Talk:Human/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Second attempt at 4th by Silversmith

My second attempt, combinging 2 versions:

The curiosity, introspective and extrospective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence. These include the views that there is no reality beyond the physical and that the world consists of at least two kinds of thing, mind and body, and that a human being is a combination of the two, and the beliefs in God, gods, or other supernatural entities, which have become the basis of theology and philosophy and are present in the earliest historical records. Humans seek to understand their purpose and physical beings, which has resulted in sciences such as psychology, and also in beliefs that humans, and perhaps non-human animals, have souls. Qi and atman are other examples of energy and spirit which some cultures believe in. The creative way in which the human mind has developed has led to the inventions of art, music, literature and technology. The combination of these factors defines the nature of humans, and sets us apart from other species.

You've got some run-on sentences, but content-wise, it's the best so far. --goethean ॐ 18:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right, there is some fine tuning (I'd put in more links, for example, like to monism, dualism, and pluralism) that could be done, but its more than acceptable. Good work. Sam Spade 19:02, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you both. I know what you mean about run-on sentences, but I couldn't figure that one out at the time. If someone else would like to fine tune that version I would appreciate it. --Silversmith Hewwo 19:35, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Problems: (a) This version has more religious references that the current one; (b) extrospective nature? (c) I wouldn't say psychology has developed out of a need to understand our purpose; (d) The syntax of this sentence isn't right: "These include the views that there is no reality beyond the physical and that the world consists of at least two kinds of thing, mind and body, and that a human being is a combination of the two, and the beliefs in God, gods, or other supernatural entities ..."; (e) I wouldn't call music and art inventions; (f) I wouldn't mind a reference to the dominance of humans, but "sets us apart from" doesn't mean much: every species is set apart from every other on the basis of certain attributes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

How about putting this paragraph by Silversmith exactly as is in the subsection called beliefs about human nature in the article Human. Whatever fine tuning it needs can be done in the normal editing fashion rather than within this freeze the article process. 4.250.27.140 19:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually, how about this as a fine tuning:

The curiosity, introspective and extrospective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence. These include the views that there is no reality beyond the physical — that the world consists of the mind and body, with humans as a combination of the two — and the beliefs in God, gods, or other supernatural entities, beliefs present in the earliest historical records, giving rise to theology and philosophy. These aspects form the basis of monism, dualism, and pluralism. Humans seek to understand their purpose and physical beings, which has resulted in sciences such as psychology, and also in beliefs that humans, and perhaps non-human animals, have souls. Qi and atman are other such examples of energy and spirit which various cultures believe in. The creative way in which the human mind has developed has led to the inventions of art, music, literature and technology. The combination of these factors defines the nature of humans, and sets us apart from other species. ~~(unsigned)~~

Voilà! --Silversmith Hewwo 19:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

oh, and if you click on my "nature" link, you go to Human nature.~~(unsigned)~~

There is no reason to fine tune this paragraph within this freeze process. Let's agree on something, unfreeze the article, then resume normal wikipedia editing. 4.250.27.140 20:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If I wanted to fine tune what I wrote, I have every right to, as my aim here is to write a 4th paragraph that all sides of the dabate can agree on, and then hopefully have it inserted onto the main page. I would be happy for the article to be unfrozen, but if revert wars contineue, it will just be frozen again. I can't see what the problem with reaching a consensus on the talk page is. And BTW the above was not "unsigned" there is just a space before my signature. And, as you have said, it is perfectly easy to look at the history. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:50, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm having trouble parsing this: "These include the views that there is no reality beyond the physical — that the world consists of the mind and body, with humans as a combination of the two — and the beliefs in God, gods, or other supernatural entities, beliefs present in the earliest historical records, giving rise to theology and philosophy."

Are you saying the view that "there is no reality beyong the physical" is the same as the view that "the world consists of the mind and body, with humans as a combination of the two"? And then what's left is: "These include the views that ... the beliefs in God, gods ... beliefs present in the earliest ... giving rise to ..." It has no structure. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm opposed to this being unprotected just yet, as I think we'd go straight back to a revert war. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I got that whole bit from what you were calling the "consensus version". It's just slightly re-worded and shifted around. If that is your only objection, why don't you try and re-write that bit? Basically it means on one hand there is the phisical, on the other the spiritual. --Silversmith Hewwo 20:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I listed six objections above, not just one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:08, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Can you clarify something? Are you saying: "There is no reality beyond the physical" = "the world consists of mind and body"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

What I find dificult is that I haven't written this the way I would like, I've tried to combine the version that was already there, and some other points that people have made. Oh well. Anyway, there are two points in the first bit, illustrated by the use of "views" instead of "view."

The fist view is: "there is no reality beyond the physical — that the world consists of the mind and body, with humans as a combination of the two" Or to simplify, "there is only the physical mind and body which makes up humans."
The second view is: "the beliefs in God, gods, or other supernatural entities, beliefs present in the earliest historical records, giving rise to theology and philosophy." Or to simplify, "Some humans believe in God, etc."
And yes, I'm saying that "no reality beyond the physical" is the same as "the world consists of mind and body." Which personally isn't my cup of tea, but I wanted to keep as much from the consensus version as possible. --Silversmith Hewwo 21:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Those are two views, not one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:14, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Delete fourth paragraph and beef up list in third paragraph (removing A causes B)

Contents of Human refered to below

Paragraph 3 of intro add to list in last sentence?

Behaviorally, human beings are defined by their use of language; their organization into complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, nations, states, and institutions, distinguished by their different aims and ritual practices; and their development of complex technology. These behavioral differences have given rise to myriad cultures incorporating many forms of beliefs, myths, rituals, values, and social norms. 4.250.27.140 22:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Paragraph 4 of intro delete?

The curiosity and introspective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence, and have given rise to a number of metaphysical approaches. These include the views that there is no reality beyond the physical and that the world consists of at least two kinds of thing, mind and body, and that a human being is a combination of the two. There are also the views that the world, including human beings, is all that there is, and the view that there may be also be God, gods, or other supernatural entities, and that humans, and perhaps non-human animals, have souls. Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy, and is present in the earliest historical records. 4.250.27.140 22:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

subsection called beliefs about human nature add some or all of the wiki articles refered to here to the end of paragraph 3 of the intro?

There are a number of perspectives regarding the fundamental nature and substance of humans. These are by no means mutually exclusive, and the list is by no means exhaustive.

Materialism holds that humans are physical beings without any supernatural or spiritual component. Materialism holds to naturalism and rejects supernaturalism.
Abrahamic religion holds that humans are both physical and spiritual in nature, and were deliberately created in the image of God.
Pantheism and panentheism hold that a human is a spiritual being interwoven into a spiritual universe which ultimately reflects an all-encompassing immanent God. 4.250.27.140 22:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

possibly include this paragraph by Silversmith in this subsection called beliefs about human nature ?

The curiosity, introspective and extrospective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence. These include the views that there is no reality beyond the physical and that the world consists of at least two kinds of thing, mind and body, and that a human being is a combination of the two, and the beliefs in God, gods, or other supernatural entities, which have become the basis of theology and philosophy and are present in the earliest historical records. Humans seek to understand their purpose and physical beings, which has resulted in sciences such as psychology, and also in beliefs that humans, and perhaps non-human animals, have souls. Qi and atman are other examples of energy and spirit which some cultures believe in. The creative way in which the human mind has developed has led to the inventions of art, music, literature and technology. The combination of these factors defines the nature of humans, and sets us apart from other species. 4.250.27.140 22:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slightly edited version to remove run-on sentence etc.:

The curiosity, introspective and extrospective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence. These include the views that there is no reality beyond the physical — that the world consists of the mind and body, with humans as a combination of the two — and the beliefs in God, gods, or other supernatural entities, beliefs present in the earliest historical records, giving rise to theology and philosophy. These aspects form the basis of monism, dualism, and pluralism. Humans seek to understand their purpose and physical beings, which has resulted in sciences such as psychology, and also in beliefs that humans, and perhaps non-human animals, have souls. Qi and atman are other such examples of energy and spirit which various cultures believe in. The creative way in which the human mind has developed has led to the inventions of art, music, literature and technology. The combination of these factors defines the nature of humans, and sets us apart from other species. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:55, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A summary of the existing MAIN BODY that is introduced by these initial paragraphs.

There are a number of perspectives regarding [Human nature]].

Humans are commonly referred to as persons or people and collectively as man, mankind, humanity, or the human race.

Biologically, humans are defined as hominids of the species Homo sapiens, of which the only extant subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens (See Human evolution).

The human life cycle is similar to that of other placental mammals.

Human anatomy exhibits fully bipedal locomotion. This leaves the forelimbs available for manipulating objects using opposable thumbs.

Genetics of humans influences human intelligence (trait), emotion, sexuality, and physical appearance.

From 1800 to 2000, the human population increased from one to six billion.

The faculty of speech may be a defining feature of humanity, probably predating phylogenetic separation of the modern population.

