|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:10 pm
Garek Maxwell Jungle Boots anyway I digress, I feel that while symbol recognition is a development of property thought, (tho perhaps I don't know what you mean by that other than the concept of property ownership in ego) i feel that symbol recognition involves more an ability to categorize, organize and communicate a certain reality to the world around the Human. (tho symbol recognition is not exclusively a human experience, Chimps (even dogs) symbolize emotion (which is very a elevated intelligence really) through body language gestures and calls. however voluntary or involuntary those languages are to their consciousness the symbols are.) also just to clarify Neanderthals are technically human beings, scientifically and biologically. Neanderthals scientific name is Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis, While modern man is Homo Sapien Sapien. The neanderthal and the modern man are actually two sub species of the same species. Like donkeys and horses, only perhaps Neanderthal man and Modern man are even more closely related than donkeys are to horses in that we might have even been able to reproduce between each other and those children would not be sterile, unlike a mule. I didn't know what to say about all that information on symbol recognition. I just know humans are the only species out there that attach very complex meanings to symbols while for animals it only means a few simple things max. sweatdrop As for Neanderthals, well, I meant that they aren't humans but neanderthals. Close, but not quite us. sweatdrop I did read about a finding suggesting we interbred with neanderthals long ago before they died out. It's not really surprising, but I have no idea what this means for the human species. I mean, I don't know what impact this would have had on our physique and intellect or just plain physical appearance. ...It would explain the vikings though. xp I also heard that we hunted and ate Neanderthals.
Don't remember where or if it was reputable, but seemed interesting.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 1:09 pm
Garek Maxwell Jungle Boots anyway I digress, I feel that while symbol recognition is a development of property thought, (tho perhaps I don't know what you mean by that other than the concept of property ownership in ego) i feel that symbol recognition involves more an ability to categorize, organize and communicate a certain reality to the world around the Human. (tho symbol recognition is not exclusively a human experience, Chimps (even dogs) symbolize emotion (which is very a elevated intelligence really) through body language gestures and calls. however voluntary or involuntary those languages are to their consciousness the symbols are.) also just to clarify Neanderthals are technically human beings, scientifically and biologically. Neanderthals scientific name is Homo Sapien Neanderthalensis, While modern man is Homo Sapien Sapien. The neanderthal and the modern man are actually two sub species of the same species. Like donkeys and horses, only perhaps Neanderthal man and Modern man are even more closely related than donkeys are to horses in that we might have even been able to reproduce between each other and those children would not be sterile, unlike a mule. I didn't know what to say about all that information on symbol recognition. I just know humans are the only species out there that attach very complex meanings to symbols while for animals it only means a few simple things max. sweatdrop As for Neanderthals, well, I meant that they aren't humans but neanderthals. Close, but not quite us. sweatdrop I did read about a finding suggesting we interbred with neanderthals long ago before they died out. It's not really surprising, but I have no idea what this means for the human species. I mean, I don't know what impact this would have had on our physique and intellect or just plain physical appearance. ...It would explain the vikings though. xp *nods* we definately have more complicated processes. but its really a very odd grey area as to where animal intelligence ends and human intelligence begins. chimps have the same intelligences but they are more limited in their ability to articulate it and invent it as complexly, but it is there. There is no clear line between animal and human. and Neanderthal are human, period. they are just a different sub-species of human. with religions, and art and tool use just like us, more remedial than us, but it again exists. and biologically and anthropologically they are still human, period. Hell most anthropologists put the lable of human on creatures as ancient and animal as Peking man and Lucy. Really what i think it comes down to is that human beings have many different physical and mental characteristics that they have developed to make them human. None of these distinctions on their own are clear and distinct differences that lead Homo sapien sapien to be human as opposed to being just another animal or just another great ape. But instead it is the level of ellevated development and the culmination of all of those ellevated developments that make us what we are as opposed to what everything else is. its not really possible to just say "we have thumbs and we think better..." what it really takes to distinguish us is that we have many things like thumbs and proper bipedal stance. and we have many ways and ideas that define our thought as better. I think the discussion on what makes us human is not so much a question of "what makes us different", because we intuitively know this already, and we can point those differences out. but more so the question is "how those things make us, and why those things are different."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:20 pm
