What makes us human?

[Dirty Hipsters]

*SNIPPITY*

So, let me get this right. If a person cannot survive solely on his own machine, he is not human? That's what I'm getting out of your post. What if a person has a heart failure and needs a transplant, would that make him not human until he gets a functioning heart?

If they get a transplant then they still have a human heart. If they get a mechanical heart installed (which isn't something that currently exists as far as I know) then they would no longer be human.

As far as machines keeping the person alive until then, the machines are there to stimulate the person's heart and assist its natural functions, not supersede them.

What about people with Diabetes? They cannot survive on their own and must take insulin shots. Is that not superseding the original function of the Pancreas? Not to mention that mechanical pancreases might soon be a thing, as well as pig-to-human heart transplants. You have a really strict idea of what a human is, IMO.

If someone got a pig heart during a transplant that would make them a human-pig hybrid.

 

[stroopwafel]

Anything that is self-aware equals human in my opinion. Doesn't really matter if its flesh and bone, a brain without the flesh and bone or, if it comes to it, an advanced AI. Basically humans are nothing more than nature computing with meat, so what makes us so unique? Our self-awareness obviously. The rest is perspective.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

In discussing philosophy I make a distinction between a person and a human. Humans are people but you don't need to be human in order to be a person. So a True AI or sapient aliens would be people but not humans. Also I'm all for Transhumanism. Personally I think it's your mind that defines you as a person, not your body. To make a comparison the mind is software and the body hardware, the software is impacted by the hardware and needs hardware to exist but ultimately the hardware could be changed, the software is what really matters. You could even argue that somebody who is brain dead is a human but no longer a person.

Human itself would defined as a member of the species human. However you could not be a human and still be a person, you'd still have humanity as it were.

Going with your software/hardware analogy, you have a cellphone and a laptop both running the windows 8 operating system. Both the cellphone and the laptop are computers but that doesn't make them the same device because they perform different functions and they perform them differently. You wouldn't call your cellphone a PC or vice versa.

Same thing with the difference between a person and a human. Both are categorically persons, but one needs a human body and a human mind to be human. Being a human is determined by both hardware and software.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

Snip.

Going with your software/hardware analogy, you have a cellphone and a laptop both running the windows 8 operating system. Both the cellphone and the laptop are computers but that doesn't make them the same device because they perform different functions and they perform them differently. You wouldn't call your cellphone a PC or vice versa.

Same thing with the difference between a person and a human. Both are categorically persons, but one needs a human body and a human mind to be human. Being a human is determined by both hardware and software.

Humanity is a pretty humancentric term, probably owing to the fact that we're the only sapient species we've encountered. Personhood might have been the better term for me to use in this context. But yeah, if you took a human mind and put it in a non-human body they'd no longer be human but they'd still be a person.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

It's philosophy time, bitches.

I've been thinking about this question lately, about what makes a human "human", and how far we would have to go to make a human no longer be perceived as one.

If we cut of the arms and legs of a person, everybody would still agree it's a human.
If we cut off the torso and kept the head alive, it would still be a human, yes?
What if we extracted the brain and put it in a jar, able to communicate over some sort of brain-computer interface? Would we still think that's a human, and if not, why? Does a brain need a head to be human? That would imply our head, and not the brain, is the core of our humanity, which is a bit silly.

I guess as a quick and easy question to get the thread started is "would you perceive a robot with the brain (and consciousness) of a human to be human, or a robot?"

EDIT: Wrong section. Can a mod move it to OT?

I will go with Philosophy of Kant, and say that human has the potential to create the rules for him/herself and willpower to follow it despite physical or mental need.

If other creature, organic or not has same capability, then he/she/it deserves the same respect.

Does DNA you have match up with that of humans?

If so, yes! Science bitches! Seriously, take a bio course, not a philosophy course.

Wrong answer. chimps have about 99.9%(to 96%) same DNA as humans. Does that make them 99.9% human? Should we allow them to vote?

On the side note, Pumpkins are 57% humans.
You cannibals.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Nope, all or nothing. We share half our DNA with plants. I said match up, 99.9% is not matching up.

Also impossible. That would mean that all humanity share exactly same DNA.
(it would also mean that every sexual activity equals to masturbation.)

There is no such thing as "pure human DNA". Everyone has different DNA from others. That is how and why DNA analysis in criminal investigation works. Of course, with exception those damned monozygotic twins.

We humans just happen to share more genetic similarities than our plant and chimp brothers.

Edit: I will ask you a question.
Does your definition of "pure human DNA" has XX chromosome or XY chromasome in 23rd chromosome pair?
I am curious. By your definition, there can be only one pure human DNA.(from the quote "all or nothing")
If there isn't, which one is "purer"?
Where does it end?

 

[Flatfrog]

What about people with Diabetes? They cannot survive on their own and must take insulin shots. Is that not superseding the original function of the Pancreas? Not to mention that mechanical pancreases might soon be a thing, as well as pig-to-human heart transplants. You have a really strict idea of what a human is, IMO.

Does DNA you have match up with that of humans?

This is one of a whole raft of philosophical questions about vague terminology. Other more important examples include "when does a foetus become a human being?", "how can you get life from non-life?" and "what is the moment of death?" (along with the classic "how many stones make a heap?")

All these problems essentially boil down to one issue which is that words purport to divide the world into clear categories, but actually all words have some degree of vagueness about the edges. We have to accept that at some stage, there were creatures that were not human, and at some stage there were creatures that were, and in between there were creatures that were 'quite' human.

Similarly, a person with a mechanical heart is still a human being, but they are marginally less human than they were before. As the Tin Man replaced more and more pieces, he became less human and more robot. For some reason people find this idea problematic, but it's always seemed simple enough to me. As I say, it's pretty hard to think of *any* word that has a truly unambiguous clear-cut definition.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Well yea, by all or nothing i mean we code for the things that we've defined as being human, and can reproduce with humans to create fertile humans.

So under your definition, Every elderly(give or take) or sexually incapacitated beings are non-humans?

Hmm, sounds like abundant source of free labour just under our noses...*twiddle thumbs*

 

[verdant monkai]

Its genetics.

You can have a malformed foetus that's essentially a lump of skin and teeth with no brain or lungs, but its genetic code is still human.

What makes us people is a bit different. What makes something a person is a label which people can choose to assign or not assign, to something with human attributes. Like someone may no like to call a mass murderer a person, they could say they were a monster. And someone who loves their dog could say their dog was a little person.

So I'd say genetics decide what is human and what isn't.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Well yea, by all or nothing i mean we code for the things that we've defined as being human, and can reproduce with humans to create fertile humans.

So under your definition, Every elderly or sexually incapacitated beings are non-humans?

Hmm, sounds like abundant source of free labour just under our noses...*twiddle thumbs*

Both could actually have artificial zygotes made from them via cloning. So no.

So in short, if you can produce a being with "human DNA" via any reproductive method and that is what makes them human it can be concluded as "human has human DNA(that can be reproduced as "living" human with reproduction technology) and that is what makes them human". I will not accept that as a valid argument, because it is classic tautology. If not valid, it is not very informative and/or not very interesting argument.

If you are willing, tell me, how is human DNA different from DNA of any other organism in biological and genetic perspective?
Does exclusion of such 'different' DNA make an organism non-human?(and vice versa, on any "living" organic/inorganic being, i.e-bacteria with "human DNA" inserted as junk DNA for lolz)

Can we use Zygotes with fatal genetic makeup as test subjects since they cannot be reproduced, and not qualify as humans?

Edit- Also, is cloning of Henrietta Lacks criminal?(look her up)

 

[Callate]

I think you would probably have to include a certain amount of "is or was" in the definition of "being human", otherwise you could quickly eliminate a baby, a coma patient, or an elderly person on certain otherwise useful bases. For example, I tend to think of humanity as involving the ability to postpone gratification for greater benefit or sacrifice oneself for the greater good, but it might take a child some time to learn either of those things. For that matter, a brain-damaged or mentally ill person might have neither, and yet still be considered human.

...Which might get you into "in an otherwise healthy and neutral state, a human being will possess", but then that begs the question of what constitutes "healthy and neutral".

...Still, I don't think that putting a human brain in a robot body makes that brain cease being human. It might become harder for outsiders to identify that being as human, but I don't think the external identification is the most important quality. We don't actually stop being human when we put on Halloween costumes.

A better question might be: if you could entirely transfer a human consciousness into a digital machine- with no continuing biological existence at all- would that entity still be human?

What if the human the digital copy was based upon continued to live?

 

[MrMixelPixel]

Honestly, it's hard to say. I'm gonna go with probably, but I'd really want their opinion on it. Let the person/robot speak for them-self.

 

[michael87cn]

You can tell a human being by its ability to fuck other human beings over. To lie. To betray. To kill. To steal.

If its evil, its a human being.

Easy question is easy to answer! ^^