Post-justifying Anthropocentrism

[Dissident Dan]

Have you ever heard someone make a claim, and then when asked to justify it, the person takes a second to make up with something?

If the person doesn't already know the justification, then what logical basis does the person having for believing the claim?

Have you ever heard someone ask something like "What is it that makes us human?"? Often, the person asking isn't quite sure, and the other people around all agree that there is something that separates humans from all else, yet often can't put their finger on what that difference is.

Now, if they aren't sure, what logical basis do they have for believing that there is such a difference, such a defining characterstic?

I think that such thinking leads to many half-assed ideas (especially, but not only, in the case of anthropocentrism) that fall apart in the face of logical analysis. This is that rationalization defense mechanism that we all learn about in Psychology 101. It's a sad thing that leads to many injustices.

If you don't have already have a justification for your belief before having it, you should question whether the belief itself is valid, instead of scrambling to come up with a justification...right?

If you have such a belief about humans and a justification for it, you should ask yourself which came first. If the belief came first, then you should question the belief. If you have the belief and no justification, then you should question the belief.

[jammieg]

I believe humans are distinct from all other animals because it makes me feel good about myself to think of myself on some much grander level than an ape, and this is logical becuase it makes me feel good and feeling good is more important than anything else.
Emotions are more important than the rational intellect, if this were not the case then people would all do what is perfectly rational or logical or selfless instead of what is emotional and of a selfcentered nature, what the majority of people believe is usually what counts and what is right so if I follow all the majority beliefs I can save myself a lot of time and effort and avoid the need to spend it on questions- Antilogic

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by jammieg
I believe humans are distinct from all other animals because it makes me feel good about myself to think of myself on some much grander level than an ape, and this is logical becuase it makes me feel good and feeling good is more important than anything else.


But what about others that may make feel bad in the process?


Emotions are more important than the rational intellect, if this were not the case then people would all do what is perfectly rational or logical or selfless instead of what is emotional and of a selfcentered nature,


Who said that logical is necessarily selfless?


what the majority of people believe is usually what counts and what is right so if I follow all the majority beliefs I can save myself a lot of time and effort and avoid the need to spend it on questions- Antilogic [/B]

Actually, it is very frequent that what the majority believes is wrong. Following the majority beliefs can cause you a lot of hassle when you have to follow all the rules and traditions that are a part of those beliefs.


If you spend your whole life relying on others to give you your answers, then people will definitely point you in a direction that is detrimental to you sooner or later. If you spend your whole life relying on others to give you your answers, then you will probably not be very good as a business commodity, unless you plan to work on an assembly line or something.

Obviously, there has to be some amount of independent, logical thinking that you've done to get this far...so where do you draw the line?

[Mentat]

Dissident Dan,
You make a good point, about having the ability to "back up what you dish out", so to speak. However, applying this policy all the time precludes any used of Devil's Advocate approach (or any approach that requires you to "bounce your ideas" off somebody else, to see how they hold up).

In most cases this is fine, but no human being knows everything, and thus no human can look at something from every angle. Sometimes they need to "bounce the idea" off somebody else to get an insight on it that they would not have come up with on their own.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by dissident dan
Have you ever heard someone ask something like "What is it that makes us human?"? Often, the person asking isn't quite sure, and the other people around all agree that there is something that separates humans from all else, yet often can't put their finger on what that difference is.
Strickly speaking there are three basic differences in humans and the rest of the Animals, We (humans) can talk, We can use our thumb, and forefinger, to grasp better then any other critter, and we can rotate our wrists, without rotating our elbow...no other critter can do any of those three things.

The most definitive of those three, that makes us what we are, (IMHO) is speech, and the complexity of our speech, inasmuch as it enables 'Idealisms' that, to the best of anyones knowledge, the rest of the animals do/can NOT indulge in.....we can, we do, we spend LOTS of time argueing about them, it (speech) was recognized by the 'First Nations' peoples, of North America, as a Power inasmuch as they recognized that NO other animal could talk, like us, hence they decided to NOT speak Needlessly (as to NOT abuse the Power that they had been given) which is somehting that has long gone from our present societies, and is probably the least recognised yet most obvious of the differences.

It affords us access to our Collective History, and the Knowledge and learning thereof....apparently some animals have some very little access like that, but nothing in comparison to US!

[Dissident Dan]

MRP, did you come up with that explanation first, or did you have a belief in human superiority or uniqueness first?

