Humans are not alive and don't feel anything .

[Eddi]

You are making the mistake of keep thinking a human body when a body a human occupies it not human , it is just an animal . You have failed to see the significance of an empty box and one full of words . Defining humanity as a set of defining words and placing these words in a box does not form any sort dependency for the box . The box exists physically but all the words that go in the box are abstract and made up to represent things outside the box . If we remove all the words from the box then obviously the box has no humanity .
I am sorry but you are failing to understand rather than me being at error .

You need to go back to the drawing board

You obviously have an idea in your head that is very different to the ideas that most other people have in theirs. This is not a bad thing, this is not a criticism indeed I think it's a good thing

But you need to work on explaining what you mean

You need to be more sensitive to the understandings that other people already have and to say what you have to say in light of this, otherwise all people will hear is gibberish. What you say has to be intelligible to others before they can consider it, otherwise they will just dismiss it.

You are making the mistake of keep thinking a human body when a body a human occupies it not human , it is just an animal

This is a claim. It needs unpacking and rephrasing. And surely if a human body is occupied by a human then that body is human????? If you can call it a "human body" then surely that implies that it is indeed human! - you need to be more consistent

Also, I don't get what you mean by "human" and by "animal", this is not clear and you need to explain the distinction between the two, you haven't really said what you mean by these......

And how can words go into a box???? What does that even mean???? It seems like an elaborate metaphor and you haven't really explained it. It may be clear in your head and make perfect sense to you and maybe it would make perfect sense to me too, but you have to communicate it and I'm sorry but you haven't.

Defining humanity as a set of defining words and placing these words in a box does not form any sort dependency for the box

So, you're saying that "humanity" is a human construct? Yes it is. But I don't see how this leads to "humans are not alive and don't feel anything"

"Humans are not alive and don't feel anything" is your claim and you have yet to adequately explain this in terms that other people can understand. Anyone can make claims, the hard work comes to getting them over to humans in terms that they understand so that they can then assess them.

You need to make it so other people don't fail to understand what you have to say. That's your job as a thinker and a writer. Your job is to get what is in your skull into the skulls of other people. That comes before persuading them that whatever is in your skull is right.

I wish you luck with your projects and it is good that you're thinking about things.

 

[jes-us]

And how can words go into a box???? What does that even mean???? It seems like an elaborate metaphor and you haven't really explained it. It may be clear in your head and make perfect sense to you and maybe it would make perfect sense to me too, but you have to communicate it and I'm sorry but you haven't.

[/QUOTE]
I am a bit surprised you couldn't determine the box was a metaphor for a persons mind .

So, you're saying that "humanity" is a human construct? Yes it is. But I don't see how this leads to "humans are not alive and don't feel anything"

[/QUOTE]
Because the human construct is information in the form of words . This information is light based and can't feel pain or be alive in a sense of a living breathing thing . For example when you stump your toe , the body feels the pain , the words inside your mind don't feel a thing , that is why your head doesn't hurt too ,

"Humans are not alive and don't feel anything" is your claim and you have yet to adequately explain this in terms that other people can understand. Anyone can make claims, the hard work comes to getting them over to humans in terms that they understand so that they can then assess them.

You need to make it so other people don't fail to understand what you have to say. That's your job as a thinker and a writer. Your job is to get what is in your skull into the skulls of other people. That comes before persuading them that whatever is in your skull is right.

I wish you luck with your projects and it is good that you're thinking about things.

I consider my explanation is easy to understand and you are assuming people don't understand . However , let me try to explain in an alternative way . Imagine if a monkey could learn to talk and learn human rules etc , a bit like planet of the apes .
This monkey would no longer be a monkey , it would be a human . The human part would be the secondary formed existence within the animal , making the monkey human .

 

[Bthoth]

What is a human ? A human is a formed set of defining words that are hosted by a sentient being .

A human being is formed in the womb, after Mom and Dad did the wild thing. No words required.

When an infant is born , that infant isn't a human

Sure it is. It's a life developing. With your point of view, there would be no problem with abortions and christianity

, it is instead an animal that has no formed humanity .

Humans are formed within the host and are not subject to any feelings but can experience feelings via the mind and body experience .

Alive and developing.

In example let us consider a new born baby boy , at this stage the boy is without an identity or humanity .

Named at birth like the rest of us.

Now let us call this boy Jesus ,

Joshua in english.

Jesus is a word and the beginning of the formation of Jesus within the sentient host .

Jesus is a name (label)

Now let us consider that Jesus in the future gains many words , ''I am Jesus and I am formed from words '' .

That is a creation, like Bilbo. Hesus, is how to say Jesus today (the future)

Now let us consider taking away all the words Jesus knows , including his own name . Jesus would exist no more , there would just be left the body , the work of God .

