What makes us human?

[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! ^^

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

Does exclusion of such 'different' DNA make an organism non-human?

YES! THAT IS LITERALLY HOW WE DIFFERENTIATE SPECIES! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics#Sequence_divergence_between_humans_and_apes

There! That's the divergent code between humans and apes, happy?

If you think you're so damn smart, how would you differentiate the species? How would you tell what's a flower and what's a human? If your theory takes root, and the scientific community at large accepts it, then i'll listen to you, and find a grey area in your theory where i can call you an amoral monster. Until then, you're just some uneducated, ideological person who really doesn't know what they're talking about.

Look dude, i've said it before, but you didn't listen. Being human, and being deserving of respect and rights are not the same thing. They seem the same, since at the moment they are the vast, vast majority of the time, because we just happen to be the only intelligent species we know right now. But things would shake up if we ever diverged as a species or discovered other intelligent life. But please, please get off your ignorant, scienceless, ideological high horse.

Stick to your taxonomy, if that is what you makes you comfortable. Call me uneducated if that makes you feel any better. You call yourself biologist and speak of evolution, yet you firmly believe in strict view that one organism MUST belong in one specie. If you think that being in a "species" makes them special and unchanging, then you are no better than Creationist arguing the "essence of a species".

It seems like you can stay ignorant if you are educated. Well, your call. Who needs evidence like ring species when you have DEGREEEE!

 

[rednose1]

Well, since you mentioned robots, I'm gonna go somewhat with Issac Asimov's "The Bicentennial Man". Changing it up slightly, but as far as humanity goes, anything advanced enough to conceive of the notion, and desire the state I'd call human.
(seriously though, read that story. Excellent short story, and answers this exact question.)


Or if you prefer, can go with Death. The one thing that binds everyone together.Animals may know of death somewhat, but we know it as the end of everything, the one inescapable finality.

 

[verdant monkai]

Yay! Another scientist! Frustrating to only ever talk to philosophers in this thread.

Wouldn't call myself a scientist mate. But I'd agree that what makes something human is pretty clear.

I like how the smarmy types who think talking down to someone else' argument makes their own point more valid, have already arrived and have started their usual mischief. It looks like you've already been graced with the classic *[facetious action]* and the other usual sarcastic stuff. Soon it will devolve into how covertly they can imply that they are slagging you off, without incuring the anger of the mods.

But yeah human DNA may well be 57% similar to Pumpkins. But its also 43% not the same therefore they are different, and we are able to make the distinction. You can throw any number of percentages around, anything thats not 100% genetically a homo sapien is not a human.

I think the real interesting question is what makes us People? is it a societal definition or is it down to the individual?

 

[iamjustin]

brain and heart. emotion that directs us and a free will.

 

[gabeg1]

Does exclusion of such 'different' DNA make an organism non-human?

YES! THAT IS LITERALLY HOW WE DIFFERENTIATE SPECIES! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics#Sequence_divergence_between_humans_and_apes

There! That's the divergent code between humans and apes, happy?

If you think you're so damn smart, how would you differentiate the species? How would you tell what's a flower and what's a human? If your theory takes root, and the scientific community at large accepts it, then i'll listen to you, and find a grey area in your theory where i can call you an amoral monster. Until then, you're just some uneducated, ideological person who really doesn't know what they're talking about.

Look dude, i've said it before, but you didn't listen. Being human, and being deserving of respect and rights are not the same thing. They seem the same, since at the moment they are the vast, vast majority of the time, because we just happen to be the only intelligent species we know right now. But things would shake up if we ever diverged as a species or discovered other intelligent life. But please, please get off your ignorant, scienceless, ideological high horse.

Stick to your taxonomy, if that is what you makes you comfortable. Call me uneducated if that makes you feel any better. You call yourself biologist and speak of evolution, yet you firmly believe in strict view that one organism MUST belong in one specie. If you think that being in a "species" makes them special and unchanging, then you are no better than Creationist arguing the "essence of a species".

It seems like you can stay ignorant if you are educated. Well, your call. Who needs evidence like ring species when you have DEGREEEE!

