What Is Man?

[steveandersen]

O I think mankind is capable of great things, but we are too caught up in our ‘divinity’ which is why we try to conquer everything; faiths, societies, each other, the environment etc…

Other than to get someone’s goat, I’m not sure why you would equate divinity with conquering?

A brief study of the other primates will give a clear demonstration of what violent, political, & territorial creatures they are.

The only reason that they haven’t drilled an oil well or cut down the forest is not through some internal virtue but because they haven’t the tools. Whether or not that applies to the fact that they also haven’t built an orphanage or a church is what is under discussion.

So that man is the source of all evil stuff is just non-sense….as is nihilism IMHO.

 

[Loginus]

Other than to get someone’s goat, I’m not sure why you would equate divinity with conquering?

A brief study of the other primates will give a clear demonstration of what violent, political, & territorial creatures they are.

The only reason that they haven’t drilled an oil well or cut down the forest is not through some internal virtue but because they haven’t the tools. Whether or not that applies to the fact that they also haven’t built an orphanage or a church is what is under discussion.

So that man is the source of all evil stuff is just non-sense….as is nihilism IMHO.

By divinity, I meant man sees himself equal to a God or of God’s chosen, justying he’s need to conquer.

How how Nihilism non-sense?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

loginus

I am quoting from your post #19

As for Nihilism, equating it to Hitler is silly as Hitler can also be considered a Christian (persecuting jews for the death of Jews).

Now this is absurd. Hitler, after he ascended to power, became an atheist (what he was all along) who tried to destroy all religion. That makes him a nihilist, especially because he used terror to accomplish his ends. You need to study history more carefully and stop taking everything you read at atheist web sites as God’s truth. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

More than anything, calling something ‘nihilist’ is usually mean to de-mean but thats silly. Nihilism is basically the rejection of absolutes and universals when it pertains to such things as good,evil,moral, justice etc.

Wrong. Nihilism is the rejection of established absolutes. THe ultimate effect of all nihilism is to replace the established absolutes with new ones, such as Hitler created when he turned established authority on its head and made himself absolute in its place.

 

[Loginus]

loginus

I am quoting from your post #19

As for Nihilism, equating it to Hitler is silly as Hitler can also be considered a Christian (persecuting jews for the death of Jews).

Now this is absurd. Hitler, after he ascended to power, became an atheist (what he was all along) who tried to destroy all religion. That makes him a nihilist, especially because he used terror to accomplish his ends. You need to study history more carefully and stop taking everything you read at atheist web sites as God’s truth. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

More than anything, calling something ‘nihilist’ is usually mean to de-mean but thats silly. Nihilism is basically the rejection of absolutes and universals when it pertains to such things as good,evil,moral, justice etc.

Wrong. Nihilism is the rejection of established absolutes. THe ultimate effect of all nihilism is to replace the established absolutes with new ones, such as Hitler created when he turned established authority on its head and made himself absolute in its place.

Your right, Nihilism is a rejection of all established absolutes, but it does not seek to replace them as that would be against uhh ‘the nihilistic spirit’ lol. Check my other post where I quote wiki. Hitler is most likely called nihilist in a negative way. Suggesting he is godless.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Nihilism is a rejection of all established absolutes, but it does not seek to replace them as that would be against uhh ‘the nihilistic spirit’ lol.

Try again.

Look at it this way. The nihilist is in the same bind as the relativist. The relativist cannot say nothing is absolute without making an absolute statement. The nihilist cannot say we must abolish all established law without establishing the new law that that the old law must go. Both relativism and nihilism are self-defeating positions. Hitler could not abolish established absolutes without setting himself up as a new absolute.

Heil Hitler!

 

[steveandersen]

By divinity, I meant man sees himself equal to a God

Who have you been hanging around with who sees himself equal to God?

or of God’s chosen,

Who is God’s chosen?

justying he’s need to conquer.

Humans have used many excuses for conquering
That doesn’t change the fact that the underlying reason was greed
Nor does citing God as a reason for conquering make it God’s fault

How how Nihilism non-sense?

Because it is pointless

From the text you pasted from Wikipedia:

Nihilism is a philosophical position… which argues that the world, and especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value.<<

Now even if you truly believed that what would be the point in asserting it? Unless you are a guy living alone in a cave (and even then) it serves absolutely no utilitarian purpose and (by its own definition) is devoid of any non-utilitarian value.
Whether you are secular or religious your philosophy is there, both on an individual basis and on a societal level, to provide guidance for behaviors and laws. If the world and existence has no value then there is no guidance, nothing matters, it is pointless. Thus it is sophistry and non-sense. It is a philosophy for callow youths, misanthropes, and those going only for shock value.

Curiously enough do seem to heap blame on humans for destroying a world that the philosophy you claim to hold to says has no value. So which is it? Are we terrible creatures equating ourselves with the Divine and destroying the world or does it really not matter?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What most separates the human from the subhuman? The stock catechism answer is that to be human is to have an immortal soul. But if evolution did happen, what qualities were infused by God into that soul that made it most distinct from the “souls” that animate lower animals?

To add to post 3 - the ability, as a being with self-consciousness, to recognise other selves: that is, being whom one can call “thou”, in contrast one’s own “I”.​

No stone cannot respond to God as a created “I” to the Uncreated I that is God. IOW, they cannot have communion with God; they lack the capacity for it. Christians are “living stones” - but no stone is a living person.

Angels are spirits, so they don’t have that spirit which is the soul - they are spirits; we have spirits, because we are made of material & spirit together, which they are not, since they are free of matter.

Living material creatures other than man have souls - since the soul is the principle of life. So a dog or a chimp is a living being - but it is not endowed with self-awareness. Man is the ape who is also more than an ape precisely because his soul has what that of an ape lacks: the ability to interact with God & to know it. Apes are acted on by God, as are all created beings, from angels to atoms - but they cannot respond in freedom & self-awareness to their Creator & Lord.

Man alone of all animals can do that, because he is designed so as to be capable of responding. Which is why he is the only animal capable of sin.

Robots can be programmed, but they cannot act of themselves: no robot is, nor can be, an “I”. Man is not God, so he cannot grant them that capacity. Behaving like a man, does not make one a man; one is a man, only by being created as one - and to do that, requires the power of God; for God is “beyond” all creatures; they are limited (to be limited, is what distinguishes creatures from God), wheras God is infinite in Being, Power, Goodness.

IOW, man is irreducibly human - which is why someone with no limbs is a man, & why the most brilliantly contrived robot cannot be a man. Because we are talking about being, not doing. A cat drinking its milk can never be a baby human, even though baby humans drink milk. This is very important for pro-life issues.

Which means that man is like nothing in all creation - he is the ape who has the only thing that can make an angel happy: the ability to enjoy God. Apes can’t sin - they lack the capacity for doing so. Angels can’t sin - for they are confirmed in holiness. Man, alone, can sin and receive grace to repent. Anything so surreal as man could be dreamed up only by God.

So if we want an ape with a capacity to know God - that ape is man. Looking among other apes for such a thing is like looking for a lion by investigating tigers - one is looking in the wrong place; if apes could pray, they would be human.

If they cannot pray, then they are irreducibly different from men: despite the percentages of similiarity to man. Numbers are irrelevant, because they are measuring what is quantitative - & the difference between man & other apes, is qualitative: being human is not measurable in percentages, neither is being similar to other creatures. One might as well distinguish colour by the measure of their prayerfulness, or ask for an omnipotence of sugar, or a goodness of tacks. The very idea is materialistic - so some very unintelligent experiments are carried out. Stupid methods & stupid projects in science lead to stupid results. The trouble with materialism, is that it behaves like the animal in the cartoon who covers his eyes & thinks the he can therefore not be seen. Which is bad for science - it doesn’t hurt faith, because faith has its own resources.

Sorry to woffle ##

 

[Philthy]

Any creature that believes itself God while destroying everything around 'em is inferior, not superior

You are correct in this much, but it supports the argument against man being purely an evolutionary phenomenon. We are inferior not from any natural process, but from our greed which no other animal is handicapped with.
Overall when one looks at others creatures in comparison to man it is obvious that there are some fundamental differences and that something radically different happened to mankind. Your attempt to somehow equate the use of tools by animals to the development of tools, synthetics and artificial intelligence by man is indicative of the stretch one has to make to uphold your view of the world. They dont make tools, they use existing materials and only to an exceptionally limited extent.
Look at the animals around us - primates, cetaceans, - they are simply no where near our level of intellect, and there is not a single piece of evidence to indicate that they are any smarter today than they were 5000 years ago.

 

[Loginus]

Nihilism is a rejection of all established absolutes, but it does not seek to replace them as that would be against uhh ‘the nihilistic spirit’ lol.

Try again.

Look at it this way. The nihilist is in the same bind as the relativist. The relativist cannot say nothing is absolute without making an absolute statement. The nihilist cannot say we must abolish all established law without establishing the new law that that the old law must go. Both relativism and nihilism are self-defeating positions. Hitler could not abolish established absolutes without setting himself up as a new absolute.

Heil Hitler!

Its called the Liar’s Paradox and I am well aware of it. Im fine with the paradox as well and admit to it. But remember, just about every religion has a paradox. Christians have the Trinity, Free-will vs. All knowing etc.
And again, comparing all of Nihilism to Hitler is stupid. Hitler didnt believe in Nihilism, he had the idea that Aryian race was supreme and all should serve it. A nihilist would find this stupid as previsious stated in my past post (which you obvious skipped) “no action is known to be preferable to any other”.

As for Nihilism being practical, it keeps me from jumping into unecessary wars, keeps me from attacking another religion, keeps me from accepting truth just because someone said it. Basically it keeps me open-minded

Back on topic. In Quin’s book, ‘Ishmael’, he theorizes that all human suffering and follies are a result of man thinking himself superior to nature which came about during the agricultural revolution 10 thousand yrs ago. Man considers himself God in the sense he thinks he has the right to give and to take life at a whim. (Like culling a herd, hunting for the sake of sport, tearing down a forest to build houses etc).
He says concepts such as genocide, organized religion, all out war, suicide etc where unknown concepts b4 the revolution.

He makes an interesting interpretation of Genisis suggesting it is in fact a nomadic understanding to what had happened to their ‘fallen’ brethern. That they had defied (the) God(s) and thusly were forced to work the lands in misery always agaisnt nature. Cain and Abel is explained as Abel representing early sheep-herding Semites and Cain the farming/metal working ppls. Cain killing his brother is argued, that is a reprensentation of what happened to those early semites unable to understand what had come over their brothers in the north.

If you dont agree with the thesis thats fine, but I still suggest you read it. it makes an interesting case and at the very least a good read

 

[Loginus]

Its called the Liar’s Paradox and I am well aware of it. Im fine with the paradox as well and admit to it. But remember, just about every religion has a paradox. Christians have the Trinity, Free-will vs. All knowing etc.
And again, comparing all of Nihilism to Hitler is stupid. Hitler didnt believe in Nihilism, he had the idea that Aryian race was supreme and all should serve it. A nihilist would find this stupid as previsious stated in my past post (which you obvious skipped) “no action is known to be preferable to any other”.

As for Nihilism being practical, it keeps me from jumping into unecessary wars, keeps me from attacking another religion, keeps me from accepting truth just because someone said it. Basically it keeps me open-minded

Back on topic. In Quin’s book, ‘Ishmael’, he theorizes that all human suffering and follies are a result of man thinking himself superior to nature which came about during the agricultural revolution 10 thousand yrs ago. Man considers himself God in the sense he thinks he has the right to give and to take life at a whim. (Like culling a herd, hunting for the sake of sport, tearing down a forest to build houses etc).
He says concepts such as genocide, organized religion, all out war, suicide etc where unknown concepts b4 the revolution.

He makes an interesting interpretation of Genisis suggesting it is in fact a nomadic understanding to what had happened to their ‘fallen’ brethern. That they had defied (the) God(s) and thusly were forced to work the lands in misery always agaisnt nature. Cain and Abel is explained as Abel representing early sheep-herding Semites and Cain the farming/metal working ppls. Cain killing his brother is argued, that is a reprensentation of what happened to those early semites unable to understand what had come over their brothers in the north.

If you dont agree with the thesis thats fine, but I still suggest you read it. it makes an interesting case and at the very least a good read

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_%28novel%29#Major_themes
If your too lazy to read you can click on my earlier link. Its inspired by the book

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

loginus

And again, comparing all of Nihilism to Hitler is stupid. Hitler didnt believe in Nihilism, he had the idea that Aryian race was supreme and all should serve it. A nihilist would find this stupid …

And again, you miss the point … deliberately? (And repeating the word “Stupid” makes me wonder how smart you can be.)

Nihilism opposes all established authority … which Hitler did when he overturned the Weimar Republic. Do you know any history? Then, of course … he fell into the Liar’s Paradox by setting up his own established authority that had to be overturned as well. Nihilism is never against all authority … just as liberalism is never against any freedom except the freedom to fight liberalism. Thomas Jefferson proved this in his own case when, as a liberal Republican, he stried to stop conservative Federalists from being appointed to the staff of the University of Virginia (taxpayer funded) when it was first founded. Tsk, tsk.

Now if you had said Hitler was not an anarchist, you would be on solid ground … as he certainly was all for government control of **every **aspect of life in Germany.

This is another area of our human nature that we share with the “lower” animals. They also will become nihilistic from time to time when the established order (the older male) is turned out by the young buck. But notice that no animal herd is anarchistic … nature abhoring the absence of order and the one who enforces order.

 

[Loginus]

loginus

And again, comparing all of Nihilism to Hitler is stupid. Hitler didnt believe in Nihilism, he had the idea that Aryian race was supreme and all should serve it. A nihilist would find this stupid …

And again, you miss the point … deliberately? (And repeating the word “Stupid” makes me wonder how smart you can be.)

Nihilism opposes all established authority … which Hitler did when he overturned the Weimar Republic. Do you know any history? Then, of course … he fell into the Liar’s Paradox by setting up his own established authority that had to be overturned as well. Nihilism is never against all authority … just as liberalism is never against any freedom except the freedom to fight liberalism. Thomas Jefferson proved this in his own case when, as a liberal Republican, he stried to stop conservative Federalists from being appointed to the staff of the University of Virginia (taxpayer funded) when it was first founded. Tsk, tsk.

Now if you had said Hitler was not an anarchist, you would be on solid ground … as he certainly was all for government control of **every **aspect of life in Germany.

This is another area of our human nature that we share with the “lower” animals. They also will become nihilistic from time to time when the established order (the older male) is turned out by the young buck. But notice that no animal herd is anarchistic … nature abhoring the absence of order and the one who enforces order.

Ugg…one last time. There are DIFFERENT forms of Nihilism. What you are referring to is Political Nihilism which is different from Philisophilcal Nihilism. Philisophilical Nihilism basically denies any laws by God, a Dictator, some holy leader as moot because that would mean it is always correct and what opposes it is always incorrect. Philosophical Nihilism is about believing there are no constructed universals as there are always exceptions. Therefor reality, morality, laws etc are determined a sort of democracy in beliefs. Thats it. Nothing about conquering the world, over throwing the govt or killing jews.

Dont believe me? Go check Wiki. Im all for a structured gov’t and in a perfect world, a polidy (sp?) and a republic for our not-so-perfect world. I just think religious laws shouldnt be worth a grain of salt.

And with that, Im not answering anymore comments about Nihilism on this thread as I seem to be repeated myself.

 

[davidv]

Dont believe me? Go check Wiki. Im all for a structured gov’t and in a perfect world, a polidy (sp?) and a republic for our not-so-perfect world. I just think religious laws shouldnt be worth a grain of salt.

Why are the laws of a goverment any more valuable than those of a religion?

 

[First_of_9]

“Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to.”–Mark Twain

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

“Man is the only animal that flushes. Or needs to.” Gilbert Keith

 

[steveandersen]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_%28novel%29#Major_themes
If your too lazy to read you can click on my earlier link. Its inspired by the book

Posting links rather than arguments is a sign of a lazy mind

posting links to a novel is right out

Or perhaps nothing really matters?

 

[Loginus]

Posting links rather than arguments is a sign of a lazy mind

posting links to a novel is right out

Or perhaps nothing really matters?

Despite your near god-like powers of observation, you may’ve missed that i quoted myself in that post. In said quoted post I summerized what the book is about and the link was merely for those who where interested in learning more.

 

[Ghosty]

If anyone is up to reading the Summa Theologica, this question is dealt with extensively in Part One, Questions 75-102.

In short, according to St. Thomas, what sets us apart from animals is not tool-use, civilization, nor self-awareness per se, but rather the ability to work with things in an abstract way beyond the senses. We deal in concepts and generalities, whereas the senses on their own can only deal with “what’s there”. Irrational animals have memories, can realize that banging a rock on a shell will open it easier than prying, and can live in communities, but they will not write poetry about what it means to be a monkey, or a political treatise on why this particular hive design is better than the all other types.

Our ability to abstract from the senses and deal with pure concepts is due to our rational souls, which also happen to be immortal due to their spiritual nature (animals and vegetables have material souls, meaning there’s no principle of life beyond their own physical body).

What’s interesting is that with all modern science, these distinctions laid out by Aquinas are actually seeming more and more clear, rather than less so. It is only the “boundaries” established by the secular world that have been blurring. Teaching Koko the gorrilla sign language may have spooked seculars who wanted to maintain our differences, but the fact that she merely speaks about things on a sensory level despite having all the words available to go beyond it gives a lot of credence to Aquinas’ categories to me.

Peace and God bless!

 

[batteddy]

but they will not write poetry about what it means to be a monkey, or a political treatise on why this particular hive design is better than the all other types.

I think someday they could and it still wouldn’t prove they had a soul.

A complicated enough algorithm could make a mere computer or animal brain write poetry. But it would never actually be conscious of doing it. It would be mechanistic. It would have no meaning to itself, because it wouldn’t have a Self.

Our ability to abstract from the senses and deal with pure concepts is due to our rational souls,

I agree. But I think that there are ways for neural networks to produce “pseudo-abstract” concepts of “triangle” and such (which we cannot as image except as particular cases) through the experience of many triangles. Still, it is the Soul which is needed to “translate” the mere material neural coding containing the information about “triangle” into our true understanding of the immaterial Idea of Triangle. To translate mere syntax into real meaning, consciousness, and understanding.

So I believe that something could someday perfectly simulate human behavior, but would never actually be conscious or aware in the most basic sense. It wouldn’t “see” what it saw or “hear” what it heard. It would process the information and react like any other human, but like the Chinese Room analogy…would never actually Understand the concepts symbolized in the brain.

It might even claim it could and be able to talk about what a soul would be like…but that doesn’t mean it has one (after all, the computer screen you are reading doesn’t understand these words about the soul it is showing you). It could go and appear to worship God, but be doing it Robotically. The soul, is intimately self-evident…but ultimately ineffable.

 

[Ghosty]

A complicated enough algorithm could make a mere computer or animal brain write poetry. But it would never actually be conscious of doing it. It would be mechanistic. It would have no meaning to itself, because it wouldn’t have a Self.

The algorithm would not be writing poetry, but rather the writer of the algorithm would be “writing poetry” via the tool of the computer. Poetry can not originate from an algorithm because algorithms work on the arbitrary output of symbols derived from the arbitrary (name removed by moderator)ut of symbols, and that arbitrary value is determined not by the algorithm, but by the author of it.

This relates to the key argument against Artificial Intelligence by Professor John Searle, who himself is actually a materialist who, by his own admission, has never read Medieval philosophy. Essentially, mere output of information is not qualitatively the same as actually “writing” in the creative sense, self-aware or not.

I can be told to hand-copy the writings of Shakespeare even if I’m functionally illiterate, just by copying on a new piece of paper what is written in Macbeth. Just because I have written down a story doesn’t mean I’ve written a story, and that is the qualitative gap I’m describing. A thousand monkeys with a thousand typewriters banging on them for a thousand years would not write Hamlet, even if they produced that very play.

I think this is what you’re getting at when you bring up being concious of doing it, but the point is that even conciousness of producing Macbeth does not make the qualitative difference, but rather the capacity to originate such an abstraction from one’s own self makes the human soul functionally identifiable as “special”. The fact remains that even if the most complex A.I. “writes” a poem, it will be a linear output of data based on an algorithm authored by a mind, whereas the human writer is working on non-linear abstractions and then using a linear methodology of syntax and semantics to lay them down. There’s simply no way to mechanically replicate this kind of non-linear function, even within biology, which is why I think science itself is pointing to the immateriality of the mind, if not necessarily the soul.

So I believe that something could someday perfectly simulate human behavior, but would never actually be conscious or aware in the most basic sense. It wouldn’t “see” what it saw or “hear” what it heard. It would process the information and react like any other human, but like the Chinese Room analogy…would never actually Understand the concepts symbolized in the brain.

I don’t believe this will ever happen precisely because of the limits inherent in the Chinese Room itself (and all such systems, whether A.I. or biological), not the argument, which is that limited simulation does not equal free-form, self-originated concepts and connections derived from abstracted ideas. The Chinese Room can simulate the Chinese Speaker only insofar as the (name removed by moderator)ut is correct, and the ideas contained in the output are able to be abstracted from the Chinese characters by someone possibly the one giving the (name removed by moderator)ut. In a sense, the Chinese Room is actually merely an extension of the person outside who is giving and receiving the data.

The man inside the room can be told that he’s answering in Chinese, and even what questions he’s answering, but he still doesn’t qualitatively know Chinese if he’s still operating on the rules of the Chinese Room (and we’ve just lost EVERYONE who isn’t familiar with John Searle’s work now ). This is precisely where Functionalism falls apart, because it typically doesn’t evaluate the issue of self-originate connections that can be communicated to others, as in the case with basic poetry. If it did evaluate this, IMO it would have to rise to the conclusion of an immaterial mind and soul, which leads us right into the lap of Aquinas

Remember, poetry is not just rhyming words, its a communication of abstract connections originating in the mind of the writer and understood in the mind of the reader.

Peace and God bless!