From: jbates@pinocchio.encore.com (John Bates)
Subject: Re: Ref:  John Bates
Organization: Encore Computer
	<JBATES.92Apr3191215@pinocchio.pinocchio.encore.com>
	<72642@netnews.upenn.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:03:15


>Kevin
>>John
>>>Kevin

>>	No, there aren't. The infant has all the hardware in place. It
>>just hasn't learned to use it properly. Minimal functionality is there.

>Hmmm.  I must disagree.  An infant does not have sufficient myelination
>until much much later after birth to begin comprehension or realization
>of things around him/her.  It's contact with the outside world is a basic
>pain-instinctual reaction to the outside.

	We do not know what constitutes "sufficient myelination". Before
you go using this to attack my previous claim wrt myelination, please note:
while the above holds, its converse does not. We can be certain that a CNS
with *no* myelination is insufficient, but we cannot be certain what degree
of myelination *is* sufficient.

	While my claim above ("has all the hardware") may have been a bit
strong, I think that this is a valid case for us to err on the side of
safety. There exist many people who claim to have vivid memories from the
time of birth. Ray Bradbury claims to remember his own circumcision, when he
was four days old. My own, personal earliest memory dates to when I was
about one, but I'm pretty absent-minded.

>>	An infant is self-aware. It just hasn't learned what is and what
>>is not self.

>Part of the qualifications for being self-aware, John, are that one must
>have the presence of self-concepts of the individual or racial difference.
>If you mean to say that an infant is "self-aware" in that it is conscious,
>then that too is incorrect.  As a fulfillment fo being conscious, one
>must be conscious of objects and events external and/or internal to the
>being), and in particular the capcity to feel pain.  Now, it feels pain,
>yes.  But an infant can neither distinguish nor make connections between
>external or internal events.  It does not think that it is hungry because it
>knows it's stomach is empty.  It cries because of the pain it creates.
>It cannot distinguish objects as well.

	An infant can not know that its stomach is empty, because it does not
know what a stomach is. It can not tell what is internal/external, because
it does not know the distinction between the two. These are not necessarily
because of a hardware defect, but because it has not learned these things.

	From the point of birth onwards, learning proceeds at a tremendous
rate. A friend of mine spends his time recording the cries of newborns and
correlating them with the phonetics and tonality of speech. His claim is
that linguistic ability is hard-coded, and that all languages have certain
elements in common with newborn babbling. Psychologists talk about oral
fixations being rooted in the breast-feeding, or lack thereof, of an infant.
A three-month old discovering his/her toes can be one of the most amazing
things to watch.

	This is my basis for claiming that "minimal functionality is there".
Even if the infant displays no self-awareness, according to your standards,
the capability is there. All that is lacking is the learning, which is a
software problem.

>Perhaps this is because "soul" is a term fabricated by us that it is
>commonly overlooked.  I am still of the opinion, that these are not philosoph-
>ical persons.

	Then they aren't according to your philosophy.

>>>>All right, let's try this one. (F v P v PP)=>R, R=>(F v P v PP)

>>>agggghhh!

>>>yes...that will work.

>>	This seems to be more of a patch than anything else. You will admit
>>that a z/e/f is not a person, and does not have the capacity to be a person,
>>but still grant it rights based on its future status?

>Yes.

	What is your basis for this belief? Please provide details.

>>I don't know about
>>you, but I exist in only one moment of time. The rest is memory or 
>>anticipation. And a fetus has no memory, and no anticipation.

>Yet you exist, whether you are conscious or not.  Being alive helps of course.

	I said nothing about consciousness. I am unable to foretell the
future, though I may make predictions. I am unable to relive the past, though
I can remember it. I *exist* only right now, right here.

>True, she had parts missing, but she is human.  I think she is a human because
>of her DNA and that most (?) of her was there.

>I did imply that "A human" had to be a whole being, but again, I was being
>lose with definitions, not taking into consideration events like
>this.  However, I think a majority accounts.  That sounds so trivial, but
>I don't know...

	Well, in a different thread you made a case for the humanity of a
man whose entire body you removed. If you believe that, then you must either
accept that there are certain parts of the body which are crucial to *self*,
or that every part of the body is a human being. 

>kcw

John
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity