Man's Place In The Universe

A man said to the universe:
"Sir, I exist!"
"However," replied the universe,
"The fact has not created in me

A sense of obligation." STEPHEN CRANE, War is Kind, pt 4.

Is man the destined master of the universe, or is he a "worm in the dust?" What is the relation between man and the universe? Is man the center of the universe, the goal of all creation, or is he a mere incident of no more significance to the universe than a speck of dust? Is the universe friendly or unfriendly to man, or is it merely unconcerned? These are some of the questions man needs to answer to establish his place, his pride and his leadership in the universe.

Man is able to reason and, on this basis, he can form ideas about the outer world, of God, and of freedom and immortality. Thus man, by virtue of thought, can act as though there is an outer world, as though this world and himself were created by a Creator, as though he is free and possessor of a soul which doesn't perish.

Throughout the history of human thought development man has endeavored to understand the universe as it relates to him. Some philosophies conclude that the universe is like him and is his friend; that in the universe are forces which are concerned with his welfare. Indeed, the philosophic God is very often a being whose concern is for man.

Other philosophies find the universe and man included in a vast system of laws and consistencies in which human values have little or no place. Man lives his little day and is forgotten. There are extremes in religious and scientific positions. Religion tells that the universe is friendly to man and his values without recognizing what belies this position: death, sin, suffering, and hopes unrealized. But fitting it in a whole picture with God and heaven at the end is offered as the final solution; the solution to placate, without which man cannot cope with himself. Science considers it a great machine rolling on, a machine that can be depended upon to act in certain ways but which is unconcerned with human values. Reconciliation of the two without analysis yields an inconsistent mixture.

Analyzing why the question of man's place in the universe must be answered, we find it has to do with man's ego, a characteristic unique to man. For whatever it's worth, man does appear as an important being because he can think himself into being one. Other species, we believe, are not endowed with this ability. Man is therefore important to the universe because he has been given the intelligence to ask this question. The question why Nature is often cruel to man is not relevant because it is in the prerogative of Nature to select laws under which, statistically, man must experience happiness or sorrow. Had nature not intended so, man could have been freed of emotions. The insistence of the Nature to inculcate feelings is perhaps another evidence of the special status of man in the universe. Man is not given the status of brick and mortar. But then he is also not given the choice to be something other than what he is.

Today, scientists believe in one thingman is indeed a special creature in the universe. Minute and minuscule he may be, yet he is not an ordinary speck on the face of the universe. It is because of the special character of man: language, rationalization, guilt, appreciation of beautyall spell a unique equation unlikely to be found anywhere in the universe; if we assume that it is normal to expect life on other planets. Why not something other than life? May be the statistical odds of producing life on earth are so large that another big bang may never create life again. Other creations whatever they may be would also be subject to similar statistical and perhaps similar sinister oddity and may never be repeated. And thus it may indeed be a special world and time we are living in. Wells' world of other planets is fictitious because it extends our paradigms of life to other planets yet we don't know if these paradigms are for real.

Modern discoveries have brought new scales to establish man's place in the universe. The question, "is human mind dispensable?" has risen recently. The discovery of computers has created many clichés, comparing human mind to computers vignetting the value of humans. Though the process of transmission of an outside impulse to brain is not fast, once the impulse has been transmitted to the brain, it is instantly processed (borrowing terminology from our home computers) and instructions delivered simultaneously to even the remote parts of the body. The blighting fast speed of human mind would never be duplicated in computers because computers depend on a physical transfer of electrons to deliver a function whereas in the case of neurons it is a combination of electricity and chemicals which makes them so fast. In computers an electrical signal elicits a predictable response yes or no; in human brain the signals at nerve junctions may mean yes, no or may be; often these are processed with various degrees of responses. The major difference between the structure of response between human mind and an electromechanical machine is the condition response; machine will respond as programmed; humans will respond conditionally to achieve a desirable end. Such is the special nature of human beings.

No other characteristics of human mind supports the supremacy of humans more than his ability to speak. The language acquisition device of humans is innate and unique and is a genetic birth right-the famous Naom Chomsky's "Syntactic Structure" published in 1957. Opponents of Chomsky state that human language facility is just a part of the general problem-solving and learning machinery of the brain. But the fact that our language acquisition skills mysteriously disappear for most of us in late childhood and that people suffering from strokes or other types of brain injuries show aphasia give strength to Chomsky's argument. Most of us get our grammar switches "soft-welded" into place in childhood and remain prison of our native languages thereafter. We come to this world preprogrammed to learn language-just any language. The syntax-semantic combination of language are partly acquired through environment. The preprogrammed innate and unique ability to acquire language manifests in its form when it acts on the biologic creature called the human being. Would we think or speak similarly if we were composed of silicon, metal and plastic connected up like a digital computer?