I don't think there's anything inherent about me that's superior to anyone else. I've approached a higher level of consciousness (which can be explored by just about anyone), but that doesn't make me more grandiose or anything. Perhaps it makes me different. Experiencing a dimension of reality without psychological barriers allows us to step outside ourselves into a pure state of collective existence. People exist in different dimensions of reality (states of existence), based on how they've constructed or deconstructed their egos. I don't believe any certain dimension is more or less grandiose than any other - it's simply a different form of existing. I prefer it because it connects me at all times with a presence that creates a sense of community, the same type of relationship I believe all of us are searching for on some level anyways. Could I be misinterpreting my experiences? Of course, maybe I'm just more "self aware", maybe I'm less "self aware", who knows. Part of the motivation behind posting on a philosophy forum is to hear other people's opinions and keep an open mind. Everyone has their thing that makes them spiritual, whether that's philosophy or work or your family, but those that constantly question themselves and keep an open mind are the ones that are most grounded.

Yes, you have: — Sapientia

No, I haven't. An infinite being (nature, being or God, or whatever) would not be in the same class as us finite beings, regardless of whether that infinite being possessed intentionality or not.

You only have to look at the capabilities and behaviour of people: they express or make clear their thoughts, feelings and intentions through language and actions. — Sapientia

This is just an unsupporetd assertion. From a purely rational empirical perspective it is merely an assumption that there is intentionality behind human behavior. No such thing is directly observed in the behavior. Why don't you be honest and admit that you have no argument to support your contention? Or else explain exactly how you know it is there.

No, I haven't. An infinite being (nature, being or God, or whatever) would not be in the same class as us finite beings, regardless of whether that infinite being possessed intentionality or not. — John

We aren't talking about a being, we're talking about the world, and the world is not a being. That's another example of the category error I've been talking about.

And you're yet again implicitly contradicting yourself, since you're raising the possibility of the world possessing intentionality as if that made sense. I haven't gotten any impression from you that you acknowledge that as the absurdity that it is.

This is just an unsupporetd assertion. — John

Don't be ridiculous.

From a purely rational empirical perspective it is merely an assumption that there is intentionality behind human behavior. [sic] — John

It isn't merely an assumption. It's a conclusion based upon a wealth of evidence.

No such thing is directly observed in the behavior. [sic] — John

Directness is not a condition which needs to be satisfied.

Why don't you be honest and admit that you have no argument to support your contention? Or else explain exactly how you know it is there. — John

There's no credible alternative, so there's nothing to really argue against. If you contend that there is no way to rightly infer intentionality, then you are forced into an untenable position which must maintain that we're just completely guessing all the time, and that people could actually be empty zombies.

We aren't talking about a being, we're talking about the world, and the world is not a being. — Sapientia

What is the world, if not a being? It is defined as the totality of immanent being. (Really, 'universe' is a better term because world has many uses more in keeping the phenomenological understanding of the term: 'world of business', 'world of finance', 'world of sport', 'world of entertainment' 'art world' and so on).

The question is really as to whether nature is merely a brute existence or if intentionality (telos) is behind its workings. Empirically speaking we simply don't know, and I don't believe we ever can know by means of purely rational or empirical enquiry. There doesn't seem to be any imaginable way we could know by those means.

It isn't merely an assumption. It's a conclusion based upon a wealth of evidence. — Sapientia

And yet you are unable to say what that evidence consists in. :-}

Directness is not a condition which needs to be satisfied. — Sapientia

Whatever is not directly observed or intuited must be inferred. It seems you are just being evasive because you are at a loss for arguments.

There's no credible alternative, so there's nothing to really argue against. If you contend that there is no way to rightly infer intentionality, then you are forced into an untenable position which must maintain that we're just completely guessing all the time, and that people could actually be empty zombies. — Sapientia

Your view just seems one-dimensional to me to be honest. I'm not at all saying "we're just completely guessing"! Humans cannot be "empty zombies". I believe this because I intuit it, not because I have any purely rationally based empirical evidence to support it; I don't, and neither do you. I also believe the world cannot be an empty zombie world for exactly the same reason. You seem to have bought into a fashionable dogma that says you cannot trust your own deepest intuitions and must rely on merely 'acceptable' views; cling to them for dear life. What an empty feeling that must be!
:’(

Theory of mind might be an approach to navigating the different dimensions. When you place yourself into another person's perspective and psychoanalyze them, everything is seemingly central to an individual looking out into the world. Are they states of existence or dimensions of reality - or is that part of the same thing, like one that might be envisioned by picturing how a world to someone who is in a solipsitic feeling hole might look like. Needing reinforcement that you exist, so depending on other people to express their state of existence, is a dimension of reality many people seem to exist in.

