Human Special-nes

Hello folks,Recent chat conversations on the subject of "human special-ness" prompted me to write the following for a class, and I am sharing it here so that anyone who wants to discuss the topic may do so. The main points boil down to whether humans are actually special, or if it is just self-induced illusion by our species. You will see in the paper what my stance is. Aside from that, here it is: Breif Essay on Human Special-nessPlease enjoy,
J0N1CU5 M4X1MU5

quote:

---

Access Denied!

​

The file is not available because you are not logged-in or do not have the owner's pernmissiion to view it

---

I think that we are actually special.Of course that depends on the definition of special...But then again, I think we have a soul, so...

Should be good now.

Read the paper, and see if it makes you think about it any more.Max

First, I take issue with your definition of "human". I think it should include all members of the Homo line, not just the sapient ones. And beings from "a distant planet" are definitely not "human", regardless of how sapient they might be.Second, none of your examples of "specialness" are valid. Interspecies empathy/sympathy does seem to exist, many species use technology, etc.We may be "special" in some ways, but other species are special in other ways.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

MAN! Everything you said there was precisely my argument! I hope the paper wasn't that misleading! And as for the Homo thing, I agree with you on that one too. We agree for once, though, I have a feeling you might find a way to disagree without it seeming like you are disagreeing just so you can fight me MaxEdited by Jonicus Maximus, : One thing about the "beings from distant planet" part in your post. I like to go by "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, ..." Any being that came from a distant planet that looked, talked, acted, and did everything else like human beings, I would call human.

you're getting more than you asked for, jon.I ain't even gonna deal with the first paragraph and it's darns and arrogance. half of this is filler. end the sentence at "judge something as human or not". you're right, this is vague. practically everything communicates with other members of their species--inlducing bacteria. so bacteria are now human? congrats, you just defined being human as being practically any organism on this, or other, planet(s). It does not suit your purpose. crap. shitty sentence. you say the same thing twice "defining special is hard, defining special is hard". what is it with filler? don't say "which I will not reiterate". pointless statement. scrath "remember". um, dude. you can't use writing to define humans, and yet you do shortly after this sentence. (yes, in an abstract way--you don't say it outright, but we wrote out the Endangered Species Act).oh, and where's your definition of "special"? you promised it, I don't see it. at least you gave us a crappy one for being "human". wonderful jon, absolutely wonderful. you defined special by being human and human by being special. what circular logic you have. and didn't you earlier say that being human is defined as "communicating"?
now you've contradicted yourself. writing isn't what makes us human, you claim, but then you claim that is makes us special, and because what makes us special is what makes us human, writing makes us human. oops. wonderful waste of time not the purpose of an argument/debate. and again with the arrogance. with as crappy an argument you've put forward here, i'm betting it will be a long time before you prove anyone wrong. thanks for the strawman.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

I read it. It doesn't convince me that we are not special. I think it is self evident that we are.Of course we can say that every species is special in their own way, but I think humans have the ultimate specialness.WRT the human centered definition of special: We are the ones doing the defining and considering, isn't that specialness enough in itself?I realize that dolphins might be talking about how special they are and thinking that because we aren't talking back then we are less special and they are the ultimate in specialness but I highly doubt that they are considering this.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

Over at Dolphin Forums, they're highly unimpressed with your argument.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Odd... you seemed to have missed the entire point of the paper.I can set you straight here in a bit, but must catch the bus for now.Max[abe]No, the part behind the em dash is extremely important because it specifies the conditions that a definition must meet. If not for that, I could say: humans are humans. That's a definition, but horrible. The offset bit of text lets the reader know what type of a definition to expect. Whether or not I deliver is a whole different story Here's the point you REALLY missed. The last sentence of the second to last paragraph reads:

quote:

---

It's the human-centred definition of special that leads to the human-centred idea of human special-ness.

