Are humans special?

[EduChris]

As we look around in our universe, we find innumerable entities which, as far as we can tell, do not appear to have any chance at all of comprehending the true nature of reality-as-it-is.

Quantum particles, rocks, minerals, vegetables, etc., do not appear to have any consciousness or capacity to understand anything.

Animal life forms other than humans do not appear to have the necessary conceptual and linguistic apparatus and/or methodologies which would enable them to comprehend the true nature of reality in all of its complexity and counter-intuitiveness.

This leaves humans: do we possess the conceptual and linguistic capacities and/or methodologies which give us a conception of reality which actually corresponds in a significant way to reality-as-it-is?

Certainly most of us would argue that pre-scientific humans did not have an accurate conception of reality. We feel that it is only modern science which has recently given us accurate conceptions and perceptions of reality. But how would we really know that we have indeed finally arrived at a conception which is objectively accurate, in actual correspondence with reality-as-it-is? If we were to meet alien life forms far more intelligent and advanced than us, would they view us as having--despite our relatively immature technologies--an accurate perception of reality? Or would they instead view us in the same way that we view a mouse's conception of reality?

Question for debate: are we humans special in our capacity to accurately comprehend reality-as-it-is? Or are we like the vast majority of matter in the universe, lacking a truly accurate conception of reality?

And if we are special, does that imply anything at all about our purpose in the universe?

Or if we are not special, if our perceptions do not correspond to reality-as-it-is, then why do we so often act as though science can provide an answer for anything and everything?

[Ragna]

Well, humans have a special intelligence, characterized by morality, conscience and self-awareness; and language and rationality. These come through evolution, and are the reason we are debating right now.

The "reality-as-it-is" discussion of whether what we perceive is real or not can be solved by something known as reality dependent on the model.

Advanced aliens might see loads of flaws in our reasonings, but I think that scientific knowledge has accumulative accuracy. For example, medical knowledge should increase over time. We know certain things like cells and genetics. We know about elements and matter, empirically. Another theory might get over relativity just like this one went over another one, but relativity is good as it has added accuracy to Newtonian physics, while being able to explain all this previous one did before. So I think our view of reality will go increasing its accuracy as humanity progresses.

Anthropology can be quite interesting as it explains some key developments for us to start using symbolic conscience. This is key for language and for representations of things. As well, it might be key for making models of reality. Any animal can know spatially its habitat but he cannot make a model for explanation of things. Humans on the other hand started making themselves these questions and proposed several answers (myths) until the scientific method was reached. This allowed to make models with one important difference: contrastable predictions. And whence all our modern technology.

But I wouldn't go as far as saying that if we are able to understand reality (meaning to be able to do conceptual models of things), that gives us speciality within the universe. We are still insignificant. Yesterday, a really impacting and sad event took place in Japan. This makes me think of our importance even on Earth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42023385/ns ... a-pacific/

[mgb]

As we look around in our universe, we find innumerable entities which, as far as we can tell, do not appear to have any chance at all of comprehending the true nature of reality-as-it-is.

Are you talking about the physical human being or the spirit that is expressed as a human self? Would you believe that the stars are conscious? Would you entertain the idea of a galaxy being the body of a spirit?

What is important is the spirit behind the physical self, not that temporary self. Agree?

[EduChris]

...Are you talking about the physical human being or the spirit that is expressed as a human self?...

I would say that whatever it is that makes us special has more to do with our minds than with our bodies. The question then becomes, "Is our mind the same thing as the physical brain, or is there more to it than that?

...Would you believe that the stars are conscious? Would you entertain the idea of a galaxy being the body of a spirit?...

Frankly, I don't see any benefit in such notions.

...What is important is the spirit behind the physical self, not that temporary self. Agree?

It is interesting that the "physical stuff" we're made of changes constantly through life, yet our "sense of self" remains constant. To me, this "sense of self" is more important than the physical--but then again we have the question, "Is there anything more to us than just the physical?" I think there is.

[bernee51]

...Are you talking about the physical human being or the spirit that is expressed as a human self?...

I would say that whatever it is that makes us special has more to do with our minds than with our bodies. The question then becomes, "Is our mind the same thing as the physical brain, or is there more to it than that?

Change the brain and you change the mind. Surgery and/or drugs confirm this.

...What is important is the spirit behind the physical self, not that temporary self. Agree?

It is interesting that the "physical stuff" we're made of changes constantly through life, yet our "sense of self" remains constant.

