What is "human"?

[CDarwin]

Here's a semantic question that 150 years of anthropology hasn't been able to agree on an answer to. Let's see if we can do it!

 

For some reason, we feel the need to look back into the fossil record and point to some individual and say "why, there is the first human!" Obviously there are problems with doing that in a phyletic lineage and questions as to how meaningful any such "first human" could really be, but that's not what's at issue here. Obviously people are going to do it, so what distinguishing features do you look for before you pull out the "h" word? How far are you willing to extend it? Is any biped a human? Only members of the genus Homo?

 

Personally I like the correspondence of "human" with Homo. I tend to think that equating the common English term with the genus is an elegant way to resolve the differences between common diction and the scientific nomenclature for mammals. Every Equus is a horse, every Papio a baboon, and so forth. For me then the question is "what makes you Homo?" I think manufacturing stone tools is as good a measure as any. That roughly approximates to a certain level of cognitive and social sophistication that indicates a real reliance on what we term "culture," and I think of that reliance as perhaps the most important thing about what it is to be "human." So Homo habilis is the "first human."

[ydoaPs]

For some reason, we feel the need to look back into the fossil record and point to some individual and say "why, there is the first human!"

 

This is pretty much what Dennett called the "prime mammal." It's idiotic to think we will find a "first human" as the lines between species are blurry. Species itself is pretty much an artificial way for us to group things. It's not like one day a gorilla had a baby and this baby was no longer a gorilla, but rather a human. This idea, in my opinion, was described very well by Dawkins.

You stand on the shore of the Indian Ocean in southern Somalia' date=' facing north, and in your left hand you hold the right hand of your mother. In turn she holds the hand of her mother, your grandmother. Your grandmother holds her hand, and so on. The chain wends its way up the beach, into the arid scrub land and westwards on towards the Kenya border.

 

How far do we have to go until we reach our common ancestor with the chimpanzees? It's a surprisingly short way. Allowing one yard per person, we arrive at the ancestor we share with the chimpanzees in under 300 miles. We've hardly started to cross the continent; we're still not half way to the great Rift Valley. The ancestor is standing well to the east of Mount Kenya, and holing her hand an entire chain of her lineal descendants, culminating in your standing on the Somali beach.

 

The daughter that she is holing in her right hand is the one from whom we are descended. Now the arch-ancestress turns eastward to face the coast, and with her left hand grasps the other daughter, the one from whom the chimpanzees are descended (or son, of course, but let's stick with females for convenience). The two sisters are facing one another, and each holding their mother by the hand. Now the second daughter, the chimpanzee ancestress, holds her daughter's hand, and a new chain is formed, proceeding back towards the coast. First cousin faces first cousin, second cousin faces second cousin, and so on. By the time the folded-back chain has reached the coast again, it consists of modern chimpanzees. You are face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding the hands of their daughters. ... Daughters would resemble their mothers as much (or as little) as they always do. Mothers would love their daughters, and feel affinity for them as they always do.[/quote']

[Mr Skeptic]

A human is defined as a featherless biped.

[CDarwin]

Species itself is pretty much an artificial way for us to group things. It's not like one day a gorilla had a baby and this baby was no longer a gorilla, but rather a human.

 

A species itself is a real thing; it's a group of inter-reproducing individuals. The artificiality comes when we try to apply that real biological concept in a typological way to fossils. We have no idea if all the Homo erectus or Tyrannosaurus rex were really interbreeding. We just have to guess based on the the fact that all of these fossils fall into this certain range of variation that we think corresponds to the range in a biological species.

 

We're putting those caveats aside for the sake of this discussion, though.

 

A human is defined as a featherless biped.

 

So kangaroos are humans for you? Ok.

[iNow]

My strong sense is that, even if this thread continues for 30 pages, we will ultimately all be forced to agree that a "human" is simply a word... a label to which we assign arbitrary values and which allows us to communicate with each other a common concept using the rough and gray edges of our perception and linguistics. There is no absolute set of parameters which unchangingly describe human. It means different things in different contexts, and is interpreted differently by each conscious mind even when specific parameters have been defined.

[Mr Skeptic]

Sorry, I was joking. Someone mentioned that saying it was a correct but completely worthless definition. A similar thing may happen here, as I don't expect there is a clear difference. I do hope you don't also want a definition for person as well. (BTW kangaroos walk on all fours when they aren't in a hurry)

 

The nice thing about Intelligent Design is that everything should fit into neat little categories (well, if the intelligence is like any we know about). Unfortunately, this does not happen so we have extremely fuzzy categories for everything biological. Even the definition for species has a few flaws, like how horses and donkeys are different species but can interbreed.

