What makes us human?

WHAT IS IT that makes us human? Was there a gradual emergence? or a "great leap forward" from apekind to humankind? Anthropologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, and many others have offered a wide range of explanations and speculations. The puzzle is still being worked on and may never be completed. There are so many missing pieces, and we don't know where to look. And, unlike jigsaw puzzle, in science we don't know what the completed picture will look like.

In responding to these questions, I will take a critical-thinking approach. First, I will ask questions of the questions. This is based on a premise that w often ask questions in such a way that we are unavoidably lead into unnecessary confusions and endless unproductive debates. The first question, when not critically examined, is likely to lead enquirers to look for that one thing tha they think makes us human. As can be expected, different enquirers will come up with different "one things." The debates about which one thing is the one thing will cloud the issue until it is recognized that it is not absolutely necessary for there to be any one thing. The question may then be modified to "What are some of the factors that constitute our particular brand of uniqueness?" (This includes a recognition that an apple tree or a lion or a whale is each unique i its special way). Another implication of the question "What is it that makes us human?" can be put this way: The process is completed; the journey is ended; we have arrived; we are now fully human. From my point of view, if this is so, I will fully agree with those who would say "God help us." I prefer at this time to think that we (humans) are traveling together through cosmic space-time on a symbolically constructed spaceship, and we have no earthly idea where we are going. There are among us travelers who are sure they know. They feel so certai that they want to take the whole lot of us (forcibly if needs be) in their direction. These individuals may be numbered among our most cleverly and intelligently insane fellow humans: Clever when we let their eloquence, enthusiasm, and dedication catch us off guard; intelligent in their skillfully formulated messages; and insane in their belief in the absolute truth of their particular brand of messianic convictions.

From Apekind to Mankind:

Gradual Emergence or Psycho-biological Quantum Leap?

Let's move on now to a second question "Gradual emergence or great leap forward?" This could lead enquirers into the trap of two-valued either/or thinking -- if it is not this thing, it must be the other. It has been proposed by Alfred Korzybski that our sanity increases as we move from one-valued logic, through two-valued, three-valued, and infinite-valued logic of probabilities. Our cleverly insane fellow travelers operate mainly from a one-valued logic: What I say is so, must be so, and nothing else is so. Fellow travelers operatin from a two-valued logical system of thinking would say it's either this or that one or the other. Those of us operating from a three-valued system would say: Well it could be this, that, or neither. And this is the kind of statement travelers operating from an infinite-valued logical system of probabilities would probably say: Whatever anyone of us say it is -- it isn't. Words represen things, processes, situations, etc. They are not the things they are supposed t represent, and cannot always be trusted to be reliable representatives. In short, there are not enough words to completely represent anything. So we would be wise to consider any explanation or conclusion as tentative -- useful for th time being -- limited by our present level of understanding -- open to further modifications and developments, etc., etc.

Let's now return to the question: What are some of the factors that could be considered as constituting our particular brand of uniqueness? Suggestions include the following: tool making, language, self-consciousness, myth-making, self-reflexiveness, death awareness, belief in and worship of gods, bi-pedalism complex social organizations, among others. My current thinking is based on an integration of the insights of three powerful thinkers: Michael C. Corballis, Bernard J. F. Lonergan, S.J., and Alfred Korzybski. The following is a summary of some of their insights which for me are fundamentally important to our continuing discussions on our uniqueness as human.

In his book The Lopsided Ape, Corballis introduces the notion of GAD, a vocabulary-based generative assembling device, as the basis for a fundamental discontinuity between ourselves and other species. GAD emerged from other distinctive hominid characteristics. Corballis cites some of these: Bi-pedalism more flexible use of hands, which facilitates carrying, moving, and creating things; prolonged infancy, and the helplessness and dependency of the growing child, resulting in the molding of individuals to certain social roles; communication, language, and complex social structures; human-made environments which radically altered our thinking from merely operating from natural demands These and other characteristics confer on us a wide range of adaptive capabilities. Through language, we can share accounts of what's going on, what might be going on, what cannot be going on, what we would like to be going on. We do not fly naturally, but we build airplanes and fly. We do not "normally" live under water, but we build submarines and do. We do not normally dig and live in holes in the ground, but we build machines that allow us to do so when we wish. GAD, says Corballis, "has allowed us to adapt to any environment on earth, and even to extraterrestrial environments, not by bodily change but by changing the environment." An important aspect of GAD is recursion. We can thin about thinking, know that we know, decide to decide, and so on. Recursion allow for introspection. But GAD, says Corballis, is a danger that threatens our very existence since it facilitates our exploitation and abuse of our environments.

Bernard Lonergan, in his treatise Insight: A Study of Human Understanding, goes to great lengths in reminding us to remember that "understanding self is necessary for understanding universe." We are transcendent beings, says Lonergan. (Transcendent used in the sense of "going beyond.") We are driven by an unrestricted desire to know; not only to know, but through intelligent inquiry and critical reflection, to know correctly; and not only to know well but to know completely. "Insight," says Lonergan, has to do with "the apprehension of relations." And in the study of our understanding of ourselves, some of the relations he discusses in great details are levels of consciousness unities of consciousness, the nature of knowledge, organizing intelligence, and most importantly, a personal appropriation of the invariant dynamic structures operating in our own cognitional activities. (In brief, a study of ourselves studying ourselves.)

The following are Lonergan's labels for his hierarchical levels of consciousness: empirical consciousness, intelligent consciousness, rational consciousness, rational self-consciousness, and the appropriation of our rational self-consciousness. The cognitional acts related to these levels of consciousness are as follows: Sensing and experiencing (empirical consciousness). A search for understanding of what is sensed and experienced, and formulation of what is understood (intelligent consciousness). Reflecting o what is understood, asking the question, How do I know that what I say is so? What is the ground for my assertions? When I say "Yes" this is so, is my judgment sound? (rational consciousness). If in this scheme I come to a knowing an understanding, and act consistently with this, I am in the realm of rational self-consciousness. I am acting sensibly, as the saying goes. To act inconsistently with what I know and understand is to be irrational.

As outlined above, each one of these levels is related to the others. The recognition and experience of this unity of different levels of consciousness i one's own living pertains to what Lonergan calls The self appropriation of one' own intellectual and rational self-consciousness. Unfortunately, except in science, we tend to get stuck at consciousness level two. Instead of questionin our opinions, conclusions, and beliefs, we are more apt to adopt positions and sometimes violently defend them. But there is no denying the potential is there for us as transcendent beings to increase and refine our understandings of ourselves and the universe. Alfred Korzybski wrote two books, Manhood of Humanity and Science and Sanity, in the process of answering his own questions: What is the nature of man? How are we different from the animals? How can we be so technologically advanced, while being so backward in our dealings with each other? Korzybski was very aware that the ways we define and think of ourselves as humans have a tremendous influence on our behaviors at all levels -- intrapersonally, interpersonally, socially, internationally. Just as the individual who thinks of him/herself a certain way will develop a low self-esteem with all its attendant behavioral consequences, so as a species thinking of ourselves in certain ways could result in disastrous consequences.

Korzybski formulated a functional definition of mankind as a "Time-binding, symbolic class of life."

Korzybski developed a teachable system, called General Semantics, based on the principles of science and mathematics. He described his system as a "theory of values" and a "theory of sanity." His aim was to help us become saner humans, better humans, through applying some general principles and methods of science and mathematics to our everyday living.

Time-binding has to do with our ability to symbolize our experiences, mainly through language, and to pass on these representations to others now and to future generations. But that's not all. The received symbolic representations o experiences provide receivers -- ourselves, others, future generations -- opportunities to modify, build on, and improve the received information.

Korzybski selected science and mathematics as models mainly because he saw them as systems of relations of exemplary efficiency and effectiveness. Their method and principles could be learned and applied to our everyday relations with similar effectiveness. In science and mathematics we get a relatively clear glimpse of time-binding at work. In Science and Sanity Korzybski noted, "The progress of science ... has been due uniquely to the freedom of scientists to revise their fundamental assumptions, terminologies, undefined terms, etc..."

Time-binding enables us to build better buildings, better radios, better ships -- and, unfortunately, better bombs. But time-binding also provides the basis for a theory of values and human ethics necessary for our survival. What suppresses time-binding activities is "bad." Bombs destroy time-binders. Bombs destroy records, buildings, societies. Bombs are bad for us.

Korzybski also put great emphasis on our development of a consciousness of abstracting, the awareness of our human limitations. Our experience of anything is selective and necessarily limited. Limited experience means limited knowledge, limited understanding, and a general principle of uncertainty in our opinions, beliefs, judgments, knowledge, and understandings. For sanity's sake we have to remain open to the new and different.

What are some of the factors that constitute our particular brand of uniqueness Assembling insights from Corballis, Lonergan, and Korzybski, I would say this: We are a time-binding -- symbolic -- self-consciously, self-reflexive class of life. We have a relentless drive to understand ourselves and the universe of which we are a part. Full of questions and questions about our questions, we want to know what makes us human? Where did we come from? How did the universe start? Where are we going? What's the fate of the universe? How do we know what we know? Not only do we want to know, we want to know everything. We do not jus adapt to our environments, we change environments to suit ourselves. We are a tremendously diverse and complex class of life and have created a similarly increasingly diverse, complex, possibly unmanageable human world: A dynamically interacting, often violent world of personal social-cultural-political-national-religious-artistic-entertainment-technologic l...intricacies -- a world we have created as a result of our time-binding activities. We are a class of life that creates and protects not only physical territories, but also symbolic territories -- books, beliefs, ideas, gods, sacred streams, flags, certain individuals, and so on. We are a class of life that sometimes values our symbols more than life itself. We are a class of life that creates organizations institutions, societies, etc., that reflect, reinforce, and maintain our symbolic values (beliefs, creeds, politics, dogmas, etc.). We are a class of life that has been constantly at war with itself, recognizes this, but has not yet developed a sense of species shame and embarrassment. We are a class of life that laughs and cries: a class of life that can laugh at itself. We are a class of life that loves and hates. A class that helps each other and preys on each other. A class of life with a sense of justice and injustice -- fair play and foul play. We are a class of life with the ability to visualize the kind of being we would like to become; but have no yet developed a sufficiently powerful vocabulary-based generative assembling device to help us become the kind of life forms we think we can be. We are a class of life that is still in a state of self-discovery. If we do not finish off ourselves first -- we, I think, are not finished yet. Is there a discontinuity between ourselves and the apes? I would say in some ways Yes, and in some ways, No. Time will tell.