Plato defined humans as featherless, bipedal animals with broad nails--what do you think of that definition?
As usual, Dr. Y does a thoroughly and completely well examined off-topic answer. The definition of anything is comprised of its essence, that which makes it unique from other similar species within its genus. Aristotle gave us the definition has withstood the test of time, and it surprises me after bringing in Aristotle that Y didn't say it: the rational animal. When Aristotle called us "animal" he automatically included all that stuff that Y methodically listed. But in all of that the only thing that sets "homo sapiens sapiens" apart from his nearest cousin the chimp is "rationality." Homo sapiens has been extinct for almost 200,000 years, but he too, was "the rational animal." The first rational animal was "homo habilis". He was human, but he was certainly not "homo sapiens sapiens." A "featherless, bipedal animal with broad nails" makes an attempt at a physical description, yet leaves much to the imagination. Aristotle isn't interested in a physical description because it is not our essence. We are the only creature with reason, and that singularity causes it to be our essence. But we are upright, bipedal and naked. Homo habilis was upright, bipedal, and almost naked. And that is where the modern question, of whether a species from another planet that looks even remotely similar to us, is genetically different, yet is a "rational animal", ought to be called "human." We don't argue about whether that creature, when we find him, ought to be called "homo sapiens sapiens". That is out of the question, because it designates a species of a genus; the alien would not belong in it. The alien would belong in its own species and genus. But it would still be animal, and rational. So would we want to include it in the broad definition of "human"? If we found a featherless, bipedal animal with broad nails on another planet and it was not rational, that would blow away Plato's definition. But if we found another "rational animal" that looked like a racoon, we would have to change the description of man to distinquish it from the "rational racoon."
Will artificial intelligence make humans redundant?
It will make lazy humans redundant, yes.People who constantly learn, adapt and try to improve their cognitive abilities will be able to apply artificial intelligence to problems that are currently intractable, like Inter-stellar travel, diseases that happen when the body is fighting itself, and a host of other challenges I can't mention here for fear of boring you.Others could evolve into beings with IQs of over 5000, capable of relating with an AGI that has spent millions of computing hours understanding several knowledge domains.One of the main limitations of humans is not just ageing, but mortality itself. If we could naturally live up to 10-20,000 years before having to deal with death, we might not have striven so hard to create machines that could do exponentially more things in the lifetime of an average human.The limitation we have as per life span is why we need machines that can search, organize and process petabytes of data in the quest for answers to questions that challenge our existence, our abilities and our race.
If you could add an extra thumb to each hand, would you put them opposite your current thumbs, or on the same side as them?
Double opposable thumbs on opposite sides of the hand would be more useful, I think. Having them both on the same side would potentially limit their range of motion, and would just provide redundancy rather than a new gripping angle.
Other than the appendix, what are some other features that humans/animals have that we’ve evolved past the need for?
Your question is based on a false assumption that evolution (macro) is true and real - it is neither. It is a popular myth and fairy tale for grown ups.I think you are referring to s "Vesitigial organs". Organs that are put forward as “vestiges” of previous creatures include: Nipples on males Wisdom teeth The appendix The coccyx bone (sometimes called the tail bone)Darwin referred to these vestigial organs in chapter 14 of On the Origin of SpeciesThe only problem is that useful functions have been found for these so called vestigial organs.• There are no “vestigial organs”• Even if evolutionists could find organs and body parts that we could not identify as having useful purpose; this would NOT prove that one creature “evolved” or emerged from a different type of creature. The mind-blowingly complex design of the human body means that we do not understanding what everything does. This does NOT mean that we emerged from some previous non human ancestor – it just means that we have more to discoverDr John Sanford (Geneticist and inventor of the Gene Gun) said : “The bottom line is that the primary axiom [of Darwinian/Macro evolution] is categorically false, you can't create information with misspellings, not even if you use natural selection.”
All knowledge is precious whether or not it serves the slightest human use - Agree or Disagree?
Even obscure, seemingly pointless information has shown useful to later explorers. If we have the ability to know it, that means it is somehow related to our experience of the world. All knowledge is precious.
Why do humans have pairs of some organs, but only one of others?
Human (and almost all living things) embryology is based on symmetry, so two of everything would be the norm, the rest are exceptions.In answer to your specific examples:You only have one heart because your double circulatory systems means one heart can maintain pressure throughout the body. Animals with more hearts, e.g. octopi with three, use them because they cannot provide sufficient pressure to specific organs, in the specific case of octopi the gills. The same problem is faced by mammals and humans, the blood that leaves the lungs is highly oxygenated, but passing across the necessarily large surface area of the lungs means it is at a greatly reduced pressure. However the mammalian solution is more ingenious and effective, and eliminates the need for additional hearts. The blood is pumped back through additional chambers in the heart, which as Frank Heile cleverly pointed out in the comments could be considered two separate hearts. This repressurises the blood allowing it to pass around the rest of the body.The reason the digestive system is singular is because it is not strictly part of the body, rather it is a space outside of the body through which food passes, and digestive enzymes are secreted. Think of the body as a sort of hugely complicated donut with the mouth, lungs, and digestive tract are all on the outside, and the rest, including the circulatory and lymphatic systems, are on the inside. Evidence for this can be seen in the cell types within these systems, e.g. the cells lining the bronchioles are ciliated EPIthelium, whereas in blood capillaries you have squamous ENDOthelium.
Is Westworld (TV series) better than Humans (TV series)?
I love “Humans”. It touched on a lot of hypothetical A.I issues and made it feel really real.However to compare Westworld to it directly isn’t really fair.Although there are very obvious similarities, it seems that Humans emphasizes on more about moral issues and hypothetical impact on society. **Spoilers** Now “Humans” is even exploring the legality of human rights for conscious robots.Westworld on the other hand, deliberately isolates itself from the rest of the world, wholly taking place in the Westworld park where we do not even know the exact location or year it takes place in. This removes all the social/political issues that “Humans” is heavy about.The implication is clear:Westworld is not a story about how self-conscious robots find their way into society ,struggle with their identity and complicated relationships with humans.It is a dramatic story involving self-conscious robots with a heavy budget for action scenes and in my humble opinion, exceptional plot and scriptwriting, taking place in a physical location isolated from society.In summary, “Humans” is intriguing, while “Westworld” is entertaining. Westworld isn’t redundant, the two shows are two different genre of television that just so happen to be in a future where robot and A.I technology can create indistinguishable androids.But personally if I have to choose one I like better, it will be Westworld hands down. I’m more for action and entertainment.
Is there an evolutionary purpose for having a dominant hand?
There isn't really a good consensus on handedness, however there are a few theories. The one that I like the most is that certain processes are handled by a single side of the brain. So when you are completing a task that uses a process in one side of the brain, you will use the corresponding hand. For example, when writing, a person will most likely use the hand that corresponds with the side of the brain responsible for handling speech. Over a lifetime this becomes self-reinforcing. Taking the example of handwriting again: a person will get a lot more practice with fine motor skills on their writing hand, and therefore tend to use that hand for even more tasks, which in turn gives the person even less practice using their other hand.more info on wikipedia: Handedness