RE: [humanmarkup-comment] Base Schema-human

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

BTW:  I know that there are dogs that can 
meet that definition.   For our work, that 
doesn't matter.   One discovers that enumerated 
definitions are weak anyway because one can 
always find an exception that on surface 
examination, possesses most of the values, 
but fails on some major of minor point. 
That definition was orignally proposed because 
it matches the problem definition of the initiative. 

To be more precise, about all we could say is 
that to be human, one has human parents.  And 
then the cloning guys will out us.  So we move 
to, to be human is to have human genes.  And then 
the cloning guys will splice in pig genes and we 
will be outed again.  I don't think a set theory 
or mathematically precise definition will be 
prescriptive.   We end up back to an application 
or problem specific definition. 

len

-----Original Message-----
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) 

It is a communicating entity with six basic senses. 

Define it for the application problem to be solved. 
In this initiative, it is human communications.  The 
other categories are modifiers of the means and ways 
of mediation.