Neurodiversity, Persons, and Essences

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, we're all here on an autism forum, so we should all have some concept of neurodiversity. My question is then a question about the depths of neurological differences. Obviously, we all probably have some concept that our differences are still slight enough to make us still "essentially" human. But, that question just begs the question of why are we still "essentially" human, and where are the limits of "essential" humanness? Is "humanness" a matter of underlying structure, as in structures that are more similar to the basic human structure, are also themselves more human? Or is it a matter of outcomes, as in structures that result in outcomes that are more like "human" outcomes are more human?

Could an AI be a person? If not, then why not? Isn't an AI just a being with a different neurology, correct? So, when could we accept one of them? Could a genetically engineered being be a person? Another case of a different neurology, correct?

So, what really would we want to govern this sense that something is a "person", and how could it be governed, even further, if we cannot find a clear answer, what does it say about the existing entities labeled to be persons?

Only members of the species Homo sapiens are human.

As for "persons" - a sufficiently self-aware robot could be person, as could a sufficiently self-aware genetically engineered being.

NOTE: OOPS. I put "robot" twice.

If human behavior can be predictable to the point of being able to be expressed algorithmically (this doesn't mean every AI would have the same algorithms governing it) and be expressed as boolean logic, which I believe it can, then yes.

I smell humans! topic

There is a human genome project that has mapped out such human data. I think there is one for dogs as well. Chimps share about 98% of our chromosomal material, but they are not human.

The Essence of being human, as far as I know, is the potential to reach beyond the surly bonds of earth, either via mind, body, or both. So far the evidence is that we are the only creatures on this planet to do so. This statement is woefully inadquate but it is the best one I can think of so far. It might get the ball rolling. What say you, AG?

We haven't always been able to travel beyond the earth, but perhaps metaphorically, we've always been able to do this by imagining possible worlds?

Fascinating topic. I don't have an answer yet, but I'm working on it. I don't think species have essences either, so I doubt the answer will be species-based.

I would define it as having Homo sapien DNA. Why? Because these other ambiguous definitions have the potential to leave certain people defined as non-human. There is a professor of ethics at Princeton University, Dr. Singer, who is very strong and powerful in the animal rights movement. Part of his argument for animal rights is that a lot of animals are smarter than humans with severe mental retardation. He would like to see people with an IQ <20 re-classified as not being humans and used in experiments in lieu of animals. While I am in favor of animal rights, I am horrified by his desire to re-classify severly mentally ret*d people as not human. This right here is the very real danger of using anything but a species-wide definition. He has failed in his quest to literally dehumanize severely mentally ret*d people, but he does teach ethics at Princeton (ack!!). This means that every semester, his poisonous idea reaches the minds of students who potentially will be in a position to make such legal changes someday.

Some ideas really are dangerous. And I think the idea of using anything except species membership to define "person" is just such an idea.