Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: People become people through Tears

  1. #1 People become people through Tears 
    Forum Freshman AsterialStarGazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    6
    When we cry why is it? is it because we need to keep our visual organs in working order or is it to keep our face cool. well only if we were animals, my opionion here is to state that i think that tears (crying) due to this strange emotion called sadness is only one of the few emotions that make us differand than our 98%.

    Now some may say that i am stateing the obious i know that of course but my question here is: some say love is somthing that is proof of our being humman but if you leave out self sacrifice is it any diffrent from animal behavior.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    I don't see how it is possible to compare subjective experience objectively.


    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: People become people through Tears 
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by AsterialStarGazer
    some say love is somthing that is proof of our being humman
    Therefore, I am not human. Thanks, that means a lot to me, mate.

    Quote Originally Posted by AsterialStarGazer
    but if you leave out self sacrifice is it any diffrent from animal behavior.
    Love and self-sacrifice are not the same thing. I am capable of self-sacrifice, btu have never felt anything that I would call 'love'.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    I don't know if animals cry; however, I believe they feel sadness, love, and are capable of self sacrifice.

    There is a video on you tube of a dog pulling another disabled dog off a highway in South America.

    Thus, I don't think the presence/absence of these emotions separates humans from animals.

    The main difference seems to be language, and the ability to use tools. We seem to be more advanced in using tools. However, my experience is that dogs understand more of our language than we understand of their language.

    I heard the brain of a dolphin is larger than human brain. Maybe dolphins are smarter. Who knows.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: People become people through Tears 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by AsterialStarGazer
    When we cry why is it? is it because we need to keep our visual organs in working order or is it to keep our face cool. well only if we were animals, my opionion here is to state that i think that tears (crying) due to this strange emotion called sadness is only one of the few emotions that make us differand than our 98%.

    Now some may say that i am stateing the obious i know that of course but my question here is: some say love is somthing that is proof of our being humman but if you leave out self sacrifice is it any diffrent from animal behavior.
    Non-human animals display altruistic behavior. It is not a strictly human behavior, nor is it beyond the scope of evolutionary theory to explain.

    Of course tears do not only support a lubricating purpose (as well as an anti-microbial effect), they also have been adapted for a social purpose during evolution. We cry because it's a useful form of social communication. Studies have described 3 distinct forms of crying in babies, which also happen to correspond to specific stresses (hunger, anger, and pain). Mothers probably subconsciously understand the cries to a degree.

    Crying also induces an emotional response in others, and is a good way to enlist help. As social animals it is expected for there to be some mechanisms to enlist aid when needed.

    Emotional tears also contain a lot of hormones which may have a calming effect.

    Edit: I don't understand why this is in the religion section.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman AsterialStarGazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    6
    what i want to know here is that the true definition of being humman requires the prospect of love (not self sacrifice in saving other peoples lives) is within this "equation." Humor is another emotion that i belive "makes up" a person, i belive it gives us a broader perspective on people and ourselves but it also puts us in a somwhat pleased state.

    Can somboady be humman with out love? if so Could they still have other emotions like sadness and humilaty? (Please dont go for the classic "humman weapon" idea, unless you have too)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I personally think that people in comas and day old infants are both human beings, even though neither is consciously capable of love or humour. Whether they are equally morally relevant as a fully functional human being is another question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by AsterialStarGazer
    what i want to know here is that the true definition of being humman
    No humane society can resolve a true definition of "being human", because it's a trap. It's a paradox and trick question to catch the inhumane, the "monsters" and "bad apples", who crop up occasionally.

    One ought to "just know". :wink: We evolved this self-subterfuge and it remains essential to society. For example in the 1930's some people (quite rationally) thought they'd get to the bottom of it. They subjected "humanity" to science. And look what happened.

    A system may be more stable with self imposed blind spots. We aren't exceptional.

    ***

    Matters of faith do belong in the religion section.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by AsterialStarGazer
    what i want to know here is that the true definition of being humman
    No humane society can resolve a true definition of "being human", because it's a trap. It's a paradox and trick question to catch the inhumane, the "monsters" and "bad apples", who crop up occasionally.

