What does it mean TO BE HUMAN

Lahtina · Foro Master

RE: What does it mean TO BE HUMAN

neruda · Guru

It was from the thread on Basic Instincts:

Our basic instincts tell us (mainly men) to have sex with as many women as we can.
Our basic instinct is to deficate in our pants.
Our basic instinct is to strike out at people.

Do we do these things? No (well at least most of us don't). Our instincts tell us many things that would be socially unacceptable if not criminal. Our socialization- mostly through our parents - teach, indoctrinate, train us to keep a lot of our instincts at bay.
There once was french psychologist (i 've forgotten his name maybe "piaget") who found a wild boy, who grew up in the wild with dogs. He was as savage as they come. for he truly relied on his instincts. Ironically, Piaget consider him to be the only truly human being - because he was never socialized.

Lahtina · Foro Master

neruda wrote:

Hey, didn't I bring this story up in another thread?

We missed it, querido. What was your point then?

Daeveed · Foro Master

neruda wrote:

Hey, didn't I bring this story up in another thread?

did you?

neruda · Guru

Lahtina wrote:

There was a very interesting case in France, I learned about it in one of my classes when we were studying language acquisition. Ha! Ty, Wikipedia! I love ma Wiki. Read if you want, skip if you must BUT... could we consider this boy "human" and if so, why? Victor of Aveyron (also The Wild Boy of Aveyron) was a boy who apparently lived his entire childhood alone in the woods before being found wandering the woods near Saint Sernin sur Rance, France (near Toulouse) in 1797. He was captured, but soon escaped. He was then captured again and kept in the care of a local woman for about a week before he escaped once more. However, on January 8, 1800, he emerged from the forests on his own, perhaps habituated to human kindness after his second experience. His age was unknown but citizens of the village estimated that he was about twelve years old. His lack of speech, as well as his food preferences and the numerous scars on his body, indicated that he had been in the wild for the majority of his life. This remarkable situation came about at the end of the Enlightenment, when many were debating what exactly distinguished man from animal. One of the prevailing opinions involved the ability to learn language; it was hoped that by studying the wild boy, they would learn the answer. Shortly after Victor's discovery, a local abbot and biology professor, Pierre Joseph Bonnaterre, examined him. He removed the boy's clothing and led him outside into the snow, where, far from being upset, Victor began to frolic about in the nude. This indicated to some that human reaction to temperature is greatly a result of conditioning and experience. Despite the fact that he could hear, Victor was taken to the National Institute of the Deaf for the purpose of study. Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard, a young medical student, took on the remarkable case as his own. He wanted to be the first person to fully civilize a wild child and attempted, primarily, to teach Victor to speak. Though initially successful — Victor showed significant progress, at least, in understanding language and reading simple words — he eventually slowed down to the point that Itard abandoned the experiment. The only words that Victor ever actually learned to speak were lait (milk) and Oh Dieu (oh God). Modern scholars now believe, partly by studying such feral children, that language acquisition must take place in a critical period of early childhood if it is to be successful. The Wild Boy of Aveyron died in Paris in 1828.

Hey, didn't I bring this story up in another thread?

Motown Junkie · TOP Guru

Lahtina wrote:

Motown Junkie wrote: It is unethical to do tests on humans no matter what they have done..........so that makes them excused from any heinous crime committed? To commit murder, to me, is like acting as if you're God, you've taken a life. I dunno. To me, eye for an eye. Animals FEEL pain so WHY test all this crap on them?? Because they can't reason??? So, if you can reason, you're entitled to this and that regardless of what you've done or haven't done, if you CAN'T reason, then it? I never said I'm in favour of animal testing. And Pfffft, girl, don't be so irrational!! LOL Nobody said that because you're human you're exempt from any punishment your actions deserve. <--- What punishment they deserve is subjective and I've never been one to believe in "human justice" but that's another story. As someone in your thread said, your question, cannot be answered in a yes or no fashion.

otay

-- Edited by Motown Junkie at 12:18, 2006-04-20

Lahtina · Foro Master

Motown Junkie wrote:

It is unethical to do tests on humans no matter what they have done..........so that makes them excused from any heinous crime committed? To commit murder, to me, is like acting as if you're God, you've taken a life. I dunno. To me, eye for an eye. Animals FEEL pain so WHY test all this crap on them?? Because they can't reason??? So, if you can reason, you're entitled to this and that regardless of what you've done or haven't done, if you CAN'T reason, then it?

I never said I'm in favour of animal testing. And Pfffft, girl, don't be so irrational!! LOL Nobody said that because you're human you're exempt from any punishment your actions deserve. <--- What punishment they deserve is subjective and I've never been one to believe in "human justice" but that's another story. As someone in your thread said, your question, cannot be answered in a yes or no fashion.

Motown Junkie · TOP Guru

Lahtina wrote:

Motown Junkie wrote: Lahtina wrote: Daeveed wrote: "To be human" you must posess certain characteristics (according to me). These are: - Both of your parents must be human. - Your DNA must be at least 99.999% equal to the other 6 billion entities considered human. - You must have the capabiliry to cognize and understand a complex language. - You must have the capability to be aware of your own existence. Correcto-mundo. I completely agree so... do you consider wolf boy subhuman? Chale: Alrighty, so what about Neanderthal? "Human"? I'm not buying the emotions thing. From an evolutionary perspective, human emotions may have motivated our ancestors to do the things they needed to do to survive. Perhaps ancestors who felt angy were more likely to protect themselves or defend their territory. There appear to be seven basic emotions that are universal among humans: surprise, fear, disgust, anger, happiness, contempt, and sadness. Tell me animals are incapable of having these emotions. Hmmmm... Surprise: When Loquito jumps after I scream BOO behind him. Fear: When Loquito's in the hallway and the elevator door opens, he runs away like hell! Disgust: When I don't give Loquito a FRESH can of food. He sniffs at it and walks away. Anger: That came after the surprise and Loquito hissed at me. Happiness: When I come home, Loquito runs to greet me. Contempt: When Loquito is lying down on the couch, with his tummy up in the air. Sadness: When I leave, I can hear Loquito meowing through the door. Oh my goodness, is my cat human?? Julie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-- Edited by Motown Junkie at 11:22, 2006-04-20 DORK!! I'm saying it's not our emotions which make us human! Now, you must then realize that, even though you may not agree with someone else's actions they are STILL human. As human beings, they have rights that they cannot be stripped of. It happens, of course and it's a pity. But I guess that answers your question: It would not be ethical to do tests on humans no matter what they have done. -- Edited by Lahtina at 11:40, 2006-04-20

Oh..........cool, we jumped to my thread!! It is unethical to do tests on humans no matter what they have done..........so that makes them excused from any heinous crime committed? To commit murder, to me, is like acting as if you're God, you've taken a life. I dunno. To me, eye for an eye. Animals FEEL pain so WHY test all this crap on them?? Because they can't reason???

So, if you can reason, you're entitled to this and that regardless of what you've done or haven't done, if you CAN'T reason, then it?

Miel · Guru

Chale Tanga wrote:

Chale: Alrighty, so what about Neanderthal? "Human"? I'm not A Neanderthal is still a human nonetheless.... just b/c their speech patter was not as developed as it is now, does not make them any less human.In regards to whether an animal is human, of course its not. They may posses human characteristics, but they are not human. Humans posses the capability to reason... where as animals, although able to show surprise/anger/hunger/happiness etc... are not able to reason.

Don't you think that Humans are animals but rationals. We are animals with animals instincs thats why the boy that ur talking about was able to live in that enviorenment,.. for me to BE HUMAN besides the physical characteristics,. is being able to think ,. razonar,. preguntarnos el porque?? el como?? etc,.. aunque tenmos instintos animales,..nosotros tenemos la capacidad de controlarlos,..

Julie · Comandante

Interesting ! I don't have time right now but I will come back to it later on tonight.

Lahtina · Foro Master

Motown Junkie wrote:

Lahtina wrote: Daeveed wrote: "To be human" you must posess certain characteristics (according to me). These are: - Both of your parents must be human. - Your DNA must be at least 99.999% equal to the other 6 billion entities considered human. - You must have the capabiliry to cognize and understand a complex language. - You must have the capability to be aware of your own existence. Correcto-mundo. I completely agree so... do you consider wolf boy subhuman? Chale: Alrighty, so what about Neanderthal? "Human"? I'm not buying the emotions thing. From an evolutionary perspective, human emotions may have motivated our ancestors to do the things they needed to do to survive. Perhaps ancestors who felt angy were more likely to protect themselves or defend their territory. There appear to be seven basic emotions that are universal among humans: surprise, fear, disgust, anger, happiness, contempt, and sadness. Tell me animals are incapable of having these emotions. Hmmmm... Surprise: When Loquito jumps after I scream BOO behind him. Fear: When Loquito's in the hallway and the elevator door opens, he runs away like hell! Disgust: When I don't give Loquito a FRESH can of food. He sniffs at it and walks away. Anger: That came after the surprise and Loquito hissed at me. Happiness: When I come home, Loquito runs to greet me. Contempt: When Loquito is lying down on the couch, with his tummy up in the air. Sadness: When I leave, I can hear Loquito meowing through the door. Oh my goodness, is my cat human?? Julie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-- Edited by Motown Junkie at 11:22, 2006-04-20

DORK!! I'm saying it's not our emotions which make us human!

Now, you must then realize that, even though you may not agree with someone else's actions they are STILL human. As human beings, they have rights that they cannot be stripped of. It happens, of course and it's a pity. But I guess that answers your question: It would not be ethical to do tests on humans no matter what they have done.

-- Edited by Lahtina at 11:40, 2006-04-20

X4v13r · Comandante

Chale Tanga wrote:

Lahtina wrote:
Chale: Alrighty, so what about Neanderthal? "Human"? I'm not buying the emotions thing. From an evolutionary perspective, human emotions may have motivated our ancestors to do the things they needed to do to survive. Perhaps ancestors who felt angy were more likely to protect themselves or defend their territory. There appear to be seven basic emotions that are universal among humans: surprise, fear, disgust, anger, happiness, contempt, and sadness. Tell me animals are incapable of having these emotions.
A Neanderthal is still a human nonetheless.... just b/c their speech patter was not as developed as it is now, does not make them any less human.In regards to whether an animal is human, of course its not. They may posses human characteristics, but they are not human. Humans posses the capability to reason... where as animals, although able to show surprise/anger/hunger/happiness etc... are not able to reason.

u just took the words out of my mouth, yup thats what it means to be human, to have the capability to reason.

X@vier

Chale Tanga · TOP Guru

Lahtina wrote:

Chale: Alrighty, so what about Neanderthal? "Human"? I'm not buying the emotions thing. From an evolutionary perspective, human emotions may have motivated our ancestors to do the things they needed to do to survive. Perhaps ancestors who felt angy were more likely to protect themselves or defend their territory. There appear to be seven basic emotions that are universal among humans: surprise, fear, disgust, anger, happiness, contempt, and sadness. Tell me animals are incapable of having these emotions.

A Neanderthal is still a human nonetheless.... just b/c their speech patter was not as developed as it is now, does not make them any less human.

In regards to whether an animal is human, of course its not. They may posses human characteristics, but they are not human. Humans posses the capability to reason... where as animals, although able to show surprise/anger/hunger/happiness etc... are not able to reason.

Motown Junkie · TOP Guru

Daeveed wrote:

Motown Junkie wrote: Oh my goodness, is my cat human?? No. Your cat is a feline, and that human is you. You might wanna consider not having a pet for a while.....

I need JULIE'S opinion!!!!!!

Daeveed · Foro Master

Motown Junkie wrote:

Oh my goodness, is my cat human??

No. Your cat is a feline, and that human is you.

You might wanna consider not having a pet for a while.....

