What is man?

I have been considering the question recently. This time in a general manner. Not pertaining to what he might become, what he can do, or what he can learn but only what makes man different from an ape, lion, or mouse. I have said that I do not believe males of the species to be equal, with the provisions given. I believe this too with all mankind. That being said, I go on in search of some essence of the difference between men and beasts. Free will, the ability to choose above and beyond what is learned and sometimes in spite of what would seem to be in our own self interest might be an aspect for further examination. Cognitive abilities that allow self-awareness, independent thinking, and creativity would seem to be a points of interest. And of course, the belief in the God is a topic that might well fit in this discussion.

Some believe man to be no more than an animal, if one of the most advanced, which can be and perhaps should be used as a machine might be used. A biological computer composed by genetic material, played on flesh, bone, sinew, and nerves, ending in the grave. If this is true, in time man will be processed into categories and his lot will be sealed. He will no more understand this then he has ever understood God, but being known his compliance will be assured. I suspect that even if it isn't true, that is where science is leading. If man cannot be used in quite that way, perhaps he can be produced in such a way that he is sure to function as needed or wanted. My guess is that countries such as North Korea, Cuba, the former Soviet Union, and many of the muslim nations are attempting this through selective eliminations, constant and real fear, the removal of the sensuous, an attempt to enforce equality, with various other tools used to varying degrees. I would call it an immersive or organic method of turning men into machines which, to my knowledge, hasn't yet called upon genetics and programmed breeding to it's ends. I would guess a large part of the reason many academics support these states is to study the results rather than any true belief in the systems, even should they support the man as machine or animal ideals. Since World War II it has been regarded as suspect, unconscionable, and often illegal to study human subjects in this way, however, when it is a whole other nation and there are no direct links or possible claims of coresponsibility, scientists are allowed their foray into human misery, suffering, programming, and death to look for the essences and building blocks of men.

My belief is that man is not programmable as a dog, monkey, or pig might be. And more, being far beyond the sum of his parts, he is truly a free being if limited by his nature. The difference could be seen by two men, both given an automobile, the knowledge to operate it, the destination intended by the owner of the automobile, and one being given explicit instructions about how and where to go and the other being given a road map and perhaps some hints. One will do as instructed and be where he is expected to be, within a given variance, at any given time. The other might take the same path, or not, depending on too many factors to attribute here. If speed, safety, or a few other parameters are the measuring stick, the bot man will have the edge initially, but in time the free man will always win. Because the free man will win in the end, I believe that we are born to freedom. Further, it is a part of that essence that separates us from animals.

Does that mean I believe we are driving our bodies? Yes, we are the will and spirit behind the flesh and we are not defined singularly by the flesh, only identified more readily by it. I believe also that as the flesh of men is not equal, so also are the spirits of different qualities. Though there are kinships generated by both flesh and spirit, and in combination, in attempts to create communities of near equals for our comfort and well being and of dissimilar equalities filling our various needs. Here is where I believe my commenter's beliefs might be applicable. Once we are in a community of likeness, our need to find our place and compare ourselves with others continues, creating the ego issues that seem to dominate any clique, fellowship, or community.

If we are free men and not machines, then what gives us impetus? What part does training play? What part does nature play? These are the questions which will help provide some truth. First, I do wish to say that if our bodies are similar in some aspects to automobiles, then we do have a duty, a requirement, to care for our them. This provides some impetus, but enough to deliver a man to the moon for no actual short term or personal, possibly long term, gains except knowledge gained in both the means and the action? That is too doubtful to be correct. What drives men is not visible, it can't be measured in spite of the fact that the attempt is made to do so. Needs and wants might carry some weight in our drives but are too weak, like gravity is to physics, to explain what we see in the overall view. Our impetus, taking us past any real needs and desires and frequently into territory that is against our own best interests, is our own. Each man carries it as he does his feelings, thoughts, and fingerprints. Animals do not do this, they aren't even aware of tomorrow.

Genetics play a part in deciding, to some limited extent, what we might become or be able to do. Does it bind us to limits or greatness or infamy though? I do not believe so. Many men have come from nothing to power, from greatness to ruin, and we see it nearly daily in a country where it is (still, mostly) free to happen. As well, training can be an asset and just as possibly a hindrance. Many of the inventions we take for granted today were created by people who formally simply didn't know better. Electricity was considered impossible as an energy source since it was believed it would take too much energy to send it across a wire, thus destroying the wire and the connection, thus stopping the transportation. Flying in heavier than air vehicles was not possible, in the technical sense, prior to the Wright brothers. Yet all of these men had some education, enough to read, to consider options, and practical abilities to begin a search that would lead them to remove the "im" from impossible. In genetics and in training, we find again that man is neither in complete need nor without some due to these things. In final, these things are not what separate men from animals but they begin to show what some differences could be.

If free will is true, if creativity, original thought, and self-awareness are real and true, is that enough to make man different from animals. If it is true, yes. Proving these things is by no means a simple feat. That being said, proving 1 + 1 = 2 in reality, is also a mean feat, impossible actually. (Any mathematicians out there who wants to be added to my Wilber, Orville, and Thomas list, by all means, let me know. However, if you Google it, keep it. I don't do doo.) Some things are so plain one can't but see them. That certainly isn't proof, otherwise bigfoot, the lochness monster, and UFOs would be acceptable science. The problem with science is that it only models what it sees, meaning first it must see the anomaly then it can only attempt to offer a working design that seems to act in the same manner and then hopefully be reproducible. The problem with sensory perception is the inability to perceive everything, our emotional connection to our perceptions, and and our connection(s) to the subject(s). Still, I believe in the truth of original cognitive actions and free will by men. Just that I am writing this, that I ponder these questions and my solutions as I write, that I am unsure about particular truths and proofs, indicates some truth, if not a proof in and of itself and in spite of the possibilities of errors of this method of discernment.

Beyond these simpler separations between man and animal is "the whole God thing". Many say they do not believe, others are unsure, and then there are the individuals and groups who claim unique and true divine knowledge. According to most religions that I am familiar with, excluding muslim, a man cannot become a practitioner by force, one has to be called to an understanding. One can be raised "understanding" God, but will at some point have to choose faith and then what forms that faith will take. Given this, not all men can believe in God. That man can believe in God is an interesting thing of it's own accord in that having a God places man not at the head of his reality, but as a part of it. It is sacrificing self proclamation and claims to power, greatness, and wisdom which otherwise any man would be quite reluctant to relinquish. It is, in a natural world, an unnatural act. It is this final capacity that I claim the final separation between man and animal.

Finally, I believe the pieces are collected. The evidence is gathered, the doubts have been noted. Statistically, life should not exist. That said, man is just another scientific impossibility. That there are nine billion and more might seem to lower the value of any one, yet that would be a mistake. Man is no animal, he is special. Why he is special is for another day.