[Varses]

I've been looking over some threads; most notably the abortion thread. While responding to a post there I came across a thought; the main difference between pro-life and pro-choice proponenets is each person's personal definition of what it is to be human. In general, most pro-choicers include something about sapience and self-awareness while pro-lifers believe that if it has the human genetic code it is human. Socrates, the famous Greek philosopher, described humans in a tongue-in-cheek manner as 'featherless bipeds'.

I personally am of the opinion that intelligent thought seperates humans from other species. The metaphor in the Bible is that mankind has knowledge of good and evil. I very much agree with that idea; humans, unlike other species, have a concept of good and evil and have the ability to choose between the two. Hopefully I'll get some good discussion about this.

[Esau of Isaac]

What do I think a human is?

Why, a member of the homo sapiens sapiens.

There are some humans born that are not intelligent, so I think we should rule out that it is that that makes us us.

[Czar Garrett]

I think its more than intelligent thought.

Dolphins, elephants, hell, even mice can have intelligent thought.


Its something more. I'm not entirely sure what it is, if its even something unique to humans that make us as we are.

Many animals show emotions. Some animals have speech of sorts.


Morality? Its self-imposed and far to subjective.

[Kenadian_2006]

Homo Sapiens are Home Sapien when they have just that, sapience. Without that, you are not human.

[Eagare the Alenthin]

Simply restating a species name that we invented does not define us. Why? Because it is impossible to totally define oneself unless one totally understands oneself. Since this is as of yet still impossible...we can't really define humanity conclusively.

So I guess a dolphin, posssessing a degree of thought and intellect, is on its way to becoming human. In fact, a lot of animals are!

[Kenadian_2006]

Eagare the Alenthin, on Sep 26 2007, 03:47 PM, said:

Simply restating a species name that we invented does not define us. Why? Because it is impossible to totally define oneself unless one totally understands oneself. Since this is as of yet still impossible...we can't really define humanity conclusively.

So I guess a dolphin, posssessing a degree of thought and intellect, is on its way to becoming human. In fact, a lot of animals are!

I think I should give you a line from the wiki article.

Quote

Sapience, usually defined as wisdom or discernment, is the ability of an organism or entity to act with judgment. Judgment is a mental facility that is a particular form of intelligence or may be considered an additional facility, above intelligence, with its own properties. Robert Sternberg [1] has segregated the capacity for judgment from ordinary meanings of intelligence, which is closer to the sense of clever than to wisdom. Good judgment in making decisions about complex life or social decisions is a hallmark of being wise.

Now, on Monday in one of my philosophy classes we were debating vegetarianism and whether we should practice it. One of the premises brought up was that cows (we were using cows specifically) had sentience, and could experience pain and pleasure. Now, sentience is not self-awareness, not in the sense of humans and sapience.

From the sentience wiki article.

Quote

Sentience refers to utilization of sensory organs, the ability to feel or perceive subjectively, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity. The word sentient is often confused with the word sapient, which can connote knowledge, consciousness, or apperception. The root of the confusion is that the word conscious has a number of different usages in English. The two words can be distinguished by looking at their Latin roots: sentire, "to feel"; and sapere, "to know".

Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness.

Is that clearer now?

[Eagare the Alenthin]

Yes, thankyou. On another note, it very much discourages me that everyone in this thread seems to take everything so coldly. Reason is everything to some people. Emotion, personal beliefs, etc. don't mean anything. I just doesn't sit right with me. I know I'm going to get the old "If you can't back up your opinion with reasoning blah blah" thing, but I think that emotions and personal feelings are just as important as reasoning, and are necessary to coming to real fulfillment.

[Kenadian_2006]

Eagare the Alenthin, on Sep 26 2007, 04:29 PM, said:

Yes, thankyou. On another note, it very much discourages me that everyone in this thread seems to take everything so coldly. Reason is everything to some people. Emotion, personal beliefs, etc. don't mean anything. I just doesn't sit right with me. I know I'm going to get the old "If you can't back up your opinion with reasoning blah blah" thing, but I think that emotions and personal feelings are just as important as reasoning, and are necessary to coming to real fulfillment.

I'd agree with you there. Life would be rather boring with pure reasoning.

[Gustave5436]

You can have emotion, reason is just more important. The healthy individual and society both put reason above emotion, and they both still have room for emotion.

This post has been edited by Gustave5436: 26 September 2007 - 02:52 PM

[Straylight]

Kenadian_2006, on Sep 26 2007, 03:33 PM, said:

I'd agree with you there. Life would be rather boring with pure reasoning.

Art and the sublimation of emotion does not have to be the antithesis of reason and logic. Personal beliefs and emotions are nothing short of dementia when they do not have a backbone in reality, so emotion is dependent on the rational to truly be meaningful.

[Kenadian_2006]

Straylight, on Sep 26 2007, 04:51 PM, said:

Art and the sublimation of emotion does not have to be the antithesis of reason and logic. Personal beliefs and emotions are nothing short of dementia when they do not have a backbone in reality, so emotion is dependent on the rational to truly be meaningful.

Again, I agree with you. One thing you should know about me is that I tend to take the middle alot in things. Usually being a balance of things...such as a balance of rationality and personal feelings.

[Eagare the Alenthin]

I'm not saying to totally abandon reason, but sometimes you feel something that you know is right because of a conviction, even if you can't prove it with your words.

[Gustave5436]

Eagare the Alenthin, on Sep 26 2007, 01:58 PM, said:

I'm not saying to totally abandon reason, but sometimes you feel something that you know is right because of a conviction, even if you can't prove it with your words.

And that "conviction" is not correct, if you cannot prove it is correct.

[Eagare the Alenthin]

You can't prove to me you exist, because I could always be dreaming. You simply believe you exist based on certain evidence you believe to be pertinent and real.

[Gustave5436]

Eagare the Alenthin, on Sep 26 2007, 02:33 PM, said:

You can't prove to me you exist, because I could always be dreaming. You simply believe you exist based on certain evidence you believe to be pertinent and real.

The idea that you are dreaming the universe is not falsifiable. Therefore, it is not a logically valid way to reject the fact that I exist. I don't believe I exist, the only "belief" I have is that the universe is as it appears; that it is not a big illusion. Since this is the basis of human science and has been for quite some time, I'm not too worried about it. Besides, if we can't tell either way, it doesn't matter either way, so it's irrelevant.

[Eagare the Alenthin]

Logic isn't needed in my dreams. If we can't tell either way, then I guess everyone's life is pointless.

[Vaal Satori]

To be human requires a having the genetic code of homo sapiens within it, eg "a human foot" or "a human skin cell". To be a human is a different story. That requires being a living, breathing, post-natal and independent organism of our species. I do not believe being a human requires sapience, because that would exclude someone missing their frontal lobe from being a member of our species.

[Gustave5436]

Eagare the Alenthin, on Sep 26 2007, 02:44 PM, said:

Logic isn't needed in my dreams. If we can't tell either way, then I guess everyone's life is pointless.

Logic =/= self-awareness and the ability to think. If your brain is sophisticated enough for you to dream, you're not mindless.

Life isn't pointless and life doesn't have a point. Life just is. It has whatever meaning or point you assign to it.

Quote

To be human requires a having the genetic code of homo sapiens within it, eg "a human foot" or "a human skin cell". To be a human is a different story. That requires being a living, breathing, post-natal and independent organism of our species. I do not believe being a human requires sapience, because that would exclude someone missing their frontal lobe from being a member of our species.

Yea, generally when I say "human" I mean "a human individual." Human embryos, organs, blood, etc. are all human, just not human individuals/beings.

This post has been edited by Gustave5436: 26 September 2007 - 04:10 PM

[Eagare the Alenthin]

Yes they are, because they have specialized DNA. Their DNA is unique to them, and configured as such. Scientifically speaking, there is no greater change for development then when the 23 and 23 come together.

[Joules]

I am not going to get into what I think defines humanity, but I'll be happy to share some related personal philosophy:

I believe the value of human life to be in the bonds that a human shares with other humans; in the impact that the loss of that person would have on those who are acquainted.