/sci/ - Science & Math

A zygote is a person. Check your privilege.

The point where it acquires a consciousness.

>>6108407

A person.
A

Twining.

I think we should reevaluate the implications of personhood altogether.
Nobody should get to be a person, everyone is eligible to be aborted.

>>6108408
This.

>>6108408
Should that apply to non-humans?

>>6108405
Birth.

Or else we would have to protect teratomas too since they have more human functions than a zygote.

>>6108441

the more human like they are, the more human like they should be treated

>>6108441
No, a person is a human. Do you really think a dog is a person?

>>6108408
Define consciousness.

The brain structures supporting consciousness are in place by the third trimester, sounds like a good point

>>6108407
Is an anencephalic infant a person?

>>6108451
We don't have to since we know that brain activity generates consciousness and before 20 weeks were the ban is, there's the same amount of brain activity that a legally brain dead person has. It would be silly to think a consciousness using even a broad definition could exist with that amount of brain activity.

Test if they're a human through trial by combat

>>6108405

At conception.

However, we shouldn't have qualms about killing it.

>>6108475
Killing is such a harsh word. Annihilating sounds much more appropriate.

>>6108493
Slaughtering is a far more neutral term

>>6108405
>Keeping your original sin alive
>Human

>>6108450

Yes. I sort of do.

>>6108535
Does an aligator is a person?

>>6108548
do you english?

>>6108535
per·son
A human being regarded as an individual

>>6108558
per·son
a self-conscious or rational being.

>>6108408
so around 25?

>>6108465
> We don't have to since we know that brain activity generates consciousness and before 20 weeks were the ban is,
A five year old is not self aware.

>>6108569
per-son
a specific rate pertaining to the male progeny of two other rational beings.

>>6108569
Draw the line of what is self-conscious/rational.

Are dolphins self conscious? Monkeys? Dogs? Cows? Chickens? Lizards? Fishes? Spiders? Snails? Sea urchins? Jelly fishes? A tree? A sponge? An algae? An amoeba?

>>6108408
>Consciousness
>Real thing
>>/x/

>>6108606
monkeys yes
dogs no
cows no
chickens no
lizards no
fish no
spiders no
snails no
sea urchins no
jelly fishes no
tree yes
sponge no
algae no
amoeba no

is it really that hard to see?

>>6108465
But isn't stopping a creatures progression towards consciousness just as heinous as ending that consciousness once it has begun?

>>6108408
Consciousness is a social construct.

>>6108408
uhm how do we measure that?

>>6108408
and an unconscious person is OK to kill?

>>6108627

by that account, using condoms or masturbation would be genocide.

>>6108691

No, since there was no chance they'd ever become a person.

>>6108691
Well actually that's a bit silly those things aren't in the process of developing into something all by themselves

Around age 17.

>>6108691
>a gamete
>progressing to conscious

Uhoh nigger you best be dusting off your gen bio textbook and start reading

We can only deem someone a person based on the judgement of their lives.

Therefor death is the earliest time we can ever truly classify someone as a person.

Once the fetus has a chance of living outside the womb/has more brain activity than a legally brain dead person.

Personally I think abortion is disgusting but required. Like popping a dislocated finger back into place (shitty analogy)

The best option is, Keep it to the minimum by making people less likely to have to make the decision in the first place. You can figure out how.

>>6108408

>yfw 3 years old don't pass the mirror test

>>6108627
You can't stop something before it's begun. Otherwise you could argue that not having an abortion is wrong because a woman who wanted only one child and gets an abortion would have a different child later on, but that child never would have existed if she let the original baby be born.

>>6108598
You're trying to change the definition of consciousness to suit your needs. All I'm saying is that we know it's impossible for a fetus less than 20 weeks, after that it's different shades of grey based on your definition.

>>6108613
Monkeys and trees yes?

All species of monkeys and trees?

This is not germane to sci/ at all.

Can you not spot the trolls? They recognize that consciousness is based on when a being is able to think and remember. Obviously three year olds can think.
And yes, what constitutes thought is subjective, but it is not extremely subjective. Once a fetus has developed the brain power necessary to have basic thoughts it should be considered a person and not aborted.

>>6108408
This.

Sentience is all that fucking matters.

ITT: Dumbfucks that have never taken an intro biology course

We know exactly what constitutes life. Look up "conditions of life" and "Roe v Wade"

>>6108821
un-fucking-measurable, dipshit

>>6109037
fire lives :DDD

>>6109038
For now, yes.
But it might be measurable sometime

dipshit

>>6108690
>90
>strawman
Nice

>>6108408
That's too early. Animals are conscious, and true personhood shouldn't explicitly contain genetics.

