Thats not what I meant.
2+2=4 by definition. 4 is like morality, it's always been 4.
2+2=5 is saying 5=4 which is incorrect.
Now to say we will make 5=4 for math purposes is fine, but in TRUTH 2+2 =/=5.
Better way to illustrate it: A missile explodes a city. All of humanity denies it ever happened, but it really did happen, is it suddenly a false event based on what humanity said? no,
in the same way, humans do not justify what is human and what is not. We go by what is fact and what is true.
True facts: fetus' become obvious human if you let them grow. No other 'thing' has grown to be human (you have any evidence to refute this?)
What I am asking is for evidence to show any other 'thing' becoming human.
As you have written, 2 + 2 = 4 by
definition.
Nothing exists without being defined.
For example, in certain cultures, there are no distinction between a 'chair' and a 'table'. The collection of matter you call a 'chair' does objectively exist when presented to someone from such a culture, however, it does not exist
as a chair.
Similarly, some things exist to some
as humans, but not to others.
Incidentally, 2+2=4 comes from the following method of mathematical construction (skip everything except the last sentence (conclusion) if you would like):
Spoiler for Hidden:
We begin with an empty set, represented as:
{}
We construct a set that contains the empty set:
{ {} }
We construct a set that contains both the set that contains the empty set, and the empty set itself:
{ {}, { {} } }
We construct a set that contains the previous set, the one before the previous set, and the empty set:
{ {}, { {} }, { {}, { {} } } }
And so on.
Now, we define something called 'cardinality', and put each constructed set into a 1-to-1 corresponding relationship with each 'thing' that is a cardinality:
{} -----------> Thing A
{{}} -----------> Thing B
{{},{{}}} -----------> Thing C
{{},{{}},{{},{{}}}} -----------> Thing D
... and so on.
We choose to give alternative names to these 'things'.
Thing A will be '0'.
Thing B will be '1'.
Thing C will be '2'.
Thing D will be '3'.
... and so on.
The 'Essence of Numbers', or 'Truth', as you put it, is in the relationship between the sets. Their order is determined by their ability to construct each other. Thing B cannot be constructed without first constructing Thing A, therefore Thing A is considered 'smaller'.
Summary: mathematical truth rests entirely on human definition. Systems do not exist without axioms. Entities do not exist without definition.
My three propositions include the possibility of something non-human becoming a human, by P1. It also gets around the problem of 'the tyranny of democracy', with which you seem to be concerned.
For example:
If an AI were to achieve human-level consciousness, and declares itself human, then it is human (by P1).
If a slave declares itself human, then it is human, even if his master disagrees (again, by P1).
If you declare yourself human, but every other human disagrees, you are still human (P1).
However:
A pen cannot declare itself human. A group of humans define it as a non-human. Then to that group of human, the pen is non-human (P2).
An elephant cannot declare itself human. However, a group of humans worship elephants and declare the elephant to be human. Then to that particular group of humans, the elephant is a human (P2).
A fetus cannot declare itself human. If a group of humans declare it human, then it is. If not, then not.
Concerning your question of what can become a fully formed human (e.g. me):
A single cell (any cell - even a skin cell), with today's technology, can grow into a fully formed human. In the foreseeable future, simply protein chains would suffice.
Some believe that A.I.s can achieve humanity.
