We're special (so special)

**Enmos** · 10-06-08, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Roman

Enmos is terrible at online debates. Very frustrating.

Perhaps. Or perhaps I just don't feel the urge to present evidence against something completely and obviously absurd.

**~~Roman~~** · 10-06-08, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Enmos

Perhaps. Or perhaps I just don't feel the urge to present evidence against something completely and obviously absurd.

Which is virtually everything you disagree with.

**Pete** · 10-06-08, 08:35 PM

Repost from three years ago:

"Humanity" has no well-accepted objective definition - in practice, it is defined by the set of its members... a circular, subjective definition: "Humanity is the set of entities which are recognized as human".

This is potentially a problem, because there is no resolution to debates over boundary conditions. If one person recognizes an entity as human, but another person doesn't, there is no standard by which to resolve their difference.

Currently, there are few entities which fall into the boundary areas, with the notable exception of fetuses/embryos/fertilized ova/unborn children. However, this may (will?) change in the future. If/when the existence of entities such as cyborgs, androids, human clones, enhanced animals, and artifical intelligences is realised, it seems pretty obvious that there will be debates over their humanity that will be as unresolvable as the abortion debate.

**~~Roman~~** · 10-06-08, 08:55 PM

Neandertals most likely would qualify for having human-like qualities. They put flowers on their graves.

**S.A.M.** · 10-06-08, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by Roman

Neandertals most likely would qualify for having human-like qualities. They put flowers on their graves.

Thats the first time I've heard that. How do we know this?

**~~Roman~~** · 10-06-08, 09:06 PM

http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199807/0059.html

**StrangerInAStrangeLa** · 10-06-08, 10:19 PM

This is total bullshit :If there's not evidence for it... believe it cause it could be true?

I never said that or implied it in the least. Neither did Simon.
I believe those things are possible & logic says they're possible until we KNOW otherwise.
A skeptic is on neither side of an issue. If you know there's no such thing as ghosts, you are not a skeptic. If you know there are ghosts, you are not a skeptic.
With the possibility of gods, I am a skeptic. With the possibility of the god of the KJV bible, I am not a skeptic.
With the various possibilities I mentioned which you called total bullshit, I am a skeptic. You are not.

**Enmos** · 10-07-08, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by Roman

Which is virtually everything you disagree with.

So you are backing up that it's somehow possible that humans live on other planets right now ?

**Enmos** · 10-07-08, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Pete

Repost from three years ago:

"Humanity" has no well-accepted objective definition - in practice, it is defined by the set of its members... a circular, subjective definition: "Humanity is the set of entities which are recognized as human".

This is potentially a problem, because there is no resolution to debates over boundary conditions. If one person recognizes an entity as human, but another person doesn't, there is no standard by which to resolve their difference.

Currently, there are few entities which fall into the boundary areas, with the notable exception of fetuses/embryos/fertilized ova/unborn children. However, this may (will?) change in the future. If/when the existence of entities such as cyborgs, androids, human clones, enhanced animals, and artifical intelligences is realised, it seems pretty obvious that there will be debates over their humanity that will be as unresolvable as the abortion debate.

We were talking about humans. Humans are VERY well defined.

**Pete** · 10-07-08, 07:54 AM

Originally Posted by Enmos

We were talking about humans. Humans are VERY well defined.

I disagree. How do you define "human"?

**S.A.M.** · 10-07-08, 07:59 AM

Or "not human" ?

**Enmos** · 10-07-08, 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by Pete

I disagree. How do you define "human"?

By our genetic coding.

What do you mean you disagree ? I was responding to the following post:

Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa

If we find there are humans on other planets, I think many will be very disappointed that we're not the only 1s. Some will be even if we find nonhuman intelligent life.

Originally Posted by Enmos

Humans on other planets ?? How ?

There is no way in hell there are humans on other planets.
And that's for the same reason there are no Asian Elephants, Red Admirals, Cuban Tree Frogs on other planets.

**Pete** · 10-07-08, 05:09 PM

I'm not getting into the "humans on other planets" bit. That's woo-woo land.
I was talking about the original point of the thread.

Originally Posted by Enmos

By our genetic coding.

I don't think that's at all well-defined! What is it precisely about our shared genetic that defines us as "human"?

**Enmos** · 10-08-08, 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Pete

I'm not getting into the "humans on other planets" bit. That's woo-woo land.
I was talking about the original point of the thread.

Well, that's what the disagreement is about

Originally Posted by Pete

I don't think that's at all well-defined! What is it precisely about our shared genetic that defines us as "human"?

I'm not working in that field but I know that if I have a piece of cellular material tested they can tell with 100% certainty whether or not it comes from a human.
There are a lot of clear specific human traits present in our DNA.
The short and obvious answer, of course, is the sequence itself. It codes for a human, just like bee DNA codes for a bee.
If you don't agree that our DNA is specific for our species I suggest you come up with an alternative explanation.

**Pete** · 10-08-08, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by Enmos

Well, that's what the disagreement is about

That's a sidetrack that I wasn't involved in. My post was related to the original topic.

I'm not working in that field but I know that if I have a piece of cellular material tested they can tell with 100% certainty whether or not it comes from a human.

That's because there no borderline cases currently exist... but they did in the past, and will again in the future.

And there's another issue, less related to this thread... a human skin cell is not itself a human. So what is it that defines a thing as a human?

**Enmos** · 10-08-08, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by Pete

That's a sidetrack that I wasn't involved in. My post was related to the original topic.

My mistake, sorry

Originally Posted by Pete

That's because there no borderline cases currently exist... but they did in the past, and will again in the future.

And there's another issue, less related to this thread... a human skin cell is not itself a human. So what is it that defines a thing as a human?

A human skin cell definitely is human, any human cell is. Perhaps you are referring to specialized cells. They just have specific genes activated/deactivated.

**Pete** · 10-08-08, 01:23 AM

Yes, it is "human" in that it is human material. But it is not a human, which is what we're talking about.

**Enmos** · 10-08-08, 05:02 AM

Originally Posted by Pete

Yes, it is "human" in that it is human material. But it is not a human, which is what we're talking about.

The DNA in each and every cell codes for a human, not just for that one cell.

**Pete** · 10-08-08, 04:30 PM

True.
But blueprints are not buildings, and a strand of DNA is not a human.

**~~Roman~~** · 10-08-08, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by Enmos

I'm not working in that field but I know that if I have a piece of cellular material tested they can tell with 100% certainty whether or not it comes from a human.
There are a lot of clear specific human traits present in our DNA.
The short and obvious answer, of course, is the sequence itself. It codes for a human, just like bee DNA codes for a bee.
If you don't agree that our DNA is specific for our species I suggest you come up with an alternative explanation.

This is not true at all. We share something like 50% of our genes with nematode worms. It really depends on the sequence that you're looking at. I suppose a chromosome would let us know if we were looking at human DNA.