Motown Junkie · TOP Guru

Lahtina wrote:

Daeveed wrote: "To be human" you must posess certain characteristics (according to me). These are: - Both of your parents must be human. - Your DNA must be at least 99.999% equal to the other 6 billion entities considered human. - You must have the capabiliry to cognize and understand a complex language. - You must have the capability to be aware of your own existence. Correcto-mundo. I completely agree so... do you consider wolf boy subhuman? Chale: Alrighty, so what about Neanderthal? "Human"? I'm not buying the emotions thing. From an evolutionary perspective, human emotions may have motivated our ancestors to do the things they needed to do to survive. Perhaps ancestors who felt angy were more likely to protect themselves or defend their territory. There appear to be seven basic emotions that are universal among humans: surprise, fear, disgust, anger, happiness, contempt, and sadness. Tell me animals are incapable of having these emotions.

Hmmmm...

Surprise: When Loquito jumps after I scream BOO behind him.

Fear: When Loquito's in the hallway and the elevator door opens, he runs away like hell!

Disgust: When I don't give Loquito a FRESH can of food. He sniffs at it and walks away.

Anger: That came after the surprise and Loquito hissed at me.

Happiness: When I come home, Loquito runs to greet me.

Contempt: When Loquito is lying down on the couch, with his tummy up in the air.

Sadness: When I leave, I can hear Loquito meowing through the door.

Oh my goodness, is my cat human??

Julie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- Edited by Motown Junkie at 11:22, 2006-04-20

Daeveed · Foro Master

Lahtina wrote:

... do you consider wolf boy subhuman?

no.

Human...

Unfortunate, but human.

Lahtina · Foro Master

Daeveed wrote:

"To be human" you must posess certain characteristics (according to me). These are: - Both of your parents must be human. - Your DNA must be at least 99.999% equal to the other 6 billion entities considered human. - You must have the capabiliry to cognize and understand a complex language. - You must have the capability to be aware of your own existence.

Correcto-mundo. I completely agree so... do you consider wolf boy subhuman?

Chale: Alrighty, so what about Neanderthal? "Human"? I'm not buying the emotions thing. From an evolutionary perspective, human emotions may have motivated our ancestors to do the things they needed to do to survive. Perhaps ancestors who felt angy were more likely to protect themselves or defend their territory.

There appear to be seven basic emotions that are universal among humans: surprise, fear, disgust, anger, happiness, contempt, and sadness. Tell me animals are incapable of having these emotions.

God · Foro Master

Lahtina wrote:

(Déjà vu... is this a D.A.R.T.? )
Aaaanyway... this is a spin-off of MJ's Animal Testing thread.
The question is, what does it mean to be Human? Do our bodies make us human? Our attributes? Reason? Consciousness? Language? What?
Because I was just thinking of the cases of Feral Children (ie. wild/undomesticated), children who, from a very young age, have been isolated from human contact and have therefore remained unaware of human social behaviour including that which truly differentiates us from animals: language.
There was a very interesting case in France, I learned about it in one of my classes when we were studying language acquisition. Ha! Ty, Wikipedia! I love ma Wiki. Read if you want, skip if you must BUT... could we consider this boy "human" and if so, why?

Victor of Aveyron (also The Wild Boy of Aveyron) was a boy who apparently lived his entire childhood alone in the woods before being found wandering the woods near Saint Sernin sur Rance, France (near Toulouse) in 1797. He was captured, but soon escaped. He was then captured again and kept in the care of a local woman for about a week before he escaped once more.
However, on January 8, 1800, he emerged from the forests on his own, perhaps habituated to human kindness after his second experience. His age was unknown but citizens of the village estimated that he was about twelve years old. His lack of speech, as well as his food preferences and the numerous scars on his body, indicated that he had been in the wild for the majority of his life. This remarkable situation came about at the end of the Enlightenment, when many were debating what exactly distinguished man from animal. One of the prevailing opinions involved the ability to learn language; it was hoped that by studying the wild boy, they would learn the answer.
Shortly after Victor's discovery, a local abbot and biology professor, Pierre Joseph Bonnaterre, examined him. He removed the boy's clothing and led him outside into the snow, where, far from being upset, Victor began to frolic about in the nude. This indicated to some that human reaction to temperature is greatly a result of conditioning and experience.
Despite the fact that he could hear, Victor was taken to the National Institute of the Deaf for the purpose of study. Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard, a young medical student, took on the remarkable case as his own. He wanted to be the first person to fully civilize a wild child and attempted, primarily, to teach Victor to speak. Though initially successful — Victor showed significant progress, at least, in understanding language and reading simple words — he eventually slowed down to the point that Itard abandoned the experiment. The only words that Victor ever actually learned to speak were lait (milk) and Oh Dieu (oh God). Modern scholars now believe, partly by studying such feral children, that language acquisition must take place in a critical period of early childhood if it is to be successful.
The Wild Boy of Aveyron died in Paris in 1828.

