What defines Human?

Great Debates
1

This is a train of thought I’ve been chewing on for a while now, and I haven’t come to a decent conclusion (to mix a whole lot of metaphors).

What defines a “human”?

Take a look at this array:

  1. Baseline human.
  2. Baseline human with a prosthetic limb.
  3. Baseline human with a prosthetic organ (heart, lung, etc.).
  4. Human brain in a completely prosthetic body (cyborg).
  5. Human personality encoded into a computer.
  6. Sentient computer/robot taught to think of itself as a human, or with a database of “typical” human knowledge.
  7. Sentient computer/robot manufactured by humans.

-alternately-

  1. Baseline human.
  2. Human genetically altered for a specific trait- low risk of a certain disease, etc.
  3. Human genetically altered to express many traits, or a major trait- heightened intelligence, ability to breathe underwater, etc.
  4. Completely genegineered person (base stock human or animal or other), still raised as a “human”.
  5. Extraterrestrial alien raised as a human (say it was adopted by humans- is Worf human?).
  6. Extraterrestrial alien.

What’s the cut-off point? At which one of the above levels does the subject cease to be considered “human”?

The best solution I’ve been able to come up with is that if a sentient being (of whatever sort) thinks of itself as human, it is. Anyone got anything better?

2

Or, one could take this question in another direction, with an array like:

  1. Fetus at various stages
  2. Person of low or sub-human intelligence
  3. Elderly person with advanced Alzheimers’ Disease
  4. Mass murderer who lacks the morality expected of a “human”
3

Well, first you got to define human. I take it from your post’s tone that you consider human to be different than sentient, but not rigidly defined as Homo sapiens. i will write under the assumption that all humans are sentient (for the purposes of this post only) and that sentient robots would be equal to humans, but still don’t count as human (but could conceivably have souls).

sounds human to me!

why would losing a leg cause you to be less of a human? (because you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on! Ha!) but seriously, why? i see no reason.

  1. same argument as number 2, my heart is no longer in quoting your whole post.

  2. cyborg-- a cyborg is anyone with robotic parts, not necissarily a human brain in a robot. but you can argue a human brain in a robot is still a human, just that he could more easily slip into robot monster mode from random 50’s horror movie.

  3. Now it’s getting tough. i would not consider this a “human,” but i would have no problem with awarding it sentient status and granting it all rights and privlages thereof. This assumes that the job is done correctly.

The first part would be tough, i guess if the robot decided upon itself to call itself sentient, then that would be something(i’m not sure what, but it would depend on the robot). A robot with “typical” human knowledge could easily be a Mr. Spell. It takes more than regurgitating facts to be human.

  1. Massed produced sentient robots is not something i am looking forward to, unless Asimov’s rules are strictly enforced. i cannot expect that the rules will be followed, and some idiot will be beating on a robot, and the robot will beat back, and that will be all she wrote.

oh, and there is a robot in my sig file, but i consider him sentient! :slight_smile:

4

I think the essence of humanity has more to do with how we
experience/process the world around us than anything else.

That said, my understanding is that our physical form has a
significant effect on how we perceive reality. Based on
what I’ve read, a creature which had a 360[sup]o[/sup]
field of vision would have a very different idea
of “forwards” and “backwards” from what we have. So I’d
have to say that anything which isn’t physically similar to
a normal human (maybe even to a high degree) doesn’t count
as human.

As for a sentient robot which is shaped like a human…I
guess there’s no reason to deny it humanity if its
experience of the world around it is roughly the same as
ours. On the other hand, if it has senses which are
radically different from ours, then I would have a hard
time saying that it’s human.

5

Mozart and a mass murderer look fairly similiar BUT what a difference !

6

Sorry, I wasn’t terribly clear there. When I said “looks like us”, I meant “is roughly the shame shape as us”–i.e., bipedal, most sensory organs located above the torso, etc.

I was thinking more of the contrast between, say, a human being and a giant sentient scorpion.

Hope this clarifies.

7

I was considering posting on this topic for sometime. Dabbling in such philosophic discussion frankly probably terrifies some people and make them extremely uneasy.

I think there is an undefined quality to humans that goes beyond the simple flesh and blood of a Homo sapiens body. To say that a body born of man and woman is always human is true only as much as that puppies born of German Shepherds are always dogs. It is a biologically correct statement, but lacks the sense that there is a quality to Humans beyond simple biology.