Culture is defined here as a set of distinctive material, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual features of a social group, including art, literature, lifestyles, value systems, traditions, rituals, and beliefs.

Consciousness, Human self-reflection, Mind, Mind-body problem, Dualism, Artificial intelligence, Rationalism, Empiricism, Philosophy of mind, Epistemology, Materialism, Physicalism, Reductionism, and Idealism are all of interest in the debate over "What is it to be human?" 4.250.27.140 22:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Who wrote this? See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I did. Sorry I wasn't clear about it. I copied the whole article, deleted most of it, added a few connective words, and result is copied here. A summary consisting of the article itself edited down to size. I wanted to change nothing in the order and add as little as possible of my own words, and to maintain seperate sections as seperate paragraphs. The point is solely to show what we are introducing in a "quick and dirty" way (software engineering use of "quick and dirty"). 4.250.27.140 22:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consensus?

The proposal to delete the fourth paragraph of the intro is being debated prior to unfreezing the article. I believe there is consensus for:

there is already an article on Human nature
this is an introduction to THIS article and this paragraph does not reflect the content that exists in the subsection on human nature
the paragraph contents are contentious and debateable and controversial
concerns such as User:Goethean/Human and Silversmith's are better dealt in depth at Human nature but whose elements can be listed here in Human as the intro to Human should be an intro to its contents
"Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy," and any other A causes B is debateable, so the intro saying A and B are part of human culture is not contentious thus better for the intro than saying A causes B in the intro.
the history of the debates around this introduction including the comments just made by others indicates material other than listing elements of human nature/culture are better off elsewhere.

So do we have a concensus to delete paragraph four of the intro (contents possibly going to human nature and beefing up paragraph three in the intro with a list of elements of human nature/culture (religion (not specific ones), beliefs (not specific ones), metaphysics (you get the ides), etc that are named in the subsection of Human labeled human nature (this is an into to THIS article). Note that if X is proper to refer to in the subsection of human nature, then it could then be added to the list of elements on paragraph 3. A mere list can not possibly be as contentious as saying Item A in the list causes Item B or that Item A is a subset of Item B. 4.250.27.140 17:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(and to possibly add Silversmith's paragraph to the nature subsection) 4.250.27.140 19:59, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reactions, remarks, more debate

Yes. 4.250.27.140 17:54, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to see what it looks like. If the article defines human beings in biological terms, there needs to be a statement indicating that (for some reason) the other definitions of humanity are located elsewhere. I personally don't see the big attraction from a NPOV in keeping the text on humanity at Human nature. I understand why some of you want it there — in order to marginalize it and by default to define human beings, at least in this article, as nothing but primates. But I can't think of a good reason. The contention is that it is for purely logistical/practical reasons. I don't buy it.

Human beings define themselves in biological, cultural and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are great apes. For other ideas about what human beings are, please see Human nature.

It doesn't make any sense. --goethean ॐ

I was visualizing paragraph 3 looking something like

Behaviorally, human beings are defined by their use of language; their organization into complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, nations, states, and institutions, distinguished by their different aims and ritual practices; and their development of complex technology. These behavioral differences have given rise to myriad human nature cultures incorporating many forms of beliefs, myths, rituals, values, social norms, technology and science, philosophy (example: monism), and religion and spirituality (example: God). 4.250.27.140 19:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, as a God loving monist, I have to say I kinda like that version, but what about qi, soul and atman? ;) Sam Spade 19:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These behavioral differences have given rise to myriad human nature cultures... Huh? --goethean ॐ 19:46, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So ... fine tune it in the normal editing process. There is something very wrong with trying to perfect every jot and tittle in a freeze process. Wikipedia is not a write a perfect version and freeze it forever process. Let's agree on something, then unfreeze and resume normal editing. 4.250.27.140 20:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thats comnpletely true, I agree w that implicitly. Won't it be an edit war tho? Sam Spade 20:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. I like the structural development from biology to behaviour to culture, the sequence from paragraph one through four. Goethean is correct - the sentence cited is ungrammatical at best, nonsense at worst. Furthermore, Nationalism and states are recent innovations, not necessarily central to human nature; God appears as an afterthought; Technology and science are concatenated; and monism is given unjustifiable significance. But the worst part about it is it does not say anything. It is just a list of links. Move them to See also... Banno 20:08, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

There is no possible way to overemphasize monism ;) Sam Spade 20:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maintain four paragraphs

I support The present structure, but would like to make it explicit:

Para 1 - General intro
Para 2 - Biology
Para 3 - Psychology, individual and social behaviour
Para 4 - Culture, including philosophy, spirituality, science and technology.

Banno 20:15, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Sam Spade 20:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1)Problem One: if we agree on this does it end the freeze? If it doesn't then its not the whole solution (but its clear and uncontentious so it could be a frame for a solution to the freeze).

2)Problem Two: the intro needs to be an intro to this article, so do we alter the article to fit this frame? agree to this frame (when filled in with further discussion) then adjust the body during normal editing while the article is not frozen?

Anyone care to take a stab a filling in the frame in a way that minimizes A causes B and maximizes the extent to which it is an intro to the existing article???? Or maybe we just change paragraph four to say "Culture, including philosophy, spirituality, science and technology are a part of human culture." and let the paragraph get added to by normal edit process. 4.250.27.140 21:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response: 1)No, it is not the whole solution. I suggest that we set up a mock intro here and edit it just as we would the real intro.

2)Perhaps. It is not very far from the present structure. Banno 21:31, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

As this has been a controversial page, I'm uncomfortable debating with an anon IP. Can you say whether you also edit Wikipedia with a user name? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:13, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have NEVER had a user name on any Wiki including this one. Most 4.250 edits I have run into are mine. All my edits for the last few months are 4.250.xxx.xxx Before that (November 2004 ???) I made no more than a dozen or so edits under some other number (that I don't recall right now) (that is all controlled by my ISP). I've run into Sam and Mel a few time on line here. Good enough? 4.250.27.140 21:53, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks as though you've been following Mel around, not just running into him. It would make more sense to get a user name. It's not obligatory, but people will be less suspicious of you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:07, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I support Banno's proposal. I'd like to see wide buy-in here before we settle on any one particular solution. FeloniousMonk 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that I was way premature. 4.250.27.140 21:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just added "A summary of the existing MAIN BODY that is introduced by these initial paragraphs." back where I list the contents of para 3 para 4, etc. 4.250.27.140 21:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mock intro - for editing

The versions in this subsection are not be be signed and are to be edited at will as an experiment (including creating and deleting versions)

Note: Posts shouldn't be deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Version 1

Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens: a bipedal primate belonging to the superfamily of Hominoidea.

Humans have an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects. Humans also have a highly developed brain with capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, introspection, curiosity, consciousness, religion, philosophy, art, music, literature, feelings, science, and technology.

Humans are inherently social. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups. These range from nations and states down to families. These institutions have given rise to shared artifacts, beliefs, myths, rituals, values, and social norms which together form the group's culture.

Version 2

Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "knowing man"): a bipedal primate belonging to the superfamily of Hominoidea, with all of the apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.

Humans have an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain and consequent capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection.

Behaviorally, human beings are defined by their use of language; their organization into complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups, nations, states, and institutions, distinguished by their different aims and ritual practices; and their development of complex technology. These behavioral differences have given rise to myriad cultures incorporating many forms of beliefs, myths, rituals, values, and social norms.

The curiosity and introspective nature of human beings have led to many attempts to explain their consciousness and existence, and have given rise to a number of metaphysical approaches. These include the views that there is no reality beyond the physical and that the world consists of at least two kinds of thing, mind and body, and that a human being is a combination of the two. There are also the views that the world, including human beings, is all that there is, and the view that there may be also be God, gods, or other supernatural entities, and that humans, and perhaps non-human animals, have souls. Such self-reflection is the basis of theology and philosophy, and is present in the earliest historical records.

Version 3

Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "knowing man"): a bipedal primate belonging to the superfamily of Hominoidea, with all of the apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.

Humans have an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, and a highly developed brain and consequent capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection.

Behaviorally, human beings are defined by their use of language; their organization into complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups,families, nations, states, and institutions, distinguished by their different aims and ritual practices; and their development of complex technology. These behavioral differences have given rise to myriad human nature cultures incorporating many forms of beliefs, myths, rituals, values, social norms, technology and science, philosophy (example: monism), and religion and spirituality (example: God).

Version 4

There are a number of perspectives regarding Human nature.

Humans are commonly referred to as persons or people and collectively as man, mankind, humanity, or the human race.

Biologically, humans are defined as hominids of the species Homo sapiens, of which the only extant subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens (See Human evolution).

The human life cycle is similar to that of other placental mammals.

Human anatomy exhibits fully bipedal locomotion. This leaves the forelimbs available for manipulating objects using opposable thumbs.

Genetics of humans influences human intelligence (trait), emotion, sexuality, and physical appearance.

From 1800 to 2000, the human population increased from one to six billion.

The faculty of speech may be a defining feature of humanity, probably predating phylogenetic separation of the modern population.

Culture is defined here as a set of distinctive material, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual features of a social group, including art, literature, lifestyles, value systems, traditions, rituals, and beliefs.

Consciousness, Human self-reflection, Mind, Mind-body problem, Dualism, Artificial intelligence, Rationalism, Empiricism, Philosophy of mind, Epistemology, Materialism, Physicalism, Reductionism, and Idealism are all of interest in the debate over "What is it to be human?"

Version 5

Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "knowing man"): a bipedal primate belonging to the superfamily of Hominoidea, with all of the apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.

Humans have an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, a highly developed brain and consequent capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection. A concept current within the scientific community is that human evolution occured in response to a need for long distance running. Humans are said to be one of a short list of animals with such a capacity.

The human mind has several distinct attributes. It is responsible for the complexity of human behaviour, especially language. Curiosity and introspection have led to a range of explanations for consciousness and the the relation between mind and body. Psychology is the study of the mind. Religious perspectives generally emphasise a soul, Qi or atman as the essence of being, and God as the essential focus. Philosophy, especially philosophy of mind, attempts to fathom the depths of each of these perspectives. Art, music and literature are often utilised in expressing these concepts and feelings. Science and technology are among the other products of the human mind.

Humans are inherently social. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups. These range from nations and states down to families. These institutions have given rise to shared artifacts, beliefs, myths, rituals, values, and social norms which together form the group's culture.

Version 6

According to biology and anthropology, human beings are bipedal primates, classified as Homo sapiens (Latin for knowing man) and distinguished, as the name suggests, by their unique development of language, culture, society, and technology.

According to some of the major world religions, human beings are variously considered to be created in the image of god (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), as the incarnation of eternal, immaterial spirit (Hinduism), as illusion (Buddhism), as an expression of the ineffable (Taoism), or as lacking any static nature whatsoever (Confucianism).

Version 7

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 deity 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.

Version 8

This subsection is for talk about the experiment in the prior subsection

Firstly I am very happy with the above, thank you all. Secondly, there are 2 areas which concern me. Firstly, the assumption that God is supernatural. Secondly, the false dicotomy between religion and science (which I removed an allusion to). That said, we are making a mighty amount of progress! Cheers,

Sam Spade 11:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This section was someone else's idea but I am interesteed in the concept of regular wikipedia style editing here in an experimental section. Maybe it'll be useful, maybe not. Let's edit away and find out. By providing the ability to fork versions as well as edit freely, maybe some version will evolve that can gain consensus. 4.250.168.246 12:21, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Somehow the previous version got lost in all of this... Sam Spade 12:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't lost it was freely edited. Forking (creating a new version) was exactly how I visualize this working - along with everyone modifying other versions with the end objective to have several versions each in a different style or with a differennt emphasis. Obviously changing every version to be identical serves no good point. But how much should say Sam modify other than version five? My guess is that maximum benefit would result from everyone feeling maximally free to create new versions and edit lower numbered versions and minimally free to delete versions and modify higher numbered versions; with everyone feeing free to minor mods in every version every day so evolution of the versions can occur. In particular, I'd like someone else to take a drastic edit to the "summary" version (I put it here just to see what would happen). 4.250.168.246 12:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I had visualised differently, w no ideas of forks. What I don't like about the forking idea is that it is likely to lead to a vote, rather than concensus. Wikipedia being concensus rather than democracy driven, I'm not so sure thats a good thing. Sam Spade 12:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarlly. Deleting versions is also possible, so we could one by one increase the number of versions, then decrease so we wind up with one last concensus version without ever voting. This is all an experiment with anyone able to edit or envision rules. Version labeled 1.5 or Version labeled 999 (as the sixth actual version) or version labeled Mel. The actual article IS a one version edit box and experience shows that produces edit wars. This discussion page edited WITHOUT DELETION AND WITH SIGNING is an edit box with multiple versions but noone editing other people's versions. This experiment is half one and have the other (as I see it anyway). 4.250.168.246 14:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could whoever wrote this please sign your posts? The above is the same as a previous version. I don't see the point of discussing versions that have already been rejected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:52, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

'twas I, Slim. It's a version for editing, in an attempt to stop the unnecessary multiplication of revisions. Instead of posting multiple variations, just stick 'em here. Otherwise we will need to archive every couple of days. I didn't sig. it simply because I wanted it to be neutral - at least to start. Banno 22:01, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC) (besides, you can see it was my just by looking at the history, and I said I was going to place it here in a previous post - try to keep up...;-)

And what is the point of reintroducing old versions? As for your point about archiving, it might make more sense to set up a page for the intro to be discussed on SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:09, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Why are we having this discussion? Forget it. If it confuses rather than helps, just delete it. I feel quite frustrated that you don't see the point, but it's not worth the discussion. Care to archive again? Banno 22:28, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Banno, don't delete posts, and please stop inserting your own comments into other people's. Discussion is good, but going over old ground (and recent old ground) is pointless. I suggest you read the archives. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

why not? Those I deleted served no purpose, as you pointed out, and are there for eternity in the history. Banno 02:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Because you have no right to delete other's people comments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It is a standard practice to insert comments into prior posts. I find it quite amusing to be scolded for it. Banno 02:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad I amuse you. When you see that two people have reverted your insertions, you might take that as a hint that they'd rather you didn't squeeze your views into their posts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Any other quaint local customs I should know about? Banno 07:49, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

You entirely missed the point of the section; that you did so showed that it was a waste of time. Any further discussion would compound the error, But perhaps goes part way to explain the 13 archives for the Page, which I will, I am afraid, decline your invitation to read. Banno 02:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

If you can't be bothered to do any research, don't ask people to explain things to you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:35, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

How rude!Banno 07:49, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to be rude. I told you there had been objections from some editors to the inclusion of religous beliefs under narratives; you asked me to refer you to the comments; I told you to check the archives starting at archive 6; you replied that you had no intention of reading them. Despite knowing nothing about the history of the page, you try to restart a discussion we've already had many times, and refer us back to a version of the intro that has been rejected more than once. You've been highly critical of other people's attempts to reach consensus, and yet this is what you offer: "Humans are incline to attempts to learn about both their existence and that of the world in which they find themselves. This has led to various cultural phenomena, including religion, philosophy and science. Banno 22:54, May 31, 2005 (UTC)"

I repeat: if you want to help improve the introduction, you're more than welcome to try, but a quick scan of the archives, or even just of the article's history, will give you a better understanding of what types of introduction have already been rejected, and why. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

These might also help: Talk:Human/draft, User:Goethean/Human. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, slim, thanks for the pointer - I gave them all a quick look. But I think that, as you say, it would be silly to re-hash old ideas, and my hope is that the perspective I am bringing might serve to help - not because I am brilliant, but precisely because I don't have a history here. To that end, again, you will just have to forgive me - or not - for not reading the archives in depth. My intention is to deal with the article as it appears now. Banno 08:33, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

A mess

I think I'll give up on this. Seven versions? I'm beginning to think that there is no will to move towards a consensus here. Version 1 has lost its four-paragraph structure, which was essential. Version two maintains the confusion in the third and fourth paragraphs - neither has a specific subject, folks! But that is better than version four, which has little if any paragraph structure! Version 6 implies that humanity is essentially religious, and nought else; version seven digresses into a philosophical essay.

That leaves Three and Five. I maintain that Five is the better, if only because it contains more links, and it presents a structure that could be reflected inthe article itself.

If you want to progress, you will need to cull these versions. Forget your history here and look at what is best for the article. Banno 20:42, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and give up if you wish. Or you could provide add a version you think is perfect. Or you could ignore the experiment and keep adding talk sections like this one; like the group has done on and on without result. You create an edit-freely section then complain your version was edited. Well, thats why i created a version structure so people could create forks if they wanted so multiple versions could evolve at the same time. Obviously, to make progress, we'll need to prune the versions at some point. I seeded the versions with enough variety, we should be able to mix and match and evolve. Wether we do or nor depends on wether people want to give this experiment a try or not. If noone wants to try this experiment, it too will come to nought. I hope you decide to give the experiment you started a try, even if i did take freely editing your initial seed in a direction you did not anticipate. 4.250.168.37 23:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This talk page is once again going to hell in a handbasket. Does anyone mind if I set up a special page for this introduction experiment? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've copied the mock intros to Talk:Human/intro so the discussion and editing of the versions can take place there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:31, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I just made an edit at the page set up by SlimVirgin Talk:Human/intro. Trying to work out a solution at that sandbox instead of using the subsection above as one is fine with me. 4.250.198.57 22:53, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Really, a mess

I think I agree with Banno here. This dispute has gone on for too long. How long has has the article been frozen, for goodness' sake? Versions 3 and 5 are definitely the best - I can't believe some of the other rubbish has even been considered. Sort this out quickly.

I see Sam Spade has given up on this - frankly, I don't blame him. --Mark J 08:50, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Method

There is a basic methodological error occurring here. There are three things that are simply not occurring.

The first concerns Point of View. The aim of the Wiki is to produce a text that is neutral, in that it reports views rather than advocates them. So, for instance, "Humans have a soul" is unacceptable. But "Theologians claim that Humans have a soul" is acceptable. Each editor should ensure that the views of their community are reported in the article. They should also permit the views of others to be reported. If you cannot do this, you have no place being here.

The second concerns structure. The introduction must be brief by its nature; there is plenty of space in the body of the article for detail. The structure of the introduction itself should be clear; it should move from a basic statement of the topic into a hint of the detail to come in the main body, so that it draws the reader into the article and be reflected in the body of the article. It is not the place to create long lists of links, nor is it the place for explaining the view of your community in detail. If your view is represented, however briefly, that should be enough - save the detail for the body of the article.

Taking these two things together, it is plain, I hope, that the aim is not to list as many distinct introductions as possible, but to create one, make sure that it is clear and neutral, and get on with the main task of creating an inclusive and wide-ranging article. The approach the editors are taking at present is the opposite of this - dissent in the place of agreement, chaos in the place of structure.

Get your act together, folks. Choose one intro from your list - any one - and edit it until your you find the minimum account of your view that you and the others will agree on - write for each other, not for yourself. Banno 09:32, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Preferred version?

The following appears to be the preferred version - let's get the page unblocked and get on with it.Banno 10:31, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I tried hard not to overemphasise religion, or underemphasise science. I also sacrified the "Monism, dualism and pluralism" bit due to lack of flo, but I'd like to see it later in the article. Sam Spade 21:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens (Latin for "knowing man"): a bipedal primate belonging to the superfamily of Hominoidea, with all of the apes: chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.

Humans have an erect body carriage that frees the upper limbs for manipulating objects, a highly developed brain and consequent capacity for abstract reasoning, speech, language, and introspection. A concept current within the scientific community is that human evolution occured in response to a need for long distance running. Humans are said to be one of a short list of animals with such a capacity.

The human mind has several distinct attributes. It is responsible for the complexity of human behaviour, especially language. Curiosity and introspection have led to a range of explanations for consciousness and the the relation between mind and body. Psychology is the study of the mind. Religious perspectives generally emphasise a soul, Qi or atman as the essence of being, and God as the essential focus. Philosophy, especially philosophy of mind, attempts to fathom the depths of each of these perspectives. Art, music and literature are often utilised in expressing these concepts and feelings. Science and technology are among the other products of the human mind.

Humans are inherently social. Humans create complex social structures composed of many cooperating and competing groups. These range from nations and states down to families, and also from the community to the self. These institutions have given rise to shared artifacts, beliefs, myths, rituals, values, and social norms which together form the group's culture.

This gets my vote. Well done. ≈ jossi ≈ 23:27, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

It has some grammatical problems and antecedent confusion, but it is a small step in the right direction. --goethean ॐ 21:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to make whatever minor adjustments are necessary. Sam Spade 21:21, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that long-distance running as a theory of early human evolution deserves a place in the intro, but some statement about human evolution would be appropriate. How about a statement on African origins? --Rikurzhen 21:49, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Thats a widely contested theory, see Multiregional hypothesis. The long distance running bit can go, but it is accepted at the moment, and adds a bit of spice as to why people might be the way we are. Sam Spade 22:54, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wan't specific enough. If you check the text I wrote in the evolution section, you'll see that the Multiregional hypothesis has made a come back -- so partial or substianital African origins might more precisely describe the emerging view. ... I think the theory is cute, but I don't see anything about it in the body; also it might eventually go the way of the aquatic ape idea. --Rikurzhen 05:43, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Aqua apes must be in the intro!!! ... or maybe not ;) Sam Spade 07:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine tuning the intro

A couple of things: 1.What do you mean by "God as the essential focus"? 2. I don't like this line - Art, music and literature are often utilised in expressing these concepts and feelings. 3. I think extrospection should be used with introspection as we didn't come up with all this from just looking inside ourselves, but around us as well. One of the main reasons we developed myths etc. is due to attempts to explain the world around us. Please discuss or I will make changes myself. --Silversmith Hewwo 09:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But extrospection is such an ugly neologism! Why not just say 'observation? Banno 11:39, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you have a problem with extro and not intro? Is it because you are more familiar with intro? And I think "observation" would be fine. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:28, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why use an odd word when there is a more regular alternative? Do you want people to read what you are saying, or puzzle over a neologism? But the point is moot. Banno

I don't mind tinkering w wording, so long as the links stay. I think its kinda important to mention art and music, for example! All this extro vrs. intro stuff seems an unneccessary debate, IMO. Sam Spade 14:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I want Art etc. in there, as you can see from my proposed version. I'm just not fussed with the way it is worded now. I'm happy with observation as I said. I still don't get the "essential focus" bit about God, but I'm reluctant to re-word that bit myself. --Silversmith Hewwo 15:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I reverted the following:

*Pantheism, panentheism, animism, and many forms of polytheism and eastern philosophy hold that a human is a spiritual being interwoven into a spiritual universe which ultimately reflects an all-encompassing immanent God.

