On Fri, 11 Feb 2000 09:29:02 -0700 "John W. Burgeson"
<johnburgeson@juno.com> writes:
> Thinking about what constitutes "humanity."
>
> Is there any evidence that non-humans ever have a sense of shame?
>
> I know one can observe some dogs having this -- but it seems to be
> related to their bond with a human. Not "in the wild."
>
> Perhaps humans are the only species that can blush?
> Humans worship.
> So do some animals sometimes (for instance, some dogs).
> But blushing may be one unique attribute.
>
> Burgy (Conjecture mode)
>
I recall reading that the proboscis monkey blushes when it discovers
itself observed.
Is what we observe in dogs shame? I suspect it is often fear, for it has
heard that tone of voice before in connection with what it has done. Or
is the standard canine subservience signal being misinterpreted?
Is the canine hope of approval misunderstood as worship? We need to watch
out for anthropomorphism.
The traditional definition is "rational animal," occsionally extended to
"rational mortal animal." If the latter, I hope that no one will try to
test me, for the only sure evidence of mortality is death: moribund won't
quite do. Animal and rational seem easier to test. But there is a problem
in detecting a match. The three that visited Abraham and the two that
called on Lot, the man that visited Hannah, seemed human. Similarly, one
can be fooled by a Turing machine. However, for something that is
testably animal, rational will do, if it is recognized in terms of
time-binding and space-binding language. But an angel appearing in human
form could certainly deceive one about this. If one considers the
possibility of intelligent extra-terrestrials with human form, testing
might give incorrect results, for the only true human being is one
descended from Adam, and this is not testable.
As I see it, we are left with a number of rules of thumb, useful but
misleading under conceivable circumstances.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 12 2000 - 23:28:13 EST