What measure is a non-human, really?

Fair enough.

It makes me sad that nobody wants to play philosophy with me :(

edited 19th Feb '13 10:48:13 PM by washington213

Well, if it can hold a conversation, why should we treat it differently?

We are nothing more than biological machines, why discriminate against robots or aliens?

It's what we do. Humans are a very hateful, distrustful species.

Implying that other animals are nothing but friendly to each other and others?

While all Earthling animals are pretty destructive and chaotic, most of them don't have the capacity to be hateful. Humans are the exception.

I draw the line at lawyers and bureaucrats.

I think asking "What measure is a nonhuman?" implies a tendency to think of humans as special or as humanity as a special quality that all beings should strive to have.

This represents a gross bias and a very narrow perspective. We think humans are special because we're humans, and have been all our lives. We don't know any different. Suppose, one day, you were transplanted into the body of an alien or robot, and when you were swapped back, you realized your nonhuman body and/or intellect was far superior. What then?

I personally have no attachment to my humanity or my human body. The latter I would give up in an instant if Brain Uploading or something like it were possible. The only thing that gives me pause on that matter is that my various neuroses might also be uploaded.

As to the former two, they are potential intelligent adults (kids will grow up one day) and thus are seen as having the same rights. The latter... Well. You can make a case for severely permanently disabled or developmentally challenged people (and I mean severely—Asperger's, for example, doesn't rank the same as someone who is completely and permanently paralyzed) not having the same rights as the average person, but see how well that goes down with others...

My psychiatrist once told me about a theory of three basic "modes" of human thought—logical, emotional and moral. Ideally, there should be some kind of balance between the three, and psychological problems (as well as social) arise when one is leaning too much on just one mode of thought and neglecting the others. An example he gave was the highly religious, who are very dependent on the moral mode (although their morality is dictated by an external influence).

On such matters as whether disabled people have the same rights as the nondisabled, people are not likely to respond well to arguments based purely on logic. For example:

Fact: The severely disabled do not have the same capabilities as the nondisabled.

Logical conclusion: Disabled people do not have the same rights as the nondisabled.

As you can see, there is no accounting for the emotional and moral factors, which is likely to upset people. A moral conclusion might be, "Disabled people don't have the same capabilities, but still deserve the same rights." An emotional one might be, "My brother is disabled! How dare you suggest he doesn't have the same rights!" Or, "I love my brother, and therefore I think he deserves the same rights."

People who operate 100% on logic struggle when socializing with people whose thoughts are more in balance. Though they may be very smart, they lack social intelligence. I figured out this was one of my problems and since then I've tried to be more cognizant of people's feelings.

Just food for thought.

edited 1st Mar '13 4:07:04 AM by Alma

I rather like the approach to this question that New Guineans approached when they first encountered Caucasian explorers.

Originally (at least, according to Jared Diamond) they were uncertain if they were even human, what with their strange skin and different lineaments and bizarre behaviour; but then they examined their campsites, and saw that their feces were like everyone else's, and they were rather reassured.

If it poops like a man then it probably is a man.

This type of debates kinda reminds me of the aleternate history fanfic/debates. There is only so far that we can go with before we get into what if territory. Also you have to go into our biological mental state as well. There is a reason why the uncanny valley exists and as someone use the native example earlier( forgot your name sorry). If you saw a species of that guy from mortal kombat with the angler fish teeth walking around, you probably don't want to talk to them face to face. Add to the fact that they as well would probably look at us as intimating or ugly or probably uncanny as well. And that only if they have the same generally body shape as ours. I Wouldn't be surprised if they have an entire different biological history as well. Plus the fact that any travel between the stars will take month if being VERY generous and probably generations which would create a mini culture if it's long enough like about three generational+ so the cultural exchange could even add a statistical bias to the equation. So many things have to be taken in accound when dealing with the mere thought of first contact let alone ACTUALLY doing it.soany variables, so many ways things and events can go.

edited 14th Jul '15 8:07:28 PM by Floatzel

I think the larger problem would revolve around people's fears revolving of a more intelligent species then us. The likelihood of us meeting a species that is near our level of technological flourish is highly unlikely. It's very likely we'll meet a species either much more advanced then us or possible a sapient species much more primitive.

