The highest form of the human.

[Impenitent]

the bee's knees are sure to please...

-Imp

[bahman]

bees are better than us

Brother, if you truly believe bees are the tops: we absolutely got no common ground.

Could I please know your opinion about the rest of my comments?

[TheVisionofEr]

I am not sure of your point.

My point is,
we need to recognize the average humanm is being more animal at present than being more human, thus triggering the need for improvements for a greater propensity for higher moral conduct.

Thus if our present moral quotient [MQ - assume to be measurable] is 100 as being more animal, then we need to increase [assume it is possible] the average MQ to 1000 or > as being more human, i.e. the highest form of being human.

Thus I am aiming for something positive which is objective, incremental and measurable which should be a good thing.
You object to the above?

Traditionally animal has been defined as a being with senses. Eyes and so on. You just have rhetoric with no account of what the beings you're referring to are. If we have no cogent account of what a human is it is empty piffle to speak of being more or less human.

Note the fact;

The kingdom Animalia includes humans,
but in colloquial use the term animal often refers only to non-human animals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

In this case I am referring to the neural and mental perspectives between humans and non-humans.

You should not imposed your ignorance of what is being-human onto me.

As to what is being-human we are speaking of the expansion of the potential within the human neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex.

Many authors have indicated an integral link between a person's will to live, personality, and the functions of the prefrontal cortex.[2]

This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, moderating social behavior, and moderating certain aspects of speech and language.[3], [4]

The basic activity of this brain region is considered to be orchestration of thoughts and actions in accordance with internal goals.[5]

There are loads of articles and discussions differentiating what is to be more human in contrast to the animals [non-humans] based on the above potentials within the human brain.

This is a very crude notion of being human. How is improvment of the pre-frontal region judged, by daily life or by technical standards?

The claim the human is a part of the brain is very bizarre, though a typical dogmatic view in our time of presumptouness.

Everything is implicitly thought improvable, also a region of the brain. Call it the "human" and case solved. This work is important on the brain, but mainly because it lets one more able to fix what is broken according to norms and ideals already believed in. And there is the difficulty.

[TheVisionofEr]

bees are better than us

Brother, if you truly believe bees are the tops: we absolutely got no common ground.

Could I please know your opinion about the rest of my comments?

Ha.

[Sculptor]

astronauts

-Imp

A fine example of socialism.

[henry quirk]

bees are better than us

Brother, if you truly believe bees are the tops: we absolutely got no common ground.

Could I please know your opinion about the rest of my comments?

What's there to say?

You see socialism as a good thing; I think socialism is for crap.

Sure, we could go back & forth, you extollin' socialism's virtues, claimin' once man evolves sufficiently he'll be ready for it; me condemnin' socialism as the hive-generator it is, usin' real world examples, and makin' appeals to man's nature as a free will, and neither of us will budge.

So: what's the point?

[Arising_uk]

A fine example of socialism.

Lol.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In this case I am referring to the neural and mental perspectives between humans and non-humans.

You should not imposed your ignorance of what is being-human onto me.

As to what is being-human we are speaking of the expansion of the potential within the human neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex.

Many authors have indicated an integral link between a person's will to live, personality, and the functions of the prefrontal cortex.[2]

This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, moderating social behavior, and moderating certain aspects of speech and language.[3], [4]

The basic activity of this brain region is considered to be orchestration of thoughts and actions in accordance with internal goals.[5]

There are loads of articles and discussions differentiating what is to be more human in contrast to the animals [non-humans] based on the above potentials within the human brain.

This is a very crude notion of being human. How is improvment of the pre-frontal region judged, by daily life or by technical standards?

The claim the human is a part of the brain is very bizarre, though a typical dogmatic view in our time of presumptouness.

Everything is implicitly thought improvable, also a region of the brain. Call it the "human" and case solved. This work is important on the brain, but mainly because it lets one more able to fix what is broken according to norms and ideals already believed in. And there is the difficulty.