>>6108609
We can always redefine it as the true concept closest to what we think of when we say consciousness. I like using the word, so that's preferable to saying it doesn't exist.

>>6108717
You're one of the few being productive, but you ain't done. Whales have more brain activity than humans, but they're less intelligent and probably less worthy of being alive.

>>6108627
You can't hurt things that don't exist. The taboo on killing sapient lifeforms is for the sake of those lifeforms, not for the sake of the universe at large or your personal moral leanings (though it is, of course, our personal moral leanings that are saying this).

>>6108405
I tend to agree with Peter Singer on this, and consider this question too much of a slippery slope to answer, and prefer the utilitarian approach to moralising abortion.

>>6108462
It's a piece of meat.

It's simple.

>>6108408

obviously this

without consciousness it is just a thing, a biological material

>>6109325
>food in a lab.
the guy on the left is clearly a charlatan, I'd rather watch the debate of the naked ladies dancing around a fire.

>>6108408
That would be never.

>>6109328
Sorry for shattering your /x/tard delusions, but magical souls doesn't real. Humans ARE nothing but biological organisms.

Once the brain is developed enough to react to stimulus.

>>6109368
nice fkn opinions there on an anon forum :D

truth is that we are just drops in the ocean and drops change, lets see though what future brings us. inb4 conquering world an immortality

>>6109405
I didn't post any opinions. Are you denying the simple fact that humans are biological organisms?

Once it has a mind.

Yes, that's a vague answer. Too bad. Not everything in life is clear cut.

>>6109408
OP asked for scientific answers.

>>6109407

consciousness is a real phenomenon, science acknowledges that, and it is true regardless if we are biological machines or some dualist woo

>>6109415
What are its physical effects? Name them. How can I test them?

>>6109410

it is not a scientific question

>>6109410
>OP asked for scientific answers.

No he didn't. It's not a scientific question, anyway. Note:

>should

>>6109418
>can't tell the difference between a conscious and an unconscious person

I hope you're not studying to be a doctor

>>6109418

>What are its physical effects? Name them. How can I test them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness#Scientific_study

>>6109427
Oh, I see. You're going for the old and overused equivocation troll again. 1/10 for the effort, but it has been explained literally a thousand times already that the physiological state of "unconscious" has nothing to do with a metaphysical "consciousness".

>>6109368

>Sorry for shattering your /x/tard delusions, but magical souls doesn't real.

You have no evidence for that. In fact, unless you are a philosophical zombie, you should scientifically conclude that consciousness is real since you observe it in yourself.

>>6109430
Thanks for disproving your own garbage.

Here's a quote from that wiki article:
>In 2004, eight neuroscientists felt it was too soon for a definition. They wrote an apology in "Human Brain Function":[82]
>
>"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers ... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way."

>>6109436
I am a "philosophical zombie" just like all humans. The label is redundant. I do not possess any metaphysical qualities and as long as you don't prove to me that you have them, I can reasonably assume that you do not possess them either. Humans are biological organisms who evolved. Evolution is a physical process and leaves no space for metaphysics.

>>6109436

This particular troll claims to be unconscious, so that line of argument won't work.

Yes, it's really that stupid. Just ignore him like most of us do.

>>6109434

I dont see anything that would support the thesis that consciousness is not real.

Not well defined or understood does not mean it is not real.

>>6108405

self awareness

when we are able to determine that his/her brain has formed a coherent cognitive model of himself/herself

>>6109440
"Unconscious" is a physiologically defined state. I am clearly not unconscious, since I demonstrate responsiveness to outer stimuli. This is simple biology and has nothing to do with soul/consciousness metaphysics. Your equivocation troll is boring, old and easily disproved.

>>6109448
Not testable. Please keep spiritual answers on /x/. On /sci/ we want to discuss the topic from a scientific point of view.

inb4 mirror test
Academic criticism of this pseudo-scientific non-test can be easily googled or found in the archive.

when they can answer the question "do you want to be alive"

Birth

When they do the census every 4 years, a pregnant woman does not count as two people. The answer to the question is obviously birth. Everything else is semantics and opinion.

define person

>>6109506
>lump of flesh becomes a person when it's coordinates change from x1y1z1 to x2y2z2

Top lel.

>>6109325

I know it's bait but I'm going to reply regardless:

"You're wrong."