[Art]

I came across this question yesterday and gave it quite a bit of thought so now it's your turn.

What defines a Human? Standing & walking upright? (what about no legs then)?
Speech? Hearing? Touch? Smell? Taste? (there are many people who are unable to perform some or many of these tasks.
So arms are out as well.

Fast forward a few years (decade +- perhaps)...
If a person was in a horrible accident and left without a face or skull and his or her brain was still alive, functioning and kept in a laboratory vessel, would it still be Human?

How do we measure what a Human is rather than what makes us human?

What if the person's brain could still communicate with others via speech synthesis and audio input or brain to image transfer?

Is that person still Human? or a Human?

*(With apologies to my friend, Mav).

Also no intended poke at the heads in Jars from TV's Futurama.

[keghn]

 There are people who want be more than human. To be able to take on a new form. That time may be twenty years away?
 When that day come people may take on extra risk because insurance will pay for new parts that are better the real ones.
 Or solders will want to get injured, or a generals will put more harms way of his solders because he want the best.
  In the future, people will live a normal life and when the reach old age they will replace all of parts with synthetic super
human parts and live out life protecting the human race. But his could be accelerated by getting hurt in a accident.

Old human cells rejuvenated in breakthrough discovery on ageing: 

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-11-human-cells-rejuvenated-breakthrough-discovery.html 

[Maviarab]

Hmm Art?  Apologies?  What did I miss lol....

As for the question, it would be our consciousness and emotions that make us human.  Those two things do make us quite unique.  Sure other creatures have both to some varying degree (birds protecting their nest/young etc.....or crocodiles etc)...but is to the same extent as ours?  Or is just nature?

I give my explanation as you said what if a brain was a in a jar but could still communicate?  Well, said organ would still have it's own consciousness and emotions.  The body is irrelevant.  My brief 5 minute take on it anyway.

But seriously...what did I miss? lmao...what are you apologising for?

[Art]

Mav...I sort of thought it would be obvious but does the name "Suki" ring a bell?

Also, old friend, check your site messages when you have a moment. Thanks!

- Art -

[Maviarab]

Ahh...she did cross my mind yes....but didn't really get the connection.  and no apology needed

[Thierry]

If a person was in a horrible accident and left without a face or skull and his or her brain was still alive, functioning and kept in a laboratory vessel, would it still be Human?

Many questions in this post ! But to answer the one above : if a person had such accident with such consequences yes this person would be still human . Why ? Because of his previous interactions (before accident) with other humans. The other humans would still interact with him the same way. If this person had no previous social existence (therefore no interactions with other humans) then this person would use artificial actuators to convince (if he wishes to convince of course) new people that he is human too. How ? May be by refering to verifiable events occurred in his life previously to accident (a marriage, the place where his family is from, or just a simple ID card !).

[keghn]

[Zero]

What defines Human?

"Human" is just a word. Words are blurry. If you can ask a perfectly precise question, you'll have an answer. Don't try to answer the question, that's impossible. Instead, just try to ask it.

[ivan.moony]

Ability to have a choice of being either good or mean.

[keghn]

Founding An Inbreeding-Free Space Colony:

[Art]

I knew I'd heard that song before...

It was the TV Series Theme song for those charming three witches in, "Charmed".

Nice!

[8pla.net]

Latin defines Human (as Homo).

[infurl]

There is only one characteristic that sets humans apart from all other animals. We cook our food. This means that we use a much smaller proportion of our available energy digesting our food. We are able to expend more than a third of our available energy thinking whereas other animals, no matter how intelligent, can afford to spend less than 10 percent of their available energy thinking. Everything else follows from that one difference.

[Thierry]

There is only one characteristic that sets humans apart from all other animals. We cook our food. This means that we use a much smaller proportion of our available energy digesting our food. We are able to expend more than a third of our available energy thinking whereas other animals, no matter how intelligent, can afford to spend less than 10 percent of their available energy thinking. Everything else follows from that one difference.

No the very first difference is "secondary tools".
Monkeys and humans can use a rock as a tool. This tool is called "primary tool". But humans were the only "animals" to use a rock to make another better rock. This tool is a "secondary tool".

[infurl]

No the very first difference is "secondary tools".
Monkeys and humans can use a rock as a tool. This tool is called "primary tool". But humans were the only "animals" to use a rock to make another better rock. This tool is a "secondary tool".

The distinction is animals that only know how to use tools that they find, versus animals that know how to make tools. There are many kinds of animals (and birds) that can make tools, so you are wrong.

Do some research and you will find that of all animals, chimpanzees are the only animals other than humans that have a natural understanding of fire, but they don't know how to use it. Human beings alone are capable of harnessing external sources of energy as an aid to living.