What makes a human?

kuwisdelu · Aug 8, 2015

When does human life begin? And what does it mean to say "human"?

After this thread in P&CE, I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion of the various religious, spiritual, and atheist perspectives on the matter of what makes something "human", free (hopefully) from the political baggage.

As I've mentioned in that thread, in the Zuni religion, creatures are divided into "raw" people and "cooked" or "daylight" people. Humans are daylight people, while animals, gods, and the spirits of our ancestors are all raw people. Part of this distinction does in fact have to do with the eating of raw versus cooked food. This dichotomy is seen in other aspects of Zuni mythology, in that during our origin myths, the earth itself was still soft, i.e., "raw", and over time it became "cooked" and hardened, resulting in the earth we see today. (Interestingly, this can be interpreted as a Zuni perspective of geological time, including the shifting of tectonic plates, erosion, etc.) The same dichotomy is sometimes used to refer to differences between adults and children, and between Zunis and non-Zunis.

In the first ten or so days after birth, a baby is still a "raw" person. After that, the baby is brought out of the room where it was born and into the daylight for the first time, and becomes "cooked" in the daylight to become human.

In your perspective, when does something become human, and what is the difference between humans and other creatures and beings?

Albedo · Aug 8, 2015

The differences between humans and other creatures is mostly quantitative, not qualitative. Perhaps the only thing that is uniquely human is our use of abstract language (and things that stem from it, e.g. art, remotely transmissible culture, science). And also, perhaps, sociopathy. Everything else that is supposed to make us human: self-awareness, empathy, theory of mind, altruism, tool use, culture, or play, is shared by at least one of our fellow species. It's only the degree all of those things are present in us that makes us remarkable.

Even after reading all twelve million pages of that thread, I'm still not sure I understand the question, when does something become human? Like, I knows one when I sees one?

Chrissy · Aug 8, 2015

I guess this is as good a place as any to mention something I've been frustrated with for a while as regards the view of some Christians as far as humans versus (other) animals goes. When I was growing up, an oft-repeated verse from Genesis was that God had given us (humans) "dominion" over all the beasts of the earth, the sea, the air, etc. Now, dominion, as far as I know, doesn't necessarily mean superiority or control--it could also mean responsibility to care for, protect, etc., right? But the way it was taken in the religion of my childhood was that humans were the "ultimate" creation, superior to animals in ways that meant we could kill animals, eat animals, make animals do labor for us, etc., And I'm not even saying that it's wrong to eat an animal or give it a job. And I'm also not saying that many Christian people don't love their pets or animals in general, or that they treat animals badly. But....

... it's also odd to me how there seems to be a correlation between ultra-conservative Christians who approve of hunting for sport, or who think animal rights activists are pathetic, or, even in the case of some of my own family members, who say, when something bad happens to an animal, "yeah, well, it's just an animal."

Now, I fully admit that if I could only save either my kid or my dog from death, I'd save my kid. I'd also (probably) save a random human being before my dog. So I have the humans-are-more-valuable attitude too, to an extent.

To try to answer the OP, I don't think of anything as "becoming" human, though I like the Zuni view. For me, it's either human or not human. But, "being human" isn't this, like, special status, necessarily, if you can parse what I'm trying to say with the above. Which probably isn't on topic anyway, so apologies, but I've been wanting to express it for a while now.

Dawnstorm · Aug 8, 2015

To me, "human" is a species designation. A fetus is and always will be human - a human fetus that is. I think the only reason being human matters is because that's what we are. Humans'r'us. There's a base of praciticality - we're social creatures, and the rest is mostly unexamined speciesim.

For me, bonds we work at creating and maintaining trump bonds that are supposed to exist through our heritance. Thus, Chrissy, I'd actually understand if you were to rescue your dog over a stranger (e.g. me), and I'd actually approve the decision. It's a question of favouritism: who or what to do we favour? And for me bonds of origin (species, country, family...) have fairly low priority. It's just that those often, due to spatial proximity, turn into lived bonds. If long-lost relatives suddenly showed up hoping for emotional resonance on that ground, they're out of luck. I'd be as polite or friendly to them as I'd be to any stranger, but there'd be no special feelings. The same goes for species. You don't score any points with me just for being human (though you do have a priviledged starting position - ease of communication being one aspect).