And you can see where the rights issues might come in already. Humanity by technical definition is still belonging to the animal kingdom. So what is stopping the aliens themselves from viewing us as animals? What is stopping us from viewing an alien species that had worse luck then us in natural selection as animals?

The rights issues can go both ways. I imagine there is more to that hypothetical situation that I haven't thought of yet.

edited 14th Jul '15 11:53:10 PM by Bleddyn

Technically any aliens we encounter wouldn't actually be animals , the same way seaweed isn't actually a plant, only a lot more extreme

You also have to consider the time, travel distance, translation, understanding the translation and responding correctly. What if that shuttle that nasa senses a while ago showing what we are finds a planets with life that can recognize it. By the time it is found it could have been decades, centuries, milliniums, and probably considering how big the universe is millions of years and a lot of thing would have change. Plus the fact that they have to debate the meaning and where it came from plus the fact that they have to send a respond( or not) and send it back somehow, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be humans at that point. Ohh this is giving a headache just thinking about the obstacles image the headache if we actually have a faint confirmation of a different species or maybe genuse of organisms that can send a lanquage out to space.

They might be, just in a different system of it, in the vein of Expedition.

I do have a couple of question. If intelligence did arise somewhere but either after humanity got extinct or actually came to this planet for some reason after we are gone will anything remain to make them think "maybe there used to be a society on this planet" considering as the technology is right now thing only made out of metal MIGHT be able to survive a couple of million of years let alone decades and century. Will our building leave an unnatural imprint in the soil like those fossils that ancient shells made or something? Will the unnatural competition of metals and unnatural made stuff pile up like a buried remain of a factory or car lot or maybe the cities as a whole because I'm pretty sure that wherever platinum or gold or earth metal are to just be dropped now and pile up underground wouldn't be a place where those metals would naturally form? Will the alien even know that? What will they think of the society that was left behind to dissect and try their best to construct a dead planet? Or will nature just overrun everything and act like nothing happened? What will happen to the stuff inside building especially the environment proofed ones like bunkers and the hideout for the president of things go south for the U.S.? The food inside cans?

A summary of the above paragraph. What will remain if humanity went extinct and intelligent life was to find earth after it? And I want in any time and time length after that they( aliens) find the remains.

Ironically, I actually got into a legitimately heated argument about this sort of thing with my friend a couple weeks ago. It was sparked after seeing Ted 2 of all things.

UM ok I can see how ted 2 can start that kind of convertation, but I have quetion, How exatcly can he talk without you know a vocal cord or lungs for that matter?

Some of use follow religions that hold that the world is already full of non-human people, so we're sorted on that score: just treat them like people, with extra consideration for peculiarities arising from their non-human-ness, such as a violent aversion to urine or salt.

literally magic

If we did meet intelligent life out there and had absolute proof of it, how big would you think it will be? At the level of the soviets collapsing or when we landed on the moon? Or will it on its own level of cultural change level, helped by the fact that the world has Internet and international news channels like bbc and aljazeera as well as a century worth of science fiction to cushion the blow a little. Im Pretty sure that the reaction and the spread of the new( and the corruption of it the further you went away from the source) would be radically different if it happened at 1915 rather than 2015.

Ps a side topic do you thing the English would be very different between England and the states without the internet you know like lanquage drift or a creole type lanquage in former England colonies? Also how long does it take for different places speaking the same lanquage to change to something different? I'm asking this just because of a what if universe where the Internet and the international community didn't happepened or at least to quickly by history perspective say like 500 or 700 years after the states became interpreted that the Internet and advancement happened. The reason why I asked this is just to see if first contact would be very different in a world where English is the international lanquage as well as the unofficial lanquage of the only superpower in the world. If this universe is even possible at that.

Pss sorry about my rambling I always have a habit of asking a lot of questions in a topic I'm interested and don't know a lot about or is a speculate topic like this.

Did my long post scared your guys off? *said in a playful manner*