By your use of the first person, I take it you include yourself as an acceptable critter. Why?
There are human beings (i.e., Homo sapiens) and there are sentient beings. The problem lies in the fact that all of the sentient beings that we are aware of are also human beings (dolphins and chimpanzees notwithstanding). The term ‘human’ has been taken to mean sentient. But that is not necessarily the case. Not all human beings are sentient - infants, people with Alzheimer’s, people in a coma, etc. One can also imagine sentient beings that are not human beings. To further complicate matters, one can also imagine non-sentient individuals of a sentient species (e.g. Chewbacca with Alzheimer’s).
It seems to me that what you are looking for is a test of sentience rather than “humanness”.
Terminus Est- Not exactly. What I’m looking for is the cutoff point- at which point along the above list does someone cease to be considered “human”? Is someone with prosthetic limb still human? How about a robot with a human brain? Is he/she/it still human?
Libertarian- I grandfathered myself in, and nobody’s tried to kick me out yet. I’m genetically unmodified Homo Sapiens, but I’ve got two fillings in my mouth- am I still human? Or are you refusing to make a concrete decision on this? If so, please let me know so I can just ignore you from now on. Thanks.
The way I read the OP, the way I answered, was that “human” was the quality of * Homo sapiens* that transcends mere biology and whether this quality is transferable to biological and non-biological organisms and entities. As far as I know, there is no definition at this time for what the OP was seeking, so confusion was quite easy. I said that this quality, which I called the Seat of Humanity, resided in sentience and the mind.
I kind of liked Libertarian’s definition as a vessel for “God’s Spirit.” I’ve got a pretty good inking of what he means by it if he is using a traditional concept of God—which is no certainty; I don’t necessarily agree with his definition, but it is a good answer for the most part. The non-Theist in me may get around it refuting it sooner or later.
Gaudere and I had a similar discussion in an abortion related thread.
We both agreed that the brain in a box (or Cyborg) was still human.
A human personality encoded in a computer is not a human, IMHO.
It may be more, or less, or something equal but different, but it’s no longer human.
I.E. If two encoded personalities exchanged code, and created a third encoded personality would that third personality still be human.
If it made a million copies of itself on floppy disk and mailed them out along with AOl, are those copies human?
Part of being human is being a unique and individual personality. Once you seperate mind from brain, this is no longer the case.
Lightnin
When they do, with what line of reasoning will you defend yourself?
Are you talking about DNA now? Stop shifting.
I have stated my decision. Unlike yours, it hasn’t changed. Ignore me all you like if that makes your debate easier for you.
Pyrrhonist
I’m not sure what you mean by traditional, but what I mean is that Entity in Whose likeness man was created.
Seems to me that you’re still confusing things sentience and “humanness”. Is an amputated limb still human? A brain preserved in formalin? A disarticulated skeleton?
to me, everything but 7,11, and 12 are human. not 7 or 12 becuse, hey, they don’t think they are human and noone else does, so hey! not human. and 11 isn’t because when mister alien grows into an adult he will learn that he isn’t a human, and stop thinking of himself as such.
controversiality-
i consider a sentient computer with a (presumably now dead) human’s personality encoded in it to be human. if you were that personality, wouldn’t you be pissed if someone turned you off because you weren’t “human”?
example- have you ever read the book Nanomere [sub](i think that is it- haven’t read it in a while, might be the wrong title.)[/sub]? in it, some guy goes up into space, with a virtual reality interface neuro-thing. he made a copy of his personality to help run the ship. later, he finds out that the only way to save whatever (maybe the planet?) was to go back at a continuous 10g acceleration. the ship could take it, but it would kill him. so, he told the computer personality-copy to run the ship and let him die. the computer-personality forcibly updated itself from the guy’s mind one second before he died. later, the encoded personality is granted full human rights and privelidges, along with his former girlfriend, who was murdered while her personality was using a neuro interface thingy to wander the web, and was left as a wandering sentience.
sorry if i ramble more than a crackhead, and that that had absolutley no point. i just thought it might be something to put stuff in perspective.
oh well. i guess i suck.
Delete the word “things” from my statement above.
To expound my point a bit further, all entries on your list are examples of sentient beings (assuming ET has some semblance of intelligence). The list starts with something unquestionably human and ends with something unquestionably non-human. Where to draw the line is a legal question. Morally, ET is still a sentinet being and the fact that he/she/it is non-human is irrelevant.
To my mind, one of the properties of a good definition for a class is that it allows one to say what isn’t a member of that class. I don’t really see how you can use this definition to say that something isn’t human. After all, couldn’t God (being omnipotent) use an endtable lamp as a vessel for His Spirit?
Having said all that, here’s my question: using your above definition, can you come up with a way to determine that something is not human?
Libertarian and Lightnin’- I can easily see how a non-Christian would be dissatisfied with Libertarian’s answer to the question What is Human? The definition of “human” as a vessel for God’s spirit would not be useful for these people. However, as far as believers are concerned, I see no real reason why this cannot be the definition they choose to use.
That does not mean to say that I think it is a particularly good definition. I should state here that I do not believe in ideal platonic definitions for words; whatever meaning we ascribe to the word “human”, it’s there to facilitate our communication with other speakers of English. I believe that utility is a valid concern when defining words. It seems to me that Libertarian’s definition is not entirely useful.
In a Christian context, the presence of God’s spirit can be put forth as an attribute of all humans. However, it does not necessarily follow that this attribute makes a sufficient definiton for the word “human”. It seems to me that there are other attributes which humans share that could be used as a definition. It also seems to me that there could be other entities which share God’s spirit which we would not want to describe as human; Mr.Worf may be a good example.