You are veering off point.
I did not claim 'human' is merely a part of the brain.
What is human is the whole physical body in interaction with its "external" environment.

What is contended here is;
What features at our present state differentiate human beings from non-human being?
The critical difference is the potential of the present neocortex and prefrontal cortex.

Note if orang-utans for some reasons in the future [centuries or million of years] developed almost exactly the same state of the neocortex and prefrontal cortex plus everything else is the same except maybe except external looks and hairy body, the orang-utans can be classed as human beings.

[Spyrith]

You are veering off point.
I did not claim 'human' is merely a part of the brain.
What is human is the whole physical body in interaction with its "external" environment.

What is contended here is;
What features at our present state differentiate human beings from non-human being?
The critical difference is the potential of the present neocortex and prefrontal cortex.

Note if orang-utans for some reasons in the future [centuries or million of years] developed almost exactly the same state of the neocortex and prefrontal cortex plus everything else is the same except maybe except external looks and hairy body, the orang-utans can be classed as human beings.

I like this definition of human, since it mostly equates "humanness" with rationality.

But by your own idea, if we create an Artificial Intelligence that thinks exactly like a human, with identical human processes (except they are on silicon instead of carbon), would you also classify it as human and not as robot?

[bahman]

bees are better than us

Brother, if you truly believe bees are the tops: we absolutely got no common ground.

Could I please know your opinion about the rest of my comments?

What's there to say?

What is there to say? On accepting laws of the jungle and calling it intelligent.

You see socialism as a good thing; I think socialism is for crap.

You, of course, didn't provide any justification. I did against capitalism.

Sure, we could go back & forth, you extollin' socialism's virtues, claimin' once man evolves sufficiently he'll be ready for it; me condemnin' socialism as the hive-generator it is, usin' real world examples, and makin' appeals to man's nature as a free will, and neither of us will budge.

So: what's the point?

We need to wait for the point.

[TheVisionofEr]

In this case I am referring to the neural and mental perspectives between humans and non-humans.

You should not imposed your ignorance of what is being-human onto me.

As to what is being-human we are speaking of the expansion of the potential within the human neo-cortex and prefrontal cortex.



There are loads of articles and discussions differentiating what is to be more human in contrast to the animals [non-humans] based on the above potentials within the human brain.

This is a very crude notion of being human. How is improvment of the pre-frontal region judged, by daily life or by technical standards?

The claim the human is a part of the brain is very bizarre, though a typical dogmatic view in our time of presumptouness.

Everything is implicitly thought improvable, also a region of the brain. Call it the "human" and case solved. This work is important on the brain, but mainly because it lets one more able to fix what is broken according to norms and ideals already believed in. And there is the difficulty.

You are veering off point.
I did not claim 'human' is merely a part of the brain.
What is human is the whole physical body in interaction with its "external" environment.

What is contended here is;
What features at our present state differentiate human beings from non-human being?
The critical difference is the potential of the present neocortex and prefrontal cortex.

Note if orang-utans for some reasons in the future [centuries or million of years] developed almost exactly the same state of the neocortex and prefrontal cortex plus everything else is the same except maybe except external looks and hairy body, the orang-utans can be classed as human beings.

This has no meaning. What is being human?

Saying it is more activity in part of the brain avoids telling us what we are talking about in daily life.

[henry quirk]

No, I didn't.

See, that's one of the great things about bein' free: I don't have to.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You are veering off point.
I did not claim 'human' is merely a part of the brain.
What is human is the whole physical body in interaction with its "external" environment.

What is contended here is;
What features at our present state differentiate human beings from non-human being?
The critical difference is the potential of the present neocortex and prefrontal cortex.

Note if orang-utans for some reasons in the future [centuries or million of years] developed almost exactly the same state of the neocortex and prefrontal cortex plus everything else is the same except maybe except external looks and hairy body, the orang-utans can be classed as human beings.

I like this definition of human, since it mostly equates "humanness" with rationality.