Toy crudelio pa reventarme ese choro te pazas delanza mija!

Chilenita · Comandante

Lahtina wrote:

Motown Junkie wrote: but a baby, although it can't speak, is considered a human. Does that make sense? Hmmm. Yes... but, but, but... let me give this a little more thought because it's making sense and then not in my head. As for the rest of you, you suck! I will take my mind boggling questions elsewhere... to the other foro that appreciates their human ability to think, you nonhumans! Yes, I have been cheating on you with other foros.

OMG you dirty skank!!!!

TV Buff · TOP Guru

Daeveed wrote:

"To be human" you must posess certain characteristics (according to me). These are: - Both of your parents must be human. - Your DNA must be at least 99.999% equal to the other 6 billion entities considered human. - You must have the capabiliry to cognize and understand a complex language. - You must have the capability to be aware of your own existence.

Let's not forget, "You must also not taste good with a side of mashed potatoes and salad."

Unless, of course, you're into that kind of thing. And placentas.

Daeveed · Foro Master

"To be human" you must posess certain characteristics (according to me). These are:

- Both of your parents must be human.

- Your DNA must be at least 99.999% equal to the other 6 billion entities considered human.

- You must have the capabiliry to cognize and understand a complex language.

- You must have the capability to be aware of your own existence.

Motown Junkie · TOP Guru

Chale Tanga wrote:

I saw this on Discovery, or was it TLC? hmmm...dont remember Human is being born human... regardless of lack of language/speech/social behaviours/ etc. Its to have emotion and feelings and a conscience. These kids may act like animals but they still have feelings and emotions which make them human. Also, the fact that Victor had adapted to his surounding is a testiment that humans are able to condition themselves to any sort of environment.

Well said!!!!

CASE CLOSED LAHTINA!!!

Woo!! That was fun! Gets the brain going!!!

Lahtina · Foro Master

Motown Junkie wrote:

but a baby, although it can't speak, is considered a human. Does that make sense?

Hmmm. Yes... but, but, but... let me give this a little more thought because it's making sense and then not in my head.

As for the rest of you, you suck! I will take my mind boggling questions elsewhere... to the other foro that appreciates their human ability to think, you nonhumans! Yes, I have been cheating on you with other foros.

Chale Tanga · TOP Guru

I saw this on Discovery, or was it TLC? hmmm...dont remember

Human is being born human... regardless of lack of language/speech/social behaviours/ etc. Its to have emotion and feelings and a conscience. These kids may act like animals but they still have feelings and emotions which make them human.

Also, the fact that Victor had adapted to his surounding is a testiment that humans are able to condition themselves to any sort of environment.

Motown Junkie · TOP Guru

Lahtina wrote:

(Déjà vu... is this a D.A.R.T.? ) Aaaanyway... this is a spin-off of MJ's Animal Testing thread. The question is, what does it mean to be Human? Do our bodies make us human? Our attributes? Reason? Consciousness? Language? What? Because I was just thinking of the cases of Feral Children (ie. wild/undomesticated), children who, from a very young age, have been isolated from human contact and have therefore remained unaware of human social behaviour including that which truly differentiates us from animals: language. There was a very interesting case in France, I learned about it in one of my classes when we were studying language acquisition. Ha! Ty, Wikipedia! I love ma Wiki. Read if you want, skip if you must BUT... could we consider this boy "human" and if so, why? Victor of Aveyron (also The Wild Boy of Aveyron) was a boy who apparently lived his entire childhood alone in the woods before being found wandering the woods near Saint Sernin sur Rance, France (near Toulouse) in 1797. He was captured, but soon escaped. He was then captured again and kept in the care of a local woman for about a week before he escaped once more. However, on January 8, 1800, he emerged from the forests on his own, perhaps habituated to human kindness after his second experience. His age was unknown but citizens of the village estimated that he was about twelve years old. His lack of speech, as well as his food preferences and the numerous scars on his body, indicated that he had been in the wild for the majority of his life. This remarkable situation came about at the end of the Enlightenment, when many were debating what exactly distinguished man from animal. One of the prevailing opinions involved the ability to learn language; it was hoped that by studying the wild boy, they would learn the answer. Shortly after Victor's discovery, a local abbot and biology professor, Pierre Joseph Bonnaterre, examined him. He removed the boy's clothing and led him outside into the snow, where, far from being upset, Victor began to frolic about in the nude. This indicated to some that human reaction to temperature is greatly a result of conditioning and experience. Despite the fact that he could hear, Victor was taken to the National Institute of the Deaf for the purpose of study. Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard, a young medical student, took on the remarkable case as his own. He wanted to be the first person to fully civilize a wild child and attempted, primarily, to teach Victor to speak. Though initially successful — Victor showed significant progress, at least, in understanding language and reading simple words — he eventually slowed down to the point that Itard abandoned the experiment. The only words that Victor ever actually learned to speak were lait (milk) and Oh Dieu (oh God). Modern scholars now believe, partly by studying such feral children, that language acquisition must take place in a critical period of early childhood if it is to be successful. The Wild Boy of Aveyron died in Paris in 1828.

but a baby, although it can't speak, is considered a human. Does that make sense?

Chilenita · Comandante

It's too early...this is too deep...I am way too sober

rick · Guru

toooo longg

DART

Lahtina · Foro Master

(Déjà vu... is this a D.A.R.T.? )

Aaaanyway... this is a spin-off of MJ's Animal Testing thread.

The question is, what does it mean to be Human? Do our bodies make us human? Our attributes? Reason? Consciousness? Language? What?

Because I was just thinking of the cases of Feral Children (ie. wild/undomesticated), children who, from a very young age, have been isolated from human contact and have therefore remained unaware of human social behaviour including that which truly differentiates us from animals: language.

There was a very interesting case in France, I learned about it in one of my classes when we were studying language acquisition. Ha! Ty, Wikipedia! I love ma Wiki. Read if you want, skip if you must BUT... could we consider this boy "human" and if so, why?

Victor of Aveyron (also The Wild Boy of Aveyron) was a boy who apparently lived his entire childhood alone in the woods before being found wandering the woods near Saint Sernin sur Rance, France (near Toulouse) in 1797. He was captured, but soon escaped. He was then captured again and kept in the care of a local woman for about a week before he escaped once more.

However, on January 8, 1800, he emerged from the forests on his own, perhaps habituated to human kindness after his second experience. His age was unknown but citizens of the village estimated that he was about twelve years old. His lack of speech, as well as his food preferences and the numerous scars on his body, indicated that he had been in the wild for the majority of his life. This remarkable situation came about at the end of the Enlightenment, when many were debating what exactly distinguished man from animal. One of the prevailing opinions involved the ability to learn language; it was hoped that by studying the wild boy, they would learn the answer.

Shortly after Victor's discovery, a local abbot and biology professor, Pierre Joseph Bonnaterre, examined him. He removed the boy's clothing and led him outside into the snow, where, far from being upset, Victor began to frolic about in the nude. This indicated to some that human reaction to temperature is greatly a result of conditioning and experience.

Despite the fact that he could hear, Victor was taken to the National Institute of the Deaf for the purpose of study. Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard, a young medical student, took on the remarkable case as his own. He wanted to be the first person to fully civilize a wild child and attempted, primarily, to teach Victor to speak. Though initially successful — Victor showed significant progress, at least, in understanding language and reading simple words — he eventually slowed down to the point that Itard abandoned the experiment. The only words that Victor ever actually learned to speak were lait (milk) and Oh Dieu (oh God). Modern scholars now believe, partly by studying such feral children, that language acquisition must take place in a critical period of early childhood if it is to be successful.

The Wild Boy of Aveyron died in Paris in 1828.