Welcome everyone to The New Humanist blog. Apparently, it's not as "new" as I thought, as there are a couple of other websites out there titled "The New Humanist," but technically speaking since they've been around longer than me, this is still "The NEW Humanist."
The genesis of this idea came from this slide show:
http://www.scottmcleod.org/didyouknow.wmv
If you haven't seen it, check it out before proceeding.
The slideshow is concerned with how fast our world is changing and what life could look like in the 21st century. There was one particular section concerned with technology and how by 2020, there will be one computer that will surpass the entire human race in brain power that costs...1,000.00 dollars!
That started me thinking, do we really understand the path we're going down? Will having those sophisticated computers make human beings obsolete? Do we control technology or does technology control us? And, perhaps most importantly, what does it mean to be a human being in this age of insane technology?
A friend of mine commented that we're living in an age dominated by technicians and if you think about it he's right. Google, Apple, Microsoft, and several Information Technology companies are dominating the US, and soon, the World economies. The point he raised is that there doesn't seem to be any philosophy or moral context for these technicians to follow. Just because we can do something, does that mean we should do that thing? Think about some of the issues that this century is going bring to light; cloning, genetic enhancement, Artificial Intelligence. All these things and other things we can't even conceive of will become possible in this century. How do we decide if these things should be pursued or not.
Well, those are the issues I'd like to debate and discuss in this blog. And I'm really counting on you all to participate in this dialogue and to bring others into the discussion. To hopefully develop and discuss a philosophy that can help us to make those decisions. Each week, I'll present a new topic to guide us through these decisions.
Secondly, I'd like to take this blog to celebrate some of the positive things that human beings are capable of; we often hear of all the negative things out there but it's rare to hear about all the good that happens, which as you will see far outweighs the bad. If you hear or see a story that shows the positive side of humanity, please share it.
Finally, a third theme that will be running through this blog is the idea of technology and how we as humans can positively interact with technology vs. being dominated by it. And let me say up front that I'm not against technology, as I write this blog from my awesome MacBook Pro. I'm just interested to see if technology has really made our lives better. That is, once we figure out what living a good life means.
So, this week's philosophical topic is: What does it mean to be a human being?
Philosophers and theologians have been debating this question for milennia. Aristotle used something called "The Function Argument," to describe what he thought constitued a human being. He posited that things are defined by what they distinctly do, for example, the Eye is defined as something that sees. Using this logic, Aristotle went on to say that the distinguishing factor for the human race is something that is rational or thinks. So, for Aristotle, what it meant to be a human being was to be a rational being. And I can certainly buy that, but it seems somewhat deficient. Isn't there more to being a human than just something that thinks? Don't we also feel emotions, have aspirations, build systems to support those aspirations, and a myriad of other things?
So, that's the question for this week: What does it mean to you to be a member of the human race?
On the positive note: this past Tuesday was National Sportmanship Day, I was watching Sportscenter and ran across this nice video clip demonstrating good sportsmanship. Check out the ESPN on NSD link in the bottom right hand corner.
http://www.internationalsport.com/nsd/index.cfm#
Have a great week and I look forward to hearing from you.
7 comments:
What does it mean to you to be a member of the human race?
What does it mean to be dog? What does it mean to be a horse? What does it mean to be a daffodil? You might find Cladistics interesting - it's where you classify organisms based on evolutionary branching. But if you're using the word mean to mean some higher meaning, then I would argue that there is no higher meaning, life (including human life) just exists. No hidden purpose, no hidden meaning, life just is.
Humans aren't even the only species to display reasoning. We're better at it and we're better at communicating it, but it's not a feature unique to homo sapiens.
Scot,
Thanks for your comments! I really appreciate you participating in this dialogue. Thanks also for the link to Cladistics; that was interesting. Basically, you define something by it's relation to other things on a genetic level.(If I understand it) So, there is no objective definition of an object outside of it's genetic makeup and relation to other objects with similar genetic makeups. I guess I would just have to say that I believe the whole is more than the sum of its parts. For example, let's say you take two objects consisting of the same parts; metal, a piece of wood, and cloth. With those three things, you could have a guitar, you could have a sword, and a myriad of other things. Should those things be defined by the relation of their parts? I know that may be a simplistic analogy but I think the point holds true. I believe Aristotle's Function argument is a little more valid than Cladistics, to the degree that I understand it.
Regarding meaning, my question doesn't have to necessarily mean some higher purpose; just how do you define a human. If you're looking at from an evolutionary standpoint, would you say a mammal who reasons and communicates better than other mammals? I certainly think that's true.
However, as I'm sure you inferred from my post, I do believe that there is something more to being a human(whatever that is) than that. It's hard for me to believe that all the things that have happened in the past 5,000 years are all just a big coincedence; Shakespeare, The Age of Enlightenment, Space Exploration. There may be no hidden meaning but there's certainly A meaning, whether it's a meaning that we define for ourselves, which is quite possible.
Anyway, keep reading and keep thinking.
"the question for this week: What does it mean to you to be a member of the human race?"
Wow, I thought I'd be responsible for answering the topic...
To me, your average smo, it means having a chance to be more than I am.
I'd equate it to being an American. There's just something different about this country from every single other one. People will describe it differently, but it comes down to having a chance to be more than you could if you stayed in any other country.
Addressing your concern with technology for a bit, don't worry about the computer described that could match our brain power. First off, your brain maybe but not mine. :) Second, no matter what anyone says, we have no clue of our brains capacity currently. Third, I firmly believe (I love faith) that our brains will evolve with the times. Do you think the human race could have got its brain around the blackberry in the 18th century or earlier.
At a bar one night, you described to me so famous statements in philosophy...I drink therefore I'm hammered. Wait no, I think therefore I am. I wonder how you, and other capable of filling writing space, would describe the urge I feel to be more than I am. Would you argue, or would anyone argue that any other life is equal to that desire, that hidden purpose?
I'm looking forward to exploring topics weekly that I'm sure I'd never think about without your influence.
Neil
I love it! Two great comments so far, two very different points of view. Keep them coming. The thing about this question is that there is no right or wrong answer, it's what it means to you.
And maybe that's what it means to be a human, that you define what it means to be a human. If you want it to have no meaning outside of evolution, then that's what it will be. If you want it to be something more, I think you can make it mean something.
So, what would we call this theory? That being a human being means possessing free will? Just a thought.
I have another idea. What is it that really makes humans unique? I think if you really think about it, that it has to have something to do with our sense of morality or concience, thinking about and being controlled by a sense of what is right and wrong. For example, a computer that can perform far greater in depth analysis than a human, has no capacity to then ponder the moral implications of the results. Animals are a little trickier. I think animals have varying degrees of feelings. You could even argue that animals can feel guilty for disobeying its masters orders (like stealing food off the table). But no animal has the depth of morality as humans, like the dog doesn't feel guilty because it took something that belongs to someone else and therefore that isn't right, but it does have some kind of guilt over disobeying its master and knowing it may get in trouble. Just a thought! I can't think of any thing (living or made) that has the ability to think about morality like humans do.
Nice blog Eric.
At base we are obviously a product of a long line of evolution but that only gives us a small glimpse of what it means to be human. Of course other animals have similarities in terms of physiology but I have yet to see one write a novel like the “Grapes of Wrath”. Our relative understanding of ourselves to other animals is no doubt useful for some applications but leaves much to be desired when we look out at our greatest accomplishments or of our future journey.
Outside of biology we are of course social creatures and who we are and who we will be is largely dependent on the political and social environment that we live in; from tax incentives to religious, legal and educational systems that shape our behaviors and philosophies.
Taking this blog topic, what it means to be a member of the human race, and thinking from the greater perspective of Eric’s objective of asking how technology will affect our humanity in the future is a fascinating question. Regardless of the projection of a computer that can outperform, outthink, etc. it is obvious that we change and adapt at a slow pace, or, we evolve. Computers/technology also evolve but they also go through stages of revolution and change that far surpass our biological ability and will continue to do so. They may not think critically but they will. It is bunk to think that we don’t use our brains efficiently, we do. The old adage that we only use a small amount of its ability (I’ve heard it before in terms of percentage 3-6%) is no longer accepted in neuroscience. We use our brains very efficiently, evolution does not allow for waste, its size is restricted in adaptive terms because of the massive caloric investment it takes to use and for other reasons, heat etc. Like a garage that only uses a few of its resources to change a tire, the brain only uses a few tools to eat a bagel or to run a race.
Morality can easily be replicated by machines in the future, they are exchange systems, programming with AIML (artificial intelligence markup language) has already created chatbots that can converse with people and they have unique “morals” dependent on the database construction that underlies them, some of them also “learn” dependent on the variation of questions they are asked. Chatbots are young and have had little investment but they already serve the purpose of being entertaining and have been used by Pepsi in their website along with some other companies for structured question/response sytems.
In an age where information abounds I think it is wise to ask the questions Eric is posing.
Anon and DaiGidan,
Thanks for your comments! Both very thoughtful and insightful!
Anon:
Yes, I think our sense of morality is certainly an excellent point of distinction for the human race. I actually believe morality is a strong counter-argument for traditional evolutionary theories vis-a-vis survival of the fittest, etc.
Daigidan,
Well, you hit em both man; nature and nurture ;-)
From a nature standpoint, we are products of a long line of evolution.
From a nurture standpoint, we are products of religious, political, and social conventions.
For some reason, that depresses the hell out of me. I guess it's a total lack of autonomy. From that point of view, basically it seems we have no control over who we are, which I have a hard time swallowing. Of course, a great philosopher once said "Free will is just an ignorance of causes," and maybe that's true, but I hope not ;-)
On arguments of nature and nurture shaping our personalities, I often think back to where it all got started. If we evolved from another species, say Homo Erectus, what was the breaking point that distinguished us from them? Obviously it wasn't a social context, if so, then we wouldn't have changed and just have remained the same. So, I guess that has to be answered by an evolutionary response? But I've heard some things about Homo Erectus that make me question that too, such as a larger brain and thicker skeleton.
Regarding AI having a sense of morality, all I can say is that it's hard to think of the Terminator with a conscience but I damn sure hope he has one!
Thanks Jeremy.
Post a Comment