---

This effectually says that I think it's crap that people walk around all day pretending they're special when most use the circular logic cited above to prove that it's so.You disagree with every "point" I make, right up to the end. That's the point, that's the idea. All that crap that's written up until the end is just meandering through my head. It's there so that you can see the argument people use to claim human special-ness. And the very final part where I show that it's circular half-ass logic (as you have pointed out ), is the kicker of the whole paper meant to get people to perhaps think of themselves in a slightly different way.Do you think humans are special?Edited by Jonicus Maximus, : Set Kuresu straight... ;-)

dude, your just paper sucks. there isn't even a point in it. you give multiple definitions of humans, you contradict yourself, and you use circular logic. I would have flunked the paper.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

quote:

---

I've come to a recent realization that, in case no one's thought of it
themselves, I wish to share with the world. It deals with human beings,
and explains just why we as a "species" are so darn special. Why we are
so much different; so distinct. It's an obvious thing to most people”we
write, we read, we talk, we drive, we use computers, we type two pages
worth of words just for 1% of a grade, etc.”and something that really
requires an understanding. Why did humans get all the things needed to
make us special, whilst the remainder of the world's creatures ended up
with leftovers? To understand this we will have to do three things: define
what it means to be human, define what it is that makes a thing special,
and show how those definitions work in unison to bring understanding to
our unique quality.
Being human”or more specifically: being anything that makes us
not non-human”is a concept which requires distinction, and we must
have a way to judge something as human or not”including everything
that clearly is human, whilst keeping out everything that clearly is not.
The idea of writing as being "human" was introduced above, but clearly
this cannot be used as a definition, for it would exclude all illiterate
individuals who are so obviously human. In fact, any definitions
considering intelligence are faulty, because all individuals lacking in an
area of intelligence would not be considered humans. The same goes for
physical characteristics, where physically inept individuals would be
excluded from the definition. Are humans all descendants of the Homo
sapiens line? I am from a distant planet, evolved from a distant species.
If all this were true, would you stop calling me a human? Would they say,
Just Ramblings: Nothing Special
Nothing Special
2
"Sorry, Jon, but this federal school grant is only available to Homo
sapiens"? I doubt it. For the time being, I'm content defining "being
human" as being anything that other humans as a whole would accept as
human, and in a population-wide sense, being human is simply to do what
a group of "being humans" would do collectively”communicate. I know
this definition is vague, but it will hopefully suit the purpose.
Humans are easy, special is not, and finding a definition that will
fit for that word will prove even more difficult. Remember the things
listed in the introduction”which I will not reiterate”were all considered
things that made humans special. In other words, "writing" was
considered a special quality of something, and”assuming that something
which carries out "special" activities is "special"”that anything that can
"write" is special. Let's take an even better example that I recently
received from a particular individual: "creation of an Endangered Species
List". Such acts are rarely carried out by other creatures”by that I mean
none”and the fact that humans would even dream it up seems alone to
show our special-ness. Though, humans are the only species that can do
this, there are other species that have each their own unique talents, and
might be special depending on our definition. If "running fast" is
considered special, then cheetahs fit the bill. Even something simple such
as "the ability to oink," might be a condition that could be used to
determine special-ness”pigs would be then special.
So why does our wishy-washy definition of "special" often lead us
to conclude our own special-ness? It's rather simple indeed. Writing,
reading, sympathy”Endangered Species List”, math, technology, even
bottled water. These things are all considered to be traits that make
humans the special species, so much more removed from the rest. But
once we see what they are, we see what they say. All of the things in the
Nothing Special
3
list are "what humans do." Since "what humans do"”more specifically to
do what a group of "being humans" would do”is to "being human," we
should be able to set the statements equal to each other, where "to do what
a human does" is the same as "to be human." Where does this fall with
our definition? Well, anyone who would cite the examples above as proof
of human special-ness is erring in that they define special by it being what
humans do. If we say "writing" = "special," and
"writing" = "what humans do," and "what humans do" = "humans,"
then "writing" = "humans" = "special." This logic seems circular at best,
and worst it ensures that humans always end up being special. If we say
"running fast" = "special," and "running fast" ≠ "what humans do," and
"what humans do" = "humans," then "running fast" ≠ "humans" ≠ "special."
It's the human-centred definition of special that leads to the human-centred
idea of human special-ness.
The title says it all; this is merely a rambling. Suppose I could've
written about something else. I do question if I've achieved my goal, or if
I've wasted more time in thoughts than in writing. I've hashed this one
about down the road now and then, and despite the occasional "something
is just fishy about your argument," I generally find it does the trick and
gets those who would disagree with me off my back and out of my hair for
a moment; right before we must disagree again. With any luck, I'll sooner
or later have them all proven wrong.

---

Hunny, I love you to death... but I work backwards... and you have me confused...haha..... Try to clean up your writing, and make it clear on what you're saying.

it's all filler. filler is used when you've got nothing to say. yes.you're paper still sucks. you can make a much better argument. try to actually respond to my points, instead of evading or answering just one.

Everything is special in their own little way, human or not. We all have a purpose in this life, even if it's on a different level! *pets* you're very very special Jon!