Parents still did the work (make the child), the person is still a person (human) even without a name (label)

Humans are alive and still have feelings if human (sentient) even without a name.

 

[jes-us]

A human being is formed in the womb, after Mom and Dad did the wild thing. No words required.

Sure it is. It's a life developing. With your point of view, there would be no problem with abortions and christianity




Alive and developing.

Named at birth like the rest of us.

Joshua in english.

Jesus is a name (label)

That is a creation, like Bilbo. Hesus, is how to say Jesus today (the future)

Parents still did the work (make the child), the person is still a person (human) even without a name (label)

Humans are alive and still have feelings if human (sentient) even without a name.

No , a human being isn't formed in the womb , an infant has no humanity as already mentioned and discussed prior in this thread . We are animals essentially until we are taught to be humans after birth . Humanity is a set of defining instructions based on words .

 

[Bthoth]

No , a human being isn't formed in the womb , an infant has no humanity as already mentioned and discussed prior in this thread . We are animals essentially until we are taught to be humans after birth . Humanity is a set of defining instructions based on words .

Wow! call the pope, tell that to the christian churches and trump0craps..... with your opinion, abortion can go the full 9 months plus about 2 yrs.

Are you joking and just picking on me?


Did the devol make this?

 

[jes-us]

Wow! call the pope, tell that to the christian churches and trump0craps..... with your opinion, abortion can go the full 9 months plus about 2 yrs.

Are you joking and just picking on me?


Did the devol make this?

In reality a fetus isn't a human until that fetus can speak it's first humanised words or complete human tasks/instructions . However , we recognise these Fetus's has being a potential in becoming human , so no , the human construct shouldn't allow abortion unless there is extreme circumstance such as unwanted pregnancy from rape .

 

[paarsurrey]

Humans are not alive and don't feel anything .

Are you a human?

Regards

 

[David1967]

Someone with an ignore-list.

Best answer on this thread so far.

 

[jes-us]

Humans are not alive and don't feel anything .

Are you a human?

Regards

Actually no , I am no longer human because I consider I have evolved beyond being a simplistic set of human instructions and words . The formation of information in my mind differs from the typical human .

 

[Eddi]

I am a bit surprised you couldn't determine the box was a metaphor for a persons mind .

Why should I? Why are you surprised? I've never heard that metaphor before and I think the human mind is not really like a box, I think that's a very crude way of looking at it. It is way more complex than that. I'm not telepathic and you probably aren't either and would telepathy even work over the internet?

You didn't explain it, it may seem like a brilliant metaphor to you but I personally would never have come up with that

Because the human construct is information in the form of words . This information is light based and can't feel pain or be alive in a sense of a living breathing thing . For example when you stump your toe , the body feels the pain , the words inside your mind don't feel a thing , that is why your head doesn't hurt too ,

Yes, but those words relate to a thing that exists objectively.

The words cannot feel pain, of course they can't, but the things they refer to can

And what on Earth is "light based" information??????

So, you've established that a thing is different to the words used to describe that thing. So what?

A mental concept such as "human" relates to the reality of humans. It is used to conceptualise objective reality so we can think about objective things. Are you saying that because a thing is represented in peoples' minds as a concept it doesn't really exist?????

I consider my explanation is easy to understand and you are assuming people don't understand

Well I'm telling you you're wrong, and to be frank I think most people who have responded to you think you're talking ****

How many people do you think you have won over??????

Again, it's your job as a writer and a thinker to make people understand

It's irrelevant whether you yourself think it's easy to understand as the whole point in writing it down is to make other people understand

It's called "communication"

If I don't understand that's not my problem as a reader, that's your problem as a writer

I'm reasonably intelligent. Obviously morons will never understand you but if people who are reasonably intelligent can't then that's different. And I'm not talking about agreeing with you, I'm talking about understanding you.

I cannot understand things if they are messy and expressed in gibberish. Again, I am not telepathic and neither are you.

It is you who have failed, not me

Look at Jesus Christ, he spoke using terms everyone could understand, even though he spoke in parables!

But you're not Jesus Christ, and neither am I

Imagine if a monkey could learn to talk and learn human rules etc , a bit like planet of the apes .
This monkey would no longer be a monkey , it would be a human . The human part would be the secondary formed existence within the animal , making the monkey human .

No, it would be like a human but it wouldn't be one

If I get a car and paint it to look like a police car and put flashing lights and a siren on it then it wouldn't be a police car, it would be like a police car - but yes, it would still be a car

Such a monkey would be a person, most certainly, but not a human

It would have some humanity, yes, of course, but it would ALSO be a monkey, the humanity wouldn't detract from its status as a monkey

It would be "human" in one sense of the word in that it would have humanity as it would have human traits but it wouldn't be "human" in another sense of the word as it wouldn't be a member of the Homo Sapiens species. Words can have multiple meanings you know?

