What is it to be a Human?

[Chroma Starlight]

1 minute ago, Aethelwine said:

Humankind would improve if we concentrated less on being human and more on being kind.

Well, it's possible to be both human and kind at once, you know?

[FairreLilette]

7 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

Well, it's possible to be both human and kind at once, you know?

And, enjoy life more.  You know I started to change as soon as I got some scents for my home and some incredible smelling and tasting herbal and herbal and flower teas.  My taste buds and my senses went ecstatic.  I began to feel we are creations not born to work ourselves to death for 45+ years as our governments want us to do but to enjoy life and all that is here.  I began to live again through these amazing scents and teas.  The taste and smell of these teas is so marvelous.  But, government wants me to work possibly now until I'm 70.  This Earth is a paradise and man is ruining it.  Man says they want to change and go even greener than before.  All we really need is to grow our own food and cook and wash.  The rest is all secondary and a profiteers rat-race.  Some people are not meant to work 45+ years.  Their bodies just are not capable of it and many have repetitive use injuries for one example and then have to live below the poverty line.

Edited June 18, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Innula Zenovka]

17 hours ago, Rolig Loon said:

Regardless of what intent anyone has in starting a thread, I prefer to approach a philosophical question as if it were a genuine attempt at discussion. It's sadly true that many discussions here are derailed quickly, sometimes by cynics and sometimes simply by people who want to drop in a humorous aside. As far as I am concerned, though, big questions about who were are, what our place in the universe may be, and how we decide to make moral decisions are important enough to be fair game here. They are part of our personal search for meaning. We don't leave those questions behind as we step from Real Life to Second Life.  If anything, SL gives us a different vantage point and therefore a fresh reason for asking them. 

I still think it's important to be clear what the question actually means and why it's being asked.

If you ask a geneticist, an anthropologist and a theologian what's apparently the same question, "what is it to be human?" then you're likely to receive three very different answers, one or more of which may or may not be helpful, depending on what exactly you mean by the question.

 

 

[Profaitchikenz Haiku]

I would start off with "a chemical being" which puts us into the class of animals in terms of basic constitution, after which comes "a communicating chemical being" to partially differentiate us from other animals, but since animals obviously do communicate something, we are now into the territory that David Chalmers said was characterised by "The Hard Question", and from now on it's a problem with using words that have many different meanings and values. Meanings are somewhat personal, words can be accidentally or deliberately misconstrued, logic is as fallible as mathematics - (See Godel).

Some problems may never be solved, some questions may never be answered, some posts may run for ever without a resolution acceptable to all.

You might as well ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pn, we're in much the same territory.

[Solar Legion]

19 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

I still think it's important to be clear what the question actually means and why it's being asked.

If you ask a geneticist, an anthropologist and a theologian what's apparently the same question, "what is it to be human?" then you're likely to receive three very different answers, one or more of which may or may not be helpful, depending on what exactly you mean by the question.

Which is part of why I responded the way I did.

To put it a different way: Ask the right question, using the correct terms (if any exist) or reasonable substitutions (opting to be more verbose should no proper terminology exist).

What is it to be Human (Scientific/Genetic question)? What constitutes Human Civilization/Evolution/Progress (Anthropological/Archaeological question)? There is no proper equivalent for Theology/Spirituality - some may attempt to argue otherwise but that simply shows where their limitations are.

[Ceka Cianci]

It's excellent and rocks! \o/

Edited June 19, 2021 by Ceka Cianci

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Innula Zenovka said:

I still think it's important to be clear what the question actually means and why it's being asked.

If you ask a geneticist, an anthropologist and a theologian what's apparently the same question, "what is it to be human?" then you're likely to receive three very different answers, one or more of which may or may not be helpful, depending on what exactly you mean by the question.

I'm afraid I disagree, Innula. I love the open question because it allows for multiple interpretations and responses. Any person viewing the question is then free to answer from the perspective of a geneticist, anthropologist, or theologian --  as well as from the perspective of any of the academic disciplines humans created to discern truth.

Besides, can you really separate the answer into parts?  The genetics that brought forth the differences in the human brain intertwines with the cultural differences that the anthropologist, theologian, and psychologist explore.

[Luna Bliss]

15 hours ago, Chroma Starlight said:

it's possible to be both human and kind at once

Regarding being human, I like this saying:

      "to whom much is given, much is required" 

Humans certainly have been 'given' a brain that is markedly different from animals, capable of abstract reasoning and containing a conscience (in most people anyway). One would expect humans would use these attributes for the good, and sometimes they do, but I'm afraid as I see the ice caps melting and thousands dying each day from starvation though food is available, I surmise that despite such brain gifts humans fall terribly short.

I have to admit, despite my amazement with Science and what we've accomplished, due to so many shortcomings I do wonder if humankind's brain development was some sort of aberration, a mistake, and that nature is finally getting around to 'correcting' the mistake via bringing creation back into balance.

