True or False? "A mere 'potential' being can not actually physically exist."

I already told you, it is a false comparison and, I told you why. You apparently do not want to address the obvious faults in your examples.

 

Potential means the possibility exist.

If the possibility exist then the actual reality of the being is unknown. If there was absolutely no potential then the being could not exist.

So, many potential beings already do exist and some which we can only speculate on may exist.

 

Just wow.

 

Simply think of three potential beings. Either they exist or not, but simply by the advantage of being potential, their chances of existing increase.

Now if you narrow the definition to potential as opposed to actual. So in other words a child can potentially become.....(fill in the blank). Obviously the definition of potential in this case is dependent on the subject not yet becoming the (whatever), once they become it is no longer potential but actual.

However if we define potential as possible. As in "Potentially a fire is dangerous". We can assume that some fires are actually dangerous. We can think of potential beings and they may simultaneously exist.

The beings individual reality can never be subjectively "potential". But by objective observers the other individuals existence may be best described as potential.

 

I can't tell from your comments whether you agree with me or not.

A 'potential' human being could not have an actual 'real' tangible body - because if they did.... their potential to be a 'human being' would have already been realized.

Agree?

 

Yea. Mostly I blame this......http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_VOYMcS1ck

Should explain everything...

 

What, we have to save all 'potential' human beings now? You boys going to make it criminal to NOT have sex whenever you have a load?

 

Thanks for the heads up.

 

Potential energy exists for what it is worth.

 

Here's a thought exercise that might clear things up. I have a pile of lumber, some nails and some shingles. They have the "potential" to be a house, but they are not a house yet,so the house does not exist, but the pile of lumber, nails and shingles does. Now if we apply that logic to a fetus... I'll let the rest of you figure that one out.

 

Is potential energy a 'being?'

The question is about 'beings.'

 

To use your analogy, the lumber and nails would be most comparable to the egg and sperm.

Beyond that - the analogy fails. Because after conception, the actual construction of the new being is complete.

The left is up to maturation and development which is something that living beings do on their own and houses don't.

 

So this



is the same as this?



So the 9 months in the womb is for what? Catch up on a few Z's? And what difference is there if the house was built by someone else or it built itself? Science is working on self-assembling devices.

 

The flaw I see in that logic is that the pile of materials is not unique nor constantly replicating and growing itself into a house. One could build another reproduction if the materials were to be somehow destroyed.

 

In the context of the 5th and 14th Amendments, they are.

" nor shall any state deprive any person (human being) of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person (human being) within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." ~ 14th Amendment

Gestation.

In one case it has only a potential to exist and in the other case, it already exists.

That's great.

Human beings (and most - if not all - other animals) already do that.

 

I guess it comes down to, what makes us "human" as opposed to a bunch of undifferentiated cells?

So if something can self-assemble than it is already the thing it can assemble into? So a pool of organic compounds is the equal to life? After all, organic compounds can self-assemble to living matter. Granted it takes millions of years, but you never said there was a time limit.

 

Maybe this will help get things started:

"(d) As used in this section, the term “unborn child” means a child in utero, and the term “child in utero” or “child, who is in utero” means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb. "~ UVVA

Assembled? Maybe not.

Post Conception - Humans Beings are not assembled though.

See....

That's such a ridiculous thing because you built it on a false premise.

You have assumed that human beings are "assembled" or that they actually assemble themselves.

I feel partially to blame because I went along with your metaphor (using the house example)... But human beings do not actually 'literally' assemble themselves from part.

I suspect that you knew that though and that you are just being facetious.

 

That is just a legal definition. It doesn't define what a human is.

I'm sorry, when I say assemble, I mean that the cells that make up a human replicate and organize themselves into organs and tissue. Maybe self-organizing is a better term.

 

Can we work with these?


Organism:
1. "a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently" Link: http://www.hyperdic.net...

Zygote:
2. The single-celled organism that results from the joining of the egg and sperm.
Link: http://www.plannedparenthood.org...

Organism
3. a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently [syn: organism, being] Link: http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com...

Organism ("rg-nzm)
4. "An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures."
Link: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

 

I know what an organism is. I am asking what defines a HUMAN? What separates us from say... a slime mold?

 

Scientifically, isn't a human just a human organism?

 

A pool of organic compounds is not an egg or a sperm that was developed by live beings in order to replicate their combined genetic codes so no, a pool of organic compounds are not 'equal to life.' I would pose the question to you then, what is it that turns these organic compounds in a pool of water to living things? What is it that somehow seizes control of all those atoms and molecules and arranges them in such a manner to create a self replicating, purposeful living entity?

 

Is that how you excuse murder, false accusations and wild ass assumptions that have no intellectual content. Geeesh, MaO'Bama voters...

 

random chance....that would be the consensus

 

So a slime mold has the same rights as a human? Are exterminators really mass murderers? Is eating a chicken dinner akin to cannibalism? (Well, PETA may think so)