 

Of course, defining what it means to be human is an important endeavor, but I am not optimistic that it will be perfect.

[CDarwin]

My strong sense is that, even if this thread continues for 30 pages, we will ultimately all be forced to agree that a "human" is simply a word... a label to which we assign arbitrary values and which allows us to communicate with each other a common concept using the rough and gray edges of our perception and linguistics. There is no absolute set of parameters which unchangingly describe human. It means different things in different contexts, and is interpreted differently by each conscious mind even when specific parameters have been defined.

 

And of course you could say that about any word. That's all words are, combinations of sounds arbitrarily assigned meanings. The discussion can be good fun, though, and there seems to be a certain inevitability to it. It doesn't matter how much we talk about how meaningless it is to define what a human is, we all end up doing it.

[Sisyphus]

A species itself is a real thing; it's a group of inter-reproducing individuals.

 

That's a rule of thumb, but in reality it's quite a bit fuzzier than that. You have ring species, for example, where two populations that can both interbreed with a third cannot interbreed with one another. Or two quite different "species" which can interbreed. Or any number of other obstacles to making clearly defined categories - obstacles which are exactly what you would expect considering the origins of said species. (And which, interestingly enough, are discussed eloquently and at some length in The Origin of Species. Good read.)

 

These problems will only get worse with time, too. Genetic manipulation, prosthetics, AI, etc., all can potentially blur what it means to be human.

 

Of course, we still talk about species, and we don't usually get in to trouble, just out of common understanding. I'm human. You're human. It's just when we try to figure out the limits of something like "human" that we fail. It's not because we don't know the answer, it's because there is no answer.

 

 

And of course you could say that about any word. That's all words are, combinations of sounds arbitrarily assigned meanings. The discussion can be good fun, though, and there seems to be a certain inevitability to it. It doesn't matter how much we talk about how meaningless it is to define what a human is, we all end up doing it.

 

No, not any word. Most scientific terms are, indeed, defined by "an absolute set of parameters which unchangingly describe" them. "Rhombus." "Force." "Electron."

[iNow]

The discussion can be good fun, though, and there seems to be a certain inevitability to it. It doesn't matter how much we talk about how meaningless it is to define what a human is, we all end up doing it.

 

Indeed. It absolutely can be fun, and I apologize if my post came across as if I were trying to end discussion. That was not my intent at all.

 

If rigid parameters are what you're after, then perhaps you can limit which field or context we should use? For example, to describe accurately a "human" in biology will require different parameters than when describing "human" in the field of chemistry. So, are you asking what is a human philosophically, ecologically, paleoanthropologically, quantum mechanically, etceteras... ?

[foodchain]

That's a rule of thumb, but in reality it's quite a bit fuzzier than that. You have ring species, for example, where two populations that can both interbreed with a third cannot interbreed with one another. Or two quite different "species" which can interbreed. Or any number of other obstacles to making clearly defined categories - obstacles which are exactly what you would expect considering the origins of said species. (And which, interestingly enough, are discussed eloquently and at some length in The Origin of Species. Good read.)

 

That is a good point about trying to realize possibly the reality of genes at work. The point I would like to suggest though that such does indeed occur in time. If there is no meaning to definition, well I just see that conflicting with the reality of time. This I think is implicated by the variance in genomes and species, in which variation comes in time. If its by this same token we speak language, then you are to say language as being used naturally and as a product of and still open to NS that it all can be flawed and out of line with the reality that does indeed exist? Well that’s certainly not a hopeful future for humanity

[CDarwin]

I'm human. You're human. It's just when we try to figure out the limits of something like "human" that we fail. It's not because we don't know the answer, it's because there is no answer.

 

There is if we say there is. "Human" is just a word waiting to be assigned a meaning, and that assignment is something which can take place within a range of reasonably informed opinions. It's those opinions that I'm interested in.

 

No, not any word. Most scientific terms are, indeed, defined by "an absolute set of parameters which unchangingly describe" them. "Rhombus." "Force." "Electron."

 

There's nothing inherent about the combination of the sounds "el+ec+tron" that would suggest a nature as a negatively charged lepton. The combination of sounds is arbitrarily assigned a meaning.

 

If rigid parameters are what you're after, then perhaps you can limit which field or context we should use? For example, to describe accurately a "human" in biology will require different parameters than when describing "human" in the field of chemistry. So, are you asking what is a human philosophically, ecologically, paleoanthropologically, quantum mechanically, etceteras... ?