The transcendentalism of Eastern philosophies like Advaita Vedanta are quite different than pantheism. Let's write a sentence (or 2) that reflects these differences. --goethean ॐ 14:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hm...now I'm looking at the pantheism article, and it agrees with you, not me. I think that it is incorrect, but maybe it should be corrected first. --goethean ॐ 14:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, this is my area of expertise more so than any other, and that pantheism article is the result on years of careful compromise, debate and research. Sam Spade 15:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm looking at the article history. You can put your version back, I guess, but honestly I don't think its accurate. Here's what I came up with in the last few minutes: --goethean ॐ 15:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Pantheism holds that human beings, being part of the universe, are a part of God, who is completely immanent. Panentheism (including Emanationism) is similar, but holds that god is transcendent as well as immanent.

Thats not bad, altho I am unsure about the need for emphasising emanationism, or deleting animism (a predominant world "religion"). What I was trying to do was include a diversity (like the vedic religions, animism, polytheism...), which seems to be left out. Please see Monism#Monism_in_Hinduism for some extra info on the subject. I would also appreciate your input @ Talk:Pantheism. Sam Spade 15:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I put in:

- Pantheism holds that human beings, as spiritual being interwoven into a spiritual universe, are a part of God, who is completely immanent. Panentheism is similar, but holds that God is transcendent as well as immanent. Monism, Animism, Vedic religions and other forms of eastern philosophy, and many forms of polytheism have a similar interpretation.

Is that an acceptable compromise? The debate about where to draw the line between pantheism/panentheism and whatever can go on forever, in my experience :/ There is also the atheist pantheist or "Naturalistic Pantheism" vrs. the theist pantheist or "classical pantheism" debate, if more is needed ;0 Sam Spade 15:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eh. I would be happier if you deleted the last sentence. I don't like the grouping together of vastly different views. --goethean ॐ 16:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We don't agree about them being so different, but I'd be fine w anything factually accurate which preserves the links. feel free to strive for rewording. Sam Spade 16:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed polytheism. Polytheism is the belief in multiple gods, and isnt related to pantheism. --goethean ॐ 23:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Human=H. sapiens sapiens throughout

Is preferrable, because H. sapiens is 60,000 (or thereabouts) years older than our current subspecies. The cultural development of H. sapiens is incomparable to that of modern H. sapiens sapiens (see Upper Paleolithic). The taxobox won't need H. sapiens idaltu, and it makes the people who don't like human=ape a bit happier. --Phlebas 13:24, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

There is significant scientific debate regarding whether we are a sub-species or not. Some physical anthropologists do not use the term H. sapiens sapiens and prefer H. sapiens to describe fully modern humans of the last 40,000 years. Additionally, those who prefer H. sapiens sapiens do so mainly because they distinguish Neanderthals as the sub-species H. sapiens neanderthalensis. Recent data indicates that neanderthals were not a separate subspecies and classify them as H. neanderthalensis. --JPotter 17:28, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am aware that Neanderthals are no longer a subspecies sibling of us. But I was confused by the term "archaic Homo sapiens", of which I didn't know it now is Homo heidelbergensis, neither that it started near 500,000 years ago. But apparently H. h. sapiens is still used to disambiguate from H. h. idaltu? Are the Qafzeh and Shkul fossils modern humans (these really need an article)?

Unprotecting

This article has been protected for quite a while. I'm unprotecting because I think you're all acting pretty grown up and deserve to be trusted to edit the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I am impressed! I "left" this article more that 4 weeks ago I believe, and I can see that we have an intro we can be really proud of. Congratulations! Bravo!--Zappaz 21:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Time-frame

This article is about humans of the last 30,000 years. For other uses, see Human (disambiguation).

This should be removed. Firstly, it serves no purpose. Secondly, both the physical and genetic evidence shows that Australian Aboriginals split from the Eurasian population over 40,000, and probably about 70,000 BP. There is therefore a racist connotation. Banno 09:08, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

hehehehe... whats a BP? Seriously tho, someone needs to fix up primitive / primitivism so as to effectively discuss tribal / primitive humans, such as the bushmen. Sam Spade 21:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)