What makes up the 'sense of self'? Is it the ideas, beliefs, thoughts etc? If so, are you the same now as you were 20 years ago, ten years ago, last year...? Where do you draw the line.

If not, what makes up the 'sense of self'?

Do you differentiate between the 'sense of individual self' and or some 'real Self'?

To me, this "sense of self" is more important than the physical--but then again we have the question, "Is there anything more to us than just the physical?" I think there is.

So what is this 'more than physical'?

[mgb]

Change the brain and you change the mind. Surgery and/or drugs confirm this.

Imagine you are looking at a live news feed of president Obama. Change your tv settings - does that change the real Obama? Altering the brain only changes the interface between the mind and the world ie. the brain. What you are saying is your interpretation of surgery leads you to believe that the brain is the mind.

[bernee51]

Change the brain and you change the mind. Surgery and/or drugs confirm this.

Imagine you are looking at a live news feed of president Obama. Change your tv settings - does that change the real Obama? Altering the brain only changes the interface between the mind and the world ie. the brain. What you are saying is your interpretation of surgery leads you to believe that the brain is the mind.

Yes it does change the 'real' Obama -what is the 'real Obama'? What Obama is to each of us is different. To some he is a saviour of the down-trodded, to others he is close to the anti-christ. it is not an 'interpretation' - it is a relationship. A relationship between what is believed of Obama and what is believed of the self both moderated by vasana - the habitual patternings.

Old zen saying...to her lover a pretty girl is an attraction, to an ascetic she is a distraction and to a wolf a good meal.

Or a tree to an animist is a god, to me a thing of beauty and to a logger a pile of woodchips.

[Ragna]

In my opinion, mind and brain are two names for the same thing.

It's like the software and the hardware of a computer. What is the software? What I see in my screen, it can certainly seem like something more completely different - but it's not. It not only depends on the bunch of mechanisms within my PC's tower, it's just an expression of those mechanisms for us to perceive them in a more comfortable way.

What we live as a "mind" is just our brain working, attempting to interpret its own work... but it's matter, and the interpretation of that matter. Why add something unexplainable to it when it's explainable?

What's more, our experience can be seen as the top of a continuum of other animals' perception, ranging from non-conscious cells to humans through flies, dogs, lions and monkeys. I think it's a pretty curious thing, but I don't feel there's enough reason to say there's "something more to it" just because we find it baffling.

What has been called spirit, I could agree with certain definitions. Not an immaterial essence of the body, but Bernee's definition is one I could agree with, although I don't really see why call that spirit. I prefer to call that the "nature" or "essence" of something, but I'm not a person that argues too much with names once they've been defined.

The essence/spirit of something is its constitution, process and structure, in short: it is what it is, the way we know it. Life is the metabolism of every living thing, and "humanness" seems to be in our genome. Those immortal coils (DNA, the double helix) seem to be the best explanation for why we are what we are, these molecules create every single part of our bodies, our brains - and consequently our minds.

[Baz]

In my opinion, mind and brain are two names for the same thing.

Question in your opinion, dose your opinion exist?

[Ragna]

In my opinion, mind and brain are two names for the same thing.

Question in your opinion, dose your opinion exist?

It exists as an idea in my mind, of course. If you prefer the materialist wording, as a set of electrical impulses in my brain, but I still find it useful to use the word "mind" while talking.

If you are asking this to challenge how this opinion is meaningful, then look at the line of reasoning which is outlined below the statement.

[EduChris]

...So have all humans arrived, are all humans special, and how do you know?...

I don't think we can know in terms of scientific reasoning. Certainly science operates as though we are special, as though we belong to a particular class of beings--a class populated only by a minority of humans who have lived during the past 100 years or less--which has finally arrived at an accurate perception of reality-as-it-is. And science will continue to operate as though we are special in terms of our understanding, no matter how many times our old perceptions turn out to be wrong, no matter how many scientific paradigm shifts we undergo.

...Be sure to keep us posted when they visit to let you know.

That's the point of this thread. We have reached yet another final limit of science. Even if a super-intelligent, super-advanced alien species were to suddenly arrive on earth, confirming or disproving our present-day scientific understandings, we still wouldn't know whether this alien species had or had not finally reached accurate perception of reality.

The fact that science has real limits simply shows why science is a pragmatic tool that is useful within particular paradigms. It may be useful in certain contexts, but it has nothing to say about ultimate truth, ultimate reality. To absolutize science is to idolize it, to turn it into an object of faith.