Comments on: A Review of the “What does it mean to be human?” panel at the 2008 World Science Festival

By: Andrea Simon

Andrea Simon — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:23:04 +0000

So after reading all the comments would anyone like to venture an answer to “what is it to be human?” Some of the neuroscience research coming out of UCLA suggests that as mammals we share more than we might suspect with other species. And the genetic research is suggesting some of the same. Thoughts?

By: What does it Mean to be Human | Small World Great Minds

What does it Mean to be Human | Small World Great Minds — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:56:27 +0000

[...] “The critical unique factor is language. Creativity. The religious and scientific impulse. An our social organization, which has developed to a prodigious degree. We have a record of history, moral behavior, economics, political and social institutions. We’re probably unique in our ability to investigate the future, imagine outcomes, and display images in our minds. I like to think of a generator of diversity in the frontal lobe.” (reference) [...]

By: Sajjad

Sajjad — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 04:43:03 +0000

What it means to be human!
To me, this is meaningless. Why don’t we ask, what it means to be a peacock, a bull and so on?
Each species is unique. All the animals are best adapted to their environments. Language and big brain are a necessary means of survival for humans. Why should animals have language and reasoning abilities, if they can do well with what they already have?
What we possess is not something to be very proud of. It is just a means of survival. And each species has it own means.

By: Peter E. Jones

Peter E. Jones — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:04:06 +0000

Being human, I’d love to see and hear this panel.
Does anyone know of a link to the video or even audio?

thanks!

PS Are we the only species to blush at embarrassment?
And I hope I don’t need to should there be a dead obvious link . . .

By: Four Stone Hearth #42 « Neuroanthropology

Four Stone Hearth #42 « Neuroanthropology — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:17:30 +0000

[...] location (neuroanthropology feels your pain; we still can’t find our silverware…) has a great post on the panel, “What it means to be human,” held at this year’s World Science Festival in New York City. Turns out every speaker was wrong [...]

By: anthony webster

anthony webster — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:26:50 +0000

Let me also add, that as an anthropologist, what always fascinates me are two sets of questions: Why the question of human versus non-human gets asked? And why some very much want our primate kin to have “language.”

By: anthony webster

anthony webster — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:22:31 +0000

I would agree with much of what Lev says, and I would add that it is, in my mind, a qualitative distinction.

By: LevMichael

LevMichael — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:46:16 +0000

There are certainly no groups of humans without serious cognitive impairment that lack human language (the question of 'wild children' aside). One thing you might find interesting is how quickly groups of humans can create a fully expressive language when the need arises. Creole languages, for example, developed in contexts where a sudden need for a shared language arose, most commonly due to the forced mixing of speakers of diverse languages in contexts of slavery. Within a few generations, these mixed communities created radically new languages. Another famous case of language genesis is that of Nicaraguan Sign Language, about which there is a decent Wikipedia article (here).

By: TheMonkeyMan

TheMonkeyMan — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:30:41 +0000

Thanks, tis interesting stuff. I have never, ever touched upon language/linguistics personally so have zero understanding of the field, but what you say makes sense.

Within the living Homo sapiens throughtout the world are there any examples of entire groups that completely lack human language? Or is it very much ubiquitous.

By: LevMichael

LevMichael — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:57:54 +0000

Qualitative. That is, human language exhibits features completely absent from known systems of animal communication. Tony brings up one nice example of such a feature, namely, that human languages are also function as metalanguages — that is, they can be used to talk *about* language. Other unique characteristics of human language include open-ended combinatorial flexibility and the organization of meaningful units into classes that allow for the compositional creation of new meanings.

Systems of animal communication lack the kind of structural flexibility and creativity that we are discusssing here, as well as the semantic reflexivity that Tony mentions, so the difference is probably best seen as one of kind, and not of degree.