But either way, this does not support your claim that "humans are not alive and don't feel anything"

As far as I can see it has nothing to do with that claim

Most people understand "humans" to refer to people who are alive and who feel things. If you think this is not the case then you have to put in the effort to persuade people to see things in a different light

 

[The Hammer]

f the animal host wouldn't go anywhere if we removed the words . A new born infant doesn't know that he is a he or she a she until the word identity as been given so I am not wrong . A new born infant has no words its mind , therefore does not have identity . I think your answer was based on a outside perspective . Obviously has humans we teach a girl she is a girl and we teach a boy they are boy , identified by appearance .

Ja, that's a big 10-No friend.

 

[jes-us]

And what on Earth is "light based" information??????

[/QUOTE]
Light based information is a wave-function . An example of wave function is the light based information that is sent via broadcast by satellites . Data in simple terms .

A mental concept such as "human" relates to the reality of humans. It is used to conceptualise objective reality so we can think about objective things. Are you saying that because a thing is represented in peoples' minds as a concept it doesn't really exist?????

[/QUOTE]
Ok , you have the wrong impression of what a human is . Being a human is a way of life , a set of defining instructions based on words . A mother tells her child to eat their food properly , stop being an animal . The child looks at their mother and replies , '' why are you trying to change what I am? ''

If I get a car and paint it to look like a police car and put flashing lights and a siren on it then it wouldn't be a police car, it would be like a police car - but yes, it would still be a car

Such a monkey would be a person, most certainly, but not a human

[/QUOTE]
No , the monkey would be human because it would be following the human act . The monkeys mind would have the same human wave functions as ourselves . The monkey would no longer be an animal , like us it would act human based on a defining set of instructions . When infants learn they turn from animals into humanised . If a monkey could learn human traits , the monkey would become humanised . A man walks into a restaurant and behind the service counter is a monkey who wishes the man a good day and takes his order . The monkey is acting human . A man walks into a restaurant and behind the counter is an animal that looks similar to himself (another human) , this animal acts human and takes his order . What's the difference ?

 

[jes-us]

Ja, that's a big 10-No friend.

Quite clearly you are making that no up , because the answer I give is correct .

 

[Eddi]

Light based information is a wave-function . An example of wave function is the light based information that is sent via broadcast by satellites . Data in simple terms .

OK, fair enough

But this is Religious Forums, not Science Forums

Ok , you have the wrong impression of what a human is . Being a human is a way of life , a set of defining instructions based on words . A mother tells her child to eat their food properly , stop being an animal . The child looks at their mother and replies , '' why are you trying to change what I am? ''

It could be a way of life as well as other things

Indeed I'd say that it is... amongst other things

No , the monkey would be human because it would be following the human act . The monkeys mind would have the same human wave functions as ourselves

Yes, it would have the characteristics of a human

But it would still be a different species - and that is a legitimate reason for it not to call it a human

It would be human in some regards, that would be correct, but not in others

The truth is not always either black or white indeed I'd say it is mostly grey

The monkey would no longer be an animal , like us it would act human based on a defining set of instructions .

I agree but I don't think it would be entirely human either

It would still be a monkey, it would perhaps be a human monkey!

I mean could it have sex with a Homo Sapien and have viable babies with them? No. It couldn't. So it wouldn't be human in that regard even if it was in others and if it isn't a human in some regards then overall I wouldn't say that it is human

If a monkey could learn human traits , the monkey would become humanised .

Yes, but it wouldn't be an actual human

It would be "human" as an adjective but not as a noun

A man walks into a restaurant and behind the service counter is a monkey who wishes the man a good day and takes his order . The monkey is acting human . A man walks into a restaurant and behind the counter is an animal that looks similar to himself (another human) , this animal acts human and takes his order . What's the difference ?

It would be functionally human - it would be human in some regards and not in others

It therefore wouldn't be absolutely human and it would still have the essence of a monkey

I would say that such a being would be "human" but not "a human"

But it's an interesting thing to think about

I think that for practical terms such a being should be treated as being the equal of any human and should be afforded the same rights etc. but it would be human in a different way

That's what I think anyway

If such a being existed then it would change the way we think of humans!

 

[jes-us]

OK, fair enough

But this is Religious Forums, not Science Forums

It could be a way of life as well as other things

Indeed I'd say that it is... amongst other things

Yes, it would have the characteristics of a human

But it would still be a different species - and that is a legitimate reason for it not to call it a human

It would be human in some regards, that would be correct, but not in others

The truth is not always either black or white indeed I'd say it is mostly grey


I agree but I don't think it would be entirely human either

It would still be a monkey, it would perhaps be a human monkey!