You're talking to a person, who - as a child - came up with a method of getting rid of pesky horseflies while bathing in a lake, without killing them. If you'd swat at them, they'd be back. If you dived, they'd be back. What you do is you grab them with two fingers, firmly enough so they can't escape, but lightly enough so you don't crush them. Then you hold them under water for a few seconds. They're tough and can take it. Then you hold them above the water and release them. They'll escape in a straight trajectory the way you're pointing them. Eventually, they'll bother you again - or, more likely, someone else - of any species with blood they like, but you deal with that as it happens.

RichardGarfinkle · Aug 9, 2015

It's a tough question, in part because it seems to be asking for a single characteristic or measure in a single dimension for something that encompasses a vast range of possibilities in a large number of dimensions. So, to some extent, I think the question itself contains an implicit false assumption: namely that the question can be asked in that form in a way that can be answered.

I'm tempted toward the Zen unasking and say mu.

But since I started the thread that kuwi jumped to this one from I'm also tempted to try to give something of an answer aware that I will likely fail.

I would argue that humanity is not definable, but does have signs and pointers. Enough of these together would mark it out.
I would also argue that humanity is a way of acting, not a condition. Thus something could potentially be human without being human and something in an appropriate environment could become capable of humanity given appropriate events and circumstances.

First of all I don't think the genetics matter except probabilistically. A living creature with human genes is reasonably likely to be capable of humanity, but that probability is actually very low, since the number of living cells with human genes outnumbers the number of humans by trillions to one.

Humanity, to my mind, is a matter of how we treat other things and other creatures: with mindful care.

This brings up the point that most things in the universe cannot do so, so one might wish to say that we can eliminate almost everything as being potentially human. We could call these necessarily inhuman.

But the view I put in above also includes a number of creatures who clearly take care of other creatures and sometimes act with enough forethought to be deemed mindful.

Also, a lot of humans actively work to be callous and mindless. So that makes them inhuman, but not necessarily inhuman. That is, they could be human if they worked at it.

And many humans (particularly very young ones) do not yet know how to take care or be mindful. They need to learn and practice, but clearly doing so will make it possible for them to be human if they act accordingly.

There is also the fact that we all have regions of inhumanity; periods of time, attitudes, emotional states, situations, etc where we abandon humanity at least for a time.

Part of humanity can be found in how we act toward our own inhumanity. A person who works to be human as much as possible and to make up for the harm they do during their stretches of inhumanity is acting very inhuman indeed.

Dawnstorm · Aug 9, 2015

RichardGarfinkle said:
Humanity, to my mind, is a matter of how we treat other things and other creatures: with mindful care.

I'm both an atheist and an a-humanist. I don't believe in Humanity any more than I believe in deities. I've often said I'm not a humanist, but I've never been quite able to pinpoint why. Sometimes it felt downright strange saying that, since I'm sympathetic to many of, say, Secular Humanism's goals (such as compassionate rationality - my summary, not sure if it actually hits the mark).

It's this post that helps me understand better why I'm most definitely not a humanist. With this line, my key problem is that I see no reason to tie up my morality this closely with my species. Those are two aspects of me, certainly related to some degree, but definitely separate. I can't think of "being human" as a moral term, as a should. It's a fact that I am human; how I act doesn't change that at all. Being called "inhuman" would get an instinctive "So what?" from me. Of course, the social implications of "being inhuman," aren't lost on me, but that's because others care. Basically, this sort of connection makes for a philosophical complication I don't need.

But the view I put in above also includes a number of creatures who clearly take care of other creatures and sometimes act with enough forethought to be deemed mindful.

Also, a lot of humans actively work to be callous and mindless. So that makes them inhuman, but not necessarily inhuman. That is, they could be human if they worked at it.

And many humans (particularly very young ones) do not yet know how to take care or be mindful. They need to learn and practice, but clearly doing so will make it possible for them to be human if they act accordingly.

To me, this feels like in-group/out-group thinking that I don't really like. My take is that we have learn to live together (everyone from human to bacteria), and that's about it. Sometimes (as with parasites) conflict is the most likely option, but often an attempt at communication with the intent of understanding might be preferrable. A human/inhuman distinction doesn't encourage me (and perhaps other people of my personality structure) to make the effort. Rather than working hard to attempt to be worthy of the label "human", I'd reject it.

And finally we come to this:

There is also the fact that we all have regions of inhumanity; periods of time, attitudes, emotional states, situations, etc where we abandon humanity at least for a time.