There will always be certain groups of people that claim the undefined quality to humanity is given by God the time of conception and continues until the organism fails. I’m not very satisfied with that description. The only advantage is that the definitions are clear and precise: a woman is either pregnant with a new life or she is not, there is no in-between status; an organism is living or dead, there is no in-between status.

Some people could argue that all life is equally valued and that Home sapiens can’t raise itself above other life forms like Canis familiaris. But I don’t think a majority believes this. Most will say that killing a man is more wrong than killing a dog, but both acts should be punishable under the law, yet killing a man will incur a greater penalty than killing a dog. In essence, a man has something that a dog does not beyond the mere biology of both being living beings.

I favor the Seat of Humanity, just to call the undefined quality something for now, residing in sentience or the mind, and the biological body as only the container. Some people will take great objection this because to lead, quite justifiably in my option, to some profoundly retarded people or just plan dumb people being classified as beings not having the Seat of Humanity, or in other words mere biology. It would allow, however, Artificial Intelligence, Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or Personality Encoded Computers (à la Hans Moravec) to join the Seat of Humanity independent of biology.

Imagine another case: John Doe is an ordinary citizen, is sentient, and is consider part of Seat of Humanity, but suffers a catastrophic head injury and loses all brain functions but his body is kept alive in a hospital. In such case, I think he would lose his seat and become mere biology.

I can envision vitriolic criticism. There will strong emotional roots to the biological definition of human

8

If it can mate with a human and produce viable offspring.

9

JMonster- so an impotent man isn’t human?

Pyrrhonist- what a well thought out, reasonable post. Expect no vitriol from me.
I’m inclined to accept the Seat of Humanity ideal myself. I think a self-aware robot could and should be accepted as “human” (and by this I mean legally and morally) by the rest of us.
I think that “human” in this sense is perhaps an archaic concept, and should simply be replaced by the title of “sentient”. Unfortunately, we then have the conundrum of the definition of “sentient”. Maybe a Turing test to determine citizenship? :slight_smile:

10

jmonster was defining the biological definition of our species, however, i agree with your defining sentience instead of human statement. it was not very clear in the OP, so hence the confusion.

of course, instead of robots being equals, there is always the star wars approach, where all the robots are essentially slaves. i, for one, would have a moral problem with this approach, as i would with enslaved apes doing janitorial work, until Ceaser comes along and starts his yapping…

11

In my opinion, a human is any entity that is a vessel for God’s Spirit. How that entity is manifested in terms of quantum farts is irrelevant.

12

Libertarian, are you using human as a species term or as a term for anything with a soul? (or like Ligtnin’ said, do you call Worf a human?)

13

Libertarian, that really doesn’t answer the question in any way, does it? By my count, you just used 15 words to say nothing at all. :rolleyes:

Or have you found a way to demonstrate “God’s Spirit” in a laboratory setting?

14

How about the other hominids? Would homo erectus be considered human and given the same rights? How about the australopithecines? How far back would you have to go to find a hominid that you would have no moral problem with keeping in a zoo or doing research on?

15

Lightnin’:

Sorry. I hadn’t realized you were limiting this “debate” to atheist evolutionist scientists with laboratories.

16

Badtz Maru- That’s essentially my point. Where do you draw the line? At what point is something merely an “animal”? I dunno. Should there be some sort of Turing test?

Libertarian- you just don’t get it, do you? My question is “At what point is an entity considered to be, legally and morally, a Human?”

You chimed in with “vessel for God’s Spirit.”. Now, how exactly does anyone test for this? Do we just have you tell us on a case-by-case basis, or what?

Whether the testing is done by atheists in a laboratory setting is entirely up to you- but at least give us some criteria!

17

Lightnin:

That might be your question now, but originally, you said nothing about law or morality. I offer an alternate reality tunnel which you may accept or reject at your leisure. Somehow, you think I’m too doltish to get your point. Yet you are swimming around like goldfish with a panic attack.

Your first complaint against me was that I used “15 words” to say nothing. If you had felt compelled to read the words, rather than count them, you’d have discovered that your original question — What defines a “human”? — was answered from my opinion. This is a debate forum. We express opinions here. If you meant to post in General Questions, then that’s what you should have done.

Your second complaint against me was that I likely hadn’t “found a way to demonstrate ‘God’s Spirit’ in a laboratory setting”. I was content to acknowledge your point and forget about it. Indeed, I have not tested for God’s Spirit in any laboratory.