I mean could it have sex with a Homo Sapien and have viable babies with them? No. It couldn't. So it wouldn't be human in that regard even if it was in others and if it isn't a human in some regards then overall I wouldn't say that it is human

Yes, but it wouldn't be an actual human

It would be "human" as an adjective but not as a noun

It would be functionally human - it would be human in some regards and not in others

It therefore wouldn't be absolutely human and it would still have the essence of a monkey

I would say that such a being would be "human" but not "a human"

But it's an interesting thing to think about

I think that for practical terms such a being should be treated as being the equal of any human and should be afforded the same rights etc. but it would be human in a different way

That's what I think anyway

If such a being existed then it would change the way we think of humans!

Ok, here is where our thinking differs . A human is a word , that word only exist as a part of formed humanity . A long time ago when humanity wasn't formed , the bodies that host humans were formed but they couldn't be classed as humans , firstly because the word didn't exist and secondly because they didn't act human , were more natural and animal like .
A human is a label , if the monkey acts human , it can't be labelled as a monkey . You explain a human monkey but the reason that fails is because that would be racist towards the monkey . Just because the monkey looks different , that doesn't mean the monkey isn't human .

A long time ago before words , two different species of animal learnt to talk and act human , these days we'd call one of the species a human and the other a monkey . However , back then the term human or monkey didn't exist . One day an alien time traveller arrived back in time to witness the monkey and human talking . However , the argument was which one was the monkey and which one was the human ?

 

[The Hammer]

Quite clearly you are making that no up , because the answer I give is correct .

It's really not.

But please, continue.

 

[jes-us]

It's really not.

But please, continue.

If in your mind , you did not have a secondary existence of humanity , it is most likely you wouldn't obey any laws .

 

[Eddi]

Are you from the future, a time in which the monkeys have taken over?

Ok, here is where our thinking differs . A human is a word , that word only exist as a part of formed humanity . A long time ago when humanity wasn't formed , the bodies that host humans were formed but they couldn't be classed as humans , firstly because the word didn't exist and secondly because they didn't act human , were more natural and animal like .

"Human" is a word but it is a word that is attached to the reality of humans. It would have been possible for humans to exist and there not be the word. But using humans as the example to get at this thinking makes things more problematic. Let's instead switch to dinosaurs.

"Dinosaur" is a word and also a concept. Before humans existed when the Dinosaurs were around you had Dinosaurs but there was nobody around to name or conceptualise them (apart from God of course)

When Dinosaurs existed there wasn't a word for them but they still existed as Dinosaurs

There was a the reality of Dinosaurs but there was nobody around to call them that, but there were still Dinosaurs. Ask God.

We can retrospectively apply the word to them

And also to the fossils they left behind

I'm still not 100% clear on what exactly you're saying but I'm getting there. Let's go into this a bit more in terms of Dinosaurs

I want to get to the bottom of this

A human is a label , if the monkey acts human , it can't be labelled as a monkey . You explain a human monkey but the reason that fails is because that would be racist towards the monkey . Just because the monkey looks different , that doesn't mean the monkey isn't human .

How can you be "racist" towards a member of a different species?

I'd treat them equally too

And it doesn't just look different, it would have different DNA and would be unable to have viable offspring with any human

It would have a totally different physiology

I'm sticking with the idea of the "Human Monkey"

You haven't persuaded me to abandon that

A long time ago before words , two different species of animal learnt to talk and act human , these days we'd call one of the species a human and the other a monkey . However , back then the term human or monkey didn't exist . One day an alien time traveller arrived back in time to witness the monkey and human talking . However , the argument was which one was the monkey and which one was the human ?

Yes, the label "monkey" and "human" did not exist, but the reality of "monkey" and "human" did

And surely God himself would have operated a distinction between the two?

And for the time-traveller I'd say they would both be people - one of the people a monkey and the other person a human

They would after all both be primates and would probably have more in common than what sets them apart

 

[jes-us]

Yes, the label "monkey" and "human" did not exist, but the reality of "monkey" and "human" did

And surely God himself would have operated a distinction between the two?

And for the time-traveller I'd say they would both be people - one of the people a monkey and the other person a human

They would after all both be primates and would probably have more in common than what sets them apart

Yes when God created animals , God made animals different for distinction . However , God did not create humans . Back in time the bodies existed that God created but humans didn't exist until after years and years when humanity was formed . Humanity was and is a command structure that makes an animal , human . This was never a part of Gods works , humanity wrote its own programming like a virus that would spread across the land . Each country formed its own version of humanity , some with common ground . However , this formation is a secondary existence within a sentient being and a variate .
The human act is distinctive and if a monkey acted human , then without doubt the monkey has formed humanity , a secondary existence within itself .
You've obviously heard a Parrot talk , can you tell me what species language the Parrot talks in ?

 

[Bthoth]

Actually no , I am no longer human because I consider I have evolved beyond being a simplistic set of human instructions and words . The formation of information in my mind differs from the typical human .

cling-on?