Are they misunderstanding me or am I misunderstanding them? Both, you exist in different dimensions. Placing yourself into another person's perspective brings you closer to the collective consciousness. The autism spectrum could be a fluctuation within the dimensions. Marijuana seems to allow people to navigate more freely, like some sort of ego teleportation. Spiritual awakening is coming out of egocentricity into a new state of being, into the collective consciousness

What is the world, if not a being? It is defined as the totality of immanent being. (Really, 'universe' is a better term because world has many uses more in keeping the phenomenological understanding of the term: 'world of business', 'world of finance', 'world of sport', 'world of entertainment' 'art world' and so on). — John

I agree that "universe" is a better word to use, although not for the same reason, but because "world" often means less than the universe: specifically our planet.

The universe is everything that exists, the totality of objects and phenomena. A being is a creature or organism that has in common with us certain essential features. The universe is not a creature or an organism, and it does not have in common with us the same set of essential features. The universe lacks intelligence, emotion, intentionality... it doesn't even make sense to attribute these features to the universe.

The question is really as to whether nature is merely a brute existence or if intentionality (telos) is behind its workings. Empirically speaking we simply don't know, and I don't believe we ever can know by means of purely rational or empirical enquiry. There doesn't seem to be any imaginable way we could know by those means. — John

We can know through a combination of observation and reason in the way that I've already described. We can look, we can compare, we can see the difference, notice what is absent, understand what makes sense and what doesn't make sense, and identify category errors.

And yet you are unable to say what that evidence consists in. — John

No, that's a lie, I've already told you. There's a difference between getting an answer and not being satisfied with that answer because you want more. Why isn't what I already said enough for you? It's enough for most. Why must I meet some special standard demanded by your unreasonable scepticism?

Whatever is not directly observed or intuited must be inferred. It seems you are just being evasive because you are at a loss for arguments. — John

Inference has always been part of my answer, and your talk of directness has always been a red herring.

Your view just seems one-dimensional to me to be honest. I'm not at all saying "we're just completely guessing"! Humans cannot be "empty zombies". I believe this because I intuit it, not because I have any purely rationally based empirical evidence to support it; I don't, and neither do you. I also believe the world cannot be an empty zombie world for exactly the same reason. You seem to have bought into a fashionable dogma that says you cannot trust your own deepest intuitions and must rely on merely 'acceptable' views; cling to them for dear life. What an empty feeling that must be! — John

If you go back over our discussion, you'll notice that you're the only one who has been bringing up "direct" observation and "pure" reason. But I don't know why. Are you trying to move the goalposts? I think you are. I only need to defend my claims, not jump through your hoops.

OK, have it your way, I don't really care what a wall of glass bricks that distorts everything I say thinks anyway...my energy for and interest in this 'conversation' are now utterly depleted.

Personhood is for persons, and the world is evidently not a person, it's the world - it merely contains persons. — Sapientia

I think this is a category error actually. To speak of the world as if it were another object in the world which can contain, etc. All such words must be mere analogy or metaphor.

anthropomorphisize — Sapientia

Anthropomorphise* :-}

The world is just the totality of it's parts — Sapientia

This is a mistake, because you're thinking of the world as a totality. To think of it as totality is to think of it as a something with a definite existence. But the world is not something - somethings are in the world.

It doesn't even make sense to look. — Sapientia

Right, because the part cannot see the whole.

We still accord them the same degree of human rights that we do to all other persons, don't we? — John

Sure, but this is a matter of the law not the truth no?

From your argument it follows that a high-functioning person is more of a person than an ordinary person. — John

Indeed.

I would be living and breathing and fed through a tube, and I would display no signs of having a personality or of having intentionality at all. — Sapientia

I don't think being glued to a bed means not being a person. Stephen Hawking has very limited capabilities. Does it follow he's not a person in any meaningful sense? Or even that he's less of a person?

We either rightly intuit it in ourselves and others, in which case it could be argued that we rightly intuit it in nature — John

Right, because intentionality belongs to the realm of meaning, not the realm of facts.