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Strickly speaking there are three basic differences in humans and the rest of the Animals, We (humans) can talk, We can use our thumb, and forefinger, to grasp better then any other critter, and we can rotate our wrists, without rotating our elbow...no other critter can do any of those three things.


1) Other animals have their own versions of vocal communication.
2) We are not the only species with an opposable thumb.
3) That is just falls. Other primates can rotate the wrist without rotating the elbow. Do you think that they'd be very good treeclimbers if they couldn't?

Given that your justifications are false, you'd better re-think your belief.


The most definitive of those three, that makes us what we are, (IMHO) is speech, and the complexity of our speech, inasmuch as it enables 'Idealisms' that, to the best of anyones knowledge, the rest of the animals do/can NOT indulge in.....we can, we do, we spend LOTS of time argueing about them, it (speech) was recognized by the 'First Nations' peoples, of North America, as a Power inasmuch as they recognized that NO other animal could talk, like us, hence they decided to NOT speak Needlessly (as to NOT abuse the Power that they had been given) which is somehting that has long gone from our present societies, and is probably the least recognised yet most obvious of the differences.


Firstly, other animals have vocal communication. Some animals' communicatin is obviously less advanced than our own, but that is only a difference of degree, not type. Also, there are animals whose vocal communication capacities we do not fully understand, so we can't exactly rule them out. Many limitations on the vocal capacities of animals are because of vocal chords, not mental processes. It is well-known that dogs recognize certain oral commands. It is well-documented that some primates can use sign language.

[THANOS]

My answer is as simple as i once quoted to my friend who studies psychology.

"The only things that separates humans from animals is humans."

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
MRP, did you come up with that explanation first, or did you have a belief in human superiority or uniqueness first? Nope! not first, learned.....from Humanity.



1) Other animals have their own versions of vocal communication. Slight, in comparison to a human childs vocabulary gorillas are not even very close, PLUS!! we have W-R-I-T-T-E-N History that we can learn from as well, No other animal(s) have that!
2) We are not the only species with an opposable thumb. No, but the only one that work the way ours does, and with the force that it can.
3) That is just falls. Other primates can rotate the wrist without rotating the elbow. Do you think that they'd be very good treeclimbers if they couldn't? Yes, they could be excellant tree climbers without a twisting wrist, probably better BECAUSE of that, SO NO other PRIMATE can rotate their wrists as we can ours.

Given that your justifications are false, you'd better re-think your belief. Humm, perhaps you should follow your our assertion, as, as far as I have been taught by Humanity those are accepted truths about humans, especially the language and our ability to "Do Ideals", as NO Animals "Do Ideals", other then us.



Firstly, other animals have vocal communication. Some animals' communicatin is obviously less advanced than our own, but that is only a difference of degree, not type. Also, there are animals whose vocal communication capacities we do not fully understand, so we can't exactly rule them out. Many limitations on the vocal capacities of animals are because of vocal chords, not mental processes. It is well-known that dogs recognize certain oral commands. It is well-documented that some primates can use sign language. Here, all you are really doing is a form of denigration of the ability of humans to communicate, thinking that simple emotive/communication, such as what works with animals, or even sign language, the capacity of animals is severely limited in comparision to humans, yet you wish us all to somehow ignore the Vastness of that difference

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

It is very easy to make a case out of the 0.1% that can be found planetarily, that are animals that are the "exceptions to the rule" of human speech/abilities. But that case is an arguementative study in linguistics, which is exactly what proves the case inasmuch as it is simple enough to prove me wrong, and you need use no words with me, simply tell it to any animal, and prove that it cognizently understands that your 'set of ideals' lines up more accurately with "The Truth" as presented by reality, then mine.

On a program, on TV, I watched game wardens, in a park in Northern Canada, documenting the recovery rate, on a Northern River Bank that runs through that park, that had had Permitted campers, (No roads into this park, you need special permission to access it, and proof that you already Know how to behave therein) and they spotted a Moose, and the Moose spotted them. In the Filming of the Moose, you could tell that the Moose had 'Probably' never seen Humans Before, Looked at them with what seemed Curiousity (A subjective anthropomorphicism (sp?)) as it had absolutely NO idea that there are 5,999,999,999 more of them just South of there, it is as innocent of the knowledge of humanity as a new born babe, but it is older then that.

That Park was a Gift to the People of Canada from the First Nations Peoples of Canada, that Moose is a National treasure, and he doesn't even know it..........a treasure of His innocence.

Ivvavik (http://parkscanada.pch.gc.ca/pn-np/yt/ivvavik/index_e.asp)

[jammieg]

It reminds me of something my mother said the other day, about how we celebrate Christopher Columbus Day for his discovery of America but really the Indians discoverd it long ago and South America and all Columbus did was discover it for European society so that they could float over and exploit another piece of land and people, but we aren't taught history that way and we aren't supposed to say those things in school even though it is a truer version because then we might have an unfavourable view of things.
Once in awhile I catch myself doing just that, to find that most everything I know wasn't mine to begin with but only passively assimilated, but then usually one has to grow up a bit before they are capable of challenging authority, except very young children they haven't been told it's wrong yet. Most things over the years I find I only believed because everyone else did, not that everyone is wrong but that nobody is ever entirely right.

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Nope! not first, learned.....from Humanity.


Which is not first? The belief or the justification?



1) Other animals have their own versions of vocal communication.Slight, in comparison to a human childs vocabulary gorillas are not even very close, PLUS!! we have W-R-I-T-T-E-N History that we can learn from as well, No other animal(s) have that!


So all that says is that we have the highest intelligence of animals with the physical ability to write and make hand signals, just as Nikola Tesla was more intelligent than William Jennings Bryan.


2) We are not the only species with an opposable thumb. No, but the only one that work the way ours does, and with the force that it can.


There are primates than can apply much more force with their thumbs. All species have characteristics that differentiate them from other species. No other animal has the tusks that elephants have. etc.


3) That is just falls [typo-false]. Other primates can rotate the wrist without rotating the elbow. Do you think that they'd be very good treeclimbers if they couldn't?
Yes, they could be excellant tree climbers without a twisting wrist, probably better BECAUSE of that, SO NO other PRIMATE can rotate their wrists as we can ours.


I just watched a video in which other primates were rotating their wrists..where do you get that from? Also, read response to #2.


Given that your justifications are false, you'd better re-think your belief.
Humm, perhaps you should follow your our assertion, as, as far as I have been taught by Humanity those are accepted truths about humans, especially the language and our ability to "Do Ideals", as NO Animals "Do Ideals", other then us.


So, you are just accepting what everyone else tells you, rather than coming to your own conclusions? What do you mean by "do ideals"? Have you been inside the mind of another animal so that you have the authority to make such an assertion?


Firstly, other animals have vocal communication. Some animals' communicatin is obviously less advanced than our own, but that is only a difference of degree, not type. Also, there are animals whose vocal communication capacities we do not fully understand, so we can't exactly rule them out. Many limitations on the vocal capacities of animals are because of vocal chords, not mental processes. It is well-known that dogs recognize certain oral commands. It is well-documented that some primates can use sign language.

Here, all you are really doing is a form of denigration of the ability of humans to communicate, thinking that simple emotive/communication, such as what works with animals, or even sign language, the capacity of animals is severely limited in comparision to humans, yet you wish us all to somehow ignore the Vastness of that difference


I did not denigrate anything. I did not say anything that suggests that our capabilities are any lower than you think they are. I only demonstrated through examples that other animals have comparable, although not as advanced, capabilities. If you cannot handle that truth, don't blame me.

Once again, all our superiority, but not monopoly, in language shows is that we are more intelligent than other animals, just as a 25-year-old human is more intelligent than a 5-year-old human...does that mean that there is some mystical difference between a 5-year-old human and a 25-year-old human?

[Zero]

Most of the things pointed out are mere differences in degree, which is no justification for saying that humans are anything more than just another animal. We humans are better at the things that make us human, but those qualities do not make us different or better than other animals. I am a better guitarist than I am a football player, but it doesn't make me superior to or qualitatively different from an NFL player. Other animals are uniquely suited for their niche, as are humans...but that doesn't make us any less of a member of the animal kingdom.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
Most of the things pointed out are mere differences in degree, which is no justification for saying that humans are anything more than just another animal. We humans are better at the things that make us human, but those qualities do not make us different or better than other animals. I am a better guitarist than I am a football player, but it doesn't make me superior to or qualitatively different from an NFL player. Other animals are uniquely suited for their niche, as are humans...but that doesn't make us any less of a member of the animal kingdom.

