So will you, if you get untreated gangrene.
But the living vs. non-living question is not a question of this type. There is a specific answer, and only one specific answer to the question: Is the organism dead or alive? It seems you are trying to change the subject, RWP.
Not at all. I dispute it is an either-or question. There may occasionally be a legal necessity to come down on one side or the other, but then the law often has to draw lines where no lines exist.
At the end of life we only sometimes have to confront this question; often death is rapid and catastrophic. At the beginning of life, we clearly go through a continuum of brain development, from a few slightly differentiated cells, to a fully developed brain. When do we have a human consciousness? That's the $64,000 question, isn't it?
On the other hand, if you're only talking about the animal functions of life, some human cells stay alive for hours or even days after the person's clinical death. Some bits of us are dead already; some other bits will significantly outlive our cerebral cortices.
Re: As to whether I am coming at this problem through a filter of religious dogma: as a dogmatist yourself, how would you really be in a position to know?
This, of course, is just a cheap ad hominem. Christianity, of necessity, implies subscription to certain dogmas. I can't imagine why a Christian would find it objectionable to say so. On the other hand, claiming that a person who subscribes to no religion has dogmatic beliefs - why, that's just a slur, isn't it?
Had a rough week RWP?
Name the specific church dogma to which you refer. "Certain dogmas" is nonspecific.
Let's not pretend that evolutionism is for free thinkers, shall we? Stray too far from the plantation and your career is history, as some of these recent threads attest. Lest you insist that materialism is not dogmatic, remember Dick Lewontin
Oh. That explains why “wanted posters” always use this language: WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE, instead of: WANTED: QUANTIZED ENTITY (TO BE DETERMINED) OF A CONTINUUM (TO BE DEFINED).
Still, I gather wanted posters still use the “old language,” even these days — at least it’s what’s used on the “advertisements” for Usama bin Laden… WITH $X REWARD. (What’s it up to now? $50 mil?)
But how can you say that there is “no line to be drawn” respecting Mr. Bin Laden, which is what would seem to next follow from your argument: that the law must recognize an “artificial line” where none naturally exists?
Honestly, Right Wing Professor — it is troubling to me how wide the separation between theory and actual human existence seems to be growing. Human experience, intuition, history, all are seemingly held in equal contempt by a fairly large sector of the scientific community. Frankly, I just don’t get it. From where I sit, this looks like a long-term process of human self-annihilation that eventually results in the “rubbing out” of scientists; for science, and the rest of human culture as well, would be “rubbed out” in the process.
Now I expect it will be argued that science has now achieved such mastery of specialized, technical detail that it cannot possibly be understood by your average person in the street. I would reply that if science is not being done for the benefit (if only indirectly) of your average person in the street — considering his wider extensions in terms of society, the ecosystem, and beyond — then who or what benefits from science? Obviously, that is not the sort of question that can be answered with a “yes” or a “no.” Does science even bother to formulate that type of question, these days?
But I digress. Your next remarks regarding the inception of consciousness and the self-renewing capabilities of organic bodies are of the most vital importance to me. I beg your indulgence, but I’m trying to gather my thoughts regarding precisely those questions and more so to complete an article that Alamo-Girl and I are collaborating on right now. We will definitely ping you when the time comes, dear Prof, and sincerely hope you will attend and contribute to the festivities in due course.
You wrote: “As to whether I am coming at this problem through a filter of religious dogma: [betty boop wrote:] ‘as a dogmatist yourself, how would you really be in a position to know?’”
Well, I never did explicitly say you were coming at this from the standpoint of religious dogma; but then again you weren’t wrong to draw that supposition. To me, it doesn’t matter in the end: Dogma is dogma, whatever its provenance. The distinguishing feature of a person of “dogmatic temperament” is contempt for all points of view that don’t “measure in” to the standard of one’s own dogma. That was the general point I was trying to make.
I apologize to you, RWP, for any statement you regard as an ad hominum attack. I get a “little exercised” every now and then. But you must not take my little fits of pique or fancy or whatever as evidence that I hold you personally in disrespect. The contrary is the truth of the matter. You’ve written some beautiful material recently, am I’m glad and grateful for it.
Thanks so much for writing!