Do you think it's possible for any of us to actually know what it's like to be human?

Makes perfect sense to me.

This is why native americans suggested that we not judge others until we have walked a mile in their moccasins.

All of us have our own concepts and notions of humanity. Some ideals are a general consensus of the world (such as the idea that raping, bullying and such is categorized under something 'bad). But of course, there are grey areas where one person might consider something to be an act of humanity, while another might consider it inhuman. Mercy killing, for example.

In my opinion, right and wrong *does exist*. But there is no set of rules in this world that tell us *what* is right or wrong. That's up to us to figure out.

In response to the music analogy, no, you wouldn't know what music is. But not because you've heard just one song. But because there's always something more to music. The person who listens to classical and electronic may know more than you, the person who listens to classical, electronic and country may know even more and the person who's been in the music industry for 10 years may know the most, but he won't know *all* of it. What if someone came to a person A who understood music the best and explained to him a whole new genre that no one had heard. Wouldn't that imply that A didn't really fully understand music?

This is obviously analogous to understanding humanity (which is what I think you were comparing it to in your question). You can live for a million years, and have the best and most in depth understanding of what humanity is, but it will never be a complete understanding. There will always be something more. Human nature is complicated, sometimes predictable and sometimes fickle. Human nature is constantly developing and changing. Thoughts evolve. Popular beliefs change. Perceptions of different things change. And it isn't within the capacity of any person to just know exactly what humanity is. All these perceptions will (as you say) be distorted by the person's own beliefs. There is a certain limit to how unprejudiced a person can be when listening to other people's thoughts and opinions.

Great question !

However, I think it is only Partially true. While we are each individuals, we are First a part of a Set/Group which has many commonalities. It is these common features - physical, genetic, physiological, social, emotional, mental, sensory, evolutionary, neurological ... - that group us together as a species. So the basic structure & hard-wiring is the same.

This common thread links us to each other & hence we can, to a very large extent, understand, empathize, sympathize, connect with each other.

However, since we not clones or robots, each individual does have differences that may be the product of our genes, environment, learning, exposure, experience, neural associations, & so on. It is these nuanced differences that may cause different people or persons to react differently or have different personalities.

Since our Foundation is the same, since we Sense, Process, & Experience through similar organs & processes, we Can compare the larger aspects of our behaviour & thoughts, while retaining an individual flavor.

In fact, our brains have something called 'mirror neurons' that allow us to visualize, ape, emote, empathize & learn through observation. These are usually missing or decreased or non/dysfunctional in children with autism & hence many such children cannot comprehend & relate to others.

As it is with Knowledge & information - No Individual can possibly know everything there is in this world, yet we All have some common & basic level of understanding & based on which we comprehend, function, behave. Similarly, we may not have heard all the types of music, yet even the musically uninitiated can enjoy the umpteen sounds in nature, can tell the difference between the sounds made by a bird(s), cow, cat, .... & even spot larger differences in musical genres [even if one cannot Name them]. This points to the underlying commonality of our group.

Add : I agree with Houston...

Add 2 : And Instincts are common to a species. This could be a potent source of understanding others.

These exact thoughts have run through my mind so many time I can't believe someone else shares these same thoughts. I think this is how we know we are all running the same race, because we all think similar things, similar yet different. I always wondered how do I know if the colors I see are the same as the colors others see. If the words I hear mean something different than the words she hears. I never got t he answer to that question but maybe one day I will. Minds are so weird, I can't understand myself sometimes, I can't understand anything but everything at the same time. Sorry I don't make sense sometimes haha.

- Your analogy doesn' t match your question. Let's ask a different way. Let's say you're a musician, and you've studied thousands of songs, written hundreds of tunes, and danced to every radio station know to man. But there's one song that's been sung deep in the woods where you have never heard it, and will never hear it. Are you still a musician? Of course you are.

This is the analogy you should use for your "human" question. Not what is missing that might be part of a human, but what is present that makes a human. And with that analogy, YES, most of us actually know what it is like to be human. Because we ARE "musicians", I mean "human".

I feel like this is one of those questions that can't be legitimately answered in the number of characters that Y!A provides for answers.

Before even considering the question, we must first determine a few things. Among the most important are if reality exists, and if we occupy a wholly shared reality, a partially shared reality, or if we even share a reality at all. There is no way to *conclusively* demonstrate whether or not our reality exists, we could all be characters in a computer simulation, or everyone could be figments of the imagination of some other being, or we could be brains in a vat. Even still, we'd need to settle on a definition for what qualifies as "existing", as in one definition, if we *knew* our reality was just a computer simulation, it might still qualify as exiting, and under a different definition of exist, it might not qualify as existing. Because of length restrictions, I will at this point just assume reality exists, without any further consideration of the matter. We then need to determine whether or not our reality is wholly shared or not. I will assume, again for the purpose of length restrictions, that our reality is wholly shared. I think a convincing case for that can be made, and for those who have reservations because their own internal thoughts and feelings don't necessarily manifest to others, those are due to physical activity in the brain, and that activity does occur in the shared reality. I realize there will be people who object to that reasoning based off of metaphysical notions, such as the human soul (or at least the metaphysical notion of the human soul), but those specific metaphysical notions have serious issues with them due to our current understanding of neuroscience. Wish I could elaborate more without risking the length limit.

Next, we need to consider how valid an argument from an analogy is, and it's not valid unless the analogy is a perfect representation, which it never can be. Analogies can be useful for understanding specific elements of difficult concepts, but taking an analogy which is only an approximate representation of a specific part of something, and then using that to reason about other parts can, and often does, lead to false conclusions. A useful analogy for a bond between two atoms is the idea of a spring, and that describes certain vibrational phenomenon due to bonds between atoms pretty well, but apply the same really good analogy to something else involving atoms, like say, a chemical reaction that can only occur when a certain molecule in a low probability resonance state, and that spring analogy is so bad it's useless, and yet we're still really just talking about how the electrons in a molecule behave.

I'd say your analogy is not a good one, even. A better one would be that of a classical acoustic guitar player who knows a lot of songs, but not all of them, and another acoustic guitar player who knows a lot of the same songs, but some songs the other person doesn't know, trying to describe a new song in terms of songs they both know, and in terms of what they both know about the fundamental nature of the guitar (like say, these are the notes you play and the timings). Even if the second player played steel-string acoustic guitar, would the first player not be able to understand what they were describing? Of course they would, although it might not be perfect understanding. Regardless, they both understand what it's like to play the guitar.

As for the human mind and body (if you even want to separate them), we all share the same hardware. There might be some minor variations from person to person, due to genetics but those differences are very minor comparatively speaking, like the difference between a classical vs. steel string acoustic guitar. There might be some differences in environment/experience, like the difference between what songs they know, and the tuning of their guitars. To think that understanding of of feelings and thoughts between people would be impossible with only such minor differences is unreasonable. We're all human, and as such, understand what it is to be human, and even if we can't wholly understand the range of human experiences, we could under the right conditions, just like a guitar player can learn new songs. I'll also note that there's an evolutionary benefit to being able to understand all the things about others that make them human: their thoughts, feelings, drives, desires, and anything else you want to throw in. I wish I had the space to further explore that last point, or really all my points, especially because I pretty much just made an argument from analogy too, albeit using a better analogy.

You'll note that I've never actually defined "what it is to be human" here, either, because there's definitely not enough space for that, and most people at least share a very similar general definition.

I think that makes sense. I have a theory that there are other colors in our universe, but we cannot visualize them because the only colors we know are the ones on our planet. One way to try to understand others is "hardcore" meditation. Just pure relaxation and focusing only on your breathing. Try it, and you might go through some interesting experiences. I sure as heck did.

wow, that's pretty deep thinking so forgive my simple answer. I know that "we" are humans not because I am told so but because I look around me. What am I talking about? We humans are the ONLY living life that kill his own kind with intent.

Observation has shown me that animals kill for survival or food. It is not a "thought" that is premeditated.

My answer is not as sophisticated as your question but that is how I know that we are "humans". Human beings are superior in many ways but not without a price.

Anyway, thanks for your question, really made me think. Still have to think about it..great question! Thanks!

Peace

Do you think the first "HUMANS" thought about it(all of them)?

Besides ,if you think there is only one truth... ,how different would it be from others mind's perspectives?!?

That is life, the endless pursuit to the realization of self.

Think of this, you are not the observer, you are what is observed.

We can only assume we have similar experiences due to our similarities with each other.