Talk:Human/Archive 26 - Misplaced Pages

< Talk:Human

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sam Spade (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 20 May 2005 (Mels mess). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:17, 20 May 2005 by Sam Spade (talk | contribs) (Mels mess)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Primates NA‑class

	Primates portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate
NA	This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

To-do list for Human/Archive 26: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

Intense sunbathing

Did "intense sun" kill off Africans with pale skin? I've been to Africa. It's hot, but I can't see how it would kill you, so long as you had water. Would Rednblu mind explaining the mechanism for this, and would he mind explaining why the same sun has not exterminated paler people in other places at the same latitude? Grace Note 22:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good questions, Grace. I have these thoughts.

According to Jablonski and Chaplin the correlation of skin color is with the Average Annual UV radiation that strikes the ground, not with the latitude. That is, for example, people whose ancestors have lived in the Amazon rainforest for thousands of years and seldom have direct sunlight strike their skin have much paler skin in their underarm area where there is little tanning than do people whose ancestors have lived for thousands of years in a lot of sunlight in Africa at the same latitude. There is a nice little formula-fit to the empirical data that Jablonski and Chaplin discovered-- W=70-AUV/10 (coefficients rounded) where W is whiteness measured in percentage of light reflected from upper inner arm skin and AUV is the average annual UV striking the ground as measured by satellite measurements of light reflected from the ground--not from treetops and not from clouds--in all those billions of square centimeters of the earth.
Jablonski (at 61) and others have made the argument that the evolutionary constraint that forces black skin in Africa -- over generations, not over individuals -- is that, without the melanin in black skin, the intense sun depletes the mother's body of folic acid, which is destroyed by sunlight and decimated by intense sunlight on the mother's skin. Folic acid deficiency leads to increased danger of fetal neural tube defects which result in birth defects of the brain and spinal column. Folic acid is essential to the fetus's synthesis of DNA and RNA. If the mother has a folic acid deficiency, the fetus takes what little folic acid the mother has, and the mother develops anemia because the mother is not left with enough folic acid to construct red blood cells. Ouch! Ouch. ---Rednblu | Talk 01:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting! This leaves me with a question for future research: if black skin is advantageous in the african sun and the human race was originally all black, then what is the "advantage" of white, yellow, or red skin that led to the spread of different skin colors once we left africa? surely black skin would not be a disadvantage in colder climes -- so why did the other colors develop and spread? what selection pressure caused the color change away from black? Also, noting again that the sun is damaging to the skin and thick hair protects the skin from sun as well as cold, what selection pressure caused the shift from hairy to virtually hairless? (as i sidebar, i note that their observations regarding the advantages of black skin would explain the races if humanity started out with the genetic capacity to be black, white, red, and yellow, and the black skinned folks would have survived best in africa, while the other races could simply have been the result of genetic drift without any selection pressure at all). but in your model, where did the whiteness come from? Ungtss 14:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The advantage is that the paler the skin in those areas, the more D-vitamin it can produce. I am sceptical about the "became white then killed them of" then "became white then they migrated to scandinavia where they survived", if its anything, its "migrated from africa then became paler to take in more sun to synthetize vitamin D." Because of this little error in the article I would remove it entirley, because it also leans towards racism or races, such subjets, as this, should be in the racism or race article, a simple "see also" towrads that would suffice. Foant 12:10, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

it seems there are studies linking black skin in northern areas through vitamin D deficiency all the way to prostate cancer and breast cancer ... there's the disadvantage ... thanks for clearing that up for me:). Ungtss 14:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd question several claims made in this section of the article:

there are 18 different mutations in the MC1R protein The large number of mutations in the non-coding region that regulates the expression of MRC1 are important too
the intense African sun has killed off the descendants of those who stayed in Africa we don't have evidence for lethality, all we know is that lightly pigmented hominds were replaced by darkly pigmented ones; change cannot happen that quickly, it would take a few generations at the very least; more likely hair was lost and skin darkened simultaneously
all indigenous Africans tested have exactly the same MC1R protein are you sure? most of all human genetic varaition is found within africa; mrc1 may be one of the many exceptions to that pattern, but I doubt we can make such a strong statement

Perhaps a less detailed, more general description, with links to the corresponding articles (skin color, natural selection, human evolution, etc.) would help clear this up. --Rikurzhen 22:45, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rikurzhen, that's very helpful, thank you. If you have any time to begin such a section, that would be much appreciated, but if not, don't worry; your input here is already invalable. In the meantime, I've made that section invisible until we figure out whether we should keep any of it. SlimVirgin 23:48, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. :) If we cant make that then I suggest a simple See also, racism (skin color), natural selection and so forht. Foant

---

<<I'd question several claims made in this section of the article:>

Original and personal research may be praiseworthy in some endeavors. ;) But I suggest that this original and personal research is out of place in Misplaced Pages; for Misplaced Pages supposedly is governed by a NPOV policy that requires quoting, paraphrasing, and citing actual published scholars. If you wish to compare your personal and original research with the actual published scholars, you might start by reading Harding, Rosalind M., Eugene Healy, Amanda J. Ray, Nichola S. Ellis, Niamh Flanagan, Carol Todd, Craig Dixon, Antti Sajantila, Ian J. Jackson, Mark A. Birch-Machin, and Jonathan L. Rees. 2000. "Evidence for variable selective pressures at MC1R." American Journal of Human Genetics 66: 1351-1361. :)) For example, if you actually consult the Harding chart, Figure 1 on page 1353, you might have good reason to replace the phrase "18 different mutations in the MC1R protein" with "16 different mutations in the MC1R protein"--if you ignore the several variations where there are two successive mutations in the protein. :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 05:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Rebnblu, my criticisms arise from two sources: (1) I did a precursory literature search for papers on mc1r and found discussion of considerably greater variation than 18 mutations in the coding region (mutations that affect the expression of the gene are also important, and ignoring them would be misleading) and (2) my personal/professional knowledge of genetics. What I'm suggesting is that the paragraph in question seems insufficiently researched and that it makes claims that are prima facia dubious (e.g. UV "killing" light skined hominds as a powerful selective pressure that operates within a single generation). Then I suggested that a smaller paragraph that makes fewer claims that are possibly false or misleading would be appropriate, with a link to a larger article to fully discuss human skin color. --Rikurzhen 06:08, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