Anyway, back to what humans have been 'given', I look at my kitties charging to the newly placed bowl of delicious food placed on the floor, oblivious to or not caring that one of the smaller ones might not get enough, might even starve. They only seek to satisfy their hunger. We tell our children this is wrong, that they must share the cookie platter given out in kindergarten, instructing them toward a development of conscience that is possible for humans, and in that way we provide for the weaker among us and demonstrate a value for caring about the good of all and not just the individual.

Humans have the ability to use their abstract reasoning and step back from a situation, rise above the needs of the self to view the larger picture that includes more than their individual self, and act in accordance with this vision. They have a conscience, a moral sense of what is right or wrong, fair or unfair. Yet they too frequently don't use these attributes. What went wrong?

Edited June 19, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Da5id Weatherwax]

An independent being that is capable of both cognition and self-awareness, the famous dictum of Descartes "Cogito, ergo sum", however they may express it to themselves, is a person. Whether they are human or not is a matter of biological hair-splitting and, in some folks eyes, moral judgement. If that colours how someone else relates to them, that is a problem for the one doing the relating, not for the person being related to.

[FairreLilette]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Humans have the ability to use their abstract reasoning and step back from a situation, rise above the needs of the self to view the larger picture that includes more than their individual self, and act in accordance with this vision. They have a conscience, a moral sense of what is right or wrong, fair or unfair. Yet they too frequently don't use these attributes. What went wrong?

Just taking unmet daily needs such as food, I'll tell you my experience.

My sister and I in our 20's gave to a charity that was advertised on TV where one could sponsor a child say in India or wherever they said they would allocate the funds too for $15 dollars a month.  We both signed up.  Later the charity was shut down for misallocation of funds and keeping the funds for themselves.  It was a scam.  This began a situation where my sister and I became discouraged at charities in general.  Many charities are said to be skimming funds into their own pockets which could be embezzlement.  

Next, where I lived where I grew up I went to our local food bank with a friend who had lost their job and needed help.  At our local food bank, she was given wilted rotten lettuce and curdled milk that was completely spoiled.   It was disgusting.  So, our local food bank was a failure in my eyes, why I don't really know.  My friend was also an orphan.  She lost both her parents at a young age so my family kind of adopted her.  That was the way my Mom was.

Next, from what I know in my own community the best place to get some help with clothing for low income are local donation stores called Thrift Stores and there are some good prices there.  As far as for food in the two main communities I've lived in as an adult - the one community I lived in for 20 years with my ex-husband had food donations at some of our local Thrift Stores but the food donated there was mostly baked goods and very sugary - sugar muffins, cookies, etc, but nothing really I'd call food.  I worked part time in antiques and collectibles, so I scoured Thrift stores for collectible finds this is how I knew about the food drops.  But, again, those food drops all seemed to consist to sugary stuff.  

The community I live in now, the best place I know where one could get food is at a local church.  I have a neighbor who goes to church and she is always bringing back goodies from her church free which are usually whole cakes, pies, large bins of cookies.  Again, it's all sweet sugary stuff and not really stuff one could use as meals but there is free food at her church. 

What went wrong?  Well, I think it was simply easier or is today simply easy in small communities to know who needs what and/or who is doing without and to help.  In today's modern world, it's mostly chaotic.  Hands on helping could be great.  

Our government does need to up the disability income for disabled adults however as that is a ridiculously low amount of money to expect one to live on.  People on Social Security or SSI, probably receive close to the amount of money on the right.  This is wrong!

Family Size (Persons in Family/Household)	Annual Family Income
	HUD Low Income Level 1	Federal Poverty Level*
1	$66,250	$12,880
2	$75,700	$17,420
3	$85,150	$21,960

6 more rows

Edited June 19, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Innula Zenovka]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

I'm afraid I disagree, Innula. I love the open question because it allows for multiple interpretations and responses. Any person viewing the question is then free to answer from the perspective of a geneticist, anthropologist, or theologian --  as well as from the perspective of any of the academic disciplines humans created to discern truth.

Besides, can you really separate the answer into parts?  The genetics that brought forth the differences in the human brain intertwines with the cultural differences that the anthropologist, theologian, and psychologist explore.

Fine.  You like asking open questions because they provoke a wide variety of interpretations and responses, so that's why you ask them.

If, however, you're a forensic archaeologist trying to determine if some remains are human or not, then the question has a very specific meaning and the other answers, fascinating though they may be, aren't much use.

All I'm saying is that in order to avoid a lot of pointless argument, with people talking past each other,  in this kind of discussion I find it helpful to be clear, at least in my own mind, what question I'm actually trying to answer, and why. 

(If I'm not careful, I'll end up talking about Derrida, and no one wants that to happen).