But by your own idea, if we create an Artificial Intelligence that thinks exactly like a human, with identical human processes (except they are on silicon instead of carbon), would you also classify it as human and not as robot?

Nope.
The orang-utans had evolved biologically from one-celled biological living things over 4+ billion years. It is the same with human beings.
A robot whilst claimed to be 'exactly' alike would been only be made within the last 100 years and did not evolve biologically.
I would not classify them as the same as "human beings" but at most called them human-liked robots or androids.

It is not mainly rationality but there is more to it, especially wisdom, morality,

• This brain region [the prefrontal cortex] has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, moderating social behavior, and moderating certain aspects of speech and language.

[Veritas Aequitas]

This is a very crude notion of being human. How is improvment of the pre-frontal region judged, by daily life or by technical standards?

The claim the human is a part of the brain is very bizarre, though a typical dogmatic view in our time of presumptouness.

Everything is implicitly thought improvable, also a region of the brain. Call it the "human" and case solved. This work is important on the brain, but mainly because it lets one more able to fix what is broken according to norms and ideals already believed in. And there is the difficulty.

You are veering off point.
I did not claim 'human' is merely a part of the brain.
What is human is the whole physical body in interaction with its "external" environment.

What is contended here is;
What features at our present state differentiate human beings from non-human being?
The critical difference is the potential of the present neocortex and prefrontal cortex.

Note if orang-utans for some reasons in the future [centuries or million of years] developed almost exactly the same state of the neocortex and prefrontal cortex plus everything else is the same except maybe except external looks and hairy body, the orang-utans can be classed as human beings.

This has no meaning. What is being human?

Saying it is more activity in part of the brain avoids telling us what we are talking about in daily life.

Can you tell me what the higher apes do not act [in the highest degrees] that we human beings do [in the lowest degrees - the natives] in daily life, e.g. eat, sleep, dream, sex, play, work for food, fight, and other daily activities?

The significant differences between the higher apes are the finer acts of wisdom, morality,
This brain region [the prefrontal cortex] of human beings has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, moderating social behavior, and moderating certain aspects of speech and language.

[TheVisionofEr]

You are veering off point.
I did not claim 'human' is merely a part of the brain.
What is human is the whole physical body in interaction with its "external" environment.

What is contended here is;
What features at our present state differentiate human beings from non-human being?
The critical difference is the potential of the present neocortex and prefrontal cortex.

Note if orang-utans for some reasons in the future [centuries or million of years] developed almost exactly the same state of the neocortex and prefrontal cortex plus everything else is the same except maybe except external looks and hairy body, the orang-utans can be classed as human beings.

This has no meaning. What is being human?

Saying it is more activity in part of the brain avoids telling us what we are talking about in daily life.

Can you tell me what the higher apes do not act [in the highest degrees] that we human beings do [in the lowest degrees - the natives] in daily life, e.g. eat, sleep, dream, sex, play, work for food, fight, and other daily activities?

The significant differences between the higher apes are the finer acts of wisdom, morality,
This brain region [the prefrontal cortex] of human beings has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, moderating social behavior, and moderating certain aspects of speech and language.

It's not clear what "wisdom" or " morality" are supposed to indicate. Apes discriminate between undeserved aggression from a larger ape and beating for a reason of normal hierarchy. They give sympathy only to those aggressed upon improperly. And yet, this could be discribed merely as a condtioned response or evolved behaviour. If it is only "behavior" perhaps so too is all movement and the tag "moral" is a fantasy.

What is wisdom? Forsight? A mechanical ability?

A picture emerges linking inanimate "behaviour" of stones and "dispersion of energy" or basic matter to human movements what is it exactly that is specifically human? The ability to delude ourselves by naming movent morality? Or, is movement too a deluded concept?


Speech may allow for abilities mere growling or tweeting doesn't but what in it are we endevouring to increase and why? And what does a view about what is more human or deserving to be ramped up stand on? Many opinions exsist about what to favour and intensify.