What is 'human'?

Post Reply New Topic

I've posed this kind of question in a couple of threads but received no response.

Most of us agree that that which auties and NTs have in common is 'being human', yet no1 ever suggests what that might entail. Is it a foundational or core self that we all share?

I realise this is a scary 1 & that some may assume on reflection that we share no common humanity (or anything else) with NTs. I disagree with that conculsion, but would be fascinated to see what others come up with before adding my own ideas.

OK then, I'll start the ball rolling:

-A high-capacity conscious awareness
-The ability to feel basic emotions
-Likes and dislikes based on responses to/from the environment
-A human body (though that's pretty incidental for me_)

opposable thumbs!

:p

"Human" is whatever the humans in power want it to be, however, I do not think such a term is usually given analytical meaning outside of biology, and I do not think the biological meaning is meaningful enough to non-biologists.

A human being is a member of the species/subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens.

Best definition evah.

Ergo abortion is WRONG!!

I don't think that the question is referring to an answer that obvious.

I never mentioned abortion, and nothing about abortion logically follows from what I said.

To me, the simple definition I gave is also the only definition I consider valid. I consider musing about this question and coming up with lofty-sounding but inevitably wrong answers is a form of pretentious intellectual masturbation. You'll always find exceptions from mutations and the like.

Wow, these are horribly bad criteria for what constitutes human. You'd dehumanize the profoundly mentally ret*d, those in a comatose state, and arguably those with horrifically mangled or deformed bodies. Additionally, you'd be including most sentient organisms by your third criterion.

i'm an android, but i'm not a robot.

And the problem with this is...?

No humans/no humanity, fine. But then:



It's given meanings outside Biology alright - They may not be an analytically consistent tho_



Indeed - The biological meaning quoted by NeantHumain is a tautology. In any case, was it Dawkins who said 'there area no species; only currents in genes'?

Last edited by undefineable on 21 Jan 2009, 7:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

human is the only creature we (humans) know of who has the ability to define their own existence..

we are also allot of other things, this is a nice video about us:)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24[/youtube]

Well, that's because you aren't addressing the fundamental question. If you knew what was truly being asked, then yes, a denial of abortion would logically follow. That is the reason I went over the top with a smiley.

This isn't a matter of intellectual masturbation, this is a matter of seeing the real question. You took the question too literally while I looked for context and saw a different question taking this context into account.



And this second post by you shows a problem.
1) Dehumanization isn't a problem for biological categories, therefore either your statement of humanity shows that abortion is wrong, or being non-human does not logically have to matter.
2) This is the OP. The OP's answers are not likely to be horribly bad for the question meant, as they are not likely to not address the question they meant. It is possible, but in this case, it does not seem the case.

In any case, the statement, if given proper dignity really only dehumanize the profoundly mentally ret*d. The comatose, have a high capacity for conscious awareness but are not currently using. Those in comas however, might be excluded, and to some extent they already are is likely dependent upon the chances of recovery, and the OP could only be faulted for not being precise enough, but this does not seem terrible. As for "a human body", there is nothing stated about mangled-ness or deformity, as a "human body" can refer to many many different things, such as the simple category of a body based upon human cells, *or* the literal physiological structure, so assuming the latter seems unwarranted.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 21 Jan 2009, 7:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.

It is one of the valid positions I think, and if "dehumanize" is a possibility, then a denial of fundamental humanity seems as if it must be true. After all, NeantHumain criticized your own limited standards, and his own biological standards, are rather meaningless.


Definitely given meanings outside of biology, the issue is analytical value. I mean, there are few that seem analytical and to encapsulate all of the opinions people have held on humanity.


I dunno, but the idea makes some sense. Species are just a categorization based upon current genetic schemes, but even if we became a different species than the current homo sapiens sapiens, we would still regard ourselves as human, I would bet, as the divide would only be recognized by biologists.

Why thank you Is there anything you consider non-masturbatory? Or are you just on a mission to shoot down anything that sounds 'intellectual'?

Seriously though, I'd never even have asked myself the question if NTs didn't look at severely autistic ppl etc. and instantly have the gut reaction 'wow; they don't seem human!'

It's true that maybe the question 'What is human' can't be answered except by arbitrarily excluding any number of disabled ppl. But other questions, such as 'What is sentience' should in theory be answerable.



-I suspect that those who test as MR have the same capacity for conscious awareness as
any1 else, given the typical size and folding of their brains.
-Those in a comatose state may emerge, just as sleepers wake.
-Even the deformed have a largely human genetic blueprint
-Actually, I can imagine a sentient creature not having any particular preferences ,
though this might not make evolutionary sense_

By the way, you can't say some1's been 'dehumanised' if you've denied the validity of 'human' as a description

Ofcourse it's fun posting this kind of topic in the PPR forum