What makes us human?

[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.

 

[Blt3200]

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.

Exactly! Lets say you switch a dogs brain with a humans, and get it to work, it's still not a human. The dog brain is just piloting a human shell, as our brain does with our body.

Even if you teach a dog to act like a cat, it's still a dog because its still a dog brain, its just learned to exhibit a different behavior.

Long story short, your brain is you and your flesh and bones are just the means to get around and execute the commands of the brain.

 

[FPLOON]

What makes us human?

Well, first you have to ask yourself if you are human... It's a trick question because it's never a straight-up "yes or no" question both subjectively and objectively, but mainly subjectively because "Science, *****!" *ahem* First, you have to question the species in which you feel like you are apart of by separati-I mean "categorizing" them into various groups of infinite possibility... Then, you must bleed metaphorically and not physically, unless you're giving [blue] blood or something that humans do with blood, I guess... Then, continue to question life itself, like why are we fighting or fucking or fight-fucking... Then, you show off your metaphorical duck-face emotions of various degrees, which is tricky because that shit comes more natural than your nipple milk sometimes... Then, you do something that's not either instinctual and/or as a means to survive, which should come easy if you've been following along so far... Finally, you die a mortal's death with many unanswered questions left unanswered, especially if you haven't adopted a pseudo-mantra to death because you decided that you only run on facts and nothing else... That last part's more subjective than one's masturbation habits, since by now, you should have realized that the world never revolved around you to the point that it, itself, metaphorically never really cared if you were alive or not to question its existence even more as time progresses and shit...

In other words, you are a human if you are a fleshy, organic, [almost] sentient robot made from the genetic makeup of other humans that were made the same way beforehand... Also, the moment you create a mechanical robot of your own is the moment you're willing to give up a part of your metaphorical humanity in order to bring something that's objectively artificial to life in the same way you are...

 

[WarpZone]

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?"

Depends on how the robot was designed. If it was this huge or tiny chrome thing with wheels and non-humanoid limbs sticking out at weird angles, I'd probably go "woah look at that robot" as soon as I saw it.

If it was some kinda fancy realdoll chassis from japan, I'd go "AAAAHHHH! ZOMBIE! KILL IT! KILL IT!" If we assume that one day artists are capable of overcoming the Uncanny Valley Effect, I'd probably perceive it as human.

If somebody told me both of these creatures were robots with human brains, I would probably think of them as cyborgs. (That is to say, as humans with functional manmade augmentations.) I would still perceive them as a weird metal machine and a creepy not-quite-right-looking humanoid, respectively.

Because that's what perception is, right? It's my eyes and ears telling me what I'm looking at before I stop and think about it. It's not the same thing as my internal model.

Over time, working with the both of them in the same office, I'd probably start to think of them as individuals more than as representations of their respective phenotypes. Obviously if they self-identify as human I'm not gonna argue with them.

Of course, if a robot drove up to me at random and said "I have a human brain," whether or not I believed it would depend on what the latest technology said was possible. If it happened today, I'd say "I believe you," because clearly it's some guy with a remote control nearby talking through a radio, right?" If it happened after human brains in robot bodies were a thing on the news, I suppose I'd believe them. If there were also computer programs that could pass the Truing Test, maybe I'd need to see some medical paperwork before I knew what to believe, but I like to think I would err on the side of not offending or otherwise hurting a fellow human.

Of course, this entire philosophical question becomes moot when they come to work wearing tails.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Why does it have to be a brain in a jar? Are you implying that my consciousness is the 'human' part? The body affects the mind in many ways to me its all part of the human. If I cut my liver out and put it in a machine to keep it alive is that a liver or a human?

 

[Hoplon]

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?"

Neither fish nor foul nor good red herring.

a human is a member of the species of apes called Homosapien.

A person is pretty much the contents of their skull, since if you damage it just right a whole new person appears. That personality doesn't even need to be stored on a biological brain to still be that person.