    One ought to "just know". :wink: We evolved this self-subterfuge and it remains essential to society. For example in the 1930's some people (quite rationally) thought they'd get to the bottom of it. They subjected "humanity" to science. And look what happened.

    A system may be more stable with self imposed blind spots. We aren't exceptional.
    This is a very interesting idea and worthy of consideration but as a pretty stubborn methodological naturalist I find it difficult to accept such an approach. Furthermore the legal issues requires us to have a working definition of some kind. It is unavoidable in the abortion controversy. I am an outspoken opponent of a genetic definition of humanity, in which I think the anti-abortionists are mired in self-contraditions and philosophical links to racism.

    Regardless, I cannot accept that there are forbidden questions. I think we just have to accept the fact that this is a dangerous question and that we have to take pragmatic considerations seriously. (Pragmatic considerations means that we need to look at the effects of what we believe.) Its like racial comparison studies which have terrible sociological implications which give us VERY good pragmatic reasons for being dismissive of them. Part of the problem is that beliefs about ourselves tend to be self-fulfilling prophesies, and thus if we would oppose racism we cannot believe in such differences between races, especially not on the basis of something as flimsy and non-explanatory as statistical evidence.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Matters of faith do belong in the religion section.
    Thanks for that. This is an excellent answer to i_feel_tiredsleepy's inquiry. At least your analysis does reveal that there are certainly some deep philosophical questions at the very least and the line between philsophy and religion can be a rather thin one. The choice of which section (religion or philosophy) to conduct your question under is mostly a matter of which sorts of ideas and arguments you are willing to consider. In this section we are at least willing to consider that this issue of what is human MIGHT be a matter of faith.


    THUS I WILL answer sleepy's challenge:

    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    I personally think that people in comas and day old infants are both human beings, even though neither is consciously capable of love or humour.
    I beg to differ.

    In the case of people in comas, we have medical distinctions between coma, vegitative state and brain dead that has everything to do with our expectations of whether they will ever be capable of such things ever again. I certainly do not think that every ounce of biological matter with human DNA needs to be treated as a human being, but that being human has to do with the human mind which requires at the very least a functioning human brain (functioning not perfectly functioning). On that minimal requirement we can be extremely conservative. And there we have a good definition in the case of infants/foetuses in the start of brain function at 20-22 weeks of pregnancy.

    Frankly I very much believe that in regards to ourselves belief creates reality and thus what is human has EVERYTHING to do with what we believe is human, and it is by our beliefs about this that we become human. The point is that this is not something written in the stars (not something that can be objectively determined) but is something that we decide for ourselves and by our decision we make it real. BUT this does not mean that all choices in this regard are equal - every such decision is not just as good as another. For example, in the case of the abortion controversy, I believe that deciding that fertilized embryos are human has the unavoidable consequence of duhumanizing women to some degree.

    Another interesting direction in which to explore this question is regards to hypothetical encounters with extra-terrestrials. What qualities must they have for us to consider them persons and worthy of respect and consideration. I would argue that there must be some kind of mutuality in this (to some degree) -- that we cannot recognize them as persons if they cannot recognize us as such. And there is that role of belief again.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    as a pretty stubborn methodological naturalist I find it difficult to accept such an approach.
    But you appreciate it as a pragmatist.

    I don't mean questions are forbidden. Questioning everything is in our nature. But also in our nature are these ...human things... that embrace to the point of Rover and willfully overlook our animal limits too. That allows humanity diversity & evolution under one label. It allows emergence from our present sum of parts. Answering the question must pin us down. As you say, "beliefs about ourselves tend to be self-fulfilling prophesies."

    Open-endedness has proven central to our success.

    the legal issues requires us to have a working definition of some kind. It is unavoidable in the abortion controversy. I am an outspoken opponent of a genetic definition of humanity, in which I think the anti-abortionists are mired in self-contraditions and philosophical links to racism.
    Yeah, we have a problem there. We patly defined humanity genetically, because that (apparently fixed) definition answered most issues, and in keeping with traditions. But now we find the genes nebulous as spilled marbles, and the homo sapiens animal just another vehicle of animated meat.

