What makes a human?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,780
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
But is personhood an all-or-nothing thing, or does it exist on a sort of continuum? Legally, we have to draw lines, of course. That creates a sense (artificial, imo) that all these things are binary. 100% yes or no.

For instance, the age of majority. In the US, in most respects, you become a legal adult on your 18th birthday. You can vote, have sex, marry without your parents' consent, enter into contracts, must register for the draft if male (stupid unequal law that really seems unconstitutional) and serve in the military. Each right conferred by the law on your 18th birthday is all-or-nothing.

But do any of us really believe that every 18 year old becomes imbued with adult abilities and knowledge at midnight on their birthday, or that their brains and bodies are done developing? And do they believe that every eighteen-year-old is more mature than every seventeen-year-old? It's a line of adulthood (maybe based on averages but probably somewhat arbitrary) that's been adopted for legal convenience instead of subjecting each young person to a series of tests to determine which rights and responsibilities they're ready for every few months or so.

If we come up with some legal definition of personhood that applies to one situation, like an artificial intelligence, or an intelligent animal, or alien life, those probably won't apply to all humans (even ones that aren't fetuses). A newborn baby is less intelligent and autonomous than a dog, but a baby is legally considered a person, and a dog isn't. We can say that's because the baby has the potential to develop into a being who has human intelligence, but even if the baby is profoundly brain damaged and will never be more intelligent than it was at birth, it's murder in most cultures for a doctor to put it to sleep as if it were an incurably sick dog.

We obviously do grant extra weight to human species membership, though not everyone agrees about where to draw the line, even so. So when we assign personhood, we have a sliding scale that's based on situation.
 
Last edited:

shortstorymachinist

The score is still Q to 12!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 22, 2015
Messages
2,169
Reaction score
1,293
Location
Japan
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?

Well this is one of the conflict points between the religious and atheistic. Sacred texts serve as enough reassurance for religious folks that the immortality of the soul isn't something just made up, but to atheists, as you said, the utter lack of conclusive proof means that yes, it must be made up. It's a bit of an impasse.

But is personhood an all-or-nothing thing, or does it exist on a sort of continuum? Legally, we have to draw lines, of course. That creates a sense (artificial, imo) that all these things are binary. 100% yes or no.

For instance, the age of majority. In the US, in most respects, you become a legal adult on your 18th birthday. You can vote, have sex, marry without your parents' consent, enter into contracts, must register for the draft if male (stupid unequal law that really seems unconstitutional) and serve in the military. Each right conferred by the law on your 18th birthday is all-or-nothing.

But do any of us really believe that every 18 year old becomes imbued with adult abilities and knowledge at midnight on their birthday, or that their brains and bodies are done developing? And do they believe that every eighteen-year-old is more mature than every seventeen-year-old? It's a line of adulthood (maybe based on averages but probably somewhat arbitrary) that's been adopted for legal convenience instead of subjecting each young person to a series of tests to determine which rights and responsibilities they're ready for every few months or so.

If we come up with some legal definition of personhood that applies to one situation, like an artificial intelligence, or an intelligent animal, or alien life, those probably won't apply to all humans (even ones that aren't fetuses). A newborn baby is less intelligent and autonomous than a dog, but a baby is legally considered a person, and a dog isn't. We can say that's because the baby has the potential to develop into a being who has human intelligence, but even if the baby is profoundly brain damaged and will never be more intelligent than it was at birth, it's murder in most cultures for a doctor to put it to sleep as if it were an incurably sick dog.

We obviously do grant extra weight to human species membership, though not everyone agrees about where to draw the line, even so. So when we assign personhood, we have a sliding scale that's based on situation.

Can we have both? It sounds silly at first, and maybe it is, but hear me out. As you said, there's a sliding scale. Humans, for a significant portion of their developmental stage, meet fewer criteria for personhood than some animals. But humans are, arguably, the only animals that overwhelmingly qualify for personhood, so all humans are included no matter where they are on the sliding scale. I suppose if one day a dog manifested sapience and understandable language, and lobbied for its rights to personhood, it could argue that all dogs should be considered persons despite the fact that the vast majority were below typical personhood on the sliding scale.

TL;DR - Can we say there is an all-or-nothing approach to personhood based on the potential of a species' individual members to reach personhood on a sliding scale?
 

ColoradoGuy

I've seen worse.
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
6,696
Reaction score
1,534
Location
The City Different
Website
www.chrisjohnsonmd.com
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.

Thanks for understanding that this is not the forum for abortion discussions.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
That a person wouldn't create? Or that a human wouldn't create?

Give a hundred chimps a hundred typewriters ...

