Seriously thoughtful What is it that makes us human?

[wodin]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

The anthropologist will say that human beings are animals. Our closest kin in the non-human animal category are other primates, especially the chimpanzee or more specifically the bonobos.

And some theologians assert that humans are the only species who possess souls. Are anthropologists right? Theologians? Both? Neither?

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Not true.

It is not. For examples (some) dolphins might learn to trigger impulses on computers by targeting them with their "echolocation rays". If they hit some lights change - its a game, nothing more. I dont have the source with me (read it in a (printed) paper belonging to my sister..), but it actually hasnt been some kind of experiment or training. IIRC the "device" had a completely different intended usage and the "color change" was part of a testing setup (or something similar) that the scientists simply forgot to remove. The scientists observed this behaviour in several dolphins by accident - dolphins playing games with some random pieces of technology, without getting any reward (apart from the pleasure of seeing those lights change) or training.

I did not say that "normal animals" and humans have the same cognitive features (though it is hard to say where exactly the cognitive features of animals end - they are far more intelligent then most people think). I simply stated that learning or social behaviour is not something "human only" - no, not even "unneeded learning".
Um....okay, great points there, and I agree. But.......does that put them on the same plane as us?

Try playing with some animals. I"m not a big animal person........except for cats. I think they rule. They are smart enough to get people to take care of them while doing nothing they're told.


I did not want to imply that he was.
There are worse people then Dr. Mengele & Co. Agreed and agreed.

I apologize for my misunderstanding. none necessary.

Then we are - at least partially - on an agreement here

Hmm, seems like the German version is a different one (still annoying).
Never said I would want my daughter (lets pick niece, I have one) to grow up like this - all I wanted to say (and you already explained above) is that "censorship w/o reasoning is a bad thing" - because its not about "censoring BurgerKing" but about "teaching what's right"
But I think we are on an agreement here - if not in the means, then in the goal.

I still would say thats what's means being a "good human" (however you would state this) not necessarily a "human". I do not like definitions of "human" based on behaviour - it is much to easy to misuse those..


Never would

Okay, lets take "behavior" out of the equation.

What does make us human?

I say its the spirit and ability to create music and art, and pyramids and the numerous awe inspiring architecture we see still today.

Its a willingness to sacrifice oneself for a complete stranger, the unquenchable thirst for knowledge, and then the need to act on that knowledge.

Its not a tangible thing. Its our souls, if you will.

What say you?

[UtterInanity]

I've seen quite a few responses here that define humanity based on some sort of intangible feature - a soul, a spirit, religion, whatever. I'd like to offer an alternative viewpoint.

Let's start by looking at the simplest creatures. They have a simple brain (let's assume they have some sort of central processing unit) and they have an equally simple stimulus -> response system to react to their environment. In other words, something happens (it touches something pointy), and it reacts (moves away). Add a little bit of ingrained programming, a little bit of memory, and we have an amoeba.

The next level - insects and such. Now we have to factor in a couple more senses. The brains now have to handle several inputs, from eyes for example. Now the processing becomes more complicated, but it's still a stimulus -> response environment. The insect receives inputs from its senses, processes them, and sends out signals based on a combination of instinct and past experiences.

Next level - cats, dogs, horses, etc. Now we have the whole slew of senses available as inputs. This gives a wide range of possible responses, including some that appear to us as intelligence. Have they moved beyond a stimulus -> response model? I don't think so. They certainly have more cognitive power than insects. They can recognize patterns, and apply their past experiences to similar situations in the future. They also have a wide array of instincts to draw on. Are they human? Not even close.

Next and final level - humans. What makes us so special? Well, we've managed to develop to the point that we not only use the inputs from our bodies to determine the outputs of our brains, but we allow the outputs to be fed back in as inputs again. This is what forms the basis of a consciousness - the ability to analyze our own reactions to situations. (And analyze the analysis, and so on... the basis of obsessions). Only a human could ask themselves why they do what they do. Only a human could take in a situation, come up with a reaction, and then analyze that reaction before acting on it. Everything else can only analyze (if they analyze at all) the incoming stimulus that results from their reaction, whether good or bad.

Of course, this is all just speculation. I just thought this discussion could use a little bit more from a purely mechanical viewpoint.

[montsnmags]

For what it's worth, those sufficiently interested in this topic to note further reading materials might like to look at Raimond Gaita's The Philosopher's Dog, a review of which is here (<---linky). (due to the movie, some people may know Raimond Gaita better for his memoir, Romulus, My Father).