Part of humanity can be found in how we act toward our own inhumanity. A person who works to be human as much as possible and to make up for the harm they do during their stretches of inhumanity is acting very inhuman indeed.

My focus is decidedly different: For me, moral life means striking a workable balance between indulgence of my impulses and self-control. What this means is that I have to accept all the impulses I have (good or bad) as human impulses. We're individuals looking out for ourselves as much as we are social creatures. I need "being human" to include what you're calling "abandoning inhumanity". I'm aware that you've got some double-use of the word "human" going on, allowing for that (unless the final "inhuman" in your last sentence is a typo?), but this sort of language is too confusing for me, and I have those in-group/out-group misgivings I talked about above.

(There are other minor issues such as "encouraging inflexible abstraction" (we're also mammals, vertebrates...) but I think I'll stop here.)

ColoradoGuy · Aug 9, 2015

RichardGarfinkle said:
Humanity, to my mind, is a matter of how we treat other things and other creatures: with mindful care.

Yes

Also, a lot of humans actively work to be callous and mindless. So that makes them inhuman, but not necessarily inhuman. That is, they could be human if they worked at it.

And many humans (particularly very young ones) do not yet know how to take care or be mindful. They need to learn and practice, but clearly doing so will make it possible for them to be human if they act accordingly.

There is also the fact that we all have regions of inhumanity; periods of time, attitudes, emotional states, situations, etc where we abandon humanity at least for a time.

Part of humanity can be found in how we act toward our own inhumanity. A person who works to be human as much as possible and to make up for the harm they do during their stretches of inhumanity is acting very inhuman indeed.

You've pretty much just defined one of the prominent threads of Quakerism, only using a bit different language than one usually sees. Some branches fold this viewpoint into Christianity directly, but not all of them do so. That which causes us to act in the way way you describe is "that of God in everyone," the touchstone of all Quakers regardless of their affiliation.

You sure you're not a Quaker? It can sneak up on you and then suddenly, POOF!, you're a Friend.

Chris P · Aug 9, 2015

Chrissy said:
When I was growing up, an oft-repeated verse from Genesis was that God had given us (humans) "dominion" over all the beasts of the earth, the sea, the air, etc. Now, dominion, as far as I know, doesn't necessarily mean superiority or control--it could also mean responsibility to care for, protect, etc., right? But the way it was taken in the religion of my childhood was that humans were the "ultimate" creation, superior to animals in ways that meant we could kill animals, eat animals, make animals do labor for us, etc., And I'm not even saying that it's wrong to eat an animal or give it a job. And I'm also not saying that many Christian people don't

Don't forget the idea of a soul, which most Christians believe humans have but animals do not. I've looked into a Biblical basis for this, but all I can find is a combination and connecting the dots between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Animals were simply created but God breathed "the breath of life" into the man. I don't know if the original readers of Genesis would have understood that as conferring a soul, or simply that the the man became animate. Perhaps there is more specific reference to human souls versus animal non-souls, but I've not found it.

RichardGarfinkle · Aug 9, 2015

ColoradoGuy said:
Yes

You've pretty much just defined one of the prominent threads of Quakerism, only using a bit different language than one usually sees. Some branches fold this viewpoint into Christianity directly, but not all of them do so. That which causes us to act in the way way you describe is "that of God in everyone," the touchstone of all Quakers regardless of their affiliation.

You sure you're not a Quaker? It can sneak up on you and then suddenly, POOF!, you're a Friend.

I went to a Quaker middle school and high school. But apart from meeting for worship there was no direct Quaker teaching. I have the suspicion that you're gently smiling about the possible long term effects of going to meeting weekly.

Truth to tell that post took me quite a while to sort through and make even margianally coherent. Kuwi's OP struck me as impossible to answer if one tried to restrict oneself to the species homo sapiens (or even genus homo). This may be the result of writing the kind of SFF that looks at multiple kinds of sapient creatures. My WIP is examining humanity's ability to try to be human to each other in the face of facts that make it difficult.

To Dawnstorm, the part of what I wrote that comes from a specific sense of humans as simultaneously needing each other to survive, but laboring under the delusion that they don't. Human and inhuman are not the usual terms I would use, but they fit the language and precepts of kuwi's OP.