Yeah, someone could, but I've seen a lot of video of Koko, Michael, etc., speaking with researchers and I don't see how the constructions and compound things would be being prompted, unless you're (or whomever) is suggesting the entire thing is rehearsed for cameras, which is a whole other ball of fraudulent worms, doesn't make a ton of sense on a number of levels (outside people come speak to Koko, etc.), and would indicate something else entirely, if the gorillas remembered and regurgitated entire cued conversations (whether they understood them or not).
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
Give a hundred chimps a hundred typewriters ...

Yeah, someone could, but I've seen a lot of video of Koko, Michael, etc., speaking with researchers and I don't see how the constructions and compound things would be being prompted, unless you're (or whomever) is suggesting the entire thing is rehearsed for cameras, which is a whole other ball of fraudulent worms, doesn't make a ton of sense on a number of levels (outside people come speak to Koko, etc.), and would indicate something else entirely, if the gorillas remembered and regurgitated entire cued conversations (whether they understood them or not).

You missed the questions I was posing about humans vs persons in the post right before that one.

In your post, you conflated "human" with "person".

In a roundabout way, I was asking if that behavior could mean one could consider Koko, et al., as "persons" despite them not being human.
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
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?

Scientifically, energy is immortal.

Artistically, ideas can be considered immortal, as you go on to point out.

But I'd argue it doesn't particularly matter whether exists or not. If we can imagine it, we can debate it.

But do any of us really believe that every 18 year old becomes imbued with adult abilities and knowledge at midnight on their birthday, or that their brains and bodies are done developing? And do they believe that every eighteen-year-old is more mature than every seventeen-year-old? It's a line of adulthood (maybe based on averages but probably somewhat arbitrary) that's been adopted for legal convenience instead of subjecting each young person to a series of tests to determine which rights and responsibilities they're ready for every few months or so.

Careful with that line of thinking, or you may be ending up on my side in P&CE statutory rape threads. ;)
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,780
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Give a hundred chimps a hundred typewriters ...

Yeah, someone could, but I've seen a lot of video of Koko, Michael, etc., speaking with researchers and I don't see how the constructions and compound things would be being prompted, unless you're (or whomever) is suggesting the entire thing is rehearsed for cameras, which is a whole other ball of fraudulent worms, doesn't make a ton of sense on a number of levels (outside people come speak to Koko, etc.), and would indicate something else entirely, if the gorillas remembered and regurgitated entire cued conversations (whether they understood them or not).
I don't think Koko is a fraud, and she's nothing short of remarkable. I have little doubt that animals, especially other "higher" primates, are capable of intellectually complex feats.

But I can't help thinking of the story of "Clever Hans," the horse who could do math and answer questions by stomping his foot. His handler was probably not defrauding anyone. The owner really believed the horse could count. But it turns out the animal was cuing off his very subtle body language. The way this was tested, if I remember correctly, is that the horse couldn't answer questions the handler didn't know the answer to.

I don't know if they have people interacting with Koko and other signing primates (and parrots like poor, amazing Alex) separate from their usual trainers or handlers or have tried discussing things with them that their handlers are ignorant of.

Careful with that line of thinking, or you may be ending up on my side in P&CE statutory rape threads. ;)

I've always felt that the problem with statutory rape, once a person has reached a state of physical and hormonal maturity that allows for the consummation of sexual desires, is the power/experience differential. I don't regard sex between, say, a typical sixteen and a typical eighteen year old to be particularly problematic, so long as no one is coerced and they take precautions. But between a sixteen and twenty one year old (let alone a sixteen and a thirty or forty year old)? There's likely to be a huge inequality in that relationship, even if the younger person desires the older one very much.

The same issue can exist after someone turns 18, imo, but by then we've drawn a line.

I guess if someone can be manipulated and brainwashed into risking their lives and killing other people recruited by the military to patriotically serve their country at 18, they can have sex with someone who's old enough to possibly manipulate and control them emotionally (not saying all "May-December relationships involve manipulation and emotional control, but I knew a gal in college whose much-older husband treated her with scorn and contempt for acting like a 20-year-old college student sometimes, and it was cringeworthy. If he wanted a partner who acted his age, he should have married someone closer to his age imo).
 
Last edited:

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World
I'm still waiting for someone to answer "Water (35 L), Carbon (20 kg), Ammonia (4 L), Lime (1.5 kg), Phosphorous (800 g), Salt (250 g), Saltpeter (100 g), Sulfur (80 g), Fluorine (7.5 g), Iron (5 g), Silicon (3 g) and fifteen other elements in trace amounts."
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,780
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I'm still waiting for someone to answer "Water (35 L), Carbon (20 kg), Ammonia (4 L), Lime (1.5 kg), Phosphorous (800 g), Salt (250 g), Saltpeter (100 g), Sulfur (80 g), Fluorine (7.5 g), Iron (5 g), Silicon (3 g) and fifteen other elements in trace amounts."