For a recent review see Jonathan L. Rees "GENETICS OF HAIR AND SKIN COLOR" Annual Review of Genetics 2003 37, 67-90. for example, "Studies have shown that the MC1R coding region is highly polymorphic, with over 35 segregating sites identified to date" --Rikurzhen 06:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

---

<<powerful selective pressure that operates within a single generation>>

!! What specific text are you distorting to get this strawman conclusion? I suggest that the underlying upset here and the cause of the current censorship of the research in this paragraph is that white people--the censors--find it very difficult to deal with the empirical evidence that their ancient ancestors were black, black, black--as black as the blackest noble Africans are today. ---Rednblu | Talk 15:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

hm, what? he was only saying that sunlight "killing off" pale skinned people is suggestive of a single-generation selection mechanism. Also, of course everybody's ancestors were black. But how does that make them "noble"?? Everybody's yet earlier ancestors were just hairy, with "white" skin under their hair. dab (ᛏ) 15:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I believe that I and many others commenting in this section got that impression from the text. For example <<Did "intense sun" kill off Africans with pale skin>> started this comment thread. I hope you can see how the text might lead us to that conclusion. I think it would be best if we kept the discussion in the article to a small number of easy to understand facts, and leave the specific details for the main article. For example, we should mention here:

other African apes have dense body hair coverage and pale skin
both prominent theories of human evolution suggest that our ancestors ultamately originated from Africa
most or all of the "modern" ancestors of contemporary humans originated in Africa (trying not to favor the single origin over multiregional hypothesis)
contemporary humans have widely varying skin and hair color
Africans have dark skin color, which is probably an adaptation to protect against UV that is associated with the loss of body hair
humans who left Africa for environments with less intense UV became more pale
the MC1R gene is currently the best understood regulator or skin and hair color (in humans and other mammals), but it is not the only gene involved

I would like to suggest that we also need a section on human evolution, where points like 2 and 3 can be described in slightly more detail as background for other sections in this article that indirectly discuss human evolution. --Rikurzhen 18:47, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with that, Rikurzhen. Thanks for putting so much time into this. SlimVirgin 21:33, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

what about this?

what about a section near the top entitled. (forgive me for my loose and off-the cuff definitions -- they can do with refinement).

What a human is

There are a number of views regarding the nature of humanity.

Materialism holds that a human is matter comprising a biological organism which has acquired a certain set of characteristics as a result of the laws of nature.
Abrahamic religion holds that is a spiritual being which was deliberately created in the image of God.
Pantheism holds that a human is a spiritual being interwoven into a spiritual universe which ultimately reflects an all-encompassing immanent God.

??? Ungtss 22:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that would make a good second section, actually. I really like your summary of pantheism, btw (as a pantheist ;) Sam Spade 23:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

thanks, man:). what does everybody else think? Ungtss 01:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Unacceptable. How can I live with myself if I don't exclude the views of half the earth's population from this article? --goethean 02:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

for my part, i don't know a single person in the world who would disagree with anything in the intro -- it's certainly not complete, but it's factual. wouldn't our mutual goal of including the major views about human nature be met by putting it in a second section which explores them? Ungtss 02:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd support a new section underneath the introduction that outlines these views. Good idea, Ungtss. SlimVirgin 02:31, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks:). I'll put her up and see if she flies:). Ungtss 02:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to check with the others and discuss the wording. SlimVirgin 03:03, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

oops:(. Ungtss 03:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

No way. These are not distinctions between views. It's perfectly possible to hold all three or none of these views. Can't you stick to the creationist pages for this nonsense? Mischaracterising the views of people who don't agree with you is fine for talk pages but not in the actual documents. I will not support any attempt to insert that POV here, nor to polarise the discussion.Grace Note 03:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

whoa. do you have any suggestions for wording changes, or is it your position that it should be deleted entirely? Ungtss 03:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it's entirely unacceptable. The distinctions are not real and they're not accurate. You could easily hold all three views and many people do. It would be far more accurate to say that most views of humans are composite. Hold on though! We already do. The introduction says that.Grace Note 03:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

you didn't answer my question. is it your position that the section should be fixed and remain, or be deleted entirely? Ungtss 03:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think "I think it's entirely unacceptable" quite clearly says that I think it has no place in this article. Grace Note 11:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

well, "it" could mean either "the idea of the section is totally unacceptable" or "the section as you wrote it is totally unacceptable." all the arguments you made went to the quality of the writing, not to the idea of the section. why is it inappropriate to have the section itself? i think the section will benefit the page as follows:

1) provide mention of the major understandings regarding human nature itself.

2) this will prevent the objection that the article takes a "materialistic" pov to the exclusion of other povs -- by allowing that not all thinkers about humanity are materialists.

3) many many people have expressed concern about that aspect of this article -- most want the issue addressed in the intro. i'm trying to get the issue covered in a second section, to end the perennial pov conflict that's been raging here for months.

4) if it's the quality of the distinctions i made, those can be refined and corrected without deleting it entirely. for instance, we could clarify that "these views are not necessarily mutually exclusive," and add any other pertinent views you might know of. the inadequacy of my stub version is cause for improvement, not deletion. what do you think? Ungtss 14:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the entire section is inappropriate. I don't think "materialist" is a word I would use for the POV that opposes it. None of it was actually explanatory. Did you read the article I have mentioned now four, five times?Grace Note 14:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

your arguments still go to the content and quality of the section, rather than the idea of the section itself. if i used the wrong word, fix the word. if it's not explanatory, make it so. i'm not sure what article you're referring to. why is the idea of the section itself a bad idea, insofar as it may serve to resolve this endless edit conflict if it is properly executed? Ungtss 14:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Until you turned up with this section, Ungtss, the only conflict was between Goethean, who wants to insert that Buddhists believe everything is maya, and the rest of the editors on this page. Your insertion does not describe humans from any viewpoint. It just wiffles about three "views", none of which is accurate, not of which explains what a human is by the lights of the people you mention. A section that did might conceivably be of some value. Maybe somewhere down the track I'll write it. Frankly, though, I think the value it would add over the introduction is so little that it's not worth the effort doing it. Neither for that matter is talking about it. You're welcome to add whatever you like. I'll de-watch and come back when it's quiet and the "conflict" has disappeared. Grace Note 14:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

if you read the archives, you'll find that a number of editors have recently boycotted the page as a result of the conflict. goethean and rednblu stuck around. slimvirgin, sam spade, and i expressed support for a section something like the one i added, although it will certainly need adjustments. Ungtss 15:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, just for the record, the claim that six editors are boycotting this page came only from Rednblu with no evidence to support the claim. Some editors may be fed up with it (on both sides) but that's not a boycott. I know I'm fed up and have contributed much less than I otherwise would have. My guess is that Mel and FM are fed up. Grace Note appears now to have taken it off his/her watchlist probably for the same reason. It has been a somewhat toxic talk page because of the religious issue or, more accurately, because of the circular arguments about it. People get worn down. The thing that's most unacceptable is that, while we spend our time arguing about that one issue, the article itself is a mess. SlimVirgin 15:50, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Grace Note. Another point to be considered is that Ungtss' argument and justification is a special pleading. FeloniousMonk 15:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

characterizations like that require some rationale. how is my argument that "these views exist, are held by a significant number of people, and have caused a persistent edit war on this page" a special pleading? Ungtss 15:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Many of the anti-religious editors on this page subscribe to an outdated, pre-Kantian, purely Enlightenment philosophy that was expounded by David Hume in the 1700s and popularized by Ayn Rand in the 20th century. Today it is known as naive empiricism, and is one of many, many viable epistemologies, or theories of knowledge. The basic idea is that only science provides knowledge and everything else is bullshit. They like to dress it up with big words, but nowadays only the most conservative, indeed, reactionary philosophers accept this view. Like religious fundamentalism, it appeals to people who want to reduce this complicated world to very simple terms. And there's certainly no reason why anyone else should feel bound to accept this extremely narrow, elitist, outdated view if it doesn't fit in with their experience. Furthermore, their anti-religious advocacy is explicitly condemned by Misplaced Pages guidelines. They know this. It all boils down to power. If this article accurately, comprehensively, and neutrally reflects what people think about human beings, they will revert it. Because they stick together, and insist on the same version, they win. In the schoolyard, it was called bullying. In the wider world, it's called politics. --goethean 15:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

And here that sort of rhetoric is called a straw man. I see you still choose remain willfully obtuse on the topic or insist on misrepresenting me and my views. Both Mel Etitis and I have pointed out to you in the past several times that no one here, particularly not I, hold to any form of naive empiricism. Claiming that we do is either a straw man or a clear indication that you are misinformed. Which is it? If you must pigeon-hole me, I'm a rationalist. And as for whether or not anyone else needs to be rational, I would say consider the alternative, but I see you already have... FeloniousMonk 16:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

another go

Human nature

There are a number of views regarding what, ~~exactly~~ fundamentally, comprises a human being. These views are general, and are not mutually exclusive. In Materialism, a human is viewed as matter comprising a biological organism which has acquired a particular set of characteristics as a result of the laws of nature. In Abrahamic religion, humans are seen as being biological organisms which have a spiritual component, and seen as having been created in the image of God. In pantheism, humans are seen as spiritual beings interwoven into a spiritual universe which ultimately reflects an all-encompassing, immanent God. Add other views at will. Ungtss 15:14, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the original list format. And don't bother waiting for uniminity before editing, just make sure to discuss objections in the talk page periodically. Sam Spade 16:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Despite Sam's claims to the contrary, consensus is necessary in this instance, considering the disputed nature of the article. FeloniousMonk 16:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

sounds good. in the name of preventing edit wars, however, FM, if i put this up, will it get reverted? if so, can it be fixed to accord with your wishes? Ungtss 16:11, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not final arbiter here. Ask the other participants here; that's why consensus is necessary. FeloniousMonk 16:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

sam spade, goethean, slimvirgin, and ungtss have expressed support. you and grace note expressed concerns, but grace note has apparently withdrawn, so i'm looking to edit the section to conform with your wishes in order to achieve consensus. Ungtss 16:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I've expressed support for the principle of a second section, but this one as it stands is deeply problematic. I'm not even sure I understand the materialism part, and there are other perspectives that would need to be included before it could go on the page. As it stands, it isn't encyclopedic; and yet if we extend it, it becomes the article. I think it should be taken down and discussed before going up in any form. SlimVirgin 16:23, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

that's certainly reasonable. we can definitely take it down until we have consensus. But also, feel free to correct, refine, or rename the "materialism" point to accord better with the reality ... i'm trying to describe views i don't hold, but i'm not perfect at it yet:). Ungtss 16:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove the section. It doesn't assert untruths. Its content is appropriate to the article. It can be edited on the page. History has shown that removal of perspectives other than that of the so-called rationalist is permanent. --goethean 17:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SV. FeloniousMonk 17:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Materialism