Roxxsmom · Aug 9, 2015

I'm a biologist, and not religious, so my ideas about what makes a human unique are based on things that can be observed objectively and quantified. Yet I know that there's also a subjective, qualitative aspect to this that's important, because darn it, every time we think we've found something concrete, nature throws us a curve ball.

For example, the idea that tool use defines humans was put to rest by many animal species that not only use, but fashion tools.

Language use? Great apes and some parrots can learn the rudiments of language, and cetaceans may have a sort of proto language.

Self-awareness? Most biologists now feel that other animals (mammals and birds, at least, and possibly some invertebrates) have a subjective experience of their own existence and are not just automatons that mindlessly respond to stimuli. Descartes is dead.

Ability to plan ahead? Cetaceans, chimps, and even scrub jays appear to do this.

And all of these definitions are problematic anyway, since we can come up with examples of humans who lack some or all of these things, due to either disability or because of their stage of development.

So we're left with things like chromosomes (but some humans differ in karyotype) and genetics. But then any human tissue could be considered human.

The thing is, we all know a human when we see it, but we may not agree about the particulars. Is a zygote human enough to warrant legal protection? Tons of disagreement there. It's certainly not self aware and it lacks the organs, structures , and behaviors we associate with humanness, yet it has the potential to grow into a fully fledged human (of course, there's a good chance it won't for all kinds of reasons). But what costs will be imposed on women (and society in general) if we pass a law declaring that zygotes are fully human life.

RichardGarfinkle said:
I'm tempted toward the Zen unasking and say mu.

OMG this. I almost tossed this out a couple of times in that abortion thread.

I think that what we're arguing about, really, is not what makes a human, but what defines a person in a legal and moral sense. For a long time, the two were assumed to be one and the same. But even without considering intelligent aliens from outer space, it's possible that not all persons are human, and it's possible that not all humans are persons.

It's also possible that personhood exists on a spectrum, which means we'll always have cultural and personal differences in where we draw those lines re rights and protections, and we'll always be arguing about them.

Chrissy · Aug 9, 2015

Chris P said:
Don't forget the idea of a soul, which most Christians believe humans have but animals do not. I've looked into a Biblical basis for this, but all I can find is a combination and connecting the dots between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Animals were simply created but God breathed "the breath of life" into the man. I don't know if the original readers of Genesis would have understood that as conferring a soul, or simply that the the man became animate. Perhaps there is more specific reference to human souls versus animal non-souls, but I've not found it.

Yes, good point.

I wonder, are there any identifiable features in humans that evidence a soul?

Possibly related, possibly not: all the things Roxxmom mentioned that we used to think were exclusive to humans, but now we have evidence of their occurrence in other animals... what about the need to ask "why"? Is that exclusive to humans? What about the quest for "meaning"? What about the contemplation of one's own existence, navel-gazing, etc.? What about a desire for immortality?--Which I would cynically propose is where the soul idea came from :greenie

though I'm not convinced that there is no such thing as a soul, but still, do animals want to live forever? Do they contemplate their own deaths, with fear of nonexistence, or regret for a life not lived to their satisfaction?

Roxxsmom · Aug 9, 2015

Excessive concern over what it is to be human as the defining trait of humanity. There you go.

I'd argue that animals want to live forever. At least, they have a strong desire to avoid things that could result in their demise. Whether any of them make up stories about their own possible immortality as a result of this? Hard to say.

Maybe storytelling is something humans do that we don't see naturally in other species. Though many animals do practice deliberate deception and engage in play when there's no known survival benefit (and some risks) associated with doing so, as far as we know, animals don't make up lies about the doings of beings that have never existed and use them to entertain or comfort themselves and one another.

So far as we know, at least.

Though supposedly Koko the gorilla told some stories about her cat. Hard to say how much of that was really down to prompting and creative interpretation by her human handlers, however.

As for animal souls, when I was a kid, the party line of nearly all devout Christians I knew seemed to be that only humans had them. But nowadays, I run into very religious Christians who feel that animals have souls too (I think the Pope even said something to this effect recently) and who claim that there's no place in the Bible that says only humans have them.

I think a lot of the assumptions are based on the focus (in the New Testament, at least) on the salvation of humankind. One can assume that this is a concern because of the human's immortal soul, but animals cannot accept Jesus as their personal saviors, because they have no concept of salvation, hence they have no souls.

