human.

in this week, we learned about human anc cyborgs

but i can't find ppt file.

so i am going to write that i remembered

what is human biengs..

this question is so abstractive..

but i think.. and write bellow..

We can acquire all sorts of knowledge as long as our senses functions the way they were meant
to function and we can learn what our body is capable of learning. Since the golden age in Greece
through the dark ages into our modern world, there has been a multitude of men and women
trying to acquire the knowledge of who we really are and what our purpose might be on this
planet. There cannot be a reasonable way to explain the meaning of life without first knowing
what we are, who we are, and why we are. ?Know Thyself? like the oracle of Delfi once said.
Analyzing this can be difficult and has been explained by many philosophers through time by
using their various scientific and logical tools. This curious type of organism that has been
analyzed in so many ways is scientifically classified as an animal. It is constantly on a quest to
gain knowledge through questioning thoughts as well as various forms of physical items in order
to create a picture of reality. I believe a human being is a creation containing two unique parts,
equally important for our ability to interact with everything that surrounds us along an endless
mysterious path known as time. One part is crystal clear; it is the physical and material matter
occupying space, known as the body. This form of matter has size, shape, and dimensions and
can be experienced empirically. The other part of the human being is harder to understand since
it has no shape, size, or dimensions and cannot be experienced by empirical knowledge, it is the
mind. Here our deepest feelings, emotions, consciousness, and our idea of reality originate. Even
though our thoughts involving our senses are created in our mind we cannot see, hear, touch,
feel, or taste the mind. Combining these two parts allows us to act in certain ways and evaluate
certain things.
Travelling in space interacting with everything that surrounds us to gain knowledge by
experience would be known to Protagoras as an empirical type of Psychology. Reality is the sum
of all the experiences throughout time making a human a constantly curious organism willing to
learn from experience. Socrates would also agree with this to a certain extent, using his talent of
questioning. Gaining knowledge through interacting with everything that surrounds us, through
questioning people about what they hold to be true interpretations of life. Although knowledge
itself was not so important to Socrates it was the benefits of learning and the desire for happiness
guided by a daemon which had value. I do not agree with Socrates fully since human beings are
curious and want to explore some things we might not consider would lead to happiness. It would
be much harder for humans to know themselves without knowing the meaning of the pain
principle that does not lead to happiness. However Plato would not fully agree with Socrates
either, this is demonstrated through his ?Myth of the Cave?. The search for true knowledge by
using the senses is what makes a human being aware of reality and him/her self. It is the
importance of acquiring the knowledge that is more important then the benefits. Interacting
with whatever is surrounding us allows the human being to gain knowledge, thus getting to know
him/her self. I do not totally agree with Plato either since he claimed that the truth of human
nature involves knowledge of another world. Using the senses to gain knowledge, and that it is
the knowledge that is more important then the benefits of knowledge, I agree with. Interestingly
Plato?s student Aristotle reasoned that humans are rational animals and human nature requires
only knowledge of our own world. Again interacting with our surroundings using our senses is
important to Aristotle; ?The purpose of the eye is to see, and of the ears to hear.? Clearly the
philosophers of ancient Greece agree that the human being interact with everything that
surrounds him/her in order to gain knowledge. Although the knowledge and its importance have
its own meaning to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.
Before these western philosophers great visionaries of India had created a theory, for life and
reality in a collection of hymns known as the Vedas. I do not like their idea of a fundamental
reality which is neither existence nor non-existence. Although among other things in the Vedas
there is a philosophy known as Brahman which is the ultimate reality. Brahman appearing in the
Upanishads writings cannot be seen, smelled, felt, heard, described, or imagined. I believe this is
not reality but it is like the mind where human beings create their picture of reality. The
philosophers also thought that knowing yourself is part of reality and by acquiring this
knowledge one could understand the reality. Atman is identical with Brahman and it is exactly
like the mind. Atman is beyond our knowledge to understand just like the mind. Eastern
philosophy from India therefore applies to my definition of a human being since it describes the
mind. While the early western philosophy from Greece is more akin to analyse everything that
surrounds us. Blending western and eastern philosophy from Greece and India explains how a
human being is a creation containing the two unique parts, which makes the human being
complete.
As modern philosophy came along, arriving from the closest centuries the definition of a human
being begins to weaken. The Darwinian Challenge or Darwinism disturbs my definition. I can
agree to the theory of evolution to a certain degree. It is obviously more accurate than the
Christian view of philosophy. Evolution describes why a curious animal is classified to the genus
homo and to the specific species Homo Sapiens, scientifically a human being, and the reason why
we experience our body the way we do. Simply I would like to say that it defines what a body is
and how it became the form it is now. Although when it comes to purposes that are related to the
body I do not agree at all with Darwin. The idea that the body was not created for a purpose, not
to interact and learn is outrageous. Of-course the body?s purpose is to work together with the
mind to acquire knowledge it is however not just developed by random variations without any
purposes. Without any will or purposes humans would be extinct years ago. If our purpose was
not to survive, love, or reproduce, how could we continue to live?
Finally another modern view of philosophy came from Jean Paul
Sartre. Much of what he claims applies to the definition of human beings, there is one mistake I
believe he did though. Sartre went into deep in his theories trying to hard, I am satisfied with
most of what he claimed, but some things are not logical at all. Existentialism holds true that
humans create their own nature through free responsible choices and actions. The destiny of
human beings is not fixed our life?s depend on what we choose to interact with and what we
select to learn, at least most of the time. Small children are often left without free will and choices
therefore existentialism can not be universally generalized. Sartre went to deep when he claimed
that humans are free because we are not. Everyday we learn and experience things we initially
did not choose to do, for example humans do not choose to get murdered by some hostile lunatic.
The murderer choose to kill whoever got killed therefore leaving the victim without choice and
without freedom, the victim is therefore not responsible for his own death. Human beings are not
what our choices makes us we are rather what we are influence by on our way to learn, explore,
and experience, along an endless timeline.