 

I'm not totally sure how anyone would define a human in the field of chemistry (that would be an interesting discussion), but I was speaking in an anthropological sort of context.

 

I'm not talking about ethics here or anything.

[iNow]

So we can start with bipedal. 10 fingers, 10 toes. Relative bilateral symmetry.

 

What else?

[Sisyphus]

There is if we say there is. "Human" is just a word waiting to be assigned a meaning, and that assignment is something which can take place within a range of reasonably informed opinions. It's those opinions that I'm interested in.

 

No, you're missing the point. You can assign it to mean something clearly defined, but that won't be what everyone else means when they say "human," because that thing is not clearly defined. We mean "of the human species," but species is an inherently fuzzy grouping.

 

There's nothing inherent about the combination of the sounds "el+ec+tron" that would suggest a nature as a negatively charged lepton. The combination of sounds is arbitrarily assigned a meaning.

 

What on Earth is your point?

[CDarwin]

No, you're missing the point. You can assign it to mean something clearly defined, but that won't be what everyone else means when they say "human," because that thing is not clearly defined. We mean "of the human species," but species is an inherently fuzzy grouping.[/Quote]

 

I'm not necessarily talking about species. I feel "human" to correspond to the whole genus Homo.

 

Your objections to how "fuzzy" species are was in reference to a biological species concept anyway. With fossils, you use a typological species concept based on observable characteristics, which has its own problems, but that's irrelevant to the basic issue which is "what characteristics define an animal as human?"

 

What on Earth is your point?

 

That was a bit of a tangent, but basically my point is that we decide what a word like "human" means.

[ydoaPs]

For sake of discussion, I'll repost the Dawkins quote.

You stand on the shore of the Indian Ocean in southern Somalia' date=' facing north, and in your left hand you hold the right hand of your mother. In turn she holds the hand of her mother, your grandmother. Your grandmother holds her hand, and so on. The chain wends its way up the beach, into the arid scrub land and westwards on towards the Kenya border.

 

How far do we have to go until we reach our common ancestor with the chimpanzees? It's a surprisingly short way. Allowing one yard per person, we arrive at the ancestor we share with the chimpanzees in under 300 miles. We've hardly started to cross the continent; we're still not half way to the great Rift Valley. The ancestor is standing well to the east of Mount Kenya, and holing her hand an entire chain of her lineal descendants, culminating in your standing on the Somali beach.

 

The daughter that she is holing in her right hand is the one from whom we are descended. Now the arch-ancestress turns eastward to face the coast, and with her left hand grasps the other daughter, the one from whom the chimpanzees are descended (or son, of course, but let's stick with females for convenience). The two sisters are facing one another, and each holding their mother by the hand. Now the second daughter, the chimpanzee ancestress, holds her daughter's hand, and a new chain is formed, proceeding back towards the coast. First cousin faces first cousin, second cousin faces second cousin, and so on. By the time the folded-back chain has reached the coast again, it consists of modern chimpanzees. You are face to face with your chimpanzee cousin, and you are joined to her by an unbroken chain of mothers holding the hands of their daughters. ... Daughters would resemble their mothers as much (or as little) as they always do. Mothers would love their daughters, and feel affinity for them as they always do.[/quote']

 

Now, obviously you and your mother are human. Is the arch-ancestress human? What about her other daughter? Are the chimpanzee human(some biologists think they should taxonomically be in the genus Homo)? Where do we draw the line? How do we draw the line? The simple answer, in my opinion, is that any line you draw will be pretty much arbitrary.

[iNow]

So we can start with bipedal. 10 fingers, 10 toes. Relative bilateral symmetry.

 

What else?

 

Hmmm... anthropologically, it might be better to describe the habitats in which we thrive, the foods we use to maintain health, the fact that we need a lot of fresh water, that we use tools and the like. Anyone else have ideas?

[Mr Skeptic]

That was a bit of a tangent, but basically my point is that we decide what a word like "human" means.

 

Sort of. We are free to define words as we please. But unless we actually define it according to its proper usage, various statements referring to "humans" may no longer be true. We may also be forced to make more than one definition.

 

Since "human" is a fuzzy concept, it may be best to ask a few questions while seeking the answer:

Are all humans people?

Are all people human?

Are certain physical attributes required to be human?

Are certain mental attributes required to be human?

Are certain DNA attributes required to be human?

Are certain abilities required to be human?

