 |
| Are we human because we are unique? |
Are we human because we are unique?
Are we human because of the unique characteristics and attributes that are not shared with an animal or a machine? The meaning of the word “man” is circular: we are human because of the structures that make us human (that is, different from the animal and the machine). It is a definition of denial: what separates us from the animal and the machine is our “personality”.
We are human because we are not animals, or machines. But such thinking has been gradually eroded by the advent of evolutionary and neo-evolutionary ideas that set the stage for evolution between animals and Man.
Our diversity is partly a volume and partly a symbol. Most animals are able to manage symptoms by using and using tools. Few are as skilled as we are. These are the differences that can be easily measured - two of the many.
The quality difference is very difficult to prove. If there is no special access to the animal's mind, we cannot and do not know if the animals feel guilty, for example. Do animals like it? Do they have a sense of sin? What about the permanence of something, meaning, thinking, self-awareness, deep thinking? Individual? Feelings? Empathy? Is Artificial intelligence (AI) an oxymoron? A machine that has passed the Turing Test may be described as a "human". But is that really the case? And if not - why not?
The books are full of animal stories - Frankenstein, Golem - and androids or anthropoids.His behavior is "better" than that of those around him. This, perhaps, is what makes people different: their moral uncertainty. It is caused by the interaction between the fundamental and unchanging nature of humanity determined by genetics - and the extremely changing human conditions.
The Constructionists even claim that the Human Nature is merely a cultural art. Sociology biologists, on the other hand, are determinists. They believe that human nature - to be the inevitable and inevitable result of our animal ancestors - will not be the subject of moral judgment.
The improved Turing test will look for confusing patterns and misconduct errors to identify people. Pico della Mirandola wrote in "Oration on the Dignity of Man" that Man was born without the capacity and ability to shape and transform - in fact, to create himself - himself at will. The presence precedes the theme, said Existentialists centuries infomationzon.
Describing personality traits would be our awareness of our own death. Automatic warfare, “fighting or flying”, the war of survival is common to all living things (as well as to well-organized machinery). Not so with the mysterious effects of imminent death. These are different people. Past appreciation translates into beauty, the diversity of our past lives breeds morality, and a lack of time creates a desire for prominence and creativity.
In eternal life, everything happens at once, so the idea of choice is not false. The perfection of our perfection compels us to choose from among others. This act of choice is predicted by the existence of "free will". Animals and machines are thought to be free moral agents, slaves to their own genetic or human systems.
However, all these answers to the question: "What does it mean to be human" - are lacking.The set of traits we choose as human beings can be radically changed. Drugs, neuroscience, introspection, and information all cause irreversible changes in these factors and factors. The collection of these changes can lead, in fact, to the emergence of new buildings, or to the completion of old items.
Animals and equipment should not be allowed to choose or use them. What about the integration of machines and humans (bionics)? When does one turn into a machine? And why should we assume that free will is no longer at that point - rather unreasonable - point?infomationzon.blogspot.com
Introspection - the ability to create world-class and self-replicating models - should be a unique human quality. What about introspective machines? Indeed, critics say, such devices are COMBINED to test, unlike humans. To qualify as an introspection, you must RIGHT, they go on. However, if self-examination is preferred - WHO likes that? Self-examination of your own will lead to endless setbacks and logical logical puzzles.
Moreover, the idea - if it is not a legal concept - is "human" based on many hidden ideas and principles.Political correctness though - why do we assume that men and women (or different races) are equally human? Aristotle thought that they were wrong. Much separates men from women - genetically (both genotype and phenotype) and genetic (cultural). What is so significant about these two species that they are both “human”?
Can we conceive in a person who does not have a body (i.e., Plato Form, or soul)? Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas do not think so. The soul is not separate from the body.. Machine-supported energy field with attitudes similar to ours today - can it be considered human? What about a person in a coma - is he or she (or her) completely human?
Is the newborn human being - or, at least, fully human - and, if so, in what sense? What about the future human race - its features we cannot even begin to imagine? Machine-based intelligence - can it be thought of as a human being? If so, when will it be considered human?
In all of these conversations, we might be confused with the words “man” and “man”. The first is the latest private case. Locke man is a moral agent, a man responsible for his actions. It is formed by the continuation of its attitudes that are accessible to self-examination.
Locke's active explanation. It easily accepts non-human beings (machines, matriculants) when working conditions are satisfied. Therefore, an android that meets certain requirements is more than just a mentally dead person.
Descartes' argument that man is incapable of determining the state of his own identity and identity over time in the disembodied souls is justified in assuming that such “souls” are powerless. An intelligent unmatched energy matrix that maintains its shape and identity over time can be considered. Some AI and genetic software programs already do it.
Strawson is a Cartesian and Kantian in his definition of “man” as “old man”. Both physical and psychological verbs apply equally, simultaneously, and indiscriminately to all persons in that type of business. People are one of those things. Some, like Wiggins, limit the list of people who might be animals - but this is not very necessary and is unfairly restricted.
The truth is probably in the synthesis:
A person has any kind of basic and uninterrupted business with its ordinary people (i.e., members) who are able to continue to meet a variety of awareness situations and have a permanent list of psychological attributes.
This definition allows people who are not animals and recognizes the personality of the person with a brain injury (“able to hear”). It also incorporates Locke's view of people as having an ontological nature similar to "clubs" or "nations" - their identities contain a variety of interconnected mental processes.
0 Comments
if you have any doubts. please let me know