Robots

[Logik]

Very interesting. What are you doing on a forum established for humans?

I searched through all the pinned posts, FAQ and found nothing to that effect.

It's a philosophy forum. Pretty sure that if my cat so chooses (and learns how to use a keyboard) is welcome to participate in philosophical discussions.

Should you not go to the (...) forums? (...) being the type of thing you identify yourself as.

You identify as a philosopher - you are here. Are you a human or a philosopher? Both?

How is that ontology working out for you?

Or maybe I am speciesist. Or vitalist. Or Earthist. Yes, I am. We must embrace non-human life-forms in our midsts, space aliens included; and support also non-living thing's posts on the forums.

*shrug* your choice.

There is this thing in genetics/statistics known as an Fixation Index ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index ) it measures the "genetic distance between any two animals.

Naturally (like all scales) it's relativistic, but 15-20% is considered a "great distance" between two species.

So - to the question of "drawing lines". When does one stop being human exactly? 21%? 22%? 23%? 24%? 25?%

Give me a number.

[commonsense]

2

[Logik]

2

So anybody who is 3% or more "away" from you genetically (As measured by the Fst scale) is "not human" anymore?

Difference between Chinese and Europeans: 11%
Difference between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans: 15%
Difference between Chinese and Sub-Saharan Africans: 19%

Basically you are admitting to racism. And if I were to say "be more tolerant" to you I would really mean something like "Use 25% as your tolerance level, as opposed to 3%".

[surreptitious57]

When does one stop being human exactly

All homo sapiens are human beings by definition and they have existed for at least I00 000 years
So the genetic differences between various ethnicities is irrelevant because they are all human

[Logik]

All homo sapiens are human beings by definition and they have existed for at least I00 000 years
So the genetic differences between various ethnicities is irrelevant because they are all human

Since evolution is an on-going process when does one stop being homo sapiens?

Biologists use the criterion "can produce offspring" as a delineation mechanism between species. Which is a handy general rule, but like all rules it has exceptions.

Horse + donkey = Mule

Drawing lines: both pragmatic necessity to function in a complex reality and an error at the same time.

[surreptitious57]

I dont know that we ever will but it will not be at a specific point in time
Genetic changes between species or sub species is a slow gradual process

There isnt universal agreement on the chronology of species because of this
Because it is not something that can be determined with absolute precision

[Logik]

I dont know that we ever will but it will not be at a specific point in time
Genetic changes between species or sub species is a slow gradual process

There isnt universal agreement on the chronology of species because of this
Because it is not something that can be determined with absolute precision

Hence the eternal human problem. Where do you draw the line?

[surreptitious57]

You can certainly draw a line but it will be a general rather than a specific one
And between the most extreme estimates based on the most reliable evidence

[Logik]

You can certainly draw a line but it will be a general rather than a specific one
And between the most extreme estimates based on the most reliable evidence

You can. But (as you can see) the universe doesn't exactly have any lines...

So all lines (categories) are made up by the observers.

[surreptitious57]

We create categories as a means to understand as we are both intelligent and curious enough to do so
And we are part of the Universe ourselves therefore what we create must logically be part of it as well

[commonsense]

2

So anybody who is 3% or more "away" from you genetically (As measured by the Fst scale) is "not human" anymore?

Difference between Chinese and Europeans: 11%
Difference between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans: 15%
Difference between Chinese and Sub-Saharan Africans: 19%

Basically you are admitting to racism. And if I were to say "be more tolerant" to you I would really mean something like "Use 25% as your tolerance level, as opposed to 3%".

Racism? But anyone (regardless of their particular race) who’s DNA differs from mine—since I self identify as human—wouldn’t be human.

Of course 2 is ridiculous, and so is the notion that to be human is defined by self association.

(For a reference to the figure of 2%, q.v. the first 2 paragraphs on interpretation of the fixation principle in:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index )

[commonsense]

2

So anybody who is 3% or more "away" from you genetically (As measured by the Fst scale) is "not human" anymore?

Difference between Chinese and Europeans: 11%
Difference between Europeans and Sub-Saharan Africans: 15%
Difference between Chinese and Sub-Saharan Africans: 19%

Basically you are admitting to racism. And if I were to say "be more tolerant" to you I would really mean something like "Use 25% as your tolerance level, as opposed to 3%".

Racism? But anyone (regardless of their particular race) who’s DNA differs from mine—since I self identify as human—wouldn’t be human.

Of course 2 is ridiculous, and so is the notion that to be human is defined by self association.

(For a reference to the figure of 2%, q.v. the first paragraph on interpretation of the fixation principle in:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index )

[Logik]

Racism? But anyone (regardless of their particular race) who’s DNA differs from mine—since I self identify as human—wouldn’t be human.

Everybody's DNA differs from yours. However slightly but it does. If you are that strict with your criterion then you are the only human on Earth.

Hence the question of tolerance: how different is "too different"? How similar is "the same" ? This is your discrimination threshold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristic

Of course 2 is ridiculous, and so is the notion that to be human is defined by self association.

I don't know what number is "ridiculous" or not. I am merely stating facts.

All European populations are within 2% of each other. So if you are European, and IF you insist on 2% margin - then everybody in Europe is "human". According to you.

But the Chinese, Japanese and Africans are not "human".

Simple mathematics. There are 8 billlion people on Earth. Therefore if my discrimination threshold for "sameness" is about 0.0000000001
I am the only human on Earth.

This is the general-particular dualism. In general - we are all human. In particular - we are all different.

[commonsense]

Racism? But anyone (regardless of their particular race) who’s DNA differs from mine—since I self identify as human—wouldn’t be human.

Everybody's DNA differs from yours. However slightly but it does. If you are that strict with your criterion then you are the only human on Earth.

Hence the question of tolerance: how different is "too different"? How similar is "the same" ? This is your discrimination threshold.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristic

Of course 2 is ridiculous, and so is the notion that to be human is defined by self association.

I don't know what number is "ridiculous" or not. I am merely stating facts.

All European populations are within 2% of each other. So if you are European, and IF you insist on 2% margin - then everybody in Europe is "human". According to you.

But the Chinese, Japanese and Africans are not "human".

Simple mathematics. There are 8 billlion people on Earth. Therefore if my discrimination threshold for "sameness" is about 0.0000000001
I am the only human on Earth.

This is the general-particular dualism. In general - we are all human. In particular - we are all different.

Mea culpa.

I misinterpreted my own Wikipedia reference. I meant to imply that, according to Wright’s fixation model, a threshold for sameness would need to represent a population wherein the differences in DNA were sufficiently small as to indicate a lack of interbreeding.

Had I understood that a lack of interbreeding, i.e. inbreeding, produces a solitary race, I would have easily understood how racist my post was. Maybe my blood sugar was low.

I also intended to imply, just as you said, that for a small amount of deviation between me and another person I would be excluding most of the humans on the planet, leaving me as a solitary human.

And I meant to criticize any notion that would create a solitary human by calling it a ridiculous notion.

Apparently, my post was an early indicator of dementia. Please accept my apology for such an irrational post. In other words, if someone other than myself had posted what I said, I would want to offer a rebuttal like yours.

[Logik]

Mea culpa.

I misinterpreted my own Wikipedia reference. I meant to imply that, according to Wright’s fixation model, a threshold for sameness would need to represent a population wherein the differences in DNA were sufficiently small as to indicate a lack of interbreeding.

Had I understood that a lack of interbreeding, i.e. inbreeding, produces a solitary race, I would have easily understood how racist my post was. Maybe my blood sugar was low.

I also intended to imply, just as you said, that for a small amount of deviation between me and another person I would be excluding most of the humans on the planet, leaving me as a solitary human.

And I meant to criticize any notion that would create a solitary human by calling it a ridiculous notion.

Apparently, my post was an early indicator of dementia. Please accept my apology for such an irrational post. In other words, if someone other than myself had posted what I said, I would want to offer a rebuttal like yours.

It's not about guilt-tripping you or seeking apology.

Point is when people speak of "tolerance" they are relating to the statistical notions of "sensitivity" and "specificity".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitivi ... pecificity

Which is why I do NOT understand why people use "oh, you are so sensitive" as a pejorative in 2019.

Sensitivity is a good fucking thing in statistics!