Just a trite question
What defines someone or something as "human"?
Is it someone who contains/practices humanity?
How is humanity defined?
What about those who have the human anatomy but lack compassion for other humans?
Maybe an easier question to answer would be what does someone have to lack in order to not be human?
What do you guys think? I'm interested to know because more often than not many people have different opinions.
Man is the cruelest animal.
I was going to say "Thumbs!" but Camille would most likely come in here and talk about monkeys, apes, evolution etc... I didn't pay enough attention in biology.
But probably trite questions. I mean the desire to ask trite questions and stress about your uniqueness... kindness isn't special and neither is cruelty but I don't think any other animals bother with philosophy.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Ah, the only species to be pushed to extinction by its own nerdiness. The jockasaurouses didn't fuck around.
But probably trite questions. I mean the desire to ask trite questions and stress about your uniqueness... kindness isn't special and neither is cruelty but I don't think any other animals bother with philosophy.
the fact that you would point me out to do this makes me really happy. super flattered. and I was totally gonna do something like that.
from a purely biological standpoint, a human is a homo sapien, the only living species in the genus homo.
were homo habilis, homo neanderthalensis, homo florensis, etc. humans? that's debatable. we can only speculate because we never saw these pure species alive. I personally would say yes because some people alive today have the genetic material of neanderthals, and they are human. I would hope that if these other "humans" had not gone extinct we would have all been seen as humans.
we don't consider the genus pan (chimps and bonobos) humans, yet they're our closest living ancestors.
ANYWAY I feel as if you are maybe looking for a more introspective answer but whatever
“if you want to be a bird,” you said once, “with colorful plumage and buoyant trills, you must also be ready for hollow bones."
But probably trite questions. I mean the desire to ask trite questions and stress about your uniqueness... kindness isn't special and neither is cruelty but I don't think any other animals bother with philosophy.
Exactly. Humans are the only animal to be concerned with what other think of them, and as you said desire to ask trite questions and stress about uniqueness.
and hey, thumbs are cool.
Man is the cruelest animal.
How do we know for sure humans are the only species concerned with what others think of them? That is a quite an assumption.
Humans are the only creatures with whom we really can get an empathetic idea of the way they think, and we struggle with this even in many areas, so how can we assume to know the thoughts of other species when there is such a low grasp of understanding on just the one who's heads we are actually inside of?
I would disagree that other species do not care what others in their species think of them based solely on all the silly mating rituals they go through.
Humans = Beings that walk on two legs and therefore have a tiny pelvis and so give birth to babies that are totally dependant on them for a long long time. Compared to animals that give birth to babies who can pretty much walk and function within hours.
Oh, yeah. And empathy. That's the other thing.
Cats care what others think of them. Dogs too. Ever had to put a cone on one? It gets so embarrassed.
I don't think animals get embarrassed. I can't prove anything but I don't believe that animals give two fucks about what other animals think of them.
Except for fish. Don't ask questions.
Man is the cruelest animal.
I think cats get embarassed.
I've always figured humans to be the only ones to be able to discern their past, present and future and also be able design the path they take through those.
This whole thread is full of errors all of the sudden.
fsdghcamel: C'mon, I don't mean to nitpick, but no, chimps/bonobos are not our ancestors. They're our cousins descended from a common ancestor.
rosiemoonjumper: The K-species theory doesn't only apply to humans.
Hilla-rat: Are you kiddin'? You think human beings are the only species capable of embarrassment? It's the emotion most closely associated with keeping social order in even somewhat socially complex species that are run through social evolution. The common neurology involved can be found in many species, including dogs (as big S said).
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Also, humans are the only ones that have souls.
fsdghcamel: C'mon, I don't mean to nitpick, but no, chimps/bonobos are not our ancestors. They're our cousins descended from a common ancestor.
rosiemoonjumper: The K-species theory doesn't only apply to humans.
Hilla-rat: Are you kiddin'? You think human beings are the only species capable of embarrassment? It's the emotion most closely associated with keeping social order in even somewhat socially complex species that are run through social evolution. The common neurology involved can be found in many species, including dogs (as big S said).
holy shit I didn't mean to say ancestors, I meant to say cousins. I remember thinking the word cousins and not noticing what I wrote. I am on a lot of prescription medication currently that does not allow me to use heavy machinery. believe me, I know that they aren't our ancestors.
(other than that, I don't think I had any errors.)
and yeah, hilla-rat, I don't think 'caring about what others think' is an exclusively human property.
neither is empathy, altruism, or dynamic social order.
“if you want to be a bird,” you said once, “with colorful plumage and buoyant trills, you must also be ready for hollow bones."
Haha, I knew you knew. I was just being an ass.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
We're the only ones who drive cars, the only ones who wear clothes, the only ones who wear glasses, the only ones who use escalators, the only ones who use the internet, the only ones who use money, the only ones who get married, the only ones who mix concrete, the only ones who weld steel, the only ones who fly planes, the only ones who make tv shows, the only ones who make movies, what else? There's a lot. We're different.
With regards to the marriage one, if we talk about it beyond the idea of a religious sacrement, I would argue that the courtship process and choosing of a life long mate is actually not specific to humans, as we see that sort of behavior with other animals who have only one mate for life.
Granted, that also calls into question the difference between what is supposed to ideally happen and what actually happens, considering even after marriage, many humans break it off and go elsewhere. Maybe we're the only ones to claim a life long mate and then decide later that we were just kidding?
I don't know, just a thought.
All I thought was, Yeah, keyboards really should be listed as "heavy" machinery at all times.
rosiemoonjumper: The K-species theory doesn't only apply to humans.
Hehe, true.
I just have a bit of a one track mind at the moment.
I get 100% of my science in list form from Cracked. So...
Six things animals do like us.
Six ways wild animals are adapting to us.
Six ways animals use medicine.
Six animals with better memories than you.
Seven vehicles BUILD AND DRIVEN by animals.
And seven animals that are one flaw away from taking over the world because holy shit.
They might not be totally relevant but I wanted to SHARE.
This is exactly what I was trying to say. It's just us and the cartoon dinosaurs. Until someone takes a picture of a sufficiently thoughtful looking cat, anyway.
What sets us apart from animals is that we value knowledge/technology and we think that it makes us superior or that it actually sets us apart from what we really are. (Just another species/animal that inhabits this rock of an earth)
(Sorry for using 'we' to label human beings, I got lazy)
Lungworms didn't create 300 horsepower luxury cars with GPS and fucking seat warmers and mirrors that tilt down so when you're backing up so you can see the curb. They didn't create fucking flea powder. They didn't manufacture complex compositions and harmonies. They didn't perfect dream analyses or basic psychology. They don't use fucking textbooks. We're different and special. Look around. You're not using basic rationale if you're denying it.
I refuse to ride the short bus!
Okay, I'm just gonna say it. I don't know what your point is, big S. I mean, what do you mean by "different and special," exactly? We invented stuff by standing on previous generations' shoulders cuz of our super awesome brains' ability to transmit complex information (as well as the blind absorption of that information). The mechanisms involved are just products of the same system every other species sprung out of.
In addition to that (not directed at big S):
I can't believe some people say they have no idea how it could be that human beings have such an amazing learning ability, much more than evolution could explain. Really? Evolution can't explain it? Let's see what your big brain can do if I decide to just drop you and your stupid friends in the middle of a forest. Let's see if you think having a lesser brain would be just as effective for survival.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
I just wonder why, if the world is really so old, that we're the only species to accomplish that kind of stuff? It kind of says something.
What do you think it says?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Being human is fucking awesome?
Agreed. But have you ever tried being an eagle? That shit's amazing.
Also, evolution takes a long time, big S. Proper conditions have to be met for things like our brains to come up in the matrix of reality. It's not really that surprising it took so long. It's also not surprising we're the only ones to achieve it. Anatomically modern human beings have only existed for ~200,000 years, ~90% of which was spent as foragers. Not a lot of time for any other species to really develop in the same way (unless you count those we were in direct competition with, like Neanderthals). There's nothing special about it, unless you decide to deem it as special for whatever reason... which I don't, really. But it is nice.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
yes, we are different than other animals, but I don't like this idea that we are something different than an 'animal'. we are, by biological definition, animals. let's not forget that we are not the pinnacle culmination of 3.6 billion years of organism evolution.
“if you want to be a bird,” you said once, “with colorful plumage and buoyant trills, you must also be ready for hollow bones."
We might be if it turns out that these evolutionary advantages we've developed turn out to be what destroys the world... which would be interesting. There has to be a term for that kind of adaptation.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
because this shit doesn't happen overnight. it has taken billions of years for us to get where we are now. I don't really understand your question?
“if you want to be a bird,” you said once, “with colorful plumage and buoyant trills, you must also be ready for hollow bones."
Not true. Every living being has a soul.
Man is the cruelest animal.
Not true. Every living being has a soul.
No they don't.
Not true. Every living being has a soul.
not true. souls aren't real.
“if you want to be a bird,” you said once, “with colorful plumage and buoyant trills, you must also be ready for hollow bones."
Are you really that cold and dead that you think souls don't exist? You really can't see anything outside of your own understanding, huh? If your boring scientific brain can't explain it away then it doesn't exist? Fuck off with your hateful atheist bullshit.
You have to be cold and dead to not believe in souls? It's hateful to not believe in souls? I think it's more hateful to say "fuck off" when someone says they don't believe in souls. As for the "outside your own understanding" nonsense, I dare anyone who believes in souls to explain what a soul is, and provide reasons for why their explanation is more valid than any other's. The fact is you can't. So why bother? Until we can, there's no point in believing in any of it. That's atheism. No proof? Why believe?
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Uh oh... is this conversation happening? I remember a long rant-ful debate we had about qualia once, but it never got to the point of religious beliefs.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Lib is kinda ruling this thread right now.
Not true. Every living being has a soul.
not true. souls aren't real.
