Doesn't make sense to me either, as the religion teaches that body and soul exist seperately.Uzique wrote:
i find it ironic that christians and anti-abortion campaigners often totally discredit the intellectual argument... isn't the consciousness the human soul?
Christian? Anti-abortion? Who are you talking about?Uzique wrote:
i find it ironic that christians and anti-abortion campaigners often totally discredit the intellectual argument... isn't the consciousness the human soul?
A rat is not sentient. and a new born is not sapient. they have no sense of existence or consciousness AT ALL. They do not reason nor do they have sense of self preservation, and they do not ponder life and death.Uzique wrote:
a rat has sentience. a newborn baby has sapience. big difference. memory is secondary, here. and there is nothing to say that a newborn baby does not actually memorize some of the basic external forms around itself. a 'sense of being', by that i assume you mean a sense of existence in the ontological sense... well, the lacanian mirror phase comes pretty early. there is nothing to say that a baby is a complete braindead automaton for the first 6 months: the infant brain is processing information, albeit in a very basic and largely redundant way.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-04-02 17:56:31)
tell you what, you post the definition of sapience as you are using it.Uzique wrote:
lowing self-awareness and intentionality are different from sapience. a newborn child is sapient. a rat has sentience.
honestly can we not argue about theories of consciousness and ontology i've just spent about 3 months banging my head against a desk over it and don't wish to get into another debate with you over terminologies that will inevitably boil down to a semantics-argument in which you refuse to accept the proper definitions of terms.
lets just ignore the fancy terms that you fail to grasp for now... this is essentially what you're saying:
a foetus in the womb has the same level of conscious intelligence as a newborn baby, post-birth, existing alone and independent.
right?
you're mad. literally mad.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-04-02 18:11:03)
Give me one example, of this. Something a newborn can do that a fetus can not ( not counting the confines of the womb of course)Uzique wrote:
i use sapience in its most basic form as a forming of rudimentary 'knowledge' based on the sensual and external stimulii of the world: the recognition of objects in their basic forms and the brain's interaction with an external, objective reality, i.e. the ability of the brain to interpret the signs of the world in their most fundamental way. even if this is only momentary and transient (i.e. not stored to memory or towards any sort of epistemological accruing of 'knowledge'); sapience to me at its most basic is the brain's processing of information to use towards extremely basic judgements, i.e. cognition, awareness of spatiality, judgements of feeling and regulation. rationalising is a completely higher function of the brain that requires a faculty of some analytic intelligence. self-awareness and forming of thoughts towards a goal (i.e. intentionality) are again, higher functions. a baby has sapience. are we not called homo sapiens because of this? we don't evolve the sapiens part at a later-age. it is, at a very basic level, what defines us as a species-- from birth, as much as in maturity.
what level of consciousness does a new born have over a foetus? precisely that above, basically. the ability to use its' own individual senses and cognition to make some sense (however rudimentary) of the external world. a foetus cannot do that. a foetus is, as i have said, a biological growth that only requires nutrients. a separate living entity engages with the world and has many other processes other than basic 'feed+grow'.
We are talking about consciousness not biology.Nic wrote:
eat without an Umbilical cord.
an unborn baby can react to external stimuli as well. An unborn baby reacts to what a mother eats, how a mother lies down etc.. external stimuliUzique wrote:
a newborn baby can respond and react to external stimulii. how can a foetus do this? by its very nature, i.e. interior, dependent on mother organism, it cannot have an individual consciousness and 'life'. a newborn baby will respond if you wave a hand in front of its eyes. a newborn baby will react to pain and extremes of sensation (i know psychological studies have been done into the nature and condition of this response, but it's irrelevant). a baby is a conscious being; a foetus cannot perceive on its own.
Last edited by Uzique (2011-04-02 18:43:44)
Post me an accepted definition please, so I can put it in context with your argument.Uzique wrote:
sapience. if you don't understand sapience and the process of perception+judgement, then you won't understand the difference.
a foetus reacts insofar as the mother organism reacts. how is that a separate life?
Last edited by Uzique (2011-04-02 18:51:07)
it does react to what a mother does however. As i said, it reacts to what a mother eats for example. THat reaction is no different than reacting to hot or cold water. If you pumped the womb full of cold water, the unborn baby is going to react. Ever wonder why they bother monitoring a babies vitals while they operate on the mother? THe baby reacts!!Uzique wrote:
did he take a bath inside the womb? the fact he found the bath painful, as an individual, is exactly a testament to my argument. using his own bodily senses and his own perceptions, he was able to respond in a sapient fashion. of course he cannot do that inside the womb. it 'feels' through its mother, enclosed in amniotic fluid with no use of its own form.
Just give a single example of consciousness that a newborn has above an unborn?Uzique wrote:
as i said... recognition of external forms is rudimentary. an anvil and a knife involve a process of 'danger' signification. a baby can consider external forms of reality -- whereas a foetus cannot -- but i did not say that a baby can understand the constructed symbolic value of these forms and objects. a knife means nothing to a baby, correct. but the baby recognises the knife as an object. a foetus does not have that level of consciousness.
support this?Blue Herring wrote:
A baby doesn't have sapience, FYI. By its very nature, in fact.
Support what? I can find you a million sources on the definition of sapience, which universally, will be a possession of wisdom and judgement, something a baby clearly doesn't have.Uzique wrote:
support this?Blue Herring wrote:
A baby doesn't have sapience, FYI. By its very nature, in fact.
However, I'd imagine that at least a minor ability to introspect would be necessary, as without that distinction there seems to be no difference between sapience and sentience. An ability to actively "separate" one's self from their own perceptions and analyze such with a degree of "wisdom and judgement". After all, simply having a mental faculty to experience is "feeling".Uzique wrote:
i have the same definition of sapience in mind. judgement and wisdom do not necessarily mean complex epistemological 'knowledge' and higher faculties of reasoning and rationality.
Well, consciousness is literally defined as "awareness of the passage of time and surroundings". But, again, consciousness is not the x-factor here. Animals are conscious and for 8 hours a day you and I are not. It's still murder to kill us while we're sleeping, however.but i guess we're into a debate of consciousness now which will literally never end-- if the experts can't agree then we won't. my understanding of sapience relies heavily on platonic ontology... and i believe babies can judge and possess 'wisdom' (rudimentary) of external reality.
Last edited by Blue Herring (2011-04-02 19:35:12)