then what is cybogs..

Well, the easiest (and more tangible) response is that "cyborg" is short for cybernetic organism,
or what cyborg theorists Gray, Mentor, and Figueroa-Sarriera (1995) call “the melding of the
organic and the mechanic, or the engineering of a union between separate organic systems”
They admit, however, that “the range of human-machine couplings almost defies definition:
even existing human cyborgs range from the quadriplegic patient totally dependent on a vast
array of high-tech equipment to a small child with one immunization”(p. 4). Yes, this is all a bit
confusing...but many cyborgologists would say that we are all cyborgs to some extent, especially
as our daily lives become increasingly connected to technologies of all kinds.
The more theoretical response to the question, "What is a cyborg?" should probably begin with
Donna Haraway, whose 1985 paper entitled "A manifesto for cyborgs: Science, technology, and
socialist-feminism in the 1980s" ushered in the academic discourse on cyborgs, hybrid creatures
who blur the boundaries between the various boundary projects of modernity, including
human/machine, human/animal, male/female, and so on. For Haraway, the postmodern “self” is
no longer characterized by a singular, unified identity, but an assortment of politicized and
fractured cyborg “selves.” A related notion involves the attempt to take control over one's
cyborgification, whether through some sort of body modification or other medical procedures in
which there is an intimate interface with technology. Finally, Gray (2001) and others have begun
to investigate how agency and citizenship will function in cyborg societies.
Applied to sport, the image of the cyborg challenges the notion of "pure human" competitors who
rely on old-fashioned blood, sweat, and tears, and NOT chemicals, implants, and gears! The
intersection between cyborg theory and sport studies, while not yet fully developed, raises
important questions related to practices like "body policing" in elite sport, as well as ethical
questions related to the frightening prospect (or for some a foregone conclusion) of genetically
altered athletes. Regardless of one's position, reconceptualizing "human" athletes as always and
already cyborgs may render labels such as "natural" and artificial" inconsequential, and allow
athletes, spectators, and scholars alike to begin sorting through the much more complex,
politicized and uncertain terrain of the inumerable forms and ways of being cyborg in
contemporary technocultures.