What is a human being? The question is both highly controversial and important. In You're a Human Being-What's That? Dr. Frederick R. Bauer presents a methodical analysis of the ontological structure of the human being.
You're a Human Being—What's That?
The Scientific AnswerBy Frederick R. BaueriUniverse, Inc.
Copyright © 2011 Frederick R. Bauer
All right reserved.ISBN: 978-1-4620-5290-5 Contents
A. Introduction: The Focus.............................................3B. Evidence: The Data..................................................11Section 1 The Thesis: Representationalism..............................13Section 2 Three Arguments For Representationalism......................23Argument One Non-Sensory Objects.......................................24Argument Two Language..................................................40Argument Three Sensory Objects.........................................61C. Four Conclusions....................................................114Introduction: The Question.............................................123I Mind-Body Theories As Answers To "What Am I?"........................125II The Five-Concept Model..............................................130III The Phenomenalist Answer...........................................141IV Materialism In General..............................................151V Materialism I: Radical Behaviorism...................................157VI Materialism II: Brain-Mind Identity Theory..........................171VII Materialism III: Epiphenomenalism..................................193VIII Berkeley's Idealism...............................................203IX Two-Substance, Sharp Dualism........................................207X Jamesian Quintalism..................................................228X-b Why This Last Is 'The' Scientific Answer...........................241Appendix A: Common-Sense Concept(S) Of Change..........................253Appendix B: Meaning Vs Concepts........................................261Appendix C: Time.......................................................273Selected Bibliography..................................................307
Chapter One
A. INTRODUCTION: THE FOCUS
Stated somewhat overdramatically, the object studied in this text will be ...
you!
Each one of us has something very basic in common, namely, that he or she is a member of that most interesting species, homo sapiens. What, though, makes us homo sapientes what we are? To understand some of the key parts of the full answer to that question is our goal. In other words, to understand some of the key elements in your own makeup. To understand you. In short, to answer a question you must ask and answer for yourself. That question is ...
What am I?
No other topic can compete with this in interest and importance. Its interest lies chiefly in the fact that there is nothing that is quite so close to us as our selves. Its importance stems from the role that our understanding of our selves plays, not only in how we should live our own lives, but in deciding what goals our generation should set for itself in preparing a world hospitable to future generations.
Another approach to this inquiry is to say we're seeking the scientific answer to the question, "What is the nature of a human being?" Of course, there are different opinions about what science is and about what is the scientific answer to the question, "What is the nature of a human being?" The author of this text believes his answer is 'the' scientific one. Otherwise, he'd change his opinion.
Then, too, reference to "a nature" raises large questions, such as, "Do natures or essences exist?", "Is there a nature common to all humans?", and so on. But questions about human nature can be broken down into other questions: "What things can be said of all humans?" "What do humans have in common with inanimate objects?" "What do they have in common with other living things?" "What is distinctive about them?" "What is their origin and ultimate destiny?" Etc.
The Western tradition. Perhaps never before has there been so much disagreement about humans' nature as there is at the present time. For most of the last two thousand years, Western culture was dominated by a view of humans that resulted from a synthesis of Greek philosophy and Judaeo-Christian religion. According to this tradition, humans were believed to be composed of two distinct principles or components, a material body and a spiritual soul. Because their soul gives them the ability to reason, humans were regarded as superior to all other creatures. In fact, according to the traditional view, the physical universe was thought to exist specifically to serve humans and their temporal needs.
This view was non-evolutionary. Though the body originated from matter, the spiritual soul, it was maintained, was created immediately by God who was himself purely spiritual in nature. This belief implied that each and every individual human soul was created according to the same general blueprint, was endowed with the same general potentialities, and was intended for the same general destiny, namely, an unending existence in the presence of the Creator after the death of the body. It was recognized, however, that individuals by their own free choice could frustrate that intention.
Attacks against the tradition. This sketch, admittedly a crude one, of certain ingredients of the traditional Western view of humans has come under heavy attack in modern times. None of these attacks is entirely new, but the reason why they have recently succeeded after mostly failing in the past is that they are now grounded on modern scientific theories generally accepted even by the traditionalists.
There are several prongs to the attack on the traditional view. One prong of the attack comes from Darwin's theory of evolution. To use the words of Calvin Hall, "before Darwin, man was set apart from the rest of the animal kingdom by virtue of his having a soul. The evolutionary doctrine made man a part of nature, an animal among other animals. Man became an object of scientific study, no different, save in complexity, from other forms of life." (C. Hall, 1954, p.11)
This attempt to demote humans from a position superior to the animals to the rank of simply the most complex of animals has been strengthened by the study of animals themselves, the study named "ethology." Traditionalists who argue that humans transcend the purely animal kingdom have claimed that humans alone are capable of tool-making and language communication, and of the symbolic conceptualization and the logical reasoning that these presumably require. (Cfr. M. Adler, 1967) However, recent investigations have led many to believe that not only are some animals tool users, but that they also display powers of generalization (conceptualization) in certain experimental situations and are capable of acquiring the power of language communication (the chimps) or even that they already possess such powers (the dolphins). Frans de Waal, a prominent researcher, has drawn attention to the unsuspected capabilities of animals.
The attack also comes from the newer sciences of biochemistry and biophysics. Whereas Darwin's theory of evolution allegedly traces human ancestry back, not to an immaterial Creator, but to more primitive forms of life, advances in modern biology have led many to trace life itself back to forces that are immanent in matter itself. Here again, the challenge is an old one, but it is recent discoveries that have lent a high degree of credibility to an older challenge. Processes within the living...
