>
>Let me draw this back to the problem of how to determine humanity in the
>fossil record. I would submit that, like the Turing test, if the hominid
>leaves lots of evidence of having behaved in human ways, that we have little
>choice but to classify him and her as human. Primitive humans make huts: H.
>erectus made huts, Neanderthal made huts. Humans make jewelry, Neanderthal
>made jewellry.
>etc etc.
>
>While Jim and others may not agree, I see no other way of determining who is
>human.
>
I think this turned into quite an interesting discussion and I really
appreciate the contributions made by several people. The way I look
at problems like this is I think strongly affected by my experimentalist
up bringing. So I really enjoyed John Rylanders posts as they helped
reinforce what I think are some basic points in the way science works,
especially if one's view of science is strongly tied to the empirical,
as mine is. I also enjoyed David Bowman's devil's advocate post.
"It is not certain that all is uncertain, to the glory of skepticism"
"But is it probable that probability yields certainty?"
-- Pascal
Now, to your question. Given my druthers, I guess I'd rather not decide
who is human. Suppose I had to?. This reminds me of when, as a grad
student, I overheard an argument between one of my advisors (probably
the most brilliant man I've ever known) and a young faculty member.
They were discussing which formulation of mechanics was more
fundamental, a direct formulation in terms of Newtons Laws or the
alternate formulation in terms of least action. Reading through a biography
of Richard Feynman lately made me realise that this question actually
has some rather important metaphysical implications. In his early days
at MIT, Feynman adamently refused to solve any problem by the principle
of least action. It was too mysterious. Well, I'm digressing as usual :).
My professor said that he really didn't want to have to choose, but if
a gun were pointed to his head and his life depended on his answer, he
would go with Sir Isaac.
So, my answer is that I would rather not decide. If a gun were at my head,
I would go with Glenn. But my heart is not in this answer. When you say:
>While Jim and others may not agree, I see no other way of determining who is
>human.
I would rather say, perhaps we shouldn't try to determine. Perhaps we have
no way of determining. Maybe its undecidable ;-).
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University