But the gist is, spiritual or mystical experiences revealed the true nature of reality, which 'straights' (nowadays, 'straight' means 'not gay', but in the 60's it meant 'not hip') couldn't see. — Wayfarer

>:O >:O >:O

Straights were caught up in a conditioned reality which was dictated to them by straight culture, the chief influence on which was the military-industrial complex and consumer-goods manufacturers (Marcuse). Acid removed the scales from your eyes, so you could basically get a window into what enlightened sages (normally, Eastern) could only see after a lifetime of tortuous spiritual discipline. — Wayfarer

>:O

The point about certain classes of drugs -entheogens, they have been called - is that they really do provide an insight into the way cultural conditioning shapes experience — Wayfarer

How do they achieve this effect (if not chemically)?

If you contend that there is no way to rightly infer intentionality — Sapientia

The way we infer intentionality is by projecting meaning onto behaviour that we observe. Intentionality consists in our own projection, it cannot be found in the world.

I don't really care what a wall out of glass bricks that distort everything I say thinks — John

>:O

Are they misunderstanding me or am I misunderstanding them? Both, you exist in different dimensions. Placing yourself into another person's perspective brings you closer to the collective consciousness. The autism spectrum could be a fluctuation within the dimensions. Marijuana seems to allow people to navigate more freely, like some sort of ego teleportation. Spiritual awakening is coming out of egocentricity into a new state of being, into the collective consciousness. — stonedthoughtsofnature

I fear you may have misunderstood 'collective consciousness' and perhaps you may be taking a Jungian approach to the subject, nevertheless this shared identification of the external world is sociological insofar as the subjective contents of an individual contain shared representations that enable a superficial alignment of values and beliefs with others. It is imagined, just like ideology and we form an identity within a community that constructs epistemic ideas through language or communication and our experiences or interactions with others, but it remains socially constructed. Jung believed the collective unconscious to be a key in the interpretative or introspective process that could delve into the psyche to understand the symbolic nature of these representations that people make through dreams or other experiences to find the root cause of their anxieties.

I believe I understand what you are trying to say but there is a very important albeit missing detail in your algorithm that is rather unexpectedly and paradoxically the most important unifying force; free-will. Just like how people drink to give them the courage to talk to the man or woman they desire, you don't need marijuana and it is quite a tantalising experience when you find that courage to transcend with a clear mind of what is imagined and what holds your identity together by forming your own reality. There is no greater feeling, nothing as empowering, because what weakens you is your ego and the fear to let go of the identity, the imagined archetypes and patterns of behaviour that have become solidified as 'reality' during childhood and remained, despite your unconscious screaming out otherwise. These 'dimensions' can collide, but the conditions are just as unique as when a star is born where all the necessary elements need to be fused at the right time and with the right balance of forces; only when one freely and willingly transcends the 'collective consciousness' where they become 'conscious' in order to actually see the collective for what it is can collide with another of the same frame of mind.

I think this is a category error actually. To speak of the world as if it were another object in the world which can contain, etc. All such words must be mere analogy or metaphor. — Agustino

No, I think that that's reading too much into it. The world is a set, and it isn't unusual to talk of sets containing contents, although I'm not committed to using that particular word, and could swap it for, say, "includes" or "consists".

Anthropomorphise* :-} — Agustino

Oh no! What have I done! :-O

This is a mistake, because you're thinking of the world as a totality. To think of it as totality is to think of it as a something with a definite existence. But the world is not something - somethings are in the world. — Agustino

If you don't think that the world is a totality, then what do you think the world is? The word "thing" has got to be one of the broadest and most vague words in the English language, so whether the world is a thing or not seems like a rather pointless debate, but obviously if you define a thing to be in the world, then by that definition the world can't be a thing, since the world is not in the world.

Right, because the part cannot see the whole. — Agustino

No, because it lacks the necessary features. It makes no sense for the same reason it makes no sense to wonder how an apricot feels or what the aspirations of a wardrobe are.

Indeed — Agustino

I was giving a more detailed example than necessary to emphasise the point, but it comes down to certain fundamental features. No legal fiction can change reality.

I don't think being glued to a bed means not being a person. Stephen Hawking has very limited capabilities. Does it follow he's not a person in any meaningful sense? Or even that he's less of a person? — Agustino

I don't think that being glued to a bed or being at the stage of motor neurone disease that Stephen Hawking is at means not being a person either. The example I gave was of someone in a permanent vegetative state.