Dude, this isn't even me. this is just how we define words, how we define species. Did you fail english AND biology? Humanity, devised of the prefix, human, meaning the species homo sapiens, and the suffix, -ity, meaning the state and/or condition of. That's just me knowing about english and biology and you not knowing about these things. Morality doesn't even come into it, this is just me knowing what words mean and you not knowing what words mean. We haven't reached the morality aspect yet because we're still stuck with me having to teach you the definition of words.

If you have a position, please, come forward with it. I'd LOVE to hear what you have to say about it.

EDIT: Also, when did i say species was unchanging? Evolution would pretty much fail if that was the case, life pretty much sets itself up to jumble up and try as many things as possible, i already said that in an earlier post, genetic diversity is important for life, there's a bunch of biological mechanisms like mutation and sexual reproduction designed to make sure species never stagnate, and of course there's going to be weird grey areas, it can get weird defining species, there are always grey areas, in all things, but the definition of species is what it is man, if you can find an organism that can create fertile, viable offspring separate times with 2 separate species who cannot do the same with each other, than sure, that organism can be multiple species, or more likely a transitional species, but anyway. I doubt you'll find it. God forbid you actually read my argument, huh? That would get in the way of your blind idealism.

Lol. It is always amusing when science-minded people try to engage in a philosophical discussion. The abstractness of the topic just flies right over their head.

If you want to discuss it from a position that you know (science), then that is fine. But you can't ignore the fact that the OP asked about the metaphysical structure of a human and not the physical. The ideas expressed in the original post are the same ideas discussed in physical theory of identity, memory theory of identity, soul theory of identity. It may sound like the OP is talking about the physical since he/she mentioned physical aspects (hell, the OP might even not realize this is a question of identity but I suspect he/she does since the post opened with "it's philosophy time" which also should have been a clue not to get so hung up on the physical/biological). Don't leave the discussion, all points are worth discussing, but please stop getting so upset and thinking your way of thinking about things is the only valid way of thinking.

 

[gabeg1]

For those that might not recognize this is an identity issue, the thought experiment called the "Ship of Theseus" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus) is almost exactly the same as the original question in this thread (which replaced the ship with a human).

 

[Scarim Coral]

To me that would be emotion and intelligent. A creature or thing that doesn't display any empathy or laughter etc is not a human in my book (yes I know that animals also display emotions too). Also there is no other being with the same intelligent as us as in making road, concret building and advance technology etc (yet).

 

[Euryalus]

-snip-

-snip-

Except "humans" as a whole don't each have the exact same genetic code. We've grouped a similar set of codes into a category called the human genome.
Where are the lines drawn and why are they drawn there? Genetic codes that can compatibily be put together in such a way as the offspring of a union can sexually reproduce itself?
Okay, but then what about chromosome number disorders that cause sterility in the same way a hybrid animal like a mule causes?
Are they not human?

And further if that's your definition of human, then if cut off a blob of living tissue is it suddenly a new human?
Are fetuses humans? So they get human rights and abortion is murder? Or is sapience what determines something being classified as murder?
So I can kill someone who's asleep and be fine? Or is it murder to end a life with the potentiality for sapience if uninterrupted? Is that not what a developing fetus is? Where is the line drawn on sapience?

 

[Blt3200]

Self awareness, culture, free will, language, societal norms, tool using, sense of purpose, ambitions, morals.

EDIT:I realized i didn't answer the robot question.

Human brain in a robot body is a human, since the whole brain thing makes us modern humans.
Just think of it as that person got surgery to keep functioning, Except that his brain was the only thing left intact.

 

[Deathmageddon]

Not a difficult question at all. A human is any distinct, living organism with a full set of human DNA (zygotes, yes - skin cells, no). Not to be confused with the term "person," which obviously applies to all living humans and nonhumans with a humanlike intelligence or the inevitability of developing humanlike intelligence if left alone (like a zygote).

Edit: a human brain in a robot body is a robot being controlled by a human. The robot body itself is not part of the human.