At 01:55 PM 2/14/00 -0800, Joel Z Bandstra wrote:
>
>
>I think it a mistake to define humanness in a scientifically testable
>fashion. I feel as though being human is more than a physical state.
If we don't define humanity in a scientifically testable manner, then
humanity becomes something subjective. Given this some people will
subjectively feel that other humans of a different ethnicity are less than
human, e.g. Croatia/Serbia/Rwanda/N.Ireland/Palestine-Israel. And if it is
defined subjectively, then humanity can be subjectively removed.
That
>is, I think that humans have a spiritual being as well as a physical being
>(a sort of duality I suppose). If this is so, it may still be possible to
>observe physical results of the spiritual being (e.g. behavior) but it
>would not be possible to say what is human based solely on physical
>observation.
In that case, what other kinds of observations are available to
us--nonphysical observations? Exactly what are non-physical observations?
Or is it assumptions that we are supposed to make about who is and who
isn't human? If so, how do we know the assumptions are true?
And if behavior doesn't define humanity, then I would contend that
regardless of how you behave on this list, I don't think you are human. You
are a computer who sends out e-mails. You are the first AI program. Now
prove me wrong!
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 14 2000 - 21:27:30 EST