Right, because intentionality belongs to the realm of meaning, not the realm of facts. — Agustino

Wrong. There's a fact of the matter, irrespective of interpretation.

The way we infer intentionality is by projecting meaning onto behaviour that we observe. Intentionality consists in our own projection, it cannot be found in the world. — Agustino

No, it's not right to describe that as a projection. The "projection" is typically from the other, and we are more like "receivers". We either pick up on it or do not or misinterpret it. Sometimes we project our own meaning over the top, but only sometimes.

How do they achieve this effect (if not chemically)? — Agustino

Interesting fact about the three main hallucinogens (psilocybin, mescaline, and LSD): they're not intoxicants. Particularly in the latter case, the amounts ingested are measured in micrograms, which are very small doses; the purest form of LSD was manufactured by the Swiss company Sandos, and was available on the black market under the moniker 'clear light', which was a reference to the Tibetan Book of the Dead. But the dose itself was a transparent square with sides around 1.5mm. And of the amount ingested, most was metabolised out by the liver. The remaining amount was more like a catalyst than an intoxicant, i.e. it affects the way the neuronal pathways operate, because it amounted to not more than a very minute dosage of the actual substance (unlike other intoxicants and narcotics which literally flood the metabolism.)

Incidentally, Albert Hoffman, the Swiss chemist who first isolated LSD, lived until the ripe old age of 106 (died not that long ago, actually), and went to his grave believing in the therapeutic potential of his discovery. (And note, the original derivation of 'therapeutae' was from a spiritual/religious - we might say 'theosophical' - cult which flourished in the early Christian era.) Hoffman's account of the very first acid trip is known as Bicycle Day - something which all hipsters know, of course. ;-)

Reminds me - must re-read Herman Hesse.

As for how mystical experiences 'happen' by other means - there is a whole range of answers. Sometimes they come unbidden, sometimes as a consequence of long ordeals and searches. 'The wind blows where it lists, and no-one knows the wherefore.' But I think that mysticism is a personality type -some people are just born mystics. There are mystics in all the religions, but not all religion is mystical, and not all mystics are religious. Makes it hard to generalise, but it is an interesting subject (for me, anyway).

The remaining amount was more like a catalyst than an intoxicant, i.e. it affects the way the neuronal pathways operate, because it amounted to not more than a very minute dosage of the actual substance (unlike other intoxicants and narcotics which literally flood the metabolism.) — Wayfarer

Fine, but then its effect isn't spiritual no? It just has a physical effect on the brain, which is experienced as a specific kind of experience, or how does it work?

Fine, but then its effect isn't spiritual no? It just has a physical effect on the brain, which is experienced as a specific kind of experience, or how does it work? — Agustino

I don't want to get into an argument about it, but myself and many other people had truly profound experiences by those means. Of course, the wise realise that one cannot hold onto such states by those means, and the attempt to recreate them can obviously be a trap (not a trip ;-) )

Again by saying that I am not encouraging illicit drug use. But it's also the case that there is a taboo on these specific kinds of experiences and substances because the show up the hollowness of the 'consensus reality' that most folks take for granted. Not for nothing was Leary's book called 'The Politics of Ecstasy'.

I don't want to get into an argument about it, but myself and many other people had truly profound experiences by those means. Of course, the wise realise that one cannot hold onto such states by those means, and the attempt to recreate them can obviously be a trap (not a trip ;-) — Wayfarer

Okay, I follow you, but I'm asking you about the metaphysics of it. How is it possible for a physical substance to consistently bring about a spiritual experience? Can matter determine/force such an experience upon one? And if so, then how is this possible?

The world is a set — Sapientia

A set is a concept, referring to objects within the world. Actually not even to objects, but rather to conceptual structures which contain (or possibly contain) more than one object. I don't see how you can say the world itself is a set.

If you don't think that the world is a totality, then what do you think the world is? — Sapientia

To affirm that the world is a totality means that you have ruled out the possibility that the world is *gasp* incomplete. What if the world isn't a thing, but a process?

No, because it lacks the necessary features. — Sapientia

You don't know what features the world as a whole has. Much more, you probably can't know, because to know would entail being able to see the world from outside.

The example I gave was of someone in a permanent vegetative state. — Sapientia

Stephen Hawking is in a permanent vegetative state pretty much. He only is able to talk because of technology. Nevertheless, what this illustrates is that someone could be in an entirely vegetative state and still be conscious and a moral agent.