Jungle Boots Horsemen of War Scientifically the only reason we are separated from animals is that we have thumbs and can think on a higher level of intelligence, other than that we are technically animals lol 3nodding so can chimps and gorillas they got thumbs too. One cannot deny that the separation from animals and man (tho i prefer to say what distinguishes the human species from other animals) especially intelligent creatures like the great apes, takes both the physical biological differences and the ellevated capacity in thought. However it is not just that we are smarter but that what we use our smarts to think about. Such as the developement/invention of powerful concepts such as truth, good, love, self/ego, collective, and faith. The two factors, the physical biological, and the existential/developmental intelligences are absolutely inseperable in defining what makes humanbeings human. In all honesty, Humans are just another animal on this planet. We are a different species that just happens to be the smartest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 2:45 pm
Horsemen of War Jungle Boots Horsemen of War Scientifically the only reason we are separated from animals is that we have thumbs and can think on a higher level of intelligence, other than that we are technically animals lol 3nodding so can chimps and gorillas they got thumbs too. One cannot deny that the separation from animals and man (tho i prefer to say what distinguishes the human species from other animals) especially intelligent creatures like the great apes, takes both the physical biological differences and the ellevated capacity in thought. However it is not just that we are smarter but that what we use our smarts to think about. Such as the developement/invention of powerful concepts such as truth, good, love, self/ego, collective, and faith. The two factors, the physical biological, and the existential/developmental intelligences are absolutely inseperable in defining what makes humanbeings human. In all honesty, Humans are just another animal on this planet. We are a different species that just happens to be the smartest. right... but defining whats Homo sapien, and whats Human are two different things... the thread is titled "What is the nature of being Human?" i know im picking hairs at semantical issues, but personally defining human is going to be one huge semantical debate. but like i said in the post before this.... defining what is Human involves more than just saying we are just another animal with bigger thoughts and thumbs. even though as a species that is all we really are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 3:39 am
Jungle Boots defining what is Human involves more than just saying we are just another animal with bigger thoughts and thumbs. even though as a species that is all we really are. It... really isn't more. Also, you're kind of pulling away from the original question. Quote: Put simply, how do you define being human. Is it a certain level of intelligence? Is it a method of thinking? Or is it something purely physical? Saying "A human is a Homo sapien." is very valid and complete answer to the original question. If the question asked what we think the definition of human should be it would open the floor for more debate and discussion, but it simply asks for an opinion. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 8:51 am
Dirt is here Jungle Boots defining what is Human involves more than just saying we are just another animal with bigger thoughts and thumbs. even though as a species that is all we really are. It... really isn't more. Also, you're kind of pulling away from the original question. Quote: Put simply, how do you define being human. Is it a certain level of intelligence? Is it a method of thinking? Or is it something purely physical? Saying "A human is a Homo sapien." is very valid and complete answer to the original question. If the question asked what we think the definition of human should be it would open the floor for more debate and discussion, but it simply asks for an opinion. razz It says how do you define being a human. Existing as a human. So you say that a human is a homo sapien. Which is really an answer to the question of what a human is. So i ask "how does a homosapien be? How does it exist?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:54 am
Sorry for the long wait before replying, I got distracted and busy. Also, minecraft. gonk Jungle Boots and Neanderthal are human, period. they are just a different sub-species of human. [...] and biologically and anthropologically they are still human, period. Hell most anthropologists put the lable of human on creatures as ancient and animal as Peking man and Lucy. I think the discussion on what makes us human is not so much a question of "what makes us different", because we intuitively know this already, and we can point those differences out. but more so the question is "how those things make us, and why those things are different." I double checked Wikipedia just to see, and from the looks of it you're probably right. It does say they're either homo neanderthalis or homo sapien neanderthalis, but that may be outdated. I just assumed that since they were a separate group they would not be labeled humans but neanderthals. Anyway, I agree with pretty much all you said though I still think we don't know the specifics of what makes us different from animals. We know the general things like intelligence, but we don't know specific