# What defines Human? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 31, 2001, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-human/67103 "2001-05-31T17:37:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2001, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-human/67103/61 "2001-06-08T21:20:29Z")
I’m not sure what task you have imagined that I had planned. I’m just going to muse about the OP and your responses. I’m not at all interested in convincing you that humans don’t have spirits or that things with spirits are human or that Jesus doesn’t say/seem/show what you think he does. **A couple of general notes first.** The OP, as others have noted, seems a bit unclear. Are we defining membership in the species homo sapiens sapiens or are we defining a further quality of “humanity” (which might be sentience, posession of a soul, qwonaciousness, etc.) **Things with a spirit are human** is clearly directed at the second. **Lib** , I think that as with our discussion on morality your standard, while perhaps consistent and correct, lacks functional utility for mortals. I believe this is what **Lightnin’** (and others, perhaps) has reacted to with scorn. Certainly, if the goal is to find a useful (even as hypothetical exercise) definition of humanity then functional disutility is enough to disqualify the solution. I can read the OP and find an implied condition of human utility, and **Lightnin’s** follow up posts certainly made that criterion clear. Whether this was changing the question or clarifying the context for which answers are being sought depends, it seems, on how one understood the OP in the first place. **Lightnin’** objects to using possession of Spirit as a test since _“Lib’s solution requires that we be able to detect a soul- otherwise the answer is meaningless. It’s the same as saying, ‘Well, I’d just know!’”_ This is a valid objection, once the criterion of utility (for us) is establishd. Interestingly, I find that **Lightnin’s** own proferred answer _“if a sentient being (of whatever sort) thinks of itself as human, it is.”_ also fails this test of utility. After all, it lacks an explicit method for us to determine whether a sentience thinks of itself as human. Both amount to variations of “I’ll know it when I see/feel/experience it.” Now we get to the point where **Lib** offers means with which to recognize that a being possesses Spirit. **1. He should have the potential for some sense of his own existence beyond simple fight or flight. Besides merely eating, shitting, fucking, and sleeping, we might expect that he would seek out a broader fulfillment. We would not expect him to be satisfied otherwise.** Humanity requires drives beyond those of simple instinctual survival. I agree. **2. He should have the potential to develop a comprehension of Platonic ideals. We would expect that he might parlay his thoughts into poetry and interpretation, rather than simply processing sensory input and reacting to his environment.** Humanity should possess artistic understanding and the urge to create patterns. I agree. I am somewhat troubled by the inclusion of Platonic ideals per se. I would rather argue that the creation and recognition of patterns combine to foster a sense of significance to pattern which extends beyond the particular manifestation. Whether that significance takes the form of Platonic ideals does not strike me as critical. **3. Closely related, he should have the potential to create. We would expect his interpretation of his environment to go beyond that of mere survival. We might expect him to see a banana as perhaps an idea for creating art, and not as just something to eat. We would expect him to assign meaning to things that don’t mean anything in and of themselves.** I actually wrapped this into my discussion of point 2. I agree. **4. He should exhibit the potential to reach outside himself, just as his Creator did. We might expect that he would explore for exploration’s sake, that he would not merely migrate, but hope and yearn that there is something better on the other side of the hill.** Exploration and creation. It seems to me that this is simply a special case of (1) + (2&3). While I think that this quality is definitely present in humanity as a whole, I am not at all certain that it is a prerequisite for humanity in the particular. If a yogi finds contentment looking inward instead of outward I do not think he forfeits his humanity. Likewise a real-life candide should not be excluded from humanity for preferring to tend his own garden. **5. He should show that he has the potential to fight, not just for territory, not just for possessions, but for principle. We would expect things that aren’t even material to matter to him. We would expect him to hold on to a thing, not just because he found it, or because it helps him survive, but because he treasures it.** Humans demonstrate possessiveness and the wilingness to exert force for myriad causes. Again, while I find both of these traits quite common in humanity as a whole, I do not think that either mendicants or pacifists should be denied their place in the fraternity. It strikes me that you might be trying to evoke a more general idea of Spirit being found in the valuation of the abstract above the material, perhaps above life itself. I cannot be certain, though. A person’s treasure might well be material and a principle might be grounded squarely in material self-interest. **6. He should have the potential to develop a morality, i.e., a comprehension, not just of a relational ethic or pecking order, but of good and evil. We might expect to see in him shame, not just over a deed, but over a thought, not just because he might be punished, but because he values goodness. Alternatively, we might expect that he would delight in evil for evil’s sake.** Humans have a sense of good and evil divorced from social, political or personal context. I disagree. By divorcing morality from the context of ethics you seem to be demanding that humans accept a metaphysical definition of good and evil. While I understand that as a point of view that many people share, and which might in fact be correct, it is nevertheless true that many homo spaiens sapiens do not develop such a morality. Now, you specify “potential to develop . . .”, which perhaps hedges the bet. But if the goal is a working definition then you are left saying things like, “well, **Spiritus** must have that potential even though he does not evince it because we know that he is a human . . .” I am more sympathetic to the simpler idea that humans have a sense of morality, whether it be grounded in ethics, metaphysics, hedonistic selfishness, etc. Even there, I feel the ground is shaky. Do sociopaths forfeit their humanity? **7. He should demonstrate the potential to recognize his own specialness, that is, he should ask himself such questions as “what makes me, as a human, different from the other animals?” We might expect that he would debate this question with others, and that the others who join him in debate share his specialness.