Poly
Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Turbo said:Whoa! Deep! :noway:Mr Jack said:I agree that existence is an objective property of the universe, yes. However, I don't think you can speak of the existence of a person in binary terms. People, like animals, are more processes than objects. Right now, your body (and mine, obviously) is shedding millions of molecules from it's skin, exhaling waste products and cells that just happened to be in the wrong place, it's drawing oxygen into the body - some of which will be trapped for many years - and turning food chemicals into new cells, and repairs to old cells. As you read the words I've written, your brain is silently re-wiring itself in response to what it is learning (and I use learning in the widest possible sense) and as a result; you - the same you that is special and unique and worth preserving - is changing, becoming a minutely different you to the you you were before you read this post.
So getting a haircut or trimming your toenails must be a profound experience for you, since you become a different person in the process. Or wait, you have never had a haircut or trimmed your toenails; those were different Mr. Jacks.
Moving on...
Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. So your saying that Gianna's "development" began 30 years ago. That narrows it down quite a bit.Of course, that change is tiny, but play those tiny changes across a lifetime and you get an entirely different level of change. Gianna Jessen is who she is because of 30 years of development, of continuous chemical and physical processes and 29 years of learning and experience.
What event marked the commencement of her development 30 years ago?
Yet you just said that her "process" of "development" began 30 years ago (and not, say, 3.7 billion years ago). :think:All of which has combined to create the women who she is today. I don't think it's meaningful to talk about a moment at which she started to exist, because she is the continuation of a process.
Um... I didn't ask that. Maybe you ought to read what I actually said again:So, to wander back to your question, I don't know whether two observers would agree whether a person exists or not.But baldness is subjective. One man may be considered "bald" by some, or "balding" or "thinning" or "not bald" by others, and none of them are wrong. And some men are "more bald" than others.
But existence is not subjective, nor are there varying degrees of existence. A person either exists or does not exist, and one person is not "more existent" than another. Also, a person cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. If two people disagree over whether a certain person exists, one of them is wrong.
Do you agree?
The alien would be wrong, and based on your previous paragraph, it is obvious that you recognize this.I think it's entirely possible that an alien philosopher could credibly argue that people are figments of an on-going process, one that has arguably been going on for 3.7 billion years.
Here's a clue:
You exist.
People exist from the moment they are conceived.
Aliens do not exist.
Hey, buddy, it's a two-way street. You're the one advocating the abortion of "that process."You need to agree on what it is that you are talking about existing before you can objectively determine whether it exists are people,
You are making the same judgment only in the negative. We are saying that she did exist in the womb and you are saying she didn't. If you claim we can't make that judgment what gives you the right to do so?
The difference is that if we are wrong, we err on the side of caution; but if you are wrong, the consequences are deadly. Not that you care.
Did you just concede that an unborn child is a living thing?like all other living things, are in a constant state of flux.
Smacktastic!!! :up:
Context