I also agree with certain other posters that this definition lacks practical descriptiveness. It is impossible from this definition for a mortal being to distinguish between what is and what is not human. Of course, within the context of religious belief, this objection may not apply.
It’s four in the morning. I’m not sure if I’ve made a point or not. I’m off to bed.
…
One last note. I agree largely with Terminus Est regarding the distinction made between sentience and humanity.
And just to add to the list of cases to consider: what about a person whose only difference from a baseline human is that she has a psychiatric disorder that prevents her from experiencing emotions?
Let me see if I can make this any clearer- That’s what I’m asking YOU! Honestly, are you trying to be obtuse just for the sake of argument?
Who’s shifting? I refer you to number 2 in the list above- a “baseline human with a prosthetic limb.” Okay, so they’re teeth, but they’re still partially prosthetic. Now, does the fact that I have fillings in my teeth mean I’m not a human (here read “a recognized member of human society- not an animal, not a machine- accorded all the rights, legal and moral, that other humans have been accorded”)
If you are actually willing to make a concrete statement on whether I’m still human, at what point do I cease to BE human? Is it when I replace every bit of my body, excepting my brain, with inorganic parts? Is it when I encode my personality into a computer? When?
No, all you did was say something about “God’s Spirit”, as if that answered the question. In the courtroom example I gave above (which you ignored, conveniently), do you think that a judge would accept that argument? “Yes, Your Honor- I believe my goldfish is a vessel for God’s Spirit, and is therefore eligible for food stamps, and should be able to vote.”
Okay, I exaggerate. But not much.
Terminus Est- My point exactly. Where does our “human-ness” reside? Is it in the brain, so that without a brain (through whatever method), an entity is incapable of being considered human? Or is it in the entire body, so a computer could never be able to vote (even though its personality was originally human)?
I’m not certain there is a good definition for the word “Human” used in this context. And that’s what I’m asking for. With advances in cloning, genetic manipulation, and cybernetics, “Humanity” as a concept is going to be going through some serious changes.
Jeez, I’m invisible. Now I know how Spiritus Mundi feels.
Yeah, yeah, Scylla- I’m gettin’ to ya. I just got distracted by Libertarian.
In my opinion, anything associated in any way with AOL is, by definition, totally exempt from consideration as Human. 
I tend to agree with you. Seems to me that a defining element of humanity is that each of us is an individual.
But boy it’d suck to be one of those copies- you would know that you’re human- but society wouldn’t recognize you as such. Does that mean that a copy can be erased and it’s not murder? Can a copy be modified, or forced into slavery, by anyone who wishes to do so, simply because it’s not a real person?
if the copy is on a disk, but has not been loaded into a computer and run, then it is a potential life, but is not currently alive (or you could argue it is hibernating or dormant). each copy of a person if uploaded into a different machine would then become different people because of the experiance differences between the copies. So in theory, i could have 100 Worfs on 100 different computers, but they would then become 100 different worfs, each with their own rights. A reason this could get to be a problem is what if all 100 Worfs demand ownership to the one batleth that Original Worf owned, then legal problems will arrive (a Worf civil war).
Another question is did Worf just create 100 new souls, or do the copies count sice they are just essentially lines of code? I say they do, since we are just essntially DNA, some people might bawk at creation of new souls, but that is what procreation does, this is just a different form.
Hopefully, intelligent computers will demand rights in my lifetime, so i can watch AI testing and civil rights laws develop, it will be interesting.
Scylla
I vaguely recall that discussion. I think I butted in and asked for a definition of “mind” as opposed to “brain”, but the arguments were going fast and furious and my question was, well, as you say invisible.
Terminus Est
I think you hit on a problematic difficulty for the materialist. I don’t believe he can remove ambiguity from the apparent continuum of nature without applying Planck measurements to fields that are indemically hostile to them. What a quandry!
Pyrrho12
The Christian will accept the DNA composite that defines a human. There are no other creatures or things that house His Spirit. The question that I think Lightnin is fiddling with is one of identity. When is the man no longer a man if his parts are eviscerated one by one? That question then runs headlong into the Terminus Est Paradox. The only nonparadoxical solution I can see is to deal honestly with the dual nature of man. Is he really his brain or his spirit?
I’ll make this short. To me, a human is someone capable of free-will, to suicide, to flip hamburgers (neat trick they can do!), and incessant complaining.
What is so special about human beings? What are the qualities of a human being that one is accorded certain rights and privileges? Are they inherent in human beings? Do they exist only in human beings? Why would some want to confer those rights and privileges to entities that are not necessarily members of the species Homo sapiens?
Here’s another paradox for you:
Can one be a human being without being human? Can one be human without being a human being?
[sub]I kinda like the term Terminus Est Paradox.[/sub]
So, what if we say that a human is a member of the species Homo Sapiens. However, if we change the question to ask, "How do we decide which of these should have certain, fundimental “human” rights, I think a good answer would be Isaac Asimov’s. In his short story, “The Bicentennial Man”, which is about a robot who wants to become recognized as a human being, there is a scene where the robot goes to court to sue for his freedome, and the judge in making his decision, says something like, “Any being who understands the concept of freedom and desires it should be granted that state.” Of course, I understand a definition like this has its limitations. For example, we recognize that even those human beings who don’t understand they have rights have them, but it still works as a general framework. Self-awareness would play a role if I were to make the law.