|
Post by hollandr on Mar 25, 2008 22:51:43 GMT
I have often wondered how to detect a human.
We are all familiar with humans using bodies that are warm-blooded carbon-based with 4 limbs.
But how to recognise a human from a different system - perhaps with a silicone-based body. (Silicon forms compounds analogous to those of Carbon)
So what is the essence that makes a being human?
(If we knew that we might use the term more carefully)
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Mar 25, 2008 23:19:19 GMT
RH: "But how to recognise a human from a different system"
What do you mean by "different system?" Do you mean dimension.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 25, 2008 23:44:52 GMT
>What do you mean by "different system?"
I was thinking in terms of a different planetary or solar system
But I suppose that not all humans might have dense physical bodies. Certainly there are legends of the human race on Earth being separated into 2 branches - one on the surface and one inside the Earth. And the ones inside the Earth are reputed to move through solid matter as we would move through water.
Greek legends refer to this "As she reached down to pluck it from its resting place, her feet began to tremble and the earth was split in two. ............From this gaping crevice in the ground emerged Hades, the awe-inspiring god of the underworld"
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 26, 2008 0:09:02 GMT
Oh yeah. We must believe it if it's an old legend. Certainly more reliable than science.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 26, 2008 0:42:30 GMT
Perhaps science can help us identify the essence of humanity
Any one like to make a start?
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 26, 2008 0:47:09 GMT
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 26, 2008 1:04:28 GMT
&. See "The Book of the Damned" for example Charles Fort. I suppose you read "Fortean Times?" Fortean Times is a monthly magazine of news, reviews and research on strange phenomena and experiences, curiosities, prodigies and portents. It was founded by Bob Rickard in 1973 to continue the work of Charles Fort (1874-1932). He was sceptical of scientific explanations, observing how scientists argued according to their own beliefs rather than the rules of evidence and that inconvenient data was ignored, suppressed, discredited or explained away. He criticised modern science for its reductionism, its attempts to define, divide and separate. Fort's dictum "One measures a circle beginning anywhere" expresses instead his philosophy of Continuity in which everything is in an intermediate and transient state between extremes. He had ideas of the Universe-as-organism and the transient nature of all apparent phenomena, coined the term 'teleportation', and was perhaps the first to speculate that mysterious lights seen in the sky might be craft from outer space. However, he cut at the very roots of credulity: "I conceive of nothing, in religion, science or philosophy, that is more than the proper thing to wear, for a while." www.forteantimes.com/front_website/themag/about.php------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ever read the "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine? The Magazine for Science and Reason For a fast-growing number of discriminating persons, the Skeptical Inquirer is a welcome breath of fresh air, separating fact from myth in the flood of occultism and pseudoscience on the scene today. This dynamic magazine, published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, tells you what the scientific community knows about claims of the paranormal, as opposed to the sensationalism often presented by the press, television, and movies. A massive broadside attack on ... the New Irrationalism: Antiscience and Pseudoscience ... A devastating exercise in debunking ... -- Washington Post (on the Skeptical Inquirer) www.csicop.org/si/------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 26, 2008 2:40:18 GMT
So what is the essence that makes a being human?
Perhaps the Skeptical Inquirer can give us some clues.
|
|
|
Post by leonardo on Mar 26, 2008 7:51:35 GMT
Unfortunately I have never seen anything that proves the existence of life anywhere other than here on this planet. I wish there was irrefutable proof because I'd dearly like to know for certain that "we are not alone." Mathematically, of course, it does seem probable; the Universe is so huge, etc.. also we are told there are other Universes beyond this one where there may also be life.
Lots of supposition but no actual proof.
I appreciate there are those who believe wholeheartedly in the existence of life beyond this earth, and some who even believe they were abducted by Aliens. But other than anecdotal evidence I have yet to be convinced any of this is true.
But then again, it matters little what I think of such matters. Others believe it so and for them it is true.
I don't dismiss the possibility entirely. Just because I don't know doesn't mean it isn't so.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2008 8:05:49 GMT
So what is the essence that makes a being human? Is this question perhaps no more or less meaningful than asking, "So what is the essence that makes a being feline?"
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 26, 2008 10:10:46 GMT
>Is this question perhaps no more or less meaningful than asking, "So what is the essence that makes a being feline?"