But no, you weren’t content merely to dismiss my opinion and get on with it. You felt it necessary to knock on my forehead and proclaim that I just don’t get it, whereupon you changed your question. As often happens in such circumstances, you actually aligned your new question right with the opinion I originally gave. You now ask for moral criteria.

Very well, inasmuch as God is the very source of morality, and a human is considered to be a moral creature, a human is defined as a vessel that carries God’s Spirit.

Now, you ask how one tests for this. And the answer is that one dies. That is, one rids oneself of the confines that are placed on one by quantum farts. If one finds that one’s own essence is still alive, one knows that one’s cells were never really alive all along.

And if you want to know whether Worf is a human, ask Worf.

18

A human being is anything that posesses Qwon.

“Qwon” of course is defined as the human quality.

Now I’ll just walk over here, and stand next to Lib, and pretend to be confused when people tell me that my “alternate tunnel of reality” is absolutely useless in any context.

When they deride my response I’ll laugh in superior fashion at the poor unenlightened fools who have not experienced, and are blind to Qwon.

19

Libertarian: *Very well, inasmuch as God is the very source of morality, and a human is considered to be a moral creature, a human is defined as a vessel that carries God’s Spirit.

Now, you ask how one tests for this. And the answer is that one dies. That is, one rids oneself of the confines that are placed on one by quantum farts. If one finds that one’s own essence is still alive, one knows that one’s cells were never really alive all along.

And if you want to know whether Worf is a human, ask Worf.*

Huh??? But by your own assertion a mere three sentences back, Lib, Worf will not have a reliable answer to that question until Worf is dead. The question still looks pretty begged to me.

20

No, my question has not changed in the least- I merely tightened its focus. My original question was “What defines human?”, and later on I amended it to “What legally and morally defines human?”. Sorry for any confusion this might have caused you. And by the way, I never panic. At least never so online. Goldfishiness is optional.

I did, in fact, read those fifteen words. Perhaps you were answering only for your own benefit- if so, all is well and good. You did, however, profess to answer MY question- and you did so in a meaningless manner. It’s as if you’d said, “A human is any creature which knockfoodles antirons”- without a meaningful definition of antirons and exactly how one knockfoodles them, the answer is meaningless. The problem is even worse if antirons aren’t a measurable phenomenon- or even acknowledged to exist by a sizable portion of the scientific community.

Now, on to your (expounded) answer.

From what you’ve said, the only way to prove whether an entity is “human” is to kill it. This seems to me to be a particularly barbaric test, but whatever, as long as it works. Oh, but once freed from its “Cosmic Fart” (as you so eloquently put it), we can never detect whether the entity’s essence still exists? Hmm, back to the drawing board- oh, and grab us a new entity to test while you’re at it- this one’s all used up.

Look, here’s a remarkably simplified example:

A court has convened. This court is appointed to determine whether a group of entities are human, and are to be assigned all the rights and privileges that exalted position entails. You’re the judge, you get to decide. Please explain each decision. Oh, and killing 'em off to figure it out is considered bad form.

(We’ll use my previous examples.)

  1. Baseline human.
  2. Baseline human with a prosthetic limb.
  3. Baseline human with a prosthetic organ (heart, lung, etc.).
  4. Human brain in a completely prosthetic body (cyborg).
  5. Human personality encoded into a computer.
  6. Sentient computer/robot taught to think of itself as a human, or with a database of “typical” human knowledge.
  7. Sentient computer/robot manufactured by humans.
  8. Human genetically altered for a specific trait- low risk of a certain disease, etc.
  9. Human genetically altered to express many traits, or a major trait- heightened intelligence, ability to breathe underwater, etc.
  10. Completely genegineered person (base stock human or animal or other), still raised as a “human”.
  11. Extraterrestrial alien raised as a human (say it was adopted by humans).
  12. Extraterrestrial alien.

Now, which of these subjects is a legally recognized human, and which are animals or machines? And (here’s the important part) how do you decide which is which?

The reason I ask this is because I think we’re getting very close to the point in our evolution,as a species,where we’ll be able to sufficiently modify ourselves such that the very definition of “human” will be tested daily. Nanotech, genetic modifications, you name it; I imagine we’ll need some sort of guidelines to determine what critters can be part of our society- or do you think that we should just accept anyone who applies?