Are chimeras human, and what might that depend on?

If you took a human and replaced all their DNA with non-human DNA but made no other changes, would they still be human?

Might a mutant from a human not be a human?

 

I'll think of some more later if you wish.

[vampares]

Species itself is pretty much an artificial way for us to group things. It's not like one day a gorilla had a baby and this baby was no longer a gorilla, but rather a human. This idea, in my opinion, was described very well by Dawkins.

 

The animals and plants mankind has breed have classically been finicky mutations for specialized purposes. I think it is important to realize that mankind itself is not the "agouti gerbil" or hearty wild animal but a domesticated and specialized strain that is very fragile and not the "resilient" wonderkind we would like to be.

[dichotomy]

I can’t help but get involved in these infinite discussions.

 

A human is what it is due to some of the following –

 

1. A human is a biological mass that assigns meaning to abstract concepts, like the word ‘human’, and hopes that the meaning will stick.

 

2. A human is a creature that has reached the highest level of mental logic and creativity of all earthly life forms. Mental logic and creativity, that results in physical invention.

 

3. A human is one whom understands that the mind is overwhelmingly governed by the external environment, and then by the mind's internal workings of emotion and logic.

 

Basically, if a human brain could survive and act on its own, sans body. I would consider it as a small squishy human being.

[foodchain]

I think one of the only way to truly define a species when you get so close evolution wise is sexual barriers to reproduction. I know even this is not as good when you actually look at life of course and there are many examples in which the barrier seems to make no sense but once you hit that barrier you do have an isolated group. I think this of course ties into many other mechanisms or functions of course of life but these themselves could be temporal also in an evolutionary sense.

[lucaspa]

If you read the anthropological literature, "human" used to be applied only to the species H. sapiens. However, now the term is applied to any species in the genus Homo. CDarwin, we aren't going to settle the term here. That's being more than a little presumptuous. It is going to be debated within the anthropological scientific community and we will use the term as they do. So, for now, "human" applies to any species in the genus Homo. And yes, it is somewhat arbitrary and will remain so.

 

Because evolution happens, it is always somewhat arbitrary when you do from one species or genus name to another. There are transitional individuals between A. afarensis and H. habilis. Are they "human"? Right now the anthropological community says "no". Not until you have recognizably fully H. habilis would the term "human" be applied. Otherwise, they use the term "hominid".

[CDarwin]

If you read the anthropological literature, "human" used to be applied only to the species H. sapiens. However, now the term is applied to any species in the genus Homo. CDarwin, we aren't going to settle the term here. That's being more than a little presumptuous. It is going to be debated within the anthropological scientific community and we will use the term as they do. So, for now, "human" applies to any species in the genus Homo. And yes, it is somewhat arbitrary and will remain so.

 

I'm not expecting to publish on this or anything. Just a bit of idle discussion.

[stand2reason]

A species itself is a real thing; it's a group of inter-reproducing individuals.

 

Then how would you explain ring species? Where is the demarcation?

[CDarwin]

Then how would you explain ring species? Where is the demarcation?

 

From p. 183 of What Evolution Is, by Ernst Mayr:

 

Should [a 'ring species'] be considered a single species despite the sympatry at the ends or should it be broken into two (or more) species? Much new information favors the second choice. This information come from a fine-grained analysis of the entire chain. Invariably, it shows that the chain only appeared to be continuous, but actually has a number of breaks or remnants of former isolation. When these are recognized as separate species there is no longer any sympatry of two populations of the same species.

 

The dilemma is moot to the question of "what is a human," however, because "human" mustn't necessarily refer to a single species, nor must it necessarily refer to any biologically defined species. Like "horse" or "beaver" or any other common name it is much more of a typological concept.

[SamCogar]

Now, obviously you and your mother are human. Is the arch-ancestress human? What about her other daughter? Are the chimpanzee human(some biologists think they should taxonomically be in the genus Homo)? Where do we draw the line? How do we draw the line? The simple answer, in my opinion, is that any line you draw will be pretty much arbitrary.

 

Right you are that "any line you draw will be pretty much arbitrary" because most all individuals are nurtured from birth to think of all their "like kind" as being "human" and all other creatures as being "animals".

 

Only later in life do some learn "that is not so". Creationists never do or will never admit doing.

 

But, as everyone knows, "Old habits (and beliefs) die hard" ..... so, their "early nurturing thoughts" are forever present.

 

Now a Creationist can easily define "like kind", .... but an Evolutionist has trouble doing said.