Wrong. There's a fact of the matter, irrespective of interpretation. — Sapientia

Okay. Say a guy has a piece of food in hand, and mimics the gesture of throwing it towards a dog. Then he actually throws it, and the dog catches eat and devours it. Physically speaking, if we are talking just about facts, he threw the food and the dog ate it. But there's something else there. His intention. He intended to feed the dog, not to punish him, for example. The intention is not part of the facts. It has to do with meaning. What do the facts mean? The meaning of the facts cannot be yet another fact.

No, it's not right to describe that as a projection. The "projection" is typically from the other, and we are more like "receivers". We either pick up on it or do not or misinterpret it. Sometimes we project our own meaning over the top, but only sometimes. — Sapientia

Ahh it seems you actually fell in my trap by trying to negate everything I've said :D :D :D ! So you do admit that the "projection" (the meaning) comes from the other, and you can pick up on it. So there is inherent meaning in the world, which exists above and beyond the physical facts, in the sense that knowing the physical facts does not necessarily tell you the meaning.

A set is a concept, referring to objects within the world. Actually not even to objects, but rather to conceptual structures which contain (or possibly contain) more than one object. I don't see how you can say the world itself is a set. — Agustino

A set is not a concept, but the concept of a set is. And I'm not using that word in a strict technical sense, but with a similar meaning to group, collection, or totality. A set has, contains, or includes, members, contents or parts. The universe is the set of everything that exists: people, animals, objects, planets, stars, and so on, and so forth.

To affirm that the world is a totality means that you have ruled out the possibility that the world is *gasp* incomplete. What if the world isn't a thing, but a process? — Agustino

What does it mean to say that the world is incomplete? How could that be? And no, I don't think that the world is a process, I think that process requires a world.

You don't know what features the world as a whole has. Much more, you probably can't know, because to know would entail being able to see the world from outside. — Agustino

The world as a whole? How's that different from the world as a totality, which you refrained from affirming a moment ago, yet now seem to have adopted in all but name?

I know what features the world can't have and why. That's sufficient.

Stephen Hawking is in a permanent vegetative state pretty much. — Agustino

Hahahaha, wow, I can't believe you just said that.

He only is able to talk because of technology. Nevertheless, what this illustrates is that someone could be in an entirely vegetative state and still be conscious and a moral agent. — Agustino

No, it illustrates no such thing because Stephen Hawking is not in an entirely vegetative state! And if he was, then he wouldn't be expressing thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and the like, as he does now, which is one way of determining intentionality, which counts towards personhood, which was the issue being discussed.

Okay. Say a guy has a piece of food in hand, and mimics the gesture of throwing it towards a dog. Then he actually throws it, and the dog catches eat and devours it. Physically speaking, if we are talking just about facts, he threw the food and the dog ate it. But there's something else there. His intention. He intended to feed the dog, not to punish him, for example. The intention is not part of the facts. It has to do with meaning. What do the facts mean? The meaning of the facts cannot be yet another fact. — Agustino

The intention is part of the facts. It would be a fact that he intended to feed the dog. The facts mean what they mean, and that's a fact, or a truth, or the case - the precise terminology doesn't matter all that much to me.

Ahh it seems you actually fell in my trap by trying to negate everything I've said :D :D :D ! So you do admit that the "projection" (the meaning) comes from the other, and you can pick up on it. So there is inherent meaning in the world, which exists above and beyond the physical facts, in the sense that knowing the physical facts does not necessarily tell you the meaning. — Agustino

Where did I deny that people express meaning that other people pick up on? Where did I deny that there is meaning in the world? There is meaning in the world because we are in the world. Where did I say that physical facts are the whole story? I think you've misunderstood. Perhaps you should quote me where you think I've done these things, and then we could take it step by step.

We still accord them the same degree of human rights that we do to all other persons, don't we? — John

Sure, but this is a matter of the law not the truth no? — Agustino

But, the law is based on the principle, which is certainly held to be true, that we are all equal before God, don't you think?

From your argument it follows that a high-functioning person is more of a person than an ordinary person. — John

Indeed.

A high-functioning person is a more interesting, more creative, more valuable (in pragmatic terms) person, for sure. Although, as your example of Hawking shows, a person is not considered less of a person in the absolute sense, even though they might be almost totally physically incapacitated. There also seems to be a spiritual sense in which a person might be more of a person; a Christ for example, or a Gautama Buddha; but the personal greatness of such people consists precisely in the fact that they view all people as being of equal value.

