What makes a human?

What is THE defining factor that makes a human a human?

Jul 19, 2023 9:18 PM

Offline

Jul 2014

136

In Episode 2 it is revealed that they created humanoids with and without biological bodies. For the days protagonist he is upset that he was failing at progressing in his performance in comparison to his friend. Basically he plateaued and attributed this to the hard limits given to him during the designer/editing phase of the conception of his biological body.

Humanoids are given human rights based of certain criteria they meet of being a human, however humans being a part of the nature are not necessarily "given" limitations by other humans even genetically as there are no guarantees of gene inheritance or expression of those genes much less any guarantees of the occurrence or determination of mutations. Basically overall in the game of life you simply roll the dice.

So to impose them on living beings with the same technology you created them from for the purpose to have your semblance and deem an equal the contradiction in ethics is apparent. Its like raising a child to fulfill your personal desires, if you recognize them a human the same as you are you will have to recognize their own will and independence. If you do not and they are your slave then they are not a human and therefore not your child. So they are either a person and your child or a slave and tool, but they cannot be both as the concepts contradict.

chenfengJul 19, 2023 9:22 PM

Jul 20, 2023 4:00 AM

Yeshaiah2015yesh

Offline

Dec 2022

973

humans are bezark creatures their is no way a human can understand what a human is and what makes a human it's not like plants and trees will open their mouths and say this beings are what we call human's

Jul 20, 2023 8:01 AM

The_Holyone66

Offline

Feb 2022

1867

to fuck that is what makes as human

Jul 21, 2023 10:01 AM

Spleefy

Offline

Dec 2020

104

Azriel-chan said:
to fuck that is what makes as human

Other animals do that too. 😂

Jul 22, 2023 9:46 PM

davidyodo24

Offline

Oct 2019

7550

Damn this is deep.

Jul 22, 2023 10:02 PM

LostSpectre

Offline

Jan 2013

6493

The biological humanoids are "human" in virtually every sense that matters, even if they are technically an artificial lifeform.

If you reply back to me and I never respond, I lost interest and don't care. Sorry about that.

Jul 23, 2023 8:26 PM

chenfeng

Offline

Jul 2014

136

IhnalakoKaina said:
A human would be a living being that comes into existance during fertilization, when a sperm and an egg join. From that moment on, he/she is a human. Not after they first move, are born, after they speak, or eat, or do anything else, but when they are conceived.

A living being that so closely resembles human behavior and appearance, but is not created as a human would (humanoid), is not a human. This is assuming the only difference between a humanoid and a human is how they were made, among other details, as it is implied in this show.

That doesn't mean, though, that they shouldn't be treated as human. Ethics and empathy play a part on whether or not you think such a being has human rights. I tend to believe they do, as they do have human responsabilities. But I also believe that it is scientifically impossible to create such a humanoid in real life.

This logic has a flaw. If it is not human, it cannot have "human rights". Now this doesn't mean we cannot give them rights, as animals have "animal rights" based on sufferage. So theoretically we can give them Humanoid rights but we cannot give them human rights as they are not human. So this is where i go back to my point. Suppose they have "humanoid rights", because their rights would not be human rights you would have to acknowledge they were seen as our equal. But that goes against the intent of making them in our likeness and having them cohabit our family and very society as equals in the first place. You can say that animals are the same and people treat them like their own family. However regardless of an individuals treatment of their "family", i ask you does society allow animals vote? Does society at large acknowledge any right that they may own property or roam freely as they wish? The answer is no. Any roaming roaming animals are categorized as 'stray' or 'wild'. Both understood as outside society and any animal inside society is recognized as property so they are in all respect slaves or individuals without freedom. So i digress back to my original point, you are either a human or you're not. You are either a Slave or you're not there is no both or in between in the reality of the world. So in the world building described in a advanced, progressive, and evolved society the very writing is a contradiction. Now I'm not saying that such a world is impossible but it wouldn't and couldn't be a stable and functioning society for very long, which goes against any likeliness it would be able to progress very far in the first place. After all the only reason why our society in life has progressed this far is because we have changed many of society's contradictions to make them ever so less contradictory even if just barely.

Jul 24, 2023 7:26 PM

chenfeng

Offline

Jul 2014

136

IhnalakoKaina said:

chenfeng said:

I think you missed the fact that unlike domesticated animals, humanoids would have intelligence and apparent self awareness.

Bear in mind that they "solved most of the brain's mysticisms", and that is what made possible the creation of artificial brains in the image of natural ones.

Still, there's no way to prove whether or not they have souls, but the fact that they look, feel and think like humans do is what makes how they are treated important, at least I think. This is because of the effect it would have in a human spirit if they treated what seems almost completly human, even if it's not, inhumanely.

Obviously this has happened with actual human beings in the past, and still today, but we have supposedly mostly evolved from that. I guess it could go either way:

It's fair to assume that racism would be generally frowned upon in a futuristic society, or certainly wouldn't be used as a cuddle to subjugate an entire group of people. Unless the author of the particular story said otherwise, in which case it would make sense that the humanoids be used as slaves or an inferior class.

and please space out your paragraphs so they're easier to read.

Are you saying that that there is no evidence to support the idea that animals have no intelligence or self awareness? Perhaps you could say most may not be a Buddha or Einstein, but there have already been studies showing evidence of intellect and enough awareness in many species to exhibit behaviors and perform tasks required to equate both levels of a spectrum equivalent to human ages of 1-17.

Also i think the point of souls stands outside the bounds of normal convention in a ideological sense and is more in like with a discussion of metaphysical theory.

If the example of animals doesn't quite convince you, you can easily replace them with any other marginalized group in our society today. Take children for example, tho we supplant their rights as children and they are in a grey area of property and individual, it is understood understand that this usurpation is by no means permanent so they are not equals in a society but only temporarily so. However this is not the case with Humanoids with biological bodies that have been purposely modified to be unable to procreate by means of surgical, chemical, or genetic manipulation.

And again my point was the inconsistency in logic present in the writing or world building of the author. Its a walking contradiction, sure that is not the purpose, the purpose is to garner a focus of the individual growth in the stories provided in a fresh and unique setting that provokes sentimental emotion, ideological thought, and wide stream discourse but somehow for me it just misses the mark it and ends up as nonsense.

But as you know, as they say, "for the sake of the movie" or "just enjoy it" so i digress...like those anime scenes of a bullet shooting in the air with its cartridge and all, its just kinda bad.

Jul 24, 2023 8:34 PM

IhnalakoKaina

Offline

Jul 2021

233

Sorry, I still don't get the contradiction. I realized there was a part of what you said that I couldn't really get. Maybe if you elaborate on this:

chenfeng said:
Suppose they have "humanoid rights", because their rights would not be human rights you would have to acknowledge they were seen as our equal. But that goes against the intent of making them in our likeness and having them cohabit our family and very society as equals in the first place.

I could get where you're coming from.

Even though species of animals do have intelligence that is somehow complex and by no means simple, it still doesn't compare to human intelligence. I see how this can be dangerous in the sense that suddenly, people who, because of age or mental disability, do not possess the same intelligence the average person has, can be seen as less than or not human. But that's when the ethics and empathy I was talking about kicks in. Since they share our likeness, and because they are of our own flesh and blood, we recognize an intrinsic value to their lives.

Remember that in ep 3 they talked about how, in the past, humanoids were not seen as human, like robots. It is not further explored yet as to what led humans to create humanoids, but we can guess it was to have them serve like Joe the dating robot and things like that. I think that this premise is consistent...

We farm cows because, although they surely feel pain and distress, they serve to feed us. And more importantly, they don't have the level of intelligence and self awareness required to change that relationship. But humanoids would, and if we tried to exploit them it would mean war and conflict, as it has meant for actual humans throughout history. I guess that is why people began to treat them as human at some point.

IhnalakoKainaJul 24, 2023 8:38 PM

Jul 25, 2023 5:17 PM

#10

chenfeng

Offline

Jul 2014

136

IhnalakoKaina said:
Sorry, I still don't get the contradiction. I realized there was a part of what you said that I couldn't really get. Maybe if you elaborate on this:

the quote you posted was a typo with the word "never" in between 'were' and 'seen' i was too lazy to fix as i was sure someone would be able to fill in based off context.

As for the idea that ethics or empathy have anything to do with the treatment of animals i laugh at the idea of it. Your reasoning being,

" We farm cows because, although they surely feel pain and distress, they serve to feed us. And more importantly, they don't have the level of intelligence and self awareness required to change that relationship."

So i ask you, who is it who decides that they serve to feed us and not some other organism or entity? It is we.
Who is it who decides the definitions of the relationship with animals based on any arbitrary metrics of "intelligence" or "self awareness" that we created ourselves? It is we.

So i think you hit the nail on the head here:

But humanoids would, and if we tried to exploit them it would mean war and conflict, as it has meant for actual humans throughout history. I guess that is why people began to treat them as human at some point.

In this proving that neither, ethics, morals nor virtue have in a most real sense anything to do with the with the actual treatment of marginalized groups but more rather the concept of power, and the threat of suffering, pain, death and destruction. We eat animals simply because we can and there is nothing they can do to stop us. what concepts and excuses like "needs", "convenience", or "diet", we make up for ourselves will never be able to get around this simple fact. which brings me back to my point of there being an inconsistency with the level of civilization and the legislature governing that very civilization. they are at odds with each other and simply cant coexist... at least not for very long.

Jul 25, 2023 7:24 PM

#11

IhnalakoKaina

Offline

Jul 2021

233

chenfeng said:

As for the idea that ethics or empathy have anything to do with the treatment of animals i laugh at the idea of it. Your reasoning being,

" We farm cows because, although they surely feel pain and distress, they serve to feed us. And more importantly, they don't have the level of intelligence and self awareness required to change that relationship."

So i ask you, who is it who decides that they serve to feed us and not some other organism or entity? It is we.
Who is it who decides the definitions of the relationship with animals based on any arbitrary metrics of "intelligence" or "self awareness" that we created ourselves? It is we.

So i think you hit the nail on the head here:

But humanoids would, and if we tried to exploit them it would mean war and conflict, as it has meant for actual humans throughout history. I guess that is why people began to treat them as human at some point.

In this proving that neither, ethics, morals nor virtue have in a most real sense anything to do with the with the actual treatment of marginalized groups but more rather the concept of power, and the threat of suffering, pain, death and destruction. We eat animals simply because we can and there is nothing they can do to stop us. what concepts and excuses like "needs", "convenience", or "diet", we make up for ourselves will never be able to get around this simple fact. which brings me back to my point of there being an inconsistency with the level of civilization and the legislature governing that very civilization. they are at odds with each other and simply cant coexist... at least not for very long.

I think I see now. "It doesn't make sense that people in a future, advanced society created humanoids in their image, just to use them as tools, gave them arbitrary limits and didn't afford them rights like they would other humans" is what you mean? I guess I'd have to agree in a way. But:

"Suppose they have "humanoid rights", because their rights would not be human rights you would have to acknowledge they were never seen as our equal. But that goes against the intent of making them in our likeness and having them cohabit our family and very society as equals in the first place."

I don't know why you'd think that as flawed and selfish as humans are, even in a thousand years, in a technologically advanced society capable of making artificial humans, they wouldn't stoop so low as to commit the same mistakes that plagues us today.

I mean, if you look at ep 3, Joe the dating robot is not a humanoid, but instead what you could call a ChatGPT with a robotic body. It doesn't have a neural network, a brain, whether biological or artificial, but instead has a computer that runs a program.

Yet he was made to look like a man, for the purpose of living with single women, cook for them and even dilate them... But Joe is still basically like a cleaning robot, a toy, a product. He doesn't actually have emotions, he wouldn't be able to detroit: become human.

Then you could say that humanoids were an experiment meant to be an upgraded version of Joe. So it makes sense that they would make them to be like humans. Made to be slaves to take on the roles that other humans wouldn't or couldn't take. Prostitutes, soldiers, intensive manual laborers...

And what stopped them from keeping humanoids as a second class? I guess you'd say power, the fear of destruction, resistance. But I believe, and I think it's ok if you disagree, that ethics and morals are not excuses, but motives.

We don't have morality because we didn't like wrong things. Instead, we don't like wrong things BECAUSE we have morality.

Cows would not exist in the scale that they do if it weren't for humans. We don't brutalize animals for fun. At least not sane people. Those that we hunt, we do because they are plagues (hogs or coyotes), they are dangerous, (wolfs, bears, pumas and tigers) or because we eat them. And animals kill other animals too, to eat, or survive.

If we didn't have ethics, we would absolutely extinguish all life from earth apart from those we keep at farms. But people generally, without any other particular motive, don't want to see living things suffer needlessly. We would live in code geass' world, where, as the king says, all that matters is strength.

I think your problem is with sociopaths who want or have power and are driven by their selfish interests. And I can relate, but I don't think the image of a human should be conflated with people like that. After all, there is the term humanity. Yeah I know I just said that humans are flawed, but still.

IhnalakoKainaJul 25, 2023 7:29 PM

Jul 26, 2023 2:19 PM

#12

BiobulletM

Offline

Feb 2018

405

This reminds me of a docu-movie about cloning I saw with my wifu some days ago. And she had a question: "will a human clone have soul?"

My answer: clearly yes. The building blocks for a clone will be the same as anyone else, except than it will be a 1:1 copy of the DNA of another human being.

35 years old ossan who still watches anime

Jul 29, 2023 4:40 PM

#13

chenfeng

Offline

Jul 2014

136

"We don't have morality because we didn't like wrong things. Instead, we don't like wrong things BECAUSE we have morality.

Cows would not exist in the scale that they do if it weren't for humans. We don't brutalize animals for fun. At least not sane people. Those that we hunt, we do because they are plagues (hogs or coyotes), they are dangerous, (wolfs, bears, pumas and tigers) or because we eat them. And animals kill other animals too, to eat, or survive.

If we didn't have ethics, we would absolutely extinguish all life from earth apart from those we keep at farms. But people generally, without any other particular motive, don't want to see living things suffer needlessly. We would live in code geass' world, where, as the king says, all that matters is strength."

You don't put the cart before the horse. I think you're misunderstanding the very definition of morality or ethic due to a lack of education in linguistics. Laws/code/ethics/morals are all created from and because of wisdom garnered by relating a cause and effect of an undesired consequence. Think of it like building a house or the "best practices" in any profession. Something is only Right or Straight because it is Aligned, Useful, or Beneficial to a cause, purpose or desire. The same way something is Wrong or Crooked because it doesn't. This wisdom is only realized with enough failure or unintended consequences. It is only because things went awry did people create a system to modify behavior.

Now realize life in this very physical dimension requires the concept of individualism. To gain and maintain any form of life you need one entity to take energy from another entity. And due to there being individuals in a finite system with limited resources inherently there will be inequality and competition for those resources and naturally the suffering that comes from the conflict of that competition.

Just as different individuals exist so do different desires and perceptions and with those their own ethic and morals. whats good or beneficial or "right" for me or you is not necessarily "right" for all the individuals that we took energy from to sustain our lives, pleasures, desires, or even conveniences. And in order to make that happen we or someone acting for us had to take advantage of the inequalities possessed between us and that which we taken from. We can only enjoy the conveniences and pleasures of life today because someone or something in some form or another toiled and suffered for them. you cant have morals without a society, and you cant have society without war and conflict. So you could say that the popularity of Code Geass was only possible because it was so relatable in the way that we Do in fact live in a world where fundamentally "all that matters is strength" aka the natural world. A world where the strong survive long enough to have the privilege to dictate to you their so called "morals".

But all that aside i feel we have strayed from the topic , the topic of the definition of a human. Due to a busy week, i haven't yet seen Epi 3 and plan to watch it sometime tonight so all your references escape me as of this moment.

Aug 21, 2023 9:29 AM

#14

KingYoshi

Lilium Gardener

Offline

Jul 2011

3842

Yeshaiah2015yesh said:
humans are bezark creatures their is no way a human can understand what a human is and what makes a human it's not like plants and trees will open their mouths and say this beings are what we call human's

Would be pretty tough to do since most don't have mouths.

KingYoshiAug 21, 2023 9:40 AM

Sep 20, 2023 1:14 PM

#15

Yeshaiah2015yesh

Offline

Dec 2022

973

don't worry i will give your mother big mouth. which she uses to suck my DUCKS 😈 . I know you're mommy for many years (like before you were born )
she doesn't mind lending it for some time.
I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND MY SON 😎
I hope you do understand

Yeshaiah2015yeshSep 23, 2023 2:33 AM

Sep 26, 2023 9:23 AM

#16

Memore

Offline

Feb 2021

7778

All the above, I think. Human is a very complex subject with its distinct features which can't be divided from one another.

Sep 30, 2023 8:46 AM

#17

mariox7777

Offline

Aug 2012

139

Human are the biological mass, once you put metal and computer parts into the body you become inhuman. The humanoids in this anime are not human, they are only imitating humans. You can clone a human body, but you can't copy a brain.

These humanoids in this anime are immortal if not for laws dictating how long they can "live". that is why I don't consider them human.

Sep 30, 2023 10:43 PM

#18

OGSenna

Offline

Jan 2016

All I could think of when I saw the title.

See All Discussions

Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 10 Discussion Stark700 - Sep 15, 2023	28	by SaadMarjani »» Nov 11, 2024 9:48 AM
Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 9 Discussion ( 1 2 ) Stark700 - Sep 8, 2023	54	by SaadMarjani »» Nov 11, 2024 9:41 AM
Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 4 Discussion ( 1 2 ) Stark700 - Jul 28, 2023	52	by SaadMarjani »» Nov 10, 2024 12:16 PM
Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 5 Discussion Stark700 - Aug 4, 2023	28	by xADONIS »» Aug 31, 2024 6:22 AM
Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 7 Discussion Stark700 - Aug 18, 2023	33	by Rob7 »» Jul 13, 2024 1:23 PM

What makes a human?

More topics from this board

Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 10 Discussion

Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 9 Discussion ( 1 2 )

Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 4 Discussion ( 1 2 )

Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 5 Discussion

Poll: » AI no Idenshi Episode 7 Discussion

MoreTop Anime

MoreTop Airing Anime

MoreMost Popular Characters