Another possible explanation, of course, is that they never fell from God's grace in the first place, and are actually in a state of innocence that's analogous to Adam and Eve before they committed the original sin. They don't need salvation because they're already saved.

Humans having dominion over animals doesn't mean animals lack souls either. The Bible encourages slavery, and the dominion of men over women, and the dominion of adults over children, yet that's not taken to mean that slaves, women, and children lack souls (though the souls women were debated at one point in history, weren't they)?

This is just relevant to Christianity, however. Plenty of other religions seem to believe that animals have some kind of spirit, soul, or divine spark and can be reincarnated into humans (or vice versa), commune with the spirit world, or ascend to some kind of afterlife.

Chrissy · Aug 9, 2015

Roxxsmom said:
Excessive concern over what it is to be human as the defining trait of humanity. There you go.

LOL. I read somewhere that human brains have evolved so much that, in addition to the (theoretically) helpful aspects, we've also got a lot of useless programs running. :greenie

Dawnstorm · Aug 9, 2015

RichardGarfinkle said:
Human and inhuman are not the usual terms I would use, but they fit the language and precepts of kuwi's OP.

You say that right after finishing a paragraph describing your WiP like this:

My WIP is examining humanity's ability to try to be human to each other in the face of facts that make it difficult.

I'm not sure how take a sentence like that. Literally.

I've been writing SF, too, but "humanity" was never ever a focus, even if the story contained aliens. The way I work with species difference for example: I could imagine Insects to instinctively recoil from breast feeding, as they instinctively associate it with cannibalism. It'd be a trend, not an absolute, and it'd be less relevant in big cities than in smaller, more homogenous communities. But that's one way that mammals might be scary to a sentient insect that's capable of metaphor. Also, something like this is more likely to be a recurring motif in my work than a focal point. Similarly, I'd pay attention to species trends in attitudes to noise, moisture, temperature... Things like that. (A space station might have different comfort zones for different species, for example, with different atmosphere mix - which might lead to species clusters, which in turn might be an obstacle to natural integration...)

That's how I would contextualise humans among diverse sentience.

Albedo · Aug 9, 2015

The word 'inhuman' bothers me (and I know I just used it, in the Hiroshima thread). Most of the behaviours that get called inhuman: war, torture, blowing people up, enjoying the suffering of others, are uniquely human behaviours. There's nothing 'in' about them.

C.bronco · Aug 9, 2015

A child is human once the cells combine to make an embryo. There is no raw or otherwise; there is inception of a soul. We can't control what happens afterwards, we can only guide.

Lillith1991 · Aug 9, 2015

C.bronco said:
A child is human once the cells combine to make an embryo. There is no raw or otherwise; there is inception of a soul. We can't control what happens afterwards, we can only guide.

This type of thinking takes for granted that the soul does exist and that it is what makes us human. Thing is, we don't know that it exist. And we especially don't know that the Abrahamic version of the concept of a soul is correct. We can only guess.

And if we're going for the soul being the seat of the consience, empathy, love etc., then what about the other Great Apes who mourn, are inteligent, and are affectionate towards those they care for? Or elephants which are known to grieve their dead and supposedly remember wrongs done to them?

Such beings could be said, by the Abrahamic deffinition of the soul and its function, to also posses something we tend to find purely human. That trait of having a soul.

shortstorymachinist · Aug 9, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
When does human life begin? And what does it mean to say "human"?

After this thread in P&CE, I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion of the various religious, spiritual, and atheist perspectives on the matter of what makes something "human", free (hopefully) from the political baggage.

As I've mentioned in that thread, in the Zuni religion, creatures are divided into "raw" people and "cooked" or "daylight" people. Humans are daylight people, while animals, gods, and the spirits of our ancestors are all raw people. Part of this distinction does in fact have to do with the eating of raw versus cooked food. This dichotomy is seen in other aspects of Zuni mythology, in that during our origin myths, the earth itself was still soft, i.e., "raw", and over time it became "cooked" and hardened, resulting in the earth we see today. (Interestingly, this can be interpreted as a Zuni perspective of geological time, including the shifting of tectonic plates, erosion, etc.) The same dichotomy is sometimes used to refer to differences between adults and children, and between Zunis and non-Zunis.

In the first ten or so days after birth, a baby is still a "raw" person. After that, the baby is brought out of the room where it was born and into the daylight for the first time, and becomes "cooked" in the daylight to become human.