This is a great example of how fruitless it is to physically quantify something that's qualitative in nature.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,140
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
I'm still waiting for someone to answer "Water (35 L), Carbon (20 kg), Ammonia (4 L), Lime (1.5 kg), Phosphorous (800 g), Salt (250 g), Saltpeter (100 g), Sulfur (80 g), Fluorine (7.5 g), Iron (5 g), Silicon (3 g) and fifteen other elements in trace amounts."

There's a more poetic variant taken from Terry Pratchett's Wintersmith and turned into a song by Steeleye Span for their album Wintersmith.
http://www.songlyrics.com/steeleye-span/the-making-of-a-man-lyrics/
 

kuwisdelu

Revolutionize the World
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
38,197
Reaction score
4,544
Location
The End of the World

Albedo

Alex
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
7,363
Reaction score
2,924
Location
A dimension of pure BEES
In a roundabout way, I was asking if that behavior could mean one could consider Koko, et al., as "persons" despite them not being human.
I'd be fine with extending some sort of legal personhood to great apes, cetaceans, crows, and other animals that are smart and self-aware. I suppose you could extend that to AIs if true AI ever became a thing. Or to aliens, although we might rather find ourselves hoping they extend their own concept of personhood to us.
 

cornflake

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
16,171
Reaction score
3,734
You missed the questions I was posing about humans vs persons in the post right before that one.

In your post, you conflated "human" with "person".

In a roundabout way, I was asking if that behavior could mean one could consider Koko, et al., as "persons" despite them not being human.

I certainly do. I don't differentiate, especially between mammals. I don't exactly think a mosquito and a human are equivalent by most measures, or perhaps deserving of equal protection under the law, but a human and a chimp, gorilla, dolphin, whale, cat, dog, etc.? In general, yep.

I don't think Koko is a fraud, and she's nothing short of remarkable. I have little doubt that animals, especially other "higher" primates, are capable of intellectually complex feats.

But I can't help thinking of the story of "Clever Hans," the horse who could do math and answer questions by stomping his foot. His handler was probably not defrauding anyone. The owner really believed the horse could count. But it turns out the animal was cuing off his very subtle body language. The way this was tested, if I remember correctly, is that the horse couldn't answer questions the handler didn't know the answer to.

I don't know if they have people interacting with Koko and other signing primates (and parrots like poor, amazing Alex) separate from their usual trainers or handlers or have tried discussing things with them that their handlers are ignorant of.

I've always felt that the problem with statutory rape, once a person has reached a state of physical and hormonal maturity that allows for the consummation of sexual desires, is the power/experience differential. I don't regard sex between, say, a typical sixteen and a typical eighteen year old to be particularly problematic, so long as no one is coerced and they take precautions. But between a sixteen and twenty one year old (let alone a sixteen and a thirty or forty year old)? There's likely to be a huge inequality in that relationship, even if the younger person desires the older one very much.

The same issue can exist after someone turns 18, imo, but by then we've drawn a line.

I guess if someone can be manipulated and brainwashed into risking their lives and killing other people recruited by the military to patriotically serve their country at 18, they can have sex with someone who's old enough to possibly manipulate and control them emotionally (not saying all "May-December relationships involve manipulation and emotional control, but I knew a gal in college whose much-older husband treated her with scorn and contempt for acting like a 20-year-old college student sometimes, and it was cringeworthy. If he wanted a partner who acted his age, he should have married someone closer to his age imo).

I remember the horse thing. Yes, Koko and Michael and Alex and his similarly-abled pals do interact with other people, other researchers, visitors, etc. Also, the stuff they do is so much more interactive and complex that faking it, even to the subtle cuing stage, would seem nigh impossible. Koko has conversations; she doesn't just give the horse kind of answers, and comes up with innovative combinations of words and constructions.

I've seen video of Alex with reporters and stuff, in which they scatter dozens and dozens of items of all shapes and colours and let the reporter ask for 'the small yellow triangle' or 'the large green key' or whatever they choose, for Alex to retrieve. The sheer number of items and the random picking seem to put it outside the horse-type thing. Another parrot, N'kisi, I think his name is, was going to meet Jane Goodall, so his people showed him some video clips of her in the forest at work. When she walked in, he turned, saw her, and said, 'where's your chimp?' I suppose it's possible he was told to do that, but then we're at that he'd have the recall to remember the line, recognize her, or know when prompted to say it to her, exactly once, etc., which is a level of intellect in and of itself. I think he was just snarking, heh.
 
