Methodology
The Factors Affecting the Rate of Enzyme Activity lab experiment was done on Wednesday, October 24th, 2007, in room 106 of the Etobicoke School of the Arts.
In station one, 3mL of the catalase solution was placed into each of the three clean dry test tubes (graduated cylinders were used for accurate measurement). The first test tube was placed in a beaker half full of distilled water. This beaker was placed on a hot plate of medium heat. A thermometer was used to measure the temperature until the bath reached 60º Celsius. The second test tube was placed in a beaker bath containing ice. A thermometer was placed into the bath until the temperature reached 3º Celsius. The final test tube was place in a bath at room temperature (27º Celsius). 2mL of the substrate 3% hydrogen peroxide was added to each of the three test tubes one at a time (under their different temperature conditions). The rate of reaction was timed using a stop watch. All data were recorded.
In station two, 3mL of the catalase solute was placed into three dry test tubes. 2mL of acetic acid, pH 3, was added into the first test tube. 2mL of diluted sodium hydroxide, pH 11, was added into the second test tube. 2mL of distilled water, pH 7, was added into the third test tube. All three test tubes were swirled gently in order for the substances to mix. 2mL of the substrate 3% hydrogen peroxide was added to each of the three test tubes one at a time (under their different pH conditions). The rate of reaction was times using a stop watch. All data were recorded.
In station three, 3mL of the 90% concentrated catalase solution was added to the first test tube. 3mL of the <1% dilute catalase solution was added to the second test tube. 3mL of the 30% standard catalase solution was added to the third test tube. 2mL of the substrate, 3% hydrogen peroxide, was added to each of the three test tubes one at a time (under their different concentration conditions). The rate of reaction was timed using a stop watch. All data were recorded.
All the data obtained was then displayed in raw data table form.
If animals and machines have the capacity to think, should they be regarded as persons?
In the articles that were given, everyone has their own standard of measuring personhood; very little trends can be found between these standards. This standard of personhood is not constant and evolves with other factors that influence society such as time, religion, and geography. Animals and machines can be considered as persons if they were accepted as people by the majority of the human population in the community. In this question the condition given is the capacity to think critically, therefore, if the majority of the human population has this condition as one of their criteria of personhood, then the animal/machine is accepted by this chosen human community, and is indeed a person. However, the capacity to think is often not a criteria of personhood to most human, and therefore, animals and machines who have the capacity to think, should not be regarded as persons.
First of all, every defination is of our own creation. We try our best to name and label every single thing that crosses our path, hoping that by doing this, our lives would be more organized and understandable. Since personhood is not a definite term (unlike “human”, which could be defined biologically), it can then be interpreted differently by different individuals.
Common standards include very humanlike appearance and behaviour (Keihanna), community bonding (Brean), and just gut feeling (Shreeve). Historic examples of this senerios include the “Person Case”, when the Parliament struggled to decide whether or not should women be considered as “persons” in the constitution. During that time, women were not considered as persons because the majority (power wise) of the population, men, did not think that women, having no Y chromosome, have met the criteria. Fundamentally, it does not come to a list of specific values when we evaluate an animal/machine’s personhood. These common standards change and evolve as time go by, as Dr. Foerst states that Christian scholars spent four hundred years on the question of whether Jesus, who was both man and god, urinated (Brean). Things nowadays would be considered as normal may seem ridiculous to future generations, therefore, the standard of personhood can not be definite.
Dr. Foerst believes that in the future, robots “whose roles in our community will make them persons, and whose bodies built by us in our own image, will give them souls.”(Brean).
To Dr. Mori and many robotic scientists in Japan, the standard is humanlike appearances. In Japan humanoid’s main role in the future is to interact with people, and therefore, have to be visually acceptable. Robotic scientists in Japan are very eager to make their androids more humanlike physically; they believe that if robots could carry on similar appearances and movements as human, then perhaps it will be easier for them to be accepted by the human community (Keihanna). Therefore, although the capacity to think is also vital, it is not nearly important as a robot’s physical appearance and interaction which would play a more essential role in acceptance in personhood.
In the story about Oliver, Oliver is not accepted as a person by society. Oliver was treated differently that other chimpanzees because of his ability to express human-like emotions, which can lead us to believe that he has the capacity to think. However, being treated differently than other chimpanzees is not equivalent to being treated as a person. To Janet and Frank, Oliver’s original caregiver, Oliver was different; Oliver was close to human, but Oliver was not a person. Even though she says that Oliver was treated like their son, reality proves that this was not the case because were he their real son, they would never put him on a leash or sell him for eight thousand dollars.
In conclusion, animals and machines can be considered as persons if only the majority of the human population in the community accepts them as people. However, reality proves that to most human, the ability to think critically is often not a standard for personhood; therefore, animals and machines with only the capacity to think should not be regarded as persons.
the fire within ice Community Member 
|
|