 

[Luna Bliss]

50 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

What went wrong?  Well, I think it was simply easier or is today simply easy in small communities to know who needs what and/or who is doing without and to help.  In today's modern world, it's mostly chaotic.  Hands on helping could be great.  

Yes, complications did arise when we left a more localized system and so became more globalized.  In fact, I read one theory that said the reason huge corporations are driving us to extinction is because those with psychopathic tendencies rose to prominent positions in corporations and now rule the world. In localized, tribal societies these types of people were ousted from the tribe or even killed. But now it's much more difficult to control those with psychopathic tendencies (lack of empathy for others, excess focus on competition, excessive focus on self-advancement, winning at all costs, profit before people, and more).

i.e. -- the patriarchy?

 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

6 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Fine.  You like asking open questions because they provoke a wide variety of interpretations and responses, so that's why you ask them.

If, however, you're a forensic archaeologist trying to determine if some remains are human or not, then the question has a very specific meaning and the other answers, fascinating though they may be, aren't much use.

All I'm saying is that in order to avoid a lot of pointless argument, with people talking past each other,  in this kind of discussion I find it helpful to be clear, at least in my own mind, what question I'm actually trying to answer, and why. 

(If I'm not careful, I'll end up talking about Derrida, and no one wants that to happen).

Well actually it seems like what Chroma was asking is pretty clear. This is from their initial post:

"What is a human?
an artistic interpretation

Human.
Could it be.
There was a transcription problem along the way.

Let's back up and check our references.

lu mah an
[whom to be great (lord?) and of heaven]"

[Luna Bliss]

So does being human mean to be "great", "heavenly", "lord"?

If so, in what way?  And are humans falling short of it?

If not, do we need to resign ourselves to having the consciousness and actions of forms of life that don't have our big brains capable of abstract thinking and ethics (a striving for justice)?

[Luna Bliss]

18 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

 It seems to me that we were born to enjoy life and the Earth through our senses and be it's caretakers.  All this work stuff is made up beyond what we need to survive.

 

18 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

 But, government wants me to work possibly now until I'm 70.  This Earth is a paradise and man is ruining it.  Man says they want to change and go even greener than before.  All we really need is to grow our own food and cook and wash.  The rest is all secondary and a profiteers rat-race.  

Yes I often wonder what went wrong....where the excessive greed came from. In the MegaMachine book they describe the hoarding behavior that developed in Europe as excess grains were able to be produced, and the armies springing from that to guard the grains, and then the colonization of the entire rest of the globe that spread out from these people in an orgy of endless growth.

Being sympathetic, I imagine it's all due to humankind's fear of death. You describe the paradise of simply tending to one's needs for survival, but underneath this is the knowledge (in humans) that death can come at any moment, and we see loved people die all the time, and possibly this is just too much to bear -- hence all the hoarding behavior as an illogical defense against death.

Being less sympathetic, I think there could be a kind of dynamic described by Native cultures (called 'Wetiko' in one language), that does indeed take ahold of people (but perhaps only in some cultures, as typically we don't see this phenomenon in Aboriginal cultures who maintain close ties to nature). Similar to what we might call an addiction in modern terms. 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Innula Zenovka]

32 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well actually it seems like what Chroma was asking is pretty clear. This is from their initial post:

"What is a human?
an artistic interpretation

Human.
Could it be.
There was a transcription problem along the way.

Let's back up and check our references.

lu mah an
[whom to be great (lord?) and of heaven]"

It may be clear to you, but I'm afraid that to me it's pretty opaque.

There's some referential system in which it must make sense, but it's not one with which I'm familiar.

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

It may be clear to you, but I'm afraid that to me it's pretty opaque.

There's some referential system in which it must make sense, but it's not one with which I'm familiar.

Sometimes I've wished that Chroma would speak in a way that's easier to understand. The thing is, I'm not sure it's possible -- perhaps never, perhaps just not at this time.  I just don't want to see her demonized because of it.

I do recognize your frustration. Perhaps you should just answer the question in whatever way seems interesting or most important to you, and others could do the same.  "What is it to be human?", is the question. We could talk for forever about this.

[FairreLilette]

24 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Yes I often wonder what went wrong....where the excessive greed came from. In the MegaMachine book they describe the hoarding behavior that developed in Europe as excess grains were able to be produced, and the armies springing from that to guard the grains, and then the colonization of the entire rest of the globe that spread out from these people in an orgy of endless growth

Fear probably.  Fear or invasion, fear of takeovers by enemies.  

