Originally posted by lucifershammer
'Act' and 'potency' refer to states of the being itself, rather than properties or powers - but that's a different question.
I'm not so certain the distinction is as clear as you say. My neurobiology is somewhat rusty but, IIRC, the operation of the human nervous system occurs through "firing" of neurons across synapses (junction points). The "firi ...[text shortened]... arent distinction is not all that clear. Personally, I hold it to be illusory.
Sorry, LH, that I haven't responded for a while. I just haven't had much time for RHP.
Indeed, it's not a stretch of the imagination to think of possible living beings whose exercise of powers involves the creation of new brain cells that die away when not needed. Would such organisms possess the capacities you mention when they are not exercising them?
Yes. Your example supposes that in this state they possess the ability to exercise [], which is the capacity for []. Here, you have structured it such that the generation of cells is part of the process of exercising []; if, on the other hand, it were structured such that the generation of cells were a precondition for having the ability to exercise [], then my answer would be no.
The rest of your post seems to me to be aimed at the general sorites paradox* charge against personhood (basically that such criteria suffer from insoluble vagueness). I am aware of these charges, but I think they largely confuse the following notions: (i) that the criterion itself suffers from vagueness (ii) that our diagnostic capabilities in reference to the criterion suffer from vagueness. The latter may very well hold for certain cases, but that is another matter.
---------------
*I'm basically referring to the 'heap' sort of argument:
1. N grains of sand constitute a heap.
2. When just 1 grain of sand is taken from a heap, you're still left with a heap.
3. So N-1 grains of sand constitute a heap.
4. Repeat general idea.