you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

No, it has been demonstrated that what you call "what we are" really isn't. Your statement is founded on the psychological aspect of man. In fact, that aspect is more of an aberration, or a special case scenario, if you will, of what being human means, than the true nature of what being human means.

A little bit like in mathematics, you have the Rational Numbers universe, and most mathematics are content residing there. That doesn't make the Rational numbers the be all, end all of mathematics. It is a specific limitation on the entire universe of mathematics. Similarly, ascribing the entirety of the human phenomenon to the psychological is artificially limiting it.

It is a natural mistake to make: most people live completely within the psychological framework of being human, and this paradigm is heavily reinforced socially.

Still, human nature is mostly outside of the realm of the psychological.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

I can both agree with what I said and with what you said - on different levels.

I don't speak Chinese. Put me in a cyber-dream where I'm Chinese and that's just not me anymore. You might as well just run that program on any generic hardware/software/wetware.

My criticism was not on our realities, but the foundations of that specific science-fiction story. It seems like a glaring plot hole - but it's sort of necessary to get on with the story - like gravity in space operas.