That also is an interesting question and perhaps could be the subject of another thread
For some reason this is a particularly difficult thread to keep on track
I start to wonder if the question is too hard
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2008 10:26:12 GMT
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2008 10:38:57 GMT
>Is this question perhaps no more or less meaningful than asking, "So what is the essence that makes a being feline?"
That also is an interesting question and perhaps could be the subject of another thread
For some reason this is a particularly difficult thread to keep on track
I start to wonder if the question is too hard It's the same question: >Could we take something well known - lets say a cat or any other commonly observed being - and demonstrate how its characteristics define its identity?
It appears there are no takers. I am not surprised. No matter how you describe the characteristics to define identity there are always exceptions through genetic variation, accident or mutation.
Thus we finish with a loop: A cat is a being that ought to have the characteristics of a cat but may not actually have them all. Thus catness is a transcendental identity that generates a range of characteristics most of which are shared by beings currently classified as Felis silvestris catus.
The taxonomy is occasionally reviewed - potentially dividing or aggregating species What you are advocating is Plato's Forms, that reality is a reflection of archetypes, which exist in another dimension in perfection, and that the world around us is an imperfect copy of these archetypes.
What I am advocating is Aristotle's logic, that reality exists as we precieve it. What is, is. A is A.
A cat exists. It has form that we precieve and define as cat. It is the general charactaristics of cat, not the particular variations thereof, that define it as cat. That a specific cat has an injury or mutation does not invalidate its identity as cat.
A characteristic is an aspect of an existent. It is not a disembodied, Platonic universal. Just as a concept cannot mean existents apart from their identity, so it cannot mean identities apart from that which exists. Existence is Identity.
The concept "identity" does not indicate the particular natures of the existents it subsumes; it merely underscores the primary fact that they are what they are.
Your statement that catness is a trancendental identity is gibberish.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 26, 2008 11:14:24 GMT
I think that a characteristics-based approach to identity has already been demonstrated as inoperable
So - moving beyond materialistic and behavioural constructs - how do we detect a human?
Blavatsky tells us "We elbow soulless men in the streets at every turn.."
And spiritualists traditionally have problems distinguishing "lying spirits" from the dear departed
And zombies are not regarded as fully human
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2008 11:27:59 GMT
I think that a characteristics-based approach to identity has already been demonstrated as inoperable >your negative case that characteristics have nothing to do with identity,
I am do not see how "a transcendental identity that generates a range of characteristics most of which are shared " could indicate that characteristics have nothing to do with identity. Shifting from particular identity to "transcendental identity" involves a sleight-of-hand.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2008 11:44:41 GMT
Blavatsky tells us "We elbow soulless men in the streets at every turn.." By that, she meant that they were "asleep" not that they were not human. how do we detect a human?
Blavatsky tells us "We elbow soulless men in the streets at every turn.." That's one way to detect a human... Bump into them! The suggestion of there being "lying spirits" is a ruse to cover-up mistakes made by fraudulent spiritualists. See: Zombies
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 26, 2008 12:21:54 GMT
>By that, she meant that they were "asleep" not that they were not human.
Blavatsky's command of English was apparently insufficient to detect the subtle difference between being soulless and being asleep. Hopefully there were no similar errors in the rest of her text.
But to return to the thread - how do we detect a human presence?
For example distinguishing human from computer dialogue is not so simple these days
And zombies may still constitute a classification problem
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2008 14:07:25 GMT
Blavatsky's command of English was apparently insufficient to detect the subtle difference between being soulless and being asleep. Your command of metaphor is apparently insufficient to recognise one. And zombies may still constitute a classification problem If so, those suffering a major psychosis may also constitute a "classification problem." From the earlier link: Mistaken identification of a wandering, mentally ill, stranger by bereaved relatives is the most likely explanation…People with a chronic schizophrenic illness, brain damage or learning disabilities are not uncommonly met with wandering in Haiti, and they would be particularly likely to be identified as lacking volition and memory which are characteristics of a zombie.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 26, 2008 20:15:28 GMT
A friend recently returned from South Africa where she had gone to see her elderly mother.
She returned somewhat upset. Her mother was still alive but the spiritual parts had gone and recognition was infrequent
Interestingly her mother now only speaks about physical things.
Perhaps speaking only of physical things is a sign of the soulless
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 26, 2008 20:20:55 GMT
Perhaps speaking only of physical things is a sign of the soulless Theological nonsense! SOULIn the context of the thread, are you also suggesting it is a sign of being non-human?
|
|