That's the pivotal point. MRP and others can bring up many characteristics about humans that no other animal shares, but that doesn't mean that we are any less animal for it (since, as Dissident Dan pointed out, there are many animals with completely unique qualities).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
That's the pivotal point. MRP and others can bring up many characteristics about humans that no other animal shares, but that doesn't mean that we are any less animal for it (since, as Dissident Dan pointed out, there are many animals with completely unique qualities).
Ahem, I have not used the words 'more' or 'less' I used "different", and YUP the language thing is the biggie, because, as a part of that, you can understand pictures as representations of realities, that you haven't experianced, animals?? Nope!

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Ahem, I have not used the words 'more' or 'less' I used "different", and YUP the language thing is the biggie, because, as a part of that, you can understand pictures as representations of realities, that you haven't experianced, animals?? Nope! But, again, 1) it is a matter of degree, and 2) it doesn't make us qualitatively different from other animals. What you are saying is that if a quality in a human is higher than in other animals, it somehow means that humans are elevated. What I am saying is that other animals have us beat in other areas that are just as important to their success as language is to ours.

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Ahem, I have not used the words 'more' or 'less' I used "different", and YUP the language thing is the biggie, because, as a part of that, you can understand pictures as representations of realities, that you haven't experianced, animals?? Nope!

First, as I pointd out, they do. Sign language.

Secondly, it doesn't matter, as Zero did a rather good job of pointing out.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
Most of the things pointed out are mere differences in degree, which is no justification for saying that humans are anything more than just another animal. We humans are better at the things that make us human, but those qualities do not make us different or better than other animals. I am a better guitarist than I am a football player, but it doesn't make me superior to or qualitatively different from an NFL player. Other animals are uniquely suited for their niche, as are humans...but that doesn't make us any less of a member of the animal kingdom.
And again, By Zero
But, again, 1) it is a matter of degree, and 2) it doesn't make us qualitatively different from other animals. What you are saying is that if a quality in a human is higher than in other animals, it somehow means that humans are elevated. What I am saying is that other animals have us beat in other areas that are just as important to their success as language is to ours.
O.K. So look around you, all of the evidence I have is all of the things that humanity, in it's ability to use language, and interpret pictures, has/can/does do, is all of what we have applied from our ability to know collective knowledge, over time, (AKA History) which is planes, trains, automobiles, skyscrappers, nuclear power plants/submarines, rockets to the moon and robotic missions beyond that, the plate in my arm fixing my radius bone, the cat/Magneticresonanceimaging/Positiveemissiontomography scanners talked about in "Medical Physics" thread, ALL of the things that we humans can create, as adaptation to environment, or otherwise, is as a direct result of our abilities diffentiated from the rest of the Animals.

Those being my ability to oppose, also, my pinky finger, not just my thumb, but ALL of my hands fingers.

My ability to, with elbows flat at my sides, rotate the palm of my hand 180°, NO other Primate can do that, but I can turn screws/nuts/bolts/TVTuners/andscrewmyfingerintothewall!!

And the ability to speak, communicate, effectively share knowledge of things, not nessecarily having been experianced by the person I share it with, but none the less can carry a sense of the experiance itself, hence skill trading by communicated knowledge rather then demonstration alone (That is all the animals have to teach and learn demonstrational abilities.......no words!)

You are missing the greatest civilisation ever existing because you don't even realize the power that you have in the ability to speak, you take it such for granted as to attempt to equate us all on the same level as the rest of all of the animals.

Sadly, a very blind to yourself point of view.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
O.K. So look around you, all of the evidence I have is all of the things that humanity, in it's ability to use language, and interpret pictures, has/can/does do, is all of what we have applied from our ability to know collective knowledge, over time, (AKA History) which is planes, trains, automobiles, skyscrappers, nuclear power plants/submarines, rockets to the moon and robotic missions beyond that, the plate in my arm fixing my radius bone, the cat/Magneticresonanceimaging/Positiveemissiontomography scanners talked about in "Medical Physics" thread, ALL of the things that we humans can create, as adaptation to environment, or otherwise, is as a direct result of our abilities diffentiated from the rest of the Animals.

Those being my ability to oppose, also, my pinky finger, not just my thumb, but ALL of my hands fingers.

My ability to, with elbows flat at my sides, rotate the palm of my hand 180°, NO other Primate can do that, but I can turn screws/nuts/bolts/TVTuners/andscrewmyfingerintothewall!!

And the ability to speak, communicate, effectively share knowledge of things, not nessecarily having been experianced by the person I share it with, but none the less can carry a sense of the experiance itself, hence skill trading by communicated knowledge rather then demonstration alone (That is all the animals have to teach and learn demonstrational abilities.......no