Define "human"

[Grayman]

Yeah, but it's not our fault that abstract thinking is defined in such a way. To say that animals are not capable of abstract thinking in it's broad sense simply makes no sense whatsoever.

Looking at the Wiki article about meta-cognition one can safely say that animals are capable of some but not all forms of meta-cognition.

Can an animal take their own life?

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah some bears in captivity have done it afaik.

 

[Teax]

why do you assume this makes it more fuzzy? by the same reasoning, anything that goes beyond just mentioning the word "sentience" becomes fuzzy.

no.. like I said, because your approach was not to define us by our abilities(thoughts) but by what we actually do(actions). so as we become smart enough to stop destroying the world we stop being human, which is a clue, for me, that the definition was a bit off (wait.. it actually sounded deliciously cynically right haha)

but point well taken, maybe it's the only way to actually be sure of anything ever at all.

Can an animal take their own life?

I heared captured dolphins do it too

 

[Opium]

...the possibility of another kind of consciousness.

Is there enough difference present between things to insularly define 'human"?

(I don't really know what, if anything, I'm asking here. More later.)

-Opium

 

[Brontosaurie]

Yeah, but it's not our fault that abstract thinking is defined in such a way. To say that animals are not capable of abstract thinking in it's broad sense simply makes no sense whatsoever.

what's being argued here?

no.. like I said, because your approach was not to define us by our abilities(thoughts) but by what we actually do(actions). so as we become smart enough to stop destroying the world we stop being human, which is a clue, for me, that the definition was a bit off (wait.. it actually sounded deliciously cynically right haha)

but point well taken, maybe it's the only way to actually be sure of anything ever at all

i'm interested to see how you would base it on thoughts/abilities. what is an ability never exercised? the thought is in one person, but the whole of sentience/humanity/(can we call it Thing X from now on?) is a collective endeavour. and thoughts are tools for action, perhaps social action in particular. thus i'd rather focus on our abilities (or potential) as a species than slip into an infinite regress of subjectivity by expecting to find the answer in contemplation of the thought as such. maybe. not sure.

controlling it doesn't mean destroying it, right? so if we stop destroying, we haven't necessarily stopped being human.

 

[Teax]

what is an ability never exercised?

exactly the problem you made me realize with my approach heh. still I have the gut feeling that it is better to define a vulcano by what's inside rather then the lava flow outside... even if it's not immediatelly obvious to us that way, that some things are volcanoes, it seems the "truth" just hidden from the eye.

controlling it doesn't mean destroying it, right? so if we stop destroying, we haven't necessarily stopped being human.

beevers control their environment aswell.

and thoughts are tools for action, perhaps social action in particular.

thought = tool, I agree completely. but why social action?

thus i'd rather focus on our abilities (or potential) as a species

I see, sounds like your example of progress is civilisation, mine is individualism.

• You believe humans are just cells each having FactorX contributing to this huge living creature called "society" that has more capability then the FactorX in one human.
• I believe FactorX is all there is... humans are like magnets with it's own magnetic field, and when we put several magnets together that point in the same direction we merely get a larger magnet, nothing more. (metaphors are fun)

 

[sushi]

23 pair chromosomes

 

[Violine]

On these kind of questions, you need to watch over the biology.

First, a human have 46 chromosomes. Not sure how many neanderthal's and so on did have.

No other animal can question about its existence, but I'm not 100% sure all human would do that either if not a smarter human in the beginning asked those questions.

 

[7even]

"Able to use tools"

"Ability to think, to reason"

All basically hinting at intelligence and self-consciousness (a sophistication of consciousness), that which differentiates us from animals (who have emotions and a lesser degree of consciousness).

Do you see large differences between apes and primitive people living in jungles?
Now compare to the great philosophers, artists, architects, and writers of the past.
Compare their environments, also... The differences in social, political, and economic organisation.

Robots, in foresight, will surpass human intelligence. Yet no flesh, blood, and bone. Different limitations, different creatures.