happen even before "death". The situation for "humanity" is analogous to the persistence of ant colonies in the event of loss of its individual members.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

I have to get ready to go to work, but I do find this subject interesting so I'll think about it
and order my thoughts and try to communicate what I think cohesively. Talk to you later - have a nice Sunday David.

OK, have a good Sunday, Rebecca.
My point was that people have had "death" experiences
in company with others; when people whose deciduous bodies
are not functioning, meet do thay say something like:
"jee, I remember when I was a person; too bad I 'm not a person any more" ?

When folks meet in the afterlife (and the beforelife)
do thay speak of themselves as being "dead"
while thay r romping around, having discussions, etc ? I don't think so.
Dead means without life and inert.
Thay have life and thay r ert.

David

1 Reply

@fresco,

BTW
Those who would cling to their vested interests in the persistence of "self -integrity" should serously try to observe the fragmentation of "self" throughout their conscious hours, and should consider where "self" has gone when dreaming (i.e. when social communication constraints lapse). If their dreams are anything like mine, they will be puzzled by the personae which inhabit them, especially the one which is the "dream-observer" aka "self".

2 Replies

David wrote:

Thay have life and thay r ert.

However, I cannot see them hertful..

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

Quote:

There are three stages to the human body. Foetus, human, human remains. The soul remains debatable.
If you are without a human form, I can't see how you would be called a human.

Well, suppose that u and your friend both
have out-of-body experiences, either in a state of good health, or of death.
While u r discussing the situation, do u consider yourselves not to be human ?

Ceili wrote:

Quote:

A spirit, a presence, memories, legacies,theories, thoughts, history and fortunes...
the fruit of ones loins are traces of a persons humanity.
But I think, in order for anything to be deemed human,
it must be alive with a beating heart, pumping blood,

Suppose that u r alive without a beating heart
or blood? just a mind and spiritual body?
Do u then think: "well, now I am no longer human" ?

Ceili wrote:

Quote:

a sparkle in the eye and humanesque form, otherwise, why bother with the word at all?

To distinguish from other beings ?

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Thank u for the research; very good job.

David

0 Replies

@fresco,

I obviously endorse your views of the "self".

Being detached enough to consider the inanity of human pretenses is kind of difficult if not impossible to a vast majority..

0 Replies

@Francis,

Francis wrote:

David wrote:
Thay have life and thay r ert.

However, I cannot see them hertful..

GOOD POINT !

0 Replies

@oolongteasup,

Hehehehehehehehehehehe . . .

Now that was wicked . . .

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

BTW
Those who would cling to their vested interests in the persistence of "self -integrity"
should serously try to observe the fragmentation of "self"
throughout their conscious hours, and should consider where "self"
has gone when dreaming (i.e. when social communication constraints lapse).
If their dreams are anything like mine, they will be puzzled by the personae
which inhabit them, especially the one which is the "dream-observer" aka "self".

Yeah, I LOVE lucid dreams!!!!!

David

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

I understand that the experiments of Thomas Edison
were toward the end of his life, which was thru most of 1931.
Perhaps he took an interest in the experiments of Duncan MacDougall.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

My point is that any eructation at time of death has the same weight at sea level and a 3 litre lung capacity, voiding itself because the thoracic cavity can no longer support the open lungs, would yield a weight of at least 21 grams .

I frequently weigh my laptop because of all the added weight of information. Magically there is no weight gain (or loss upon compression).Even using a lab balance. Cool

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I calculated that the weight of air expelled from a single lung would be about 9 grams at death (assuming a lung capacity of about .3 cubic foot. I did this really quick and used conversions for weight of air at sea level so Ill not be claiming that this is correct but it shows that the order of magfnitude and the decade of the weight numbers are in the "range" . A Balloon weighs more full than empty, same deal. I havent figured out the other gaseous emissions but Im closer to an answer there than you are with Evangelically claiming that a "soul's weight is 21 g". I gotta say NAAAH!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
My point is that any eructation at time of death has the same weight at sea level and a 3 litre lung capacity, voiding itself because the thoracic cavity can no longer support the open lungs, would yield a weight of at least 21 grams.
Observation is better than theorization.
If, in actual fact, a burst of air is ejected from the lungs
upon the event of the cessation of Earthly life,
it will not hurt to find out about it.

I suspect that consciousness has no weight, but who knows ?

I frequently weigh my laptop because of all the added weight of information.
Magically there is no weight gain (or loss upon compression).Even using a lab balance.

U r probably infusing it with much lofty information.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I calculated that the weight of air expelled from a single lung would be about 9 grams at death (assuming a lung capacity of about .3 cubic foot. I did this really quick and used conversions for weight of air at sea level so Ill not be claiming that this is correct but it shows that the order of magfnitude and the decade of the weight numbers are in the "range" . A Balloon weighs more full than empty, same deal. I havent figured out the other gaseous emissions but Im closer to an answer there than you are with Evangelically claiming that a "soul's weight is 21 g". I gotta say NAAAH!

Is there evidence that upon cessation of life
in the Earthly human body, air is ejected from the lungs?

Even if he died while inhaling? (no offense to Clinton)

0 Replies

having knowledge of some of the **** that humans are capable of, i'm not sure i want to be lumped in with them now

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Observation is better than theorization

Usually an experiment is started with a proposition or a model against which data is compared. Ive taken the first step in a chain of realistic ops that would investigate my theory. All youve done is to solder yourself to some "tale" and try to argue its validity fom a point of nothing.

I would , since it was your thread, return the service and say that its your responsibility to validate your "model" and propose some means to test it.

I really dont give a sheep marble.

1 Reply

It is all too common to make these kind of assertions without evidence, and then demand evidence of naysayers.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

The only thing I can add to this whole discussion is a seemingly oddball film recommendation to watch.

Mamoru Oshii's amazingly heady Ghost in the Shell (1995). Don't be so quick to dismiss the recommendation just because its aesthetic trappings are of an animated science fiction/action nature.

Skip the English dub for the original Japanese language/English subtitled version.

http://www.usfca.edu/pj/eastwestjustice_cairo.htm

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Observation is better than theorization

Usually an experiment is started with a proposition or a model against which data is compared. Ive taken the first step in a chain of realistic ops that would investigate my theory. All youve done is to solder yourself to some "tale" and try to argue its validity fom a point of nothing.

I would , since it was your thread, return the service and say that its your responsibility to validate your "model" and propose some means to test it.

I really dont give a sheep marble.

Don 't take this as a challenge;
just as a point of information:
do u care whether your consciousness will continue to exist
longer than your deciduous body,

or

be extinguished n expire like a cigarette butt ?

1 Reply

SHOUD PEOPLE BE DEEMED HUMAN WITHOUT A MATERIAL BODY?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know