In your perspective, when does something become human, and what is the difference between humans and other creatures and beings?

Perhaps this is simplistic, but I think a human fetus is a human. When people say it is not a human, but has the potential to be one, I can't say they're wrong, but I think 'potential' is what human eggs and sperm have. Under the correct circumstances, one combined with the other, they will become a human, but until that happens it's just potential. Once it does happen, though, there is nothing that can cause that fetus to develop into anything other than a human, (and nothing but cell-death will stop its development) so I would argue it is a human already.

Roxxsmom · Aug 9, 2015

shortstorymachinist said:
Perhaps this is simplistic, but I think a human fetus is a human. When people say it is not a human, but has the potential to be one, I can't say they're wrong, but I think 'potential' is what human eggs and sperm have.

Whether a human embryo or fetus is human or not is a mu question to me. Of course it's human. It's a human ... embryo or fetus. Not a baby or child. The issue is whether a human in the embryonic or fetal state of development is a person whose right to continued development supersedes the well being and agency of the human whose body it's dependent on.

I don't see any way to elevate a fetus to personhood without demoting a pregnant woman to human incubator. It's one or the other. Selfish maybe, but I empathize more with women than I do embryos.

That's maybe been the issue with the whole abortion thread. People were tossing the terms human and person around as if they're interchangeable. But they might not be.

The presence or absence of a soul at any state of development is a philosophical nonstarter for me. I get that it informs people's personal beliefs and decisions about abortion and some forms of birth control, but a given religion's concept of the soul has no scientific or legal standing.

Many people believe animals have souls too, yet most of them (PETA aside, and they're lying hypocrites who "murder" tons of animals in their shelter) don't posit that someone who kills an animal should be charged with murder.

shortstorymachinist · Aug 9, 2015

Roxxsmom said:
Whether a human embryo or fetus is human or not is a mu question to me. Of course it's human. It's a human ... embryo or fetus. Not a baby or child. The issue is whether a human in the embryonic or fetal state of development is a person whose right to continued development supersedes the well being and agency of the human whose body it's dependent on.

I don't see any way to elevate a fetus to personhood without demoting a pregnant woman to human incubator. It's one or the other. Selfish maybe, but I empathize more with women than I do embryos.

That's maybe been the issue with the whole abortion thread. People were tossing the terms human and person around as if they're interchangeable. But they might not be.

I was simply answering the bolded questions kuwi asked, my response wasn't meant as a stance on abortion. I've read a lot of the abortion thread but refrained from commenting because it's an admirably-restrained-yet-entirely-too-complicated thread for me to feel comfortable in. I prefer that sort of discussion in person.

EDIT: In person or via messages. The important thing is the ability to communicate properly without a dozen people around inferring a dozen different things.

cornflake · Aug 9, 2015

Koko talks about cats, and her cats, a lot. There's a book about one, All Ball, but she wanted a cat for a long time, and said so. The researchers thought it wasn't a good idea, but she went on so much they gave in. She loves and is very gentle with cats.

I don't think it's prompting with her, or Michael, because they use constructions in ASL that make sense, but that a person wouldn't necessarily create.

Just because they, and some birds, speak languages humans do don't mean other animals don't speak their own languages. There was a project to map dolphin language I saw a few years ago.

I don't make a distinction really. We're animals, so are other animals.

kuwisdelu · Aug 9, 2015

Since this is the comparative religious philosophy forum, it would be a shame if we didn't take full advantage of the way that extends the question.

Many people have brought up the person versus human issue, and have commented significantly on whether something can be human but not a person. But I think an equally interesting question — particularly for the religious and/or the sci-if and fantasy writers — is whether it is possible to be a person but not a human, and how we would recognize that. If we met an alien race, under what circumstances would we consider their personhood? What about AI? If you believe in a god or gods, are gods and spirits "persons"?

Likewise, I'm equally interested in what sets humans apart in ways that make us "lesser", whereas most of the discussion has been about ways in which humans are "greater" [than animals or zygotes, etc.].

For example, I would say that a way that humans are intrinsically limited is that we are mortal. It sounds to me like in Christianity, the immortal soul is considered uniquely and inherently human. This isn't the case in all religions, however. Although we consider the spirit immortal in Zuni as well, the spirit isn't inherently human. And so the spirits of our ancestors are not human in the same way that animals and gods aren't human either. That we are human is a temporary state of being. We neither start that way, nor do we remain human after death. (On a related note, it is common to address animals as relatives; they are considered relatives.)

kuwisdelu · Aug 9, 2015

cornflake said:
I don't think it's prompting with her, or Michael, because they use constructions in ASL that make sense, but that a person wouldn't necessarily create.