things like the level of tool creation and use. Some animals make and use tools, so what is their limit? Refinement? Time? We haven't figured it out just yet. But yeah, other than that, I agree. Sorry to keep it so short. sweatdrop Dirt is here Jungle Boots Put simply, how do you define being human. Is it a certain level of intelligence? Is it a method of thinking? Or is it something purely physical? Saying "A human is a Homo sapien." is very valid and complete answer to the original question. It isn't really a valid answer to the question. Here's what essentially was said: "What's a stove?" "A stove is a stove." You're describing something by using it in the description, which is generally agreed to be incorrect in defining what things are. We ask for specifics. They don't have to be correct since we don't know the answer just yet. It's all debatable. So, is the answer correct? Yes. Is it valid? No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:03 pm
Garek Maxwell Dirt is here Jungle Boots Put simply, how do you define being human. Is it a certain level of intelligence? Is it a method of thinking? Or is it something purely physical? Saying "A human is a Homo sapien." is very valid and complete answer to the original question. It isn't really a valid answer to the question. Here's what essentially was said: "What's a stove?" "A stove is a stove." You're describing something by using it in the description, which is generally agreed to be incorrect in defining what things are. We ask for specifics. They don't have to be correct since we don't know the answer just yet. It's all debatable. So, is the answer correct? Yes. Is it valid? No. The wording of the original question did not ask for specifics. It asks what I believe a human is. I believe it is a Homo sapien and nothing else. Correct and valid. Jungle Boots Is it a certain level of intelligence? Is it a method of thinking? Or is it something purely physical? The original question even supports this. confused
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:21 pm
Dirt is here Garek Maxwell Dirt is here Jungle Boots Put simply, how do you define being human. Is it a certain level of intelligence? Is it a method of thinking? Or is it something purely physical? Saying "A human is a Homo sapien." is very valid and complete answer to the original question. It isn't really a valid answer to the question. Here's what essentially was said: "What's a stove?" "A stove is a stove." You're describing something by using it in the description, which is generally agreed to be incorrect in defining what things are. We ask for specifics. They don't have to be correct since we don't know the answer just yet. It's all debatable. So, is the answer correct? Yes. Is it valid? No. The wording of the original question did not ask for specifics. It asks what I believe a human is. I believe it is a Homo sapien and nothing else. Correct and valid. Jungle Boots Is it a certain level of intelligence? Is it a method of thinking? Or is it something purely physical? The original question even supports this. confused "how do you define being human?" =/= "what you believe a human is." the title of the thread is "the nature of being human" not "the species of being human" thats what im trying to explain here... there is a difference between defining the species, and defining the "humanity" of a human. now homosapien might explain the "is it purely physical" part of the question. But this is a debate thread... and im debating that BEING a human involves more than the physical characteristics that define the species. Im answering the the question asking "Is it purely physical?" "No it is not." in rebuttal to your assumption that it is. If you still feel strongly that your answer satisfies the questions then i ask you to please explain why and how it satisfies the question... because i dont understand yet how it does., and i feel it would be worth while to work that out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:09 am
Dirt is here The wording of the original question did not ask for specifics. It asks what I believe a human is. I believe it is a Homo sapien and nothing else. Correct and valid. Correct, but invalid. Dictionaries don't do this for a reason. It's one of the reasons why they struggle so much with such simple words like love. There's so many different meanings that they just "love" having to work their lovely job, rather than loving all night long with the one they love because they loving love it, damn it. razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:15 am
humens? another word for what type of animels we are?
everything originated from someone or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:38 am
Words words words.
Can't we get a straight answer, please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:07 am
if there was a straight answer to the question erik we'd all already know it... we wouldnt be having the discussion.
if there was a straight answer to this question we wouldnt have been struggling with finding it since long before Socrates.
also @garek: i chalk that up to love, and humanity both being metaphysical essences... or essentially axioms. things in and of themselves... things that certain philosophical ideals consider self-evident, and undefineable in a purely objective manner... making them entirely intuitively understood... but impossible to clearly understand objectively.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:09 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[-Erik-]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/b3/dc/2ab9cd8a46dcb3_flip.png?t=1436247415_6.00_11)