Okay, I follow you, but I'm asking you about the metaphysics of it. How is it possible for a physical substance to consistently bring about a spiritual experience? Can matter determine/force such an experience upon one? And if so, then how is this possible?

Simply, the human being is a mechanism in which there is an interaction between mind and matter. One can influence the other, so naturally physical narcotics will influence the mind. Likewise notions of mind can influence physical materials.

As to how this is possible, it is a question of how such an interaction is possible. Well the initial observation is that there is in a person an apparatus which can host a mind, the brain. Provided a mind is able to inhabit that mechanism, then the interaction occurs.

You're not doing yourself any favors by referring to this feeling of bliss or meaning as "god", you are referring to god as a distinct entity, but you reject the personal nature of a god. You might be experiencing something profound, but it certainly is not god. What you have described is not god. This thread's title is misleading.

But, the law is based on the principle, which is certainly held to be true, that we are all equal before God, don't you think? — John

Well it may either be true, or it may be useful. The law isn't necessarily held around true principles, but rather around useful ones.

A high-functioning person is a more interesting, more creative, more valuable (in pragmatic terms) person, for sure. Although, as your example of Hawking shows, a person is not considered less of a person in the absolute sense, even though they might be almost totally physically incapacitated. There also seems to be a spiritual sense in which a person might be more of a person; a Christ for example, or a Gautama Buddha; but the personal greatness of such people consists precisely in the fact that they view all people as being of equal value. — John

Yeah, to clarify, my previous agreement with you there was simply with the absurdity of Sappy's argument, which indeed implies that a high-functioning person is more of a person than an ordinary guy. I disagree with that. I think it's our personhood that gives us value, not the externals.

Well it may either be true, or it may be useful. The law isn't necessarily held around true principles, but rather around useful ones. — Agustino

I get the sense of that, but how does this apply to a law that's assumed to be divine? A law that's not necessarily true, but is useful, is, necessarily, human. How could a divine law be untrue but useful? At least within a Christina paradigm.

I get the sense of that, but how does this apply to a law that's assumed to be divine? A law that's not necessarily true, but is useful, is, necessarily, human. How could a divine law be untrue but useful? At least within a Christina paradigm. — Noble Dust

The human law of our society isn't divine. We were talking about human laws that govern our societies.

John said "being equal before God", which is what I was referencing.

John said "being equal before God", which is what I was referencing. — Noble Dust

Our human law is written in those terms. Check the prior discussion and you'll see that it's about the actual laws of society.

No, John said:

But, the law is based on the principle, which is certainly held to be true, that we are all equal before God, don't you think? — John

Which I'm agreeing with.

Which I'm agreeing with. — Noble Dust

Okay, our law is indeed based on that principle. Why is it based on that principle? It's either to do with truth or usefulness.

Yeah, to clarify, my previous agreement with you there was simply with the absurdity of Sappy's argument, which indeed implies that a high-functioning person is more of a person than an ordinary guy. — Agustino

No it doesn't. If it did, then I would reject it myself. You're attacking a straw man. There's just a single line, and on one side there's person and the other not-person. Both those who are high-functioning and those who are ordinary are on the person side.

Well it may either be true, or it may be useful. The law isn't necessarily held around true principles, but rather around useful ones. — Agustino

The interesting thing is that if people were valued and accorded different statuses according to their usefulness that would contradict the argument that it is useful to value people equally regardless of their usefulness. I believe the principle of the equality of all people is a deontological, not a utilitarian, one. There is no purely rational principle according to which people could be ranked as possessing different values; according to pure reason people must all be equally valuable.

This doesn't change the fact that some people are certainly more valuable, or at least considered to be more valuable, to society than others, though. If you kill, or even just beat up, the President of the US you will probably end up with a much more severe sentence than if you killed or beat up a homeless person. That is practical law at work; it is an ass.

Yeah, to clarify, my previous agreement with you there was simply with the absurdity of Sappy's argument, which indeed implies that a high-functioning person is more of a person than an ordinary guy. I disagree with that. I think it's our personhood that gives us value, not the externals. — Agustino

Oh, sounds like I misunderstood then, thanks for clarifying.

If it did, then I would reject it myself. — Sapientia

Yeah, you would if you saw it, which you obviously don't.