@click here,
Supposing that a house and human being were to not have a soul, it would be a category mistake to compare them as whole entities. Your reductio ad absurdum does not even get off the ground.
Your argument is weak and much rather underscores your insufficient understanding of the conception of rights and property law, and you accept a patently absurdly philosophical position about mind and consciousness.
Quote:An illusion put together by some randomly organized molecules. Humans are just a 'complex house' that doesn't give humans an innate right.
This is epiphenomenalism, and it certainly is not a view that people commonly hold. Primarily naturalistic reductionists, physicalists and eliminative materialists ascribe to this view, and it is by no means tenable.
Quote:If you are going to prove to me that humans do have innate human rights while maintaining that they are soul lacking first show me where the difference between a house and a human is.
It would be wrong-headed of one to take this challenge since you apparently have an insufficient understanding of various theories of consciousness. No one should accept that a human being is just a collection of molecules, and we typically at least admit that "consciousness" is not itself just some biological thing. It stands in relation to the biological organism. The biological organism must be certain necessary physiological conditions to have consciousness but these are necessary conditions for consciousness. They are by no means sufficient. A house does not meet even the necessary conditions for being conscious; so it is categorically different from a human being.
Scientists hold it is a metaphysical (non-scientific) axiom that the universe is homogeneous. It is absolutely essential that you understand this. This is not a demonstrable belief. It is literal nonsense, but it nevertheless serves some other goal that drives science. It is similar to the notion that "every event has a cause" and "the world has order"--if interpreted to mean some metaphysical thesis, these are nonsense. And it's easy to interpret them as such. But certainly do not take their "strong interpretation" or their "logical interpretation" as the
only meaningful one and thus commence to attack that. These phrases are not premises to arguments. They're not truth-apt. "Innate right" is a phrase that is not truth-apt. It's literally meaningless, not falsifiable and not demonstrable; so don't treat it as such, especially by bringing in argument against theories about consciousness as your "demonstration" and "evidence."
"Everything consists of homogeneous subatomic particles"--this is literal nonsense and it further has no scientific evidence or demonstration. To think you can compare a human and a house simply because they both exist int he same universe means that you think their particular organization is irrelevant so long as they consist of the same (essentially) physical stuff (their particles). But this is a wrong move. A human being is not
just a house with differently arranged particulars. Differently arranged particulars would be everything that makes them so different.
Rights are a product of definitions of law. Claim rights, powers, and immunities are defined in explicit. "Innate right" is a contradiction in terms, so it doesn't mean what you think it means. It isn't a demonstrable claim about human beings. It's a turn-of-phrase, an idiomatic expression, a product of our rich language, figurative, etc. It's not a theory to be confirmed or disconfirmed by evidence.
The same with "the world has order" or "the universe consists of homogeneous particles." It's not a premise to an argument, and if you interpret it too strongly and force it to mean just one thing, you miss the entire point as to why its used in our linguistic practice.