Summations Only

Firstly, if you can be a person, having emotions, thoughts and dreams without having a soul, then I guess you've just argued that a soul is unecessary, and is a bad determiner for personhood.Secondly, this would seem to be a logical extension of the thought that God, being omniscient and omnipotent, would only give souls to those zygotes that would actually develop. If the conclusion bothers you (as it should) perhaps the premise needs to be looked at.

Not exactly. A persona is a personality, i.e. a sense of humor, a way of thinking about yourself and the rest of the world. So again, that would seem to require the ability to think, to feel, and to sense the outside world. Again, requiring a brain. We may not be able to determine exactly when a persona, or personhood, develops, but if we can determine a necessary component, then we can reasonably say that any point before that component exists there is no person, can we not?Your argument seems to be, we can't know exactly when it happens so we have to go all the way to the beginning, which is nonsense. If someone says that the treasure is buried somewhere between Chicago and LA, we can pretty much rule out looking to the east of Chicago, right? Just because you don't know the exact point doesn't mean you can't determine points at which it definitely isn't.

Maybe ont this topic, but a new topic on this would be interesting to me, at least, and very much at home on this forum. So he doesn't give out souls only to those who will develop a dn be born? That would imply that he's imbuing zygotes with souls, too. If not, then whatever reason he uses for not giving a soul to a miscarried zygote applies equally well to any zygote or embryo that is aborted, too. Otherwise god is inconsistent. Assuming he exists, this is obvious, since things are definitely not how I would want them to be. What I'm trying to do is determine the logical extension of an argument. If the conclusion I reach is wrong, there are three possibilities, the premise is wrong, the conclusion doesn't follow, or god is not logical.I ignored the third option, because an illogical god would seem counter to most theologies. I then asserted that it must be the first option. If you disagree, you'd need to show the second option is true, or assert the third.

Like in a coma? You could be right here, but I'm still pretty sure that personhood is linked to brain activity. My wife is pregnant right now and it's nearing the end of the first trimester. She's feeling odd and has some sickness at nights, but she doesn't "feel" the baby inside at all yet. Does that mean we can draw the line at the point at which she is "interacting" with it? If so, that time seems to be pretty close to the same time as brain development. But this is what I'm trying to remove from the equation. My argument is that the people who disagree with abortion before brain development, within the first few weeks or so, are letting their emotions and anthropomorphization take over. They "see" a baby inside the womb when there isn't one, there's just a small cluster of cells.I'm basing personhood on science and logic. You can't have a person without a brain. If you can, show me any example (outside of your belief in a fetus' personhood) where a person existed without a brain. But I think we are being 100% sure. I think personhood is tied to brain activity, but in deference to the fact that we may not be able to detect the first brain activity, I have moved the line back to the beginning of brain development because, logically, you can't have brain activity without a brain, right?In your cop and criminal exercise, it would be akin to not shooting through the port-a-potty because there might be a person inside, but allowing the cop to dive behind the pile of boards and shoot from there because there can't be a person inside a board.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

I'm as sure about brain activity driving personhood as I am sure that I'm actually a human being and that I'm not in a "Matrix" style virtual world.I tend to emphasize tentativity in order to reinforce to myself not to be dogmatic in thought. But is it the species thing, or is the fact that it doesn't think and feel as you do, that it isn't self-aware as far as we can tell?I mean, assuming there is intelligent life in the universe somewhere, would you conclude that E.T. isn't a person because he is a different species than you? Or, because it feels emotions, is self-aware and has hopes and dreams, would you overlook his species and consider him a person? Nor can we go too far to the other side and let our empathy cloud our decision either. We need to dig down and decide what we mean when we say personhood. I've shown you what I value in being a person and in the other beings I consider to be persons. It also informs me in how I deal with non-human species. I don't condone the killing of dolphins, whales, chimps, etc...animals that have shown self-awareness and the ability to reason. I'm not sure what case you're refering to, but in my experience, if there's no brain activity, there usually isn't a prognosis, it's more of a declaration,as in, "I'm sorry, he's gone" or some such. But this is only because some people don't take the time or don't even know how to determine what personhood means, and so fall into the fallacy of the OP in assigning anything that has "human life" as a person.I honestly don't see how you can have a person without brain activity. Brain activity is the essence of what elevates humans above most animals, it's what makes us more than merely biological automatons. You can lose your limbs and some organs and still be a person, but I fail to see how you could lose your brain or your self-awareness, your thoughts, and still be a person. You would then become that which we use personhood to divide us from...an animal or an automaton.Edited by Perdition, : typo

This is true for two reasons.
1) Humans are self-conscious and aware. We're not entirely sure about a dog, though there seems to be variation depending on breed.2) Humans, like all evolved species, work toward the propagation of those who are genetically closest to us. i.e. Immediate family over extended family over unrelated humans over mammals over other animals over plants.I'm seriously unsure as to whether I would save an old woman over an alien with the ability to show self-awareness and higher thinking. Whichever choice I made, I'm sure I'd feel guilt over my inability to save the other. The legal definition of death doesn't say anything about possibility of future brian activity. It says merely the cessation of brain activity. It seems pretty clear that brain activity = personhood at the end of life. It is possible, though extremely rare, for a person to be declared dead, then somehow recover. This doesn't necessarily invalidate the fact that for a little bit, they were dead and thus were not a person. They recovered personhood, but again, that's neither here nor there. But do you consider them ot be a person during the time they were dead, or did they regain their personhood when they "came back to life?"

