|
M P Darke on Mon, 2 Nov 2009 14:14:56 -0700 (MST)
|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|
Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Exploration (PftPoPDE)
|
- To: discussion list for B Nomic <spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [s-d] [s-b] Contract for the Purposes of Personhood Definition Exploration (PftPoPDE)
- From: M P Darke <darkemalcolm@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 21:14:49 +0000 (GMT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.co.uk; s=s1024; t=1257196489; bh=VqcYpPY/MMV5euguwtrHa7lZWfL3olgaiwLe1p05ft8=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=qGzlkcCt4XPTTmRS0GkeM0Jrl0PJ1Chddoi67ThyzToRkDx4xcLXnlhssq/Bll9NZNma1FAiet7XTqJqNc92+GpM5KjYYwzEss2kOQ0MYlo47WOzaTm+siBDDPm0p4S9nq+Ey3X/3EmAnN1RfWRXJsKSfPZoRq3fm0zs04eaXmA=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.co.uk; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=mMZoxjyhGwjvEx3qNs5pySnNS50Lm2MbuZ6oSiLg1OGzEgy9+rA6HinsD/jUTrTfypdA7gaxGprEiydNi08AIL+O3mPj4rkxt7vBim4oKBnPDm3SmiUR03ASBSZxAKjW/wrsd4CTUZcK9WUTadn3GLXoDnp9YpCEfPdfpxNgD+U=;
- In-reply-to: <55b258c20911011753x25107946g39298cbceadfe1fb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Objection: Please consider the use of the term "person" in psychology. There is a clear blurring of the line when it comes to behavioural studies, such as Skinner's, on whether humans are not simply more advanced animals. At that point, it becomes difficult to define a "person": Are all animals people? Are only some humans people? At that point we can go into ethics, but I would prefer not to, as it would, and I quote "make headaches for officers."although the rule refers to math and law but not science
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss