Hatrack River Forum: Being Human

This is topic Being Human in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=047761

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :

Rather than derail the Jesus' Tomb thread, I thought I'd spin off a new topic. In the other thread, in discussing believing that something is true without having concrete evidence of it, King of Men wrote

quote:

To believe without evidence is the action of a child, who so badly wants Santa Claus to come that he'll swallow flying reindeer; adults demand reasons to believe. To do otherwise is to stunt yourself, to deliberately become less than human....

The part of this that I find interesting is the idea that forming beliefs based on concrete evidence is such a core element of humanity that doing otherwise renders a person subhuman. It got me wondering how KoM defines "being human", which in turn got me wondering exactly how I define it, and what traits I consider so core to the experience that not possessing them would render a person subhuman in my eyes.

I'm still thinking about the definition, but so far the only traits that I can think of that are absolutely core for me are the possession of a sense of self and the possession of conscience. A lack of the former wouldn't necessarily make a person subhuman in my eyes; it would merely make them Other. A lack of conscience, though definitely makes a person subhuman, from my perspective. I'm curious what other people's thoughts on this are.

[ March 07, 2007, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :

Hmmm...are we considering babies? I don't know how much sense of conscience or sense of self they have.

Disregarding that question, my instictive response it a sense of self and the ability to love. Conscience may spring from that.

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :

I think I view babies as being potential humans rather than realized humans. I mean, they're certainly human biologically, no argument there, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Hm...the idea that conscience might flow from an ability to love is an interesting one. I'll have to think about that.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

I think human beings generally will develop a sense of self and a conscience even if raised by animals.

Can't babies or even folks with brain damage who have lost a sense of self be simply considered "Human beings that lack X?"

I don't think you lose your humanity when you do not have either of these things, you simply lack something most human beings have. I do not believe humans can beget anything living that is not also a human being.

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:
Rather than derail the Jesus' Tomb thread, I thought I'd spin off a new topic. In the other thread, in discussing believing that something is true without having concrete evidence of it, King of Men wrote

quote:

To believe without evidence is the action of a child, who so badly wants Santa Claus to come that he'll swallow flying reindeer; adults demand reasons to believe. To do otherwise is to stunt yourself, to deliberately become less than human....
The part of this that I find interesting is the idea that forming beliefs based on concrete evidence is such a core element of humanity that doing otherwise renders a person subhuman. It got me wondering how KoM defines "being human", which in turn got me wondering exactly how I define it, and what traits I consider so core to the experience that not possessing them would render a person subhuman in my eyes.

I'm still thinking about the definition, but so far the only traits that I can think of that are absolutely core for me are the possession of a sense of self and the possession of conscience. A lack of the former wouldn't necessarily make a person subhuman in my eyes; it would merely make them Other. A lack of conscience, though definitely makes a person subhuman, from my perspective. I'm curious what other people's thoughts on this are.

I'm not sure I understand. What would someone without a sense of self be like?

As to a conscience, I think that what a conscience is and what it should do is problematic. I think most,as in 99% of people, are capable of doing anything to anyone as long as they cast that person in the role of a bad guy.

I personally think that dreaming, the imagination, is the fount of religion, and everyone does it. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I believe all human beings are functionally religious.

And now, here's a dog with bunny ears.

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :

I think the possession of a conscience and the ability to love go to the definition of a *good* human, not necessarily to the definition of human overall.

At the rawest, newborn level humans desire social acceptance. The first interesting thing my son did was smile in response to my smile. For the first few months, when he could do nothing else, he wanted to be held all the time.

The desire for social acceptance matures, but never goes away for the vast majority of people with human DNA. I would say that those who close themselves off or shut themselves in are broken in some way (not necessarily inhuman, but damaged).

Aside from DNA, I can't find anything else that humans really have in common across the board.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

I come at this from an almost opposite angle:

Conscience, sapience, self-awareness, and the like are things that can tell us someone is human but they do not define it. The state of being human is analgous to the undefined concepts of point, line, and plane in Euclidian geometry.

A baby is human. If we have to add a "because" clause to it, a baby is human because a baby is human.

It's very unsatisfying and useless answer to your question, I know.

There are certainly traits that are essentially "human" traits - that is possessed by all or most humans. But they are what makes us human, and the lack does not make us non-human. If we speak to what those traits are, I can probably address this question, but the traits are not definitional nor doe the lack of any them render a being not possessing them subhuman in my eyes.

That is not to say that those traits are useless if we come across a strange life form and need to judge whether they are "people" are not.

Ultimately, of course, my definition of human is based on the presence of a soul - the divine and the animal in one being is as close to a definition as I can really come up with.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
To believe without evidence is the action of a child, who so badly wants Santa Claus to come that he'll swallow flying reindeer; adults demand reasons to believe. To do otherwise is to stunt yourself, to deliberately become less than human....

This quote is perhaps the most interestingly errant statement I've heard in a long time. I don't even mean that in a derogatory fashion; it's legitimately interesting, and it's a quixotic branch of reasoning which belies the positional zeal of the person who made it.

Who else would be willing to deny this: that the mystical approach to the unknown, and the spiritual hope of eternal life used to comfort the dark dread of inevitable mortality, are perhaps undeniably a fundamental and profound facet of humanity itself? It's not less than human, it's profoundly human.

That is all.

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :

quote:
I'm not sure I understand. What would someone without a sense of self be like?

Actually, I had a couple of different things in mind when I mentioned that. One is the idea of non-sentient intelligence (more on that later--I need to dig up some links, but I want to post this before the discussion turns to some things that I think it is likely to turn to), and the other is the idea of people who, through meditation or brain injury, have deactivated the part of the brain that seems to be responsible for perceiving themselves as seperate from everything else. Again, links to come.

Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :

quote:
I'm still thinking about the definition, but so far the only traits that I can think of that are absolutely core for me are the possession of a sense of self and the possession of conscience. A lack of the former wouldn't necessarily make a person subhuman in my eyes; it would merely make them Other.

Noemon,

I'm trying to wrap my head around the notion that "Other" doesn't equate with "subhuman" in the way most people organize the world in their heads.

I don't think there's a lot of support for the idea that most of us have the world sorted out into neat and tidy categories. I suspect that no matter what your intentions are, "Other," "other than human" and "subhuman" are all a lot closer to each other conceptually than "human" and "Other."

Disclaimer: I'm drawing on 20-year-old memories from Cognitive Psychology readings and also similar discussions over the past twenty years that narrowed the definition of "human."

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :

Thanks, Noemon. I'm not clear that there isn't a 'sense of self' in every living thing to some degree in terms of keeping the organism alive. So, I'm curious how you define it.

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :

quote:
At the rawest, newborn level humans desire social acceptance.

Christine, I agree that this is true of humans, but I don't think that it's a uinquely human trait. That drive for social acceptance is, I'd guess, common to all animals that form social hierarchies.

Dag, initially I thought that you were defining humanity biologically, but if I'm reading you right, you're not. Am I right in thinking that a legitimate rephrasing of your "a baby is human because a baby is human" would be "a baby is human because it has [or is] a soul", and that you would consider it theoretically possible for non-homo sapiens to be human?

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Noemon:

quote:
At the rawest, newborn level humans desire social acceptance.
Christine, I agree that this is true of humans, but I don't think that it's a uinquely human trait. That drive for social acceptance is, I'd guess, common to all animals that form social hierarchies.

I wasn't aware that we were looking for uniquely human traits. If you're looking for a clear definition that encapsulates all humans and does not apply in any way to any lower life form then I'd wager you'll never find it. [Smile]

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
Dag, initially I thought that you were defining humanity biologically, but if I'm reading you right, you're not. Am I right in thinking that a legitimate rephrasing of your "a baby is human because a baby is human" would be "a baby is human because it has [or is] a soul", and that you would consider it theoretically possible for non-homo sapiens to be human?

Not quite, due entirely to my poor phrasing. Humanity stems from both the animal and soul portion of the being. (I'm ignoring certain complexities right now for lack of time. Let's say that here in the space-time continuum, humanity stems from both the animal and soul.) When I said "because it has a soul" I left out the body because that's obvious to us. But that doesn't make it unessential. So to rephrase, a human being is the child of two human beings or one created by God as a human being through a special process (Adam and Eve or Christ). Human beings possess body and soul, and the joining of these elements is an essential aspect of the human entity.

Not all things with souls (or that are souls???) are human. In fact, if there are other animals with souls, I wouldn't call them human, not as a value judgment, but merely as a taxnomic preference. We'd need a new word that includes humans and this new species. C.S. Lewis used the word hnau in his space trilogy. We might say "person" (i.e., Chewbacca is a person, but not human.)

Of the moral duties we apply towards humans, most or all would apply to this new species. (I can't think of any that wouldn't, but there are "family" obligations that might be species oriented - I haven't thought it through). Right now, we can collapse "same-species duties" and "person duties" into one package because there are no non-human persons that we know of.

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sndrake:
I'm trying to wrap my head around the notion that "Other" doesn't equate with "subhuman" in the way most people organize the world in their heads.

I'm not necessarily arguing that most people would make the distinction between the two, although I'm also not arguing that they wouldn't.

quote:
I suspect that no matter what your intentions are, "Other," "other than human" and "subhuman" are all a lot closer to each other conceptually than "human" and "Other."

It seems to me that Other could be broken down into three categories: subhuman, ahuman, and metahuman. As concepts I see these as all being more or less equdistant to each other, and to humanity.

Storm, I'll try to come up with some more concrete definitions tonight. I keep getting distracted by work stuff.

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :

quote:
To believe without evidence is the action of a child, who so badly wants Santa Claus to come that he'll swallow flying reindeer; adults demand reasons to believe. To do otherwise is to stunt yourself, to deliberately become less than human....

My initial reaction to this was that I felt just the opposite, that our ability to believe things without a certain amount of reason is what separates humans from things like robots and computers that determine things based on true/false operations. But as I thought about it more I began to think that without some type of metaphysical or supernatural "soul," what differentiates us from animals and computers is merely the flexibility and complexity of our programming and the way we store and access data. In that sense the term "human" is nothing more than a biological term used to reinforce our moral and ethical beliefs, where certain characteristics are merely evidence of that biological difference. Unless there is some metaphysical "human" factor, which, of course, would be pretty hard to actually prove.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
So to rephrase, a human being is the child of two human beings or one created by God as a human being through a special process (Adam and Eve or Christ). Human beings possess body and soul, and the joining of these elements is an essential aspect of the human entity.

(Assuming that humans were initially created by God, don't feel like getting into an evolution debate in this thread)

How would you compare your definition with the standard biological definition of human as Homo sapiens sapiens?
First, has there ever been a biological human that possesses the body of a human but lacks the soul of one? (Baring Christ I suppose)
Second, how would you feel about a cloned human who would not be the child of two human beings, nor created by God?

Edit to add: I mean compare in the pragmatic sense. As in when you go out and use the definition, in what cases are they the same or different.

[ March 06, 2007, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I do not believe humans can beget anything living that is not also a human being.

BlackBlade, I'm going to preface this by specifying that I'm not trying to be a nitpicker, just to ask an honest (and to me, puzzling) question:

What's your take on a hyatidiform mole?

From eMedicine:

quote:
With a partial mole, fetal tissue is often present.
...
In Western countries, 1 of every 1000-1500 pregnancies is affected. Hydatiform mole is an incidental finding in approximately 1 of every 600 therapeutic abortions.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
Assuming that humans were initially created by God, don't feel like getting into an evolution debate in this thread

For the record, I believe in evolution. But I also believe that, at some discrete point in time, God performed a creative act that either created a new organism with a soul that was the first human, or created a soul at the same moment of biological creation of a human body.

quote:
First, has there ever been a biological human that possesses the body of a human but lacks the soul of one?

I don't know, nor do I think that is knowable. Therefore, we must treat living biological humans as if they do possess a soul.

quote:
Second, how would you feel about a cloned human who would not be the child of two human beings, nor created by God?

Not sure. I believe that, for each human being, there is a discrete creative act by God. I have no idea if such a discrete act would happen at some point in the cloning process.

Edit:

quote:
I mean compare in the pragmatic sense. As in when you go out and use the definition, in what cases are they the same or different.

I've basically given no pragmatic answers except that we should treat biological humans as if they have souls, and that this the determination of biological humannes is trivially easy in the vast majority of cases. There are certainly fringe cases that are harder.

/edit

CT, with respect to such moles and this particular discussion, I can only say that the definition contains elements that we cannot confirm. So I can't necessarily look at a particular entity and say "this is a human being."

I do think the vast, vast majority of cases are not close calls and can be idnetified one way or another with great confidence. The discrete creative act I speak of above allows the mechansim for such moles and teratomas to not be human if God simply does not perform that act for them. I will say I doubt very much that such entites have souls, but I'm not going to proclaim it in a definite fashion.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I do not believe humans can beget anything living that is not also a human being.
BlackBlade, I'm going to preface this by specifying that I'm not trying to be a nitpicker, just to ask an honest (and to me, puzzling) question:

What's your take on a hyatidiform mole?

From eMedicine:

quote:
With a partial mole, fetal tissue is often present.
...
In Western countries, 1 of every 1000-1500 pregnancies is affected. Hydatiform mole is an incidental finding in approximately 1 of every 600 therapeutic abortions.

The moles are not alive, therefore my premise still stands.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
My initial reaction to this was that I felt just the opposite, that our ability to believe things without a certain amount of reason is what separates humans from things like robots and computers that determine things based on true/false operations.

I would say that this is exactly backwards: A computer will accept whatever data you give it, without question.

quote:
Who else would be willing to deny this: that the mystical approach to the unknown, and the spiritual hope of eternal life used to comfort the dark dread of inevitable mortality, are perhaps undeniably a fundamental and profound facet of humanity itself? It's not less than human, it's profoundly human.

Very poetic, no doubt, except that "perhaps undeniably" is rather unfelicitous. But poetry does not an argument make. Any animal can dread death and hope for survival; what separates human from beast is the ability to rise above hope and look facts in the eye, and to use reason to arrive at what the facts are. Numinous awe is all very well for dogs.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:

A computer will accept whatever data you give it, without question.

Have you ever run windows? I'm happy if it does MOST of what I want it to do. But then again that could be what the developers intended when they built the cursed software.

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

Forgive me for being repetitive, and forgive me (please!) if being overly cautious comes across as being condescending, because that isn't at all what I want, but I'm going to reiterate this: I am asking questions which are puzzling to me, and I am not seeking to challenge anyone else's answer. I'm trying to understand what individual people mean by the terminology each uses and how that person might apply those terms in (what are to me) puzzling circumstances.

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
CT, with respect to such moles and this particular discussion, I can only say that the definition contains elements that we cannot confirm. So I can't necessarily look at a particular entity and say "this is a human being."

"The definition" you reference being the definition of a human being or that of a hyatidiform mole? (just trying to understand)

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
The moles are not alive, therefore my premise still stands.

What definition are you using of "living" that excludes hyatidiform moles but wouldn't exclude, say, a premature infant on a ventilator?

-------------

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I do think the vast, vast majority of cases are not close calls and can be idnetified one way or another with great confidence.

I'd say this bears repeating. "Close calls" may not be as uncommon as we might assume, but they are far from the norm.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
"The definition" you reference being the definition of a human being or that of a hyatidiform mole? (just trying to understand)

Human being.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
Have you ever run windows? I'm happy if it does MOST of what I want it to do. But then again that could be what the developers intended when they built the cursed software.

I realise that you're being facetious, but this in no way contradicts my point. The computer is accepting exactly the data it is given by you plus the developers, and performing - faithfully - exactly the instructed operations on it. Precisely, with no deviation, not so much as an obscure difference of doctrine. A human, given contradictory instructions, would question them.

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:
"The definition" you reference being the definition of a human being or that of a hyatidiform mole? (just trying to understand)
Human being.

Okay, thanks.

I haven't forgotten about that to-be-made-abortion-thread of yore, by the way. It will happen. I would like to pick your brains, and in the getting a more thorough understanding sense, not in the trap you against the wall sense. You know that, of course. [Smile]

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :

quote:
I would say that this is exactly backwards: A computer will accept whatever data you give it, without question.

X = 1
Y = 2
X = Y is always going to return false for a computer, because they are limited to the rules of their programming. They cannot choose to believe whether that statement is true or false. Humans don't have those same constraints.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

CT: I am of the opinion that there is a specific creative process that involves God directly.

I should note that I myself am not COMPLETELY clear on what has a soul and what does not. I believe that the earth itself has a soul, but I am not sure if a stone has a soul. I do believe all animals and plants have souls, but I am not sure if bacteria do.

I see the moles as a chemical process of a biological nature. Similar to bacteria or viruses, but I tend to side on the "unliving" end up the spectrum for those things.

This gets into the messy area of when does a fetus become a human being, but I do not believe a fetus at the moment of conception is alive, but that God sends a soul to inhabit the body at some point during gestation.

I am not sure if a cloned human being would be alive by that definition or not, when its done Ill observe the results and make a decision. If human beings could be cloned and live lives just like the rest of us I will not be surprised. If cloned human beings are consistently still born that too would not surprise me.

I do not think a cluster of cells that even reproduces by itself is a living entity.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

CT, of course. [Smile]

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Given X=1, Y=2, X really doesn't equal Y. I don't see where you're going to get a human to believe that either, although come to think of it some people do apparently believe that 3==1. But a human might doubt the input data, and question "Are you sure that X really equals 1?" No computer will do that.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by King of Men:

quote:
Have you ever run windows? I'm happy if it does MOST of what I want it to do. But then again that could be what the developers intended when they built the cursed software.
I realise that you're being facetious, but this in no way contradicts my point. The computer is accepting exactly the data it is given by you plus the developers, and performing - faithfully - exactly the instructed operations on it. Precisely, with no deviation, not so much as an obscure difference of doctrine. A human, given contradictory instructions, would question them.

Oh agreed, I know its the programmer's fault not windows/my computers fault in this situation.

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :

This is semantic, but we also refer to being "human" as a bare-minimum qualifier rather than as a lofty ideal of some sort.

Phrases like "I'm only human," or expressing disgust at "base human" motives/urges; these are evidences of us seeing humanity as a detestable base state.

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
...
I do believe all animals and plants have souls, but I am not sure if bacteria do.

I see the moles as a chemical process of a biological nature. Similar to bacteria or viruses, but I tend to side on the "unliving" end up the spectrum for those things.
...
I do not think a cluster of cells that even reproduces by itself is a living entity.

So, by your definition of "living," something must have a soul in order to be alive? And so, for example, a daffodil plant counts as alive because it has a soul?

(Not mocking, not trying to trip you up, just trying to understand. [Smile]

)

Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :

When a program evaluates a statement, a certain set of conditions needs to be met in order to return a value of true. If any one of those conditions are not met, the program returns a value of false. A human can accept that a certain condition is not met and still accept that statement as true.

...

Many of these definitions of humanity rely heavily on the belief of a soul. How would your concept change if you found out that the soul does not exist, or at least in the way you currently believe?

Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I believe that the earth itself has a soul, but I am not sure if a stone has a soul. I do believe all animals and plants have souls, but I am not sure if bacteria do.

That's a very interesting idea to me. What about the Earth leads you to believe that it has a soul? I'm trying to understand that, as a concept which is completely foreign to my experiences.

Is it the planet that has a soul? The biosphere? Just trying to get a grasp on the thought process.

Similarly, what gives animals and plants souls, but not bacteria, and presumably not viruses? Where is the dividing line, in your view, that gives some things souls, and not others. Do single celled animals have souls?

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

And if a stone did have a soul, if I understand correctly, then BlackBlade would call it "alive."

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
When a program evaluates a statement, a certain set of conditions needs to be met in order to return a value of true. If any one of those conditions are not met, the program returns a value of false. A human can accept that a certain condition is not met and still accept that statement as true.

No. There is no human who will say X=1, Y=2, but nevertheless X==Y. There is no human who will say "Given that both X and Y are needed for Z, and we don't have Y, Z is still true." What a human will do, however, is to question the given. A human could respond "Well, are you sure you need both X and Y? And are you sure we don't have Y?" No computer will do that; it'll blindly insist that there is no Z.

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

Mighty Cow: Bear in mind that these ideas are ones that I myself have not firmly established an opinion on. I* believe that the planet itself has been endowed with a soul and is self aware. It has been given an agenda as well as a code of conduct by God. What clinches the argument for me is a segment of scriptures accepted by Mormonism as true where Enoch hears the earth bemoan the condition of humanity and how humanity's iniquities pain it.

I think Jesus hints at the idea that rocks, and dust "obey him" rather then "are controlled by him." Jesus cursing the fig tree demonstrated to at least me that plants are alive and posses free will to an extent. Perhaps rocks have souls but they may or may not have the ability to disobey God.

This is a very messy explanation, but an idea that held by (some) Mormons is that the earth was baptized during Noah's flood, will be purified with fire when Christ comes again, be celestialized and become the heavenly dwelling place for the human race. All because it like any other living thing fulfills the "measure of its creation." or its purpose for which it was designed.

*Subject to change at BlackBlade's discretion.

edit: The fact Jesus could, should he will it, turn rocks into bread could be a good argument that rocks by themselves are not alive. But then again its likely that God could turn a human into a loaf of bread if he willed it. He certainly found a way to turn a woman into a stack of salt.
Genesis 19:26

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :

I tend to think along the same lines as Black Blade on that one. I wonder if the earth as a soul includes all the animals and trees on it or if they have separate spirits.

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

BlackBlade, I'm reposting this, just in case you didn't see it:

quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
...
I do believe all animals and plants have souls, but I am not sure if bacteria do.

I see the moles as a chemical process of a biological nature. Similar to bacteria or viruses, but I tend to side on the "unliving" end up the spectrum for those things.
...
I do not think a cluster of cells that even reproduces by itself is a living entity.

)

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :

I find myself more and more drawn to Nikos Kazantzakis and his idea of "The Cretan Glance," the ability of humans to embrace the two apparently contradictory sides of their nature (Dionysian/Apollonian, supernatural/rational, whatever) and simultaneously be both... recognize, for example, that human consciousness/free will/selfhood are largely extremely complex illusions YET also cling to the obviousness of our conscious free selves...

to be human, perhaps is to grasp this paradox and revel in it...

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :

link, if you're interested: http://www.helleniccomserve.com/everyman.html

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

Noemon, the intensity of your devotion to soothing my coarsely trembling fears is, frankly, quite saintly.

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :

This thread title makes me laugh. [Big Grin]

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
... I don't know, nor do I think that is knowable. Therefore, we must treat living biological humans as if they do possess a soul.
... Not sure. I believe that, for each human being, there is a discrete creative act by God. I have no idea if such a discrete act would happen at some point in the cloning process.

Hmmm, given that you do not believe that it is knowable whether a biological human has a soul, and that there is no way to detect whether that discrete act has occurred or not, would it be safe to say that you are essentially a strong agnostic in regard to whether any specific biological human has a soul?

Secondly (this may sound odd, but in all seriousness), do you believe it is knowable whether you have a soul?

Lastly, if by some quirk of fate you were a person that was identical to yourself except that you adopted the closest completely secular definition of what makes a human being, how do you believe that you would act differently towards others in your life?

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

quote:
Very poetic, no doubt, except that "perhaps undeniably" is rather unfelicitous. But poetry does not an argument make. Any animal can dread death and hope for survival; what separates human from beast is the ability to rise above hope and look facts in the eye, and to use reason to arrive at what the facts are.

That's a wonderful and subjective declaration of what constitutes the line between human and beast. What I'm talking about is not poetry, but rather what is obviously demonstrated in human behavioral analysis. You seem to think that humans should not ever hold non-empirical faith in things, and I'm noting that pretty much everyone does in a lot of things and usually involving a lot of very important things like 'which type of economic system is morally right' or 'whether or not it is okay to eat other humans' or - poignantly - 'what happens to us after we die.'

It's a ubiquitous human trait.

You're basically grabbing something which can easily be said to be a very reliably human behavior and you are declaring it to be non-human. Doesn't make much sense to me!

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
Hmmm, given that you do not believe that it is knowable whether a biological human has a soul, and that there is no way to detect whether that discrete act has occurred or not, would it be safe to say that you are essentially a strong agnostic in regard to whether any specific biological human has a soul?

I don't think so. I was using "know" in a scientifically determinable sense there - that is, we cannot detect exceptions to the "people have souls" principle.

I guess I could be said to be agnostic concerning the soul-status of human clones. But the answer to the "has this ever happened or could it" question is basically leaving room for strange things to happen. I doubt it ever would happen or that it has happened, but there's nothing incompatible between that concept and the things I hold to be true.

quote:
Secondly (this may sound odd, but in all seriousness), do you believe it is knowable whether you have a soul?

Not sure what you mean. I believe every person interacting on Hatrack has a soul (even King of Men), as well as everyone I've ever met. I believe I have a soul and, moving away from the scientific sense of the word, I know I have a soul. But in the detectable sense I used above, I don't think so.

quote:
Lastly, if by some quirk of fate you were a person that was identical to yourself except that you adopted the closest completely secular definition of what makes a human being, how do you believe that you would act differently towards others in your life?

I doubt I would act very differently at all to anyone that still fell under that definition - the question would be would the boundaries of the definition change. But I'd have to think about this for a long time, and I'm not sure even then I'd be capable of answering accurately.

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

quote:
usually involving a lot of very important things like 'which type of economic system is morally right' or 'whether or not it is okay to eat other humans' or - poignantly - 'what happens to us after we die.'

It's a ubiquitous human trait.

In the first place, my original post did specify 'claims of fact', which none of your suggested beliefs are. In the second place, it's also a ubiquitous human trait to pick your nose, but that doesn't make it good, noble, or uniquely human.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

Picking your nose is something humans often reliably do. It's a human trait.

Believing in things that cannot be proven, such as gods and eternal life after death, is something humans often reliably do. It's ______________________

(fill in blank, 10 points)

Hint: answer is not "a non-human trait, that humans do to purposefully become less than human"

[ March 06, 2007, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
This thread title makes me laugh.

The thread is giving me some ideas of things to fit into a story I'm developing. [Big Grin]

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :

Gah, I hate the thread title change, it's confusing when you're looking for a short title with only two words in it.

Picking your nose is a human trait which is neither humanising nor de-humanising. (If that's a word.) Caring for children is a human trait which is humanising, even though it's not unique to humans. Genocidal killings is a human trait, again not unique to humans, which is de-humanising. And religious belief is a human trait which is de-humanising, though to a smaller degree than genocide.

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :

Umm. We're working with a fairly and fully subjective declaration when we're saying that religious belief is dehumanizing. Doubly so if we are declaring that it is a purposeful intent on the part of the believer to be less than human.

But, of course, it's only why I found the original statement to be errant or substanceless.

Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :

King of Men, that was just... inane and unnecessary. I'm an atheist, but religion isn't more or less evil than any other human institution. Get over it already.

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dagonee:
I doubt I would act very differently at all to anyone that still fell under that definition - the question would be would the boundaries of the definition change. But I'd have to think about this for a long time, and I'm not sure even then I'd be capable of answering accurately.

Fair enough.
However, your viewpoint is interesting enough that I do await your response at your earliest, um, convenience for lack of a better word.

Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :

Storm, I haven't forgotten about my promised posts, just FYI.

And KoM, I prefer the shorter title too (and the joke has run its course now anyway. I'll revert back to the original title.

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :

Cool. I have an idea of the direction you'll go, and am curious to see what you have to say as it seems that it might have some relevance to my conception of morality/religion.

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

Hey, Noemon, I just sent you a note. [Smile]

(I thought the longer title was funny, and I will mourn its passing with large, soft, wet tears, but so it goes. Even titles must pass. [Wink]

)

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
BlackBlade, I'm reposting this, just in case you didn't see it:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
...
I do believe all animals and plants have souls, but I am not sure if bacteria do.

I see the moles as a chemical process of a biological nature. Similar to bacteria or viruses, but I tend to side on the "unliving" end up the spectrum for those things.
...
I do not think a cluster of cells that even reproduces by itself is a living entity.
So, by your definition of "living," something must have a soul in order to be alive? And so, for example, a daffodil plant counts as alive because it has a soul?

(Not mocking, not trying to trip you up, just trying to understand. )

I saw this and my previous post was partially written to respond to it, but I confess I am not sure if I myself have a precise answer. As far as I am certain, anything that possesses a soul could accurately be called alive. The extent of things that possess souls is an answer I do not have.

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :

Fair enough -- I'm working on making sense of my own thoughts on this, as well. [Smile]

Thanks.

Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :

I love this thread. I'd get involved but I'm in the midst of "end quarter crunch time". [Wink]