That a person wouldn't create? Or that a human wouldn't create?

shortstorymachinist · Aug 9, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
Since this is the comparative religious philosophy forum, it would be a shame if we didn't take full advantage of the way that extends the question.

Many people have brought up the person versus human issue, and have commented significantly on whether something can be human but not a person. But I think an equally interesting question — particularly for the religious and/or the sci-if and fantasy writers — is whether it is possible to be a person but not a human, and how we would recognize that. If we met an alien race, under what circumstances would we consider their personhood? What about AI? If you believe in a god or gods, are gods and spirits "persons"?

Likewise, I'm equally interested in what sets humans apart in ways that make us "lesser", whereas most of the discussion has been about ways in which humans are "greater" [than animals or zygotes, etc.].

For example, I would say that a way that humans are intrinsically limited is that we are mortal. It sounds to me like in Christianity, the immortal soul is considered uniquely and inherently human. This isn't the case in all religions, however. Although we consider the spirit immortal in Zuni as well, the spirit isn't inherently human. And so the spirits of our ancestors are not human in the same way that animals and gods aren't human either. That we are human is a temporary state of being. We neither start that way, nor do we remain human after death. (On a related note, it is common to address animals as relatives; they are considered relatives.)

I love this question. While we're far from either AI or aliens (as far as I can tell) I think in either situation it would be possible to have personhood outside of humanity. I think it's the ability to self-reflect in that way, essentially awareness of personhood, that gives it a lot of its meaning. It's somewhat analogous to time, IMO, in that it's somewhat constructed by our understanding of it. If no one who understood time existed, it would still pass, the universe would go on, but time would lose so much meaning that it might as well not exist.

RichardGarfinkle · Aug 10, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
Since this is the comparative religious philosophy forum, it would be a shame if we didn't take full advantage of the way that extends the question.

Many people have brought up the person versus human issue, and have commented significantly on whether something can be human but not a person. But I think an equally interesting question — particularly for the religious and/or the sci-if and fantasy writers — is whether it is possible to be a person but not a human, and how we would recognize that. If we met an alien race, under what circumstances would we consider their personhood? What about AI? If you believe in a god or gods, are gods and spirits "persons"?

Likewise, I'm equally interested in what sets humans apart in ways that make us "lesser", whereas most of the discussion has been about ways in which humans are "greater" [than animals or zygotes, etc.].

For example, I would say that a way that humans are intrinsically limited is that we are mortal. It sounds to me like in Christianity, the immortal soul is considered uniquely and inherently human. This isn't the case in all religions, however. Although we consider the spirit immortal in Zuni as well, the spirit isn't inherently human. And so the spirits of our ancestors are not human in the same way that animals and gods aren't human either. That we are human is a temporary state of being. We neither start that way, nor do we remain human after death. (On a related note, it is common to address animals as relatives; they are considered relatives.)

I think there's a peculiarity here. There's no evidence of immortality in the universe. Is immortality simply an idea humans made up and then asserted must exist?

To me personhood would be the same thing as sentience, but sentience isn't an easily defined concept either.

For limitations, we have many in all directions and aspects. But we then create things to try to transcend those limits. In many respects trying to deal with our limitations is what humans do best.

Our reach is limited by our arms and legs, so we make tools to extend that reach, including language to ask others to get things for us.

Our ability to consider things is apparently very limited. A given person can consider between 5 and 9 things at once. So we create more and more sophisticated kinds of things with multiple levels. We also create things like writing that allow us to put ideas down and pick them up again later.

Our lives are mortal, but we tell stories that carry on aspects of those lives for those who come after.

What makes a human?

Revolutionize the World

Alex

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

punny user title, here

Nurture Phoenixes

punny user title, here

I've seen worse.

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

Nurture Phoenixes

Beastly Fido

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

Beastly Fido

Bright and Early for the Daily Race

punny user title, here

Alex

I have plans...

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid

The score is still Q to 12!

Beastly Fido

The score is still Q to 12!

practical experience, FTW

Revolutionize the World

Revolutionize the World

The score is still Q to 12!

Nurture Phoenixes