Cheers,
Marc

[Sparrow]

Another useful book is Mary Midgley's 'Beast and Man'.
Reviewed here.
Snippeted version on GoogleBooks.

(And Peter Singer's 'Animal Liberation' of course. )

[GeoffC]

With a lot of help, humans (a select few) are the only earth species to have left the planet ....

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

With a lot of help, humans (a select few) are the only earth species to have left the planet ....

Not so, humans weren't even the first species to leave the planet - chimps and dogs beat them to it.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Not so, humans weren't even the first species to leave the planet - chimps and dogs beat them to it.

aw ! shucks forgot that !


- they had help though ....

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

I say its the spirit and ability to create music and art, and pyramids and the numerous awe inspiring architecture we see still today.

I'd say this is what makes us a civilization building set of organisms - not every human is able to create music or art and the pyramids are a formidable example of a very evil act.
I understand what you mean - still it would leave a whole set of persons out of the equation.

Its a willingness to sacrifice oneself for a complete stranger, the unquenchable thirst for knowledge, and then the need to act on that knowledge.

See above
I believe you are still defining an "ideal human" or some kind of "aspire to be goal" and not the average human.

[tirsales]

Again I'd very much to like to get answered why it is so important to be "above animals".

Originally Posted by UtterInanity

Have they moved beyond a stimulus -> response model? I don't think so.

But surely they have. See my discussion with desertgrandma - a simple "stimulus -> response model" cannot even begin to explain playing animals (or bee dances for that matter, though bee dances are relatively easy).

They certainly have more cognitive power than insects. They can recognize patterns, and apply their past experiences to similar situations in the future. They also have a wide array of instincts to draw on. Are they human? Not even close.

Why?

but we allow the outputs to be fed back in as inputs again.

You do know that some animals are actively communicating? That some animals e.g. learn to imitate others?

Only a human could ask themselves why they do what they do.

There is no proof that animals cannot do the same. In fact there is proof that some animals can do basic abstractions (e.g. taking into account what other animals could know, recognizing oneself in a mirror, etc)

Only a human could take in a situation, come up with a reaction, and then analyze that reaction before acting on it. Everything else can only analyze (if they analyze at all) the incoming stimulus that results from their reaction, whether good or bad.

Then explain a crow that watches a crow watching her and as a response hides something useless (for the watcher to get) and then hides something special (for the watcher to ignore).

[tompe]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Then explain a crow that watches a crow watching her and as a response hides something useless (for the watcher to get) and then hides something special (for the watcher to ignore).

Why do you think it is hard to explain this using a model that does not require the ability to reason about time (reason about future outcome)?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by wodin

And some theologians assert that humans are the only species who possess souls. Are anthropologists right? Theologians? Both? Neither?

The highest probability is that the one with correct reasoning and the best evidence is correct. Just because somebody express an opinion does not mean that it is an opinion worth listening to.

From my point of view asserting the existing of a soul is most often example of bad philosophy so theologians should not be trusted in this question.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why do you think it is hard to explain this using a model that does not require the ability to reason about time (reason about future outcome)?

How would it possible to do this without prior analysis of the situation?
Crow A: Has some food and wants to hide it
Crow B: watching A

IF A sees B watching her - she will either hide the food, then chase B away, then rehide the food. Or she will hide something else (speculating that B tries to get to this deposit) and then (when B is away) hide the food.

If A does not see B watching her - she will hide the food directly.

This is interpreted as A speculating about the knowledge of B - and the impact her action has on B prior to doing so.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by tirsales

Again I'd very much to like to get answered why it is so important to be "above animals".

We've always liked to believe 'our' group (e.g. family, tribe, race, species) is superior to others - but history has generally taught us that we're wrong.
It probably boils down to empathising with that which is genetically similar to us - so we are more likely to make sacrifices for our family than for a stranger, for other humans than for other mammals etc.
It's an evolutionary instinct that has aided the survival of our genes.
(Ironically, our belief that we are superior to other animals, could just be further confirmation of our innate animal nature. )

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

(Ironically, our belief that we are superior to other animals, could just be further confirmation of our innate animal nature. )

Maybe, but other species doesn't care much about being "superior" to other. At least we have no proof of that. As i said some posts earlier i basically think that it's just our narcism. But the wish to be superior could be also some kind of "instinct" maybe, the urge to keep on evolving...