Would SV like to express materialism is a more effective manner? I'd be glad to see her version, or that of anothers. Or maybe we should just quote from the materialism article? So long as it is NPOV in its expression and of reasonably short length I'm sure their will be no trouble. Waiting to edit until concensus occurs has nothing to do w why the wiki is successful BTW, and having been here nearly 2 years now, I can confidently say its no way to get things done. It is a good way to fill up the talk page archives tho, as I'm sure many here can attest to ;) Sam Spade 20:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

See below. SlimVirgin 21:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Humanism does not equal materialism, Sam. I've corrected the article. FeloniousMonk 20:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

What were discussing here

Materialism holds that a human is matter comprising a biological organism which has acquired a certain set of characteristics as a result of the laws of nature.

vrs.

Humanism is a philosophical view emphasizing Materialism. It can perhaps be best understood in emphasis on human cultural values (Moral relativism), rather than what is objective or absolute.

vrs.

Humanism is a philosophy that is centered on human interests or values. As a philosophy, it generally rejects supernaturalism and emphasizes the dignity and worth of the individual and the capacity for self-realization through reason.

The first is what was there, the second is my version, and the last is what is there now. Why anyone might think I was confusing materialism and and humanism is not the subject for debate, but rather the reasoning behind our preferences for these 3. New suggestions or mergers of these passages are of course welcome. I find the 3rd to be redundant and POV. For example, nearly all views of humanity emphasize dignity and the capacity for self-realization through reason. Sam Spade 21:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade 20:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The entire 'Beliefs about human nature' subsection, despite whatever content is settled upon, is misplaced where it now resides. It belongs in the Culture section of the article. FeloniousMonk 21:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for section two

Just throwing out some ideas below for section two. It may be too long and personal-essay like, and the first two paragraphs could perhaps be scrapped entirely, or just the second; also, it could be argued that, instead of outlining these positions in this article, we should just link to them. We could also just lift the materialist section, and insert it into Ungtss's suggestion, if others agree with it.

My intention with what I've written below was (a) to provide an explanation as to why we're starting the article (after the intro) with this debate; (b) to summarize the debate that has taken place on this talk page for months; (c) to indicate that no side of the debate has a monopoly on truth, and (d) by describing the dispute fairly, hopefully to bring an end to it (at least for this article)! ;-) I've also written it in ordinary language, avoiding -isms, though there are a few, and I could add references to make it more encyclopedic. However, if others think the whole section is inappropriate, no matter; it's intended only as a suggestion. SlimVirgin 21:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

The controversy over the nature of humankind

Human beings have struggled for thousands of years to describe the nature or essence of humankind. Every human being has access to information about human nature through introspection and by observing others, and all have formed beliefs about what we regard as the essential qualities of humankind, how we expect individuals to treat us, and what might happen to us after death. We see ourselves as infinitely complex beings: evil, stupid, cruel, arrogant, hopeless, disloyal; but also proud, sensitive, kind, brave, intelligent, fiercely loyal, heroic, and capable of great self-sacrifice. It is in these positive qualities of humankind that many human beings feel they sense the presence of something divine.

Philosophers, scientists, theologians, and poets have tried in various ways to describe and even to categorize these qualities, but the terms of the debate have not changed much since the writings of the early Greeks. Even the concepts we use to conduct the debate about who and what we are — knowledge, reason, evidence, belief, faith, desire — are themselves obscure to us.

Although there are many different approaches to the question of what human beings are, the debate can be crudely divided into two camps:

The materialist or physicalist position is that we are animals like any other, and that like all animals, our births, lives, and deaths have no meaning or higher purpose. We are genetic accidents that have evolved over time as a result of random mutation and natural selection, driven by hunger, sex, and fear, like everything else that lives, and any sense that we are special is merely a consequence of human arrogance and our terror of death. The human mind is barely capable of grasping its own insignificance or imagining its own end, when arguably the existence and contents of our own minds may seem to be the only reality we can trust. This sense that we must be something more than bodies and brains gives rise to religion, the materialist argues, which is nothing more than a product of our refusal to accept how tenuous, brief, and unimportant our existence is, as individuals and perhaps as a species.

In contrast to materialism, there is the Platonic or idealist position. It can be expressed in many ways, but in essence it is the view that there is a distinction between appearance and reality, and that the world we see around us is simply a reflection of some higher, divine existence, of which the human (and perhaps also the animal) soul, spirit, or mind may be part. In his Republic, Book VII, Plato represents humankind as prisoners chained from birth inside an underground cave, unable to move their heads, and therefore able to see only the shadows on the walls created by a fire outside the cave, shadows that, in their ignorance, the cave dwellers mistake for reality. The idealist position can take many forms: for example, it can be expressed as religious belief in a separate diety who created humankind in his own image; or as pantheism, the belief that a deity is in some way present throughout the natural world; or as the view that the universe is suffused with will, mind, or consciousness, which the human mind is part of.

Some religious positions about the nature of humankind are: (list a few by name with a brief description of their view of human nature. Or we could say at this point, see Human#The religious perspective: and point to the religion section.) SlimVirgin 21:26, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

I can agree to this. FeloniousMonk 01:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

i think this is very good -- i think, tho, that we'd do better to simply describe the views rather than give the narrative in the first two paragraphs -- the narrative as it stands gives a materialist explanation -- that these views arise from our ponderings. the religious narrative is very different -- "god told us, straight up." if we delete the first two paragraphs, tho, and just let the views stand on their own, i think we're well on our way. excellent work, SlimVirgin:). Ungtss 02:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Excellent exposition, SlimVirgin. I would support this wholeheartedly "as is", without a specific paragraph about "some religious perspectives" at the end. I would simply add links to sections such as "The religious perspective", "Consciousness" and "Self Reflection". Let these sections expand the subject rather than trying to summarize these right there. ≈ jossi ≈ 03:07, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thomism added by Ungtss, as follows (to follow the materialism versus idealism paragraphs):

Between materialism and idealism lies Thomism, which is, in essence, a synthesis of Christian theology and the philosophy of Aristotle. Thomism holds that empiricism and philosophy, when properly exercised, lead inevitably to reasonable belief in God, the human soul, and moral objectivism. Thus, unlike idealism, the universe is seen as fully real, rather than a mere shadow of a higher reality of God. Unlike materialism, however, thomism admits the existence of God, the supernatural, and the soul on the basis of evidence and analysis, or a posteriori argument. The Thomistic duality between human reason and divine purpose was summarized by G.K. Chesterton in the phrase, "Daughter in my mother's house, but mistress of my own." In essence, humans are seen as having real freedom, purpose, and responsibility in managing our affairs on Earth, but also seen as subject to the divine and benevolent will and purposes of God. Ungtss

Ungtss, I took your Thomism paragraph above out of the first suggestion for section two because I believe FM said he agreed to the suggestion before he saw that paragraph, so I've separated them for clarity's sake, and FM might want to say again whether he still agrees.

I'm fine with the first two paragraphs not being used, though I'm surprised you see them as representing a materialist perspective. I see them as just a list of our good and bad attributes and how we see ourselves as emotionally and behaviorally complex. I thought you'd like this sentence: "It is in these positive qualities of humankind that many human beings feel they sense the presence of something divine." I wanted to add a sentence after that (but didn't because of length) about Arland D. Williams Jr., the Air Florida Flight 90 passenger who died in January 1982 while saving other passengers, as an example of the type of self-sacrifice for strangers that is arguably a distinguishing feature of human beings. This is what a clergyman said of Williams: "His heroism was not rash. Aware that his own strength was fading, he deliberately handed hope to someone else, and he did so repeatedly. On that cold and tragic day, Arland D. Williams Jr. exemplified one of the best attributes of human nature, specifically that some people are capable of doing anything for total strangers." In saying human beings see the influence of something divine in acts of extreme courage, I wasn't trying to explain away religious belief, but to point to the source for many people (even some materialists) of religious experience. Whether there really is anything divine is left entirely open. SlimVirgin 16:05, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

i didn't mean to criticize your intro at all -- i think it's fantastic:). and your latest additions confirm what a strong and vibrant humanism underlies your writing and thought -- a humanism which we share:). in recommending the deletion of the narrative, i'm simply trying to avoid the pov complaints that have been rolling around -- and the intro provides a narrative of the development of ideas about human nature that conflicts with the traditionally religious view. picture a fundamentalist muslim reading that text. He'd likely say, "Human beings have struggled for thousands of years to describe the nature or essence of humankind!?!?!" WHAT!? Allah TOLD us what the nature and essence of humankind is in the Quran! And anyone who denies those facts is deceiving themselves." To the strongly religious, belief about God and human nature is not a result of "human pondering" -- it is a result of divine revelation. Now i PERSONALLY agree with your perspective -- i think that we're all humans trying to figure out what's going on in a variety of ways -- but the religious perspective holds otherwise, and in the name of npov, i think we'd do well to dodge the issue:). Ungtss 16:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ungtss, by the way, when I respond to a point, I don't mean to imply you shouldn't criticize what I've written. On the contrary, you should, and I want you to, and that goes for anything I write, but particularly this as I was bit unsure of it myself (mainly because of the wordiness).

About the Quran: religious texts are studied by scholars precisely to interpret the message, so even if you believe that divine messages have been delivered, it is still the case that humans have struggled to interpret them. So within the tradition of religious scholarship, as well the tradition of philosophical study in general, it is a demonstrable fact that human beings have "struggled for thousands of years to describe the nature or essence of humankind." We have the ancient and the modern texts to prove it. SlimVirgin 16:35, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

With regard to the first point, point taken, i simply have no criticism to supply:). with regard to the second, i personally agree with you that it's a demonstrable fact -- but there are many many people who don't see it as so. martin luther, for instance: "But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because is the Devil's greatest whore." He didn't allow for reason, thought, pondering, or anything. "Truth" was to come straight from the Bible. Now personally, i think Martin Luther was pretty much insane in most respects. But don't tell that to a Lutheran:(. Ungtss 16:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

But religious people don't believe that that is the origin of their beliefs. They believe that it was handed down to them, even prior to their wondering about the nature of human beings. Many of them were listening to the doctrines as toddlers. For many people, the answers preceded the questions. And they believe that the doctrines preceded the creation of humanity. --goethean 16:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Bear in mind throughout this discussion, though, that Misplaced Pages: Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:No original research (both policy, not just guidelnes) state that we must represent majority and significant-minority reputable or credible published opinion. This is crucial, and I feel it has been overlooked many times on this talk page. What is believed by people whose views have not been published in reputable or credible publications is not what this article is about, according to Misplaced Pages policy. We are here to summarize the views of scholars, reputable writers and researchers, journalists, and other mainstream commentators; and, without question, it is true (and all of the above would agree) that for thousands of years human beings have struggled to define and describe the nature and essence of humanity. This is a hard, cold fact with no implications whatsoever for the validity or otherwise of any particular set of religous beliefs. Even if you firmly believe that what is written in, for example, the Christian Bible is true, you still have to read and study it to understand what it says and what the implications of it are for who we are, and for how we ought to live. SlimVirgin 19:15, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

i agree with you entirely. i simply think that if we don't give a narrative one way or the other, but simply present the views themselves, we can dodge any complaints on this topic, without reducing article quality at all. what do you think? Ungtss 20:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind either way. I think as I wrote it, it should probably be for the rest of you to decide what, if anything, to do with it. I would probably prefer it as a coherent whole, but then again, it could be too long, and as you say, some parts may not meet with agreement, so please feel free to edit it down to whatever size most editors can agree on. SlimVirgin 02:03, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I do appreciate the fact you are trying to come up with a compromise solution. But this passage does not accomplish that.

The choices of materialism, idealism and Thomism do not exhaust the major metaphysical views. There is also, at least, holism, dualism, vitalism, skepticism, and nondualism. You can dismiss these as minor, but that's not right.
And, of course, Ungtss is correct that it is a naturalistic explanation and, as such, implies that religions are fictions.
The section on Thomism needs to be re-written to including Hindu and Buddhist positions that essentially agree with Thomism.
Few non-philosophical people consider themselves materialists, and fewer call themselves idealists. So I find it extremely odd that this group of editors would rather use the artificial (and quite Western) distinction between materialism and idealism, rather than the distictions into which human beings readily divide themselves — the major world religions. --goethean 15:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, I see your point, but your assertion (world religions being a better way to describe the disctinction instead of idealism/materialism) could develop into another huge and never ending discussion. I would suggest keeping to the task of completing SlimVirgin's excellent attempt at describing the controversy, rather than opening another can of worms. ≈ jossi ≈ 19:31, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Adhering to a neutral point of view is absolute and non-negotiable. --goethean 19:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should do this right in another article (i see Human nature exists, but takes a largely materialist perspective), and link to it from the top of this one? Ungtss 15:43, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Thats definitely going to be the final result, but that involves editing the article. The purpose of this talk page on the other hand appears to be endless debate ;) Sam Spade 21:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The editors involved seem to have completely lost sight of this being the page about humans and not interpretations of what humans have said about life, the universe and everything from anyone who feels they can convey it in three paras or less.

This is why I support the intro and do not support the further digression that Ungtss, Slim and Goethean are so keen on: the intro discusses what essentially distinguishes humans. It does so in general and broadly acceptable terms. The human nature stuff digresses into discussions of what (some few) areas of thought have had to say about human nature. It's entirely out of place. It doesn't either reflect most views on the subject. Most people simply don't have a view. They certainly wouldn't describe themselves as "materalist" or "Platonist" because they have no idea what those things mean. They are not completely distinct as we make out anyway, certainly not in most people's minds. To some extent, Ungtss is right: although there has been a struggle over the millennia to describe man and eis relation to the universe, most people don't reinvent the wheel. They accept that Allah revealed the nature of man to Muhammad, or that the Buddha explained it, or that what their dad told them was roughly right. I support the intro because it is broadly acceptable to any and all of the above. Goethean, you are wanting to discuss comparative religion and I suggest you go to an appropriate page to do so. Ungtss and Slim, you are writing a whole different article. I commend your efforts but I suggest you write that article and not this one. Grace Note 01:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

the "other article" is currently well underway. Human nature. Ungtss 01:39, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Goethean, you are wanting to discuss comparative religion and I suggest you go to an appropriate page to do so.

Mischaracterize me all you want. I am trying to make this page have a neutral point of view — nothing else. We currently have an introduction that presents a naturalistic explanation of the origin of religion as fact. That is not neutral. It directly contradicts the beliefs of conservative Christians, Jews, Muslims and Hindus. They do not believe that their belief in God is a result of their "curious and introspect nature". They believe in God because they have experienced God's presence, or for other equally incorrigible reasons. This article cooly informs them that they are wrong about that. My proposal, flawed as it is, allows the beliefs of billions of people to be presented as their beliefs. I maintain that for that reason it is an improvement. --goethean 01:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Quick question

What's with the skin color map? At the moment it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the content of the article. But even beyond that, it is a pre-World War II map compiled using the long-discredited von Luschan scale and features a number of imaginary features on it (such as the white streak across Morroco and Algeria). I'm aware in general that the "to-do" list seems to include something on race, but even then, I'm not sure why a very outdated map would be the way to display that information anyway (I think the picture of the two little girls does it in a fine and more subtle way, one which doesn't priviledge one view of race or another). I don't think it helps the article, I don't think it's a very good image anyway, except for historical purposes. It certainly doesn't represent any current understanding of human diversity; it's a throwback to 19th century racial mapping projects (i.e. William Z. Ripley's The Races of Europe) and this sort of representation of "native populations" is always based on questionable methodology. Anybody else feel otherwise? --Fastfission 03:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I offered the map in leiu of the recently deleted section of human skin color. I deliberately avoided any discussion of race, because the point of the map was merely to highlight the data on human skin color variability along with its geographical distribution (which is what the paragraph discussed). You are quite right that a contemporary analysis of race would find skin color insufficient as a defintion (a conclusion that can even seen in this map). Becuase skin (and also hair) color is so strikingly variable in humans (e.g., as compared to other primates) some discussion or exhbition of human skin color seems necessary. --Rikurzhen 06:17, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

So how useful is the map? I find it to be somewhat not useful. I also think -- and I've not been privvy to the discussions on this issue which seem to have gone on at some length here -- that any discussions relating to human appearance not focus simply on skin color and hair texture but also mention stature and other non-racialized characteristics when differentiating from other primates. I think it is a little too clear that when one says "color" people are going to just think "race". --Fastfission 23:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know. It doesn't seem to hurt. Take a look at it in the latest context. --Rikurzhen 01:41, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

rm "The life of the individual begins at conception"

I think the article would be better without this sentence. Depending on how you read it, it is either (1) uninteresting in that it doesn't distinguish humans from other sexually reproducing species, or (2) a hotly contestable point. I can't think of an easy way to phrase it to comply with NPOV policy without considerably exposition, so it seems easier to just delete the sentence. --Rikurzhen 19:02, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

It's true though, which is not to make a pro-life point, but simply to say that it's a demonstrable fact. Lots of other points we make about humans could be made about other forms of life too; if we were to delete them all, the page would be decimated, and so only to delete this one would be POV. The hotly contested point is that personhood begins (or ought to begin in the view of some) at conception. The way this section is written states clearly that only some jurisdictions award personhood to foetuses. SlimVirgin 19:10, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

If you really dig into the topic, the question is about more than just personhood. When does the life of any animals begin? Both sperm and oocyte are alive, and until a certain time during development, any number of clones (e.g. twins) may be produced from that original zygote. So its not 100% clear to say that an "individual" life begins at conception, even if you leave out the difficulty of human personhood. That was my concern. --Rikurzhen 19:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I can't remember exactly what I wrote, and haven't looked, but I believe I wrote "the life of the individual begins" and did so very deliberately to skirt around the problems you are raising. The life of the individual who ends up being born does begin at conception; or are you saying that formulation is wrong? SlimVirgin 19:33, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

But it's not yet distinctly one individual, because it might be any number of individuals. Quite often it is two individuals (twins). --Rikurzhen 20:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

See my additional edits to that section. --Rikurzhen 19:23, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with your changes. I had: "The life of the individual begins at conception," which I can't see anyone objecting to. You've changed it to (your changes in bold): "New human life is created at conception." "Created" might imply a creator. "Human life" is something pro-choice activists might object to. SlimVirgin 19:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for splitting your text but I thought it would be easier to read. First, can you see the point I was trying to avoid with the term "individual"? Various philosophical theories of personal identity and material constitution may give different answers about whether an "individual" is created by conception or whether an individual is only recognizable after twinning (in the philosophical literature there is discussion of "personal fission" such as a Star Trek transporter accident might cause; there is also enormous debate about how an "individual" survives over time). So in essence I'm trying to avoid talk about individuals if possible. --Rikurzhen 20:09, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The use of the word "created" was from the philosophical literature, I didn't mean to imply something theistic; more like objects have persitance conditions and they can be created or destroyed under certain conditions. --Rikurzhen 20:14, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The change to "many cultures" I don't see the benefit of and it may not be accurate. I wrote: "At birth, the fully grown fetus, now called a baby, is expelled from the female's body and breathes independently for the first time, at which point the baby is recognized as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend personhood to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus."

You've changed it to (your changes in bold): "At this point, many cultures recognized the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend personhood to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus."

Regarding many cultures: which cultures don't recognize a baby as a person entitled to the protection of the law, and is there a reason for the past tense? SlimVirgin 19:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I am thinking of cultures where infants are not truly treated as persons until a certain time after birth. If my memory is correct, some as late as 1 or 2 years of age (naming ceremonies at late ages reflect this). But moreover, in many aboriginal cultures the practice and acceptance of infanticide is seen by some as a sign that they don't see newborn infants as persons. The past tense was a slip. I was thinking of how this notion was more common in "western" cultures in the past. --Rikurzhen 20:09, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

for what it's worth, i think slimvirgin's formulation is the best so far. Ungtss 20:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

See infanticide for more on the "many cultures" part --Rikurzhen 20:21, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

The only reference there to babies not being protected by law is the Solomon Islands where it says infanticide is still routinely practised, which is not referenced, and it doesn't say it's legal. I think you'll have to find a reputable reference showing that there are modern cultures/states in which babies do not have the protection of the law. SlimVirgin 20:27, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

There are still many cultures where there is no "law" in the modern sense, e.g. hunter-gatherer aboriginal societies. --Rikurzhen 20:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

But can you produce a reputable reference showing that babies, once born, are not recognized as persons, or do not have the protection of the law? We need an actual reference. SlimVirgin 21:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, social anthropologists try not to "interfere" with the societies they study, such that they are unlikely to interrogate their subjects direclty on this subject, but instead try to report neutrally that infanticide is common. I can try to find a paper if you insist, but it seems faily clear to me that permissive infanticide implies different notions of infant personhood than modern societies have. An analogous example would be the implication of slavery on personhood. --Rikurzhen 21:16, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an academic paper (or good piece of journalism) showing that these practices continue, and aren't just tiny fringe movements not accepted within their own cultures, which we can then link to if it's online. The WP article on infanticide, for example, mentions the Solomon Islands with no reference, no indication whether it's current, and no mention of how widespread it is. It's best to cite a good source if we're going to make a claim like this. SlimVirgin 21:41, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'll look, but the sentence as written is neutral about the existence of infanticide, and merely says that most modern societies treat newborns (if not fetuses) as people. (The alternative I'm rejecting is that all societies do so.) I'm just trying to leave room for the existence of non-modern societies which seemingly acted and may continue to act differently. --Rikurzhen 21:44, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

What definition of "individual" and what definition of "personhood" are you talking about? The answer to the question will depend heavily on this. If "personhood" is defined as autonomy, then the United States only recognizes a limited form of personhood before the age of 18, for example. --Fastfission 23:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Here is the revised paragraph as it currently stands. --Rikurzhen 00:00, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

The human life cycle is fundamentally similar to that of other placental mammals. New human life develops from conception. An egg is usually fertilized inside the female by the male through sexual intercourse, though in vitro fertilization methods are also used. The developing individual is first called a zygote; as it grows through successive stages inside the female's uterus over a period of 38 weeks, it is called an embryo, then a fetus. At birth, the fully grown fetus, now called a baby, is expelled from the female's body and breathes independently for the first time. At this point, most modern cultures recognize the baby as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some jurisdictions extend personhood to human fetuses while they remain in the uterus.