Last edited:

Chris P

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
22,617
Reaction score
7,298
Location
Wash., D.C. area
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.

Interesting question indeed! I think most Christians would say that personhood is unique to humans: a dog is not a person, etc. Those Christians who do believe animals have souls would still likely argue that animal (or even plant or inanimate) souls are different than human souls. Because the Bible doesn't specifically answer this question, we're left to philosophers' hypotheses, various ones of which have been regarded by different sects with differing levels of authority.

I'm not aware of any times a living, biologically human body exists without a soul in the Bible. A quick Google finds a mention in James that a body without a soul is dead, but follows that with a comparison that faith without works is equally dead so the point of the context was not to inform us of personhood. In the stories of demonic possession, it's not clear if the person's soul was elsewhere outside of the body, or if the demon(s) suppressed the soul within the human's body. Most people would believe the latter.

The converse, that a human soul can exist without a body, is well established in scripture and tradition. But our understanding is complicated by several factors: first, the understanding of souls in 600 BC, when many of the Old Testament books are believed to have been written down in their more-or-less current forms, our understanding in 100-200 AD, when most of the New Testament books were written down, and our current understanding given 2000 years of evolution of thought on the matter. Saul summoned Samuel's ghost in the Old Testament, and the afterlife described by Jesus doesn't make much sense if a person doesn't exist beyond the physical body, let alone the Rapture and judgement of Revelations. Too bad Lazarus never speaks, and the poor sod just had to die again.

Angels, by the way, are separate creations from humans, and are not the souls of dead people.

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"?

I think we would, for lack of any frame of reference, have to judge them by their similarities to us: autonomy of thought (free will, if you will), ability to reproduce, sentience, and . . . tough one. I'm sure there's no way a definitive list could be agreed upon.

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.].

As am I. I've not heard this question seriously discussed before.

It sounds to me like in Christianity, the immortal soul is considered uniquely and inherently human.

By "official" understanding, anyway. Different opinions exist even within Christianity. As I said above, most Christians would say that either non-human souls don't exist or if they do they are different from human souls. Any suggestion of a vital, immortal force that animates all living matter and is equivalent to a soul is usually labeled as New Ageism, Christian-based or not.
 

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
23,083
Reaction score
10,780
Location
Where faults collide
Website
doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I suppose it's possible he was told to do that, but then we're at that he'd have the recall to remember the line, recognize her, or know when prompted to say it to her, exactly once, etc., which is a level of intellect in and of itself. I think he was just snarking, heh.

Parrots seem to understand deception. This is anecdotal, but one of my friends has an Amazon, and the bird will solicit petting sometimes. But there are times when he wants to bite instead, and he'll say, "Scratch me" in this cute, high-pitched voice, but his eyes are strobing and his head is turned just ever so. No one falls for it more than once.

He also likes to say, "I'm a GOOD bird after he bites someone or makes the kind of mess that causes human exasperation." It's hard not to imagine a toddler turning around and saying, "I'm a GOOD girl/boy" when you walk in and they've drawn all over the wall.
 

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes
Staff member
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
11,140
Reaction score
3,082
Location
Walking the Underworld
Website
www.richardgarfinkle.com
Scientifically, energy is immortal.

Artistically, ideas can be considered immortal, as you go on to point out.

I don't think either of these is accurate. Energy isn't a thing. It's a property of other things. That the total energy in the universe is conserved doesn't mean that there is an entity Energy that lives forever. People tend to deify the concept of energy, but as a conserved quantity it's no more special than charge, momentum, or angular momentum.

As for ideas. They can outlive their original thinkers by having other people think them. That just means that an idea and its originator don't have to die at the same time. That's not immortality either.
 

Crayonz

Tribal Flame Warden Ducky
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
1,489
Reaction score
364
Location
Neither here nor there. Or the Castle.
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.)
Late response, but...

To my religion's general way of thinking (that I know of, I could be wrong and this may just be what I believe), humans are human because we have enormous egos. We think we're better than all the other species and are too big for our britches, basically. Long ago we were one with Tao, the Earth and all the other creatures on it. We had our place in the circle of life (or whatever you wanna call it) and went about our business alongside the other creatures of this world. We became more full of ourselves and eventually were cast out by the other species, to be allowed back into the club once we had learned our lesson. The casting out is when we became human.

Babies of our species are still considered to be one with Tao and thus, are not human, since they have not yet developed an ego. As we grow, so do our egos and we become more and more human, though we still may have traits that reflect Tao.

So, in the question of aliens, if they worked alongside the other creatures of their world then I wouldn't call them human. If they enslave other species or are just full of themselves, then I'd call 'em human.

Also, I love the way Zuni view an individual's spirit. It makes a lot of sense. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.