In Victorian society and prior "rich societies" I believe their fear was a life of drudgery.  They believed in order to keep their wealth, one must marry wealth to wealth and thus avoid the life of drudgery.  If a rich person's child wanted to marry a pauper for love reasons, they were often disowned.   The rich people of those times were mostly the land barons, the rest were mostly paupers or slaves aside from the silversmith, the cobbler or the tailor for a few examples but most were paupers and those were the people who were thought to be living a life of drudgery.  One can view through Operas themes the tragic demise of lovers who fell in love and tried to choose love instead of wealth, and in those Operas the theme is prevalent - the lovers or one of the lovers died or was killed.   Also, many people married within their family.  One can see in the movie "Gone With The Wind", Ashley Wilkes has to marry his first cousin Melanie and cannot marry Scarlet as Scarlet is not his first cousin.  They more than likely married within the family to avoid traitors who would/could squander the family fortune as revenge.   Many ancient cultures used to marry within their own family to avoid hostile takeovers of fortunes by outsiders.  This is shown in the book "Hawaii" by James Mitchner.   

Edited June 19, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Chroma Starlight]

6 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Humans have the ability to use their abstract reasoning and step back from a situation, rise above 

Ir An I (𒅕𒀭𒄿)
[mighty praise in celebration of heaven]

Edited June 19, 2021 by Chroma Starlight

[Doris Johnsky]

On 6/18/2021 at 10:26 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

A rational, emotional, spiritual being imbued with a working conscience. 

I would agree with this except the spiritual part.  

Man became "spiritual" when things occurred in their lives that they could not explain.  Drought, floods, illness, too many things to name for early humans.  Their solution?  The God(s) did/caused/allowed it to happen. 

As to someone who argued that humans aren't always rational, emotional, or spiritual, I have this to say in answer.

Rational means to "rationalize" whatever fits each person's belief system. While it might not seem rational to hate a group because they are different in some way,  humans "rationalize" that thought to fit their own narrative.   That is the definition of rational thought.  

Emotional means to react to various stimulus.  Unless there is a specific condition (autism for example) everyone has emotions.  Even a serial killer to might seem unemotional in the act of murder, is deriving some emotional response to the killing..

Spiritual, I've already addressed. Atheists often  have spiritual feelings. Spirituality is a part of rationally and emotionally defining how we as humans perceive and react to  life.

 

But that's just me.

[Chroma Starlight]

10 minutes ago, Doris Johnsky said:

Man became "spiritual" when things occurred in their lives that they could not explain.  Drought, floods, illness, too many things to name for early humans.  Their solution?  The God(s) did/caused/allowed it to happen. 

Childbirth, the meta, synchronicity, universality in all things. The pervasive heartbeat of existence, the communion when living in the now. Consciousness itself. There's a lot to explain about reality. It does turn out that we need  healthy self-connection to within for far more than merely just realizing that fear is illusionary and that there are at least three ways to do anything.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Chroma Starlight

[Chroma Starlight]

Quote

Neuro-linguistic programming
Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a pseudoscientific approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy... NLP's creators claim there is a connection between neurological processes (neuro-), language (linguistic) and behavioral patterns learned through experience (programming), and that these can be changed to achieve specific goals in life. Bandler and Grinder also claim that NLP methodology can "model" the skills of exceptional people, allowing anyone to acquire those skills. NLP has been adopted by some hypnotherapists and also by companies that run seminars marketed as leadership training to businesses and government agencies.

...To Langford, NLP is akin to a syncretic folk religion "that attempts to wed the magic of folk practice to the science of professional medicine". Bandler and Grinder were (and continue to be) influenced by the shamanism described in the books of Carlos Castaneda. Several ideas and techniques have been borrowed from Castaneda and incorporated into NLP including so-called double induction and the notion of "stopping the world" which is central to NLP modeling.
(from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming#As_a_quasi-religion)

Quote

Double Induction
The induction is designed to confuse the subconscious with one voice on the left and one on the right. Each voice is saying something different.

No, there's definitely at least three choices. Life is impossibly nuanced, complex, and deep.

Edited June 19, 2021 by Chroma Starlight

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Chroma Starlight said:

Ir An I (𒅕𒀭𒄿)
[mighty praise in celebration of heaven]

That reminds me of a skybox I created named Nature Cathedral.  I need to update it, or make a new version.

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Doris Johnsky said:

Emotional means to react to various stimulus.  Unless there is a specific condition (autism for example) everyone has emotions. 

You are terribly misinformed regarding autistic people. They have emotions.

[Luna Bliss]

3 hours ago, FairreLilette said:

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Yes I often wonder what went wrong....where the excessive greed came from. In the MegaMachine book they describe the hoarding behavior that developed in Europe as excess grains were able to be produced, and the armies springing from that to guard the grains, and then the colonization of the entire rest of the globe that spread out from these people in an orgy of endless growth

Expand  

Fear probably.  Fear or invasion, fear of takeovers by enemies.  

Yes that makes sense in their country of origin, but what about when they spread to the Americas, or to other parts of the globe....it appears conquering and domination was okay in their mind, and even labeled as 'saving the savages', or in later years as 'bringing democracy'. This is a hallmark of the patriarchy.