But while the fetus is dependent on the mother for survival, it would seem to fail this part of the definition, would it not.Not to mention, until differentiation, there are no different organs, again failing this part.At best, it would seem that the fetus is a part of the mother, meaning she can have it removed, if she wants.

Maybe he just dreams of a heaven full of cells floating around, unseen, unknown and unaware of their place in paradise.Or maybe, they're food for the Heaven Whales who filter them out of the ether.

Fine. I wasn't responding to you.As to your other post saying that things haven't been explained...it seems there's a pretty solid consensus on this board that brain activity is required to be a person.It is up to you, then, to show why this criteria is not necessary to be a person.

I have a question for you, and I'd like you to answer it honestly.What is the part of the body that the soul interacts with in order to make its presence known?It would seem to me, that if a soul exists, it, too, is intrinsically linked to the brain. You can cut off parts of a person, and as long as life itself is not ended, the person remains largely unchanged (leaving aside emotional trauma for reasons that will become apparent.). However, when you introduce chemicals, even something as simple as caffeine, that interact with the brain, you get a different personality.If the soul is what gives you your thoughts and personality, then, either the chemicals in the brain are changing the soul itself, or are interfering with the soul's "transmission" if you will. Brain surgeries, emotional trauma (also brain located), and severe chemical dependence can permanently change a person's behaviior, thoughts and personality. Again, this all seems to indicate that the part of the body that is most linked to the soul (assuming there is one) is the brain.Which leads back to the opinion I've been espousing all thread, namely that a brain is intrinsic to what it means to be aperson...soul or no soul.

First, thanks for your answer. This is sort of what I was alluding to. Even if you assume a soul, it would seem the soul is connected to the brain some how because affecting the brain, and only affecting the brain, affects that which we attribute to a soul.I'm just trying to show that even if we assume a soul, a brain still seems to be a necessary component. You could even make the case that, if there is a soul, it "embodies" a fetus at the point where consciousness arises. Now, we can't pinpoint that exact point, and as others have pointed out, that point may even be sometime after birth, but to be as safe as possible, we can at least conclude that before a brain, no soul (probably), and no personhood.This sort of gets you out of the concern about zygote and conceptus souls floating around in Heaven somewhere. There is no soul until the spark of consciousness is lit, and for that spark, you need the right flint and tinder...the brain.Obviously, this isn't why I believe the brain is the point at which a person exists and not a collection of cells, but it seems ot be a logical conclusion assuming a soul as well.

But then it's not dependent on the zygote or blastocyst either, right?If the soul exists, and is completely independent of the physical body...as seems to be the case considering you can lose large chunks of your body without losing your soul, and it only interacts through the brain, as it obviously seems to, then either it requires the brain, or it doesn't require a body at all. So either there is no soul to worry about until there's a brain, or the soul does just fine, regardless of what we do to the body, in which case the point is moot.

I'm not saying that everything a brain does is what the soul does. I'm saying that a soul only interacts with the physical world through the brain. It's like the "soul tuner."Damaging the brain might hinder the expression of the soul, but doesn't necessarily hurt the soul itself. But souls don't seem to stop damage or mutation to the body. I don't understand what you're saying here. I'm saying, a soul poofs into existence once there is consciousness, and consciousness requires a brain. The only interaction there is between the soul and physical body is through the brain because that's where our thoughts, our personality, our aspirations and our decisions are. If these things aren't the soul, then I'm left wondering what exactly it would be.Everyone seems to say that the soul makes you who you are. Well, who I am is my personality, my choices, my thoughts, right? These things don't change unless something in my brain changes, so either the soul changes when my brain does OR the expression of my soul, through my brain, is hindered. Either way, the brain seems to be integral to the soul.

I don't know what the soul is needed for. You (and the religious) are the ones who posit its existence. Maybe it only exists as the part fo you that is eternal. In which case, the fact that the brain is damaged, thus preventing the "true" personality to shine through does nothing to affect the soul. Perhaps. Or maybe it's his soul that is defective. I assume most religions would deny the second possibility.But this doesn't really matter, as this is a problem regardless of where or when a soul exists, right? Again, this is an issue regardless of when or where a soul exists, so tying the soul to the brain doesn't "create" this problem. Tying the soul to the brain merely tries to logically deduce where a soul interacts with the physical. You're right, I don't. But I'm assuming that one does exist and trying to figure out what I can assuming that. If a soul exists and a soul is what makes us who we are, then it has to interact with the brain, right?So, we have established that the soul interacts with the brain. Does it interact with any other part? We can show that it doesn't interact with the legs, the arms, the hands, the appendix, and on and on.This leaves us with things that are necessary for life, like the heart. But we can transplant a heart, and the person still doesn't change. This seems to narrow down the only interface between the pysical and the soul as the brain. I don't see what other conclusion we can come to.

What is the difference between a single-celled blastocyst and a stem cell in my bone marrow? Both are single cells, both can create multiple different cells that are necessary for "higher organization."