Buzzkill.
yes, sam, I am clearly that cold and dead because I don't believe in things I have no reason to believe in. that's what not believing in invisible sky-daddy has done to me.
I also enjoy crushing butterflies in my bare hands and giving fruit to kids for halloween.
“if you want to be a bird,” you said once, “with colorful plumage and buoyant trills, you must also be ready for hollow bones."
Fruit on Halloween? My god, is nothing sacred to you-
Oh. Right.
I believe in souls. I have no proof, but I do believe everyone has one.
Whatever Whore!
okay, I'm going to elaborate on this because it needs to be said. I'm not trying to overkill this topic, but I feel as if it deserves a legitimate response.
yes, I am an atheist, and I realize that most of you guys don't care or aren't bothered by it and so it's not something I try to blow out of proportion or anything. but here we go:
- how is my statement of "not true. souls aren't real" any more of an assertion statement than "not true. every living being has a soul"? furthermore, how exactly does not ascribing to something that has overwhelming proof to the contrary make one "cold and dead"? our souls are all physical in nature.
speaking of overwhelming proof, research has shown that our brains comprise and produce our true selves. we know from cases of brain damage and the effects of psychoactive drugs, that our experiences are caused by physical chemistry acting on our physical neurones in our brains. our innermost self is our biochemical self. are you familiar with the Phineas Gage case? it is a classic case on why the idea of a soul is silly.
- how does the disbelief in a soul make one hateful? please explain, because I really am not following. you know what's hateful? the idea that someone's lack of religious beliefs reduces their ability to be loving.
- you really misunderstand skeptics if you think that we "can't see anything" out of our own understanding. there are literally tons of things I don't understand, and I am okay with that. what's not okay is filling in things I don't know with shit I have no reason to believe is true.
- do I need to even elaborate on why this notion of a scientific brain being "boring" is so fucking absurd it makes my head hurt? there is a video that can explain things MUCH BETTER than I can, but let me take a small excerpt from it that is particularly profound:
I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s sometimes taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, “Look how beautiful it is,” and I’ll agree, I think. And he says “you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing.” And I think that he’s kind of nutty.
First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is; but I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time I see much more about the flower than he sees. I can imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty.
I mean it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter, there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure. Also the processes, the fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting it means that insects can see the color. It adds a question: Does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which shows that a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower.
It only adds; I don’t understand how it subtracts.
I mean, really. have a little goddamned perspective.
“if you want to be a bird,” you said once, “with colorful plumage and buoyant trills, you must also be ready for hollow bones."
I get the beginning of your statement. The thing is science can't prove everything and hasn't. There are theories that scientist's believe to be true but have yet to prove...doesn't mean they don't believe that those theories aren't possible.
There are things beyond our little brains of ever understanding and just because we can't prove it does not mean that those things do not exist.
There are dimensions that are yet to be discovered, life in other galaxies, shit that we will never come to learn or want to admit are probable just because we can't prove it.
Think of a world before scientists...there were theories that philosophers believed to be true but had no way to prove them. So basically you're saying that those people shouldn't have believed in those things because they couldn't prove them?
I can't see the sun right now, I can't prove that it exists, is there no sun?
You see, one thing, is I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I’m not absolutely sure of anything.
But I don’t have to know an answer, I don’t have to...I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn’t frighten me.
“if you want to be a bird,” you said once, “with colorful plumage and buoyant trills, you must also be ready for hollow bones."
- you really misunderstand skeptics if you think that we "can't see anything" out of our own understanding. there are literally tons of things I don't understand, and I am okay with that. what's not okay is filling in things I don't know with shit I have no reason to believe is true.
YOur whole post was beautiful Cammie, but this in particular... Just. Thank You for saying this.
I wish so deeply that I could get this point to make sense to people.
As far as the soul debate goes, I won't take sides because I am happy with my agnosticism, I feel there is insufficient proof for both sides of the argument to claim to know the truth of the matter.
And can I just say, seriously. Just because a person has not interest in science or does not understand it does not mean there is not any beauty or that it makes things dull. Sometimes I think of before I realised how much scientific method and explanation could show me and I am blown away by how completely dull my former world was.
Before I would sit on my porch and see swirling fog in the dawn hour and think "oh, how absolutely lovely." Then one day, after reading about chaos and thermodynamics and atomic behavior I sat there and the mist in the air in the rising glow of light and I was gripped with overwhelming passion so desperate it could break my heart, joy beyond any measure I ever conceived of existing before.
As far as the soul debate goes, I won't take sides because I am happy with my agnosticism, I feel there is insufficient proof for both sides of the argument to claim to know the truth of the matter.
This is how I feel. I feel like people are so caught up in arguing and "proving" whatever side wrong instead of just enjoying what is.
I liked that video and that post.
For the record I am not taking sides. We should respect each others beliefs, not criticize them for what they believe in. Why do some people have to be so judgmental? I want people to except me for who I am and I try to the same. I'm so tired of people on their high horses. I will stop there because otherwise I will go on for days.
Whatever Whore!
According to Wikipedia, these are the quintessential human beings:
Si vis pacem, para bellum