Scope and detail level of this article

"this article is about human beings of the last 30,000 years" -- what was the "full protection of the law" back in the Ice Age? I say, move this discussion to mammal. It is uninteresting for an article on homo sapiens in particular, since it applies equally to all mammals. dab (ᛏ) 20:37, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I would agree in general. I was going to suggest that we should rearrange the "biology" section to include a section on the "human lifecycle" (i.e. reproductive physiology and devlopement) and "human anatomy" (which is now labeled "physiology"). But it would be nice to discuss the social aspects of this biology in parallel. --Rikurzhen 20:52, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of that. SlimVirgin 21:07, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Refactoring

I don't know what has happened to this talk page, but some sections are now doubled, and others have posts missing. I'm in the process of restoring. SlimVirgin 21:25, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Done, I think. I also at one point saw my own talk page headers halfway down this page: weird edit glitch. SlimVirgin 21:35, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Solomon Islands infanticide

Just as an aside, infanticide is forbidden by section 206 of the Solomon Islands Penal Code. Here's someone being tried for it. Grace Note 09:22, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

illegal but not substantively enforced, i'd say. $50 fine. i pay more for speeding tickets. i doubt this ruling is consistent with a view of infants as persons. No admitted murderer of an adult could get off with a $50 fine because of "emotional strain," being a member of a youth group, and having six stitches. i think the differential treatment implies some difference in the view of infants as persons. at the very least, the baby was not afforded "the full protection of the law." Ungtss 15:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Write brief section on Race

Done. Check it out. --Rikurzhen 16:22, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Conception

Riz, your answers have split the discussion above, so I'm reproducing this here:

But it's not yet distinctly one individual, because it might be any number of individuals. Quite often it is two individuals (twins). --Rikurzhen 20:45, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

And each twin is distinctly one individual. The life of each individual (that grows to embryo/fetus/baby stage) begins at conception. I'm familiar with the philosophical problems of individuality and personhood. They're not relevant to this sentence. SlimVirgin 19:58, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

To recap:

original = The life of the individual begins at conception

current = New human life develops from conception

I'm inclined to think that the "new/develop" coupling has fewer potential unneeded implications than "begin/individual". The current seems to speak strictly of biology, while the original may have implications for non-natural philosophies of human nature. Criticisms appreciated --Rikurzhen 20:21, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

word choice: materialism vs naturalism

We should make an editorial judgment about the usage of the terms materialism and naturalism. Materialism is more commonly known. However, naturalism is a slightly more general philosophical position. For example, there are dualist who are nonetheless naturalist (ontologically and epistemologically). Also, naturalism covers the wide variety of views within materialism. Likewise, naturalism is more directly opposite of the term supernaturalism. However, naturalism may be confusing and less widely recognized. reference Suggestions? --Rikurzhen 21:50, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

human nature: humanism vs materialism

I would suggest this: "Materialism is the view that humans are physical beings with no spiritual component. Materialists generally ascribes to naturalism and reject supernaturalism." I think the use of humanism here is inappropriate. the issue here is "are humans more than the sum of their biological parts?" humanism doesn't address that question: humanism is an emphasis on human dignity in the forms of secular humanism and Christian humanism. But Christian humanism is part of Abrahamic religion. So why are we placing humanism in contrast to Abrahamic religion? Materialism addresses the issue of material vs. spirit directly, so it is placed in proper contrast with abrahamic religion and pantheism. then naturalism and supernaturalism can be placed in proper opposition later in the sentence. what do you think? Ungtss 00:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

"So why are we placing humanism in contrast to Abrahamic religion?" That was Sam Spade's edit. He also mis-defined humanism, which I corrected. I'd suggest dumping humanism and going back to materialism in that instance. FeloniousMonk 00:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll do it. Ungtss 00:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Should I take your answer as an endorsement of listing materialism more prominently than naturalism? --Rikurzhen 05:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

announcing a policy proposal of general interest

This is just to inform people that I want Misplaced Pages to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Philosophical part of summary

I've kept away from the article for a while, but on my return I discovered that my attempt to get clear about the philosophical issues had been removed. I've again tried to clear up the conflation of distinct positions (such as dualism and supernaturalism), as well as the central distinction between the human being and the person; it's now accurate, but probably needs polishing. I did have a reference to Kant as well as a more specific refernce to Locke; if it's felt that they're needed, I'll try to find them in the history of the article. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade reverted your good efforts here citing "materialism and dualism don't deserve this level of emphasis, not does locke, etc." My questions are who is Sam to say what level emphasis they do deserve, and what is his justification for this rather wholesale, sweeping justification? I've reverted his attempt at deletionism pending satifactory answers. FeloniousMonk 21:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Mels mess

The curiosity and introspective nature of human beings has led to innumerable attempts to explain their consciousness and intelectual abilities, and has given rise to two broad metaphysical approaches: physicalism and dualism. The former is the view that there is no reality beyond the physical or material, and thus that persons are purely physical; the latter is the view that the world contains (at least) two sorts of thing, mind and body, and that a person is a combination of the two. Note that philosophy has traditionally distinguished between the biological (or "forensic", as John Locke expressed it) notion of a human, and the notion of a person; it is the latter rather than the former which is the subject of the debate between dualists and physicalists.

Largely unrelated to this metaphysical distinction is a further difference between naturalism, which holds that the world, including human beings, is all that there is, and supernaturalism, which may include belief in a god or gods, or in other supernatural entities, or that humans have a soul (through most of the history of Western thought, however, the terms "soul" and "mind" have been used interchangeably). (See also methodological naturalism.)

Physicalism, dualism, naturalism, and supernaturalism can be found in the earliest human historical records.

Categories:

Archives