** Humans are self-aware and classify their environment according to shared traits. I agree. **Back to the OP** As noted above (and by others) I sense 2 questions. Where does the line of biological identity lie, and what does the abstract quality of “humanity” require? To address your specific examples: ```auto example Homo Sapiens Sapiens Humanity Baseline human YES YES + prosthetic limb YES YES + prosthetic organ YES YES brain in a can NO YES[SUP]1[/SUP] personality in a computer NO YES[SUP]1[/SUP] Robot thinks it'S human NO YES[SUP]1[/SUP] Robot made by humans NO NO Minorly altered human YES YES Majorly altered huuman NO MAYBE[SUP]2[/SUP] Completely altered human NO MAYBE[SUP]2[/SUP] Alien raised as a human NO MAYBE[SUP]2[/SUP] Alien NO MAYBE[SUP]2[/SUP] [sup]1[/sup][sub]If the interface between machine and environment retained sufficient complexity to replicate/simulate the phenomenological complexity of the human glandular and sensory systems. Otherwise no.[/sub] [sup]2[/sup][sub]At some point of genetic differentiation it is possible that the being would cease to experience its environment in a manner which is sufficiently analagous to our own for us to allow for a fraternal association. One example might be a being that lacks any ability to respond emotionally to an aesthetic experience. ``` ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2001, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-human/67103/62 "2001-06-08T22:14:37Z")
Oh. You might be interested to know that Xeno has announced that he will construct a thread this weekend on morality and ethics. Here’s looking forward to seeing you there! ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2001, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-human/67103/63 "2001-06-08T22:23:01Z")
_Applauds_ Thank you, **Spiritus Mundi** - that was an _excellent_ analysis. That’s exactly the kind of answer I’ve been looking for. I would like to apologize for being unclear in my OP- part of the problem is that there doesn’t appear to _be_ a good definition of “Human”. Perhaps “Human” isn’t even the word I’m looking for, hence the confusion. Oh, and **Libertarian**? Feel free to just walk on by any other posts I make- your responses (or lack thereof, seeing as how I tried to answer every question _you_ posed, while you didn’t feel you needed to do the same for mine) aren’t requested. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Lockfist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/838e76/32.png) [@Lockfist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lockfist)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2001, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-human/67103/64 "2001-06-08T22:32:34Z")
Interesting debate. I think I am easily outmatched in terms of intelligence. I still think I may be able to provide some perspective (I cant believe this website hasnt come up in the discussion so far). There is a very interesting and thought-proviking writing called **The Cyborg Manifest** located at [http://www.cyborgmanifesto.org/](http://www.cyborgmanifesto.org/) Skip the first page of the Flash presentation, I think the real “meat” of the site starts on page two. An excerpt: > [@](#): > > **Cyborg Dreams** > > When machines first started computing, we said computing was not central to being human. When machines started assembling objects, we said assembly was not central to being human. When machines began to listen, talk and engage in advance tactics and strategies [as in games like chess], we said these cognitive skills were not central to being human. All technological progress is now geared towards the redundancy of the human being as we currently know it. Does this scare you ? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2001, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-human/67103/65 "2001-06-08T22:44:50Z")
Oh, and Spiritus, by the way, I had anticipated your remark about the sociopath by refering, in every point I made, to man in general as a “mankind entity” with certain _potentials_. The sociopath has that potential, were his brain merely normalized. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2001, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-human/67103/66 "2001-06-09T00:07:34Z")
**lightnin’** Thanks for the praise, but one of the things I was hoping to demonstrate was that **Lib’s** initial responses were not necessarily _non sequitor_ to the OP as written. Your reactions are also understandable given what I see as the intent behind you OP, but it seems to me that **Lib’s** last post on page 1 was an honest attempt to answer your question in the context you desire. The rest seems to be personality conflict. If it helps, you are far from the first poster here to have a personality conflict with **Lib** (in fact, that honor might belong to me, though I don’t think I ever got the plaque.) **Lib** > [@](#): > > Oh, and Spiritus, by the way, I had anticipated your remark about the sociopath by refering, in every point I made, to man in general as a “mankind entity” with certain potentials. The sociopath has that potential, were his brain merely normalized. Well, it’s an obvious example to consider. I remain troubled by the “potential for . . .” position as a utilitarian diagnostic. You say that a sociopath would possess a morality if his brain were normalized, but that simply closes the circle “Spirits inhabit human beings”. How do we know human _Alpha_ possesses the potential for trait _X_ which is an indicator of Spirit? Because we have defined human beings as vessels suitable for Spirit. Is it ever possible that a genetic human would not possess Spirit? If no, then it appears that all qualifications in your list are moot for genetic humans. **On another note** A statement was given to me today in a context that has absolutely no relation to the OP or this discussion, yet I find myself wanting to share it here. There is no solution. Seek it with love. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2001, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-human/67103/67 "2001-06-09T00:10:41Z")
> [@](#): > > All technological progress is now geared towards the redundancy of the human being as we currently know it. Does this scare you ? I find the premise to be false. I am not scared of false premises. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-defines-human/67103.md?page=3)