    To the abortion issue let's pull this from the magic hat "humanity": the worldly effects of humans are often more human than the body itself. That's an easy argument with infinite punchy examples. Contrast the pickeled toe of Saint Whats-her-name vs. her works, or those cherished crayon scrawls vs. the cold souls outgrown them. Old age corraborates the argument. Even strictly on Earth, the "real person" is more than the meat. Then what is not on Earth (the eternal soul) surely doesn't depend on any flesh.

    hypothetical encounters with extra-terrestrials. What qualities must they have for us to consider them persons and worthy of respect and consideration. I would argue that there must be some kind of mutuality in this (to some degree) -- that we cannot recognize them as persons if they cannot recognize us as such. And there is that role of belief again.
    Extending slack is in our better nature. I think we would bend over backward to personify E.Ts (just as we personify pets, fictional characters, embryos) regardless of how they view us. However I think we also have the capacity to respectfully wage war. We may value individuals as equal persons, while crossing those individuals' greater aims or identity... even to the point of killing whom we believe to be decent human beings for what they represent. We all like piglets, yet on another level piglets represent food.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    A human being and a person are not the same thing. Someone in a coma is a human being, they may not be a morally relevant person. Some people believe all humans are persons, but to use person and human being interchangeably in philosophy is to imply a speciesist bias.

    Edit: What is a human being is a matter of biology, what is a person is a matter of philosophy and religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Works for me.

    What is "humanity" then? The domain of all persons, not humans? I thought humanity meant us plus our extentions. So, our art, tools, cultures, even our chicken farms and the birds therein.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman AsterialStarGazer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    6
    Yes, living as a person means that all your experiences, creations and dedications are all part of you (in my opinion).

    I believe that a person that gains more experiences, contributes to his dreams and creates something magnificent makes them more. But understand this, there is no such thing as being more human but there is such a thing as being more alive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    A human being and a person are not the same thing. Someone in a coma is a human being, they may not be a morally relevant person. Some people believe all humans are persons, but to use person and human being interchangeably in philosophy is to imply a speciesist bias.

    Edit: What is a human being is a matter of biology, what is a person is a matter of philosophy and religion.
    disagree.

    We already have a term for the biological aspect - you know the species name of "homo-sapiens", thus the term "human being" quite naturally lends itself to usage in any context where there is a belief that we are more than just a biological species. Naturally in purely scientific context or in a secular context where there is a presumption that the scientific understanding is all that we know for certain, then according to the current scientific consensus the two become pretty synonymous. But in the religious context where this is not the presumption the meaning of "human being" becomes more than this.

    Thus the point is that in a religion section here, where we are at least willing to consider such possibilities and ask if these possiblities are rational or believable, it would be "question begging" to insist on the equivalence of the term "human being" with "homo sapiens".

    In traditional religious thought, "human being" would also include some non-physical aspect (a spirit or a soul) to our existence and would discuss when such a thing becomes attached to the body or part of our existence. In my case, with a developmental view of the spirit and a view that there is always spirit wherever there is life, there is no such question of attachment. In my case, I believe that the spiritual reflects the physical and thus the difference between "human being" and "homo sapiens" is a physical difference and that difference is the human mind, which I believe is a physical living organism in its own right with its own inheritance apart from the biological inheritance of the body contained in DNA.

    Thus in my case, this is at least potentially a scientific distinction. It is not, however, one that the current scientific consensus would acknowledge, and for that reason at this point it must remain more of a religious or philosophical distinction.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15 Re: People become people through Tears 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by AsterialStarGazer
    some say love is somthing that is proof of our being humman
    Therefore, I am not human. Thanks, that means a lot to me, mate.
    I thought you were a turtle.

    Anyway, I think that serving/helping others, including taking time to answer someone's questions (You do this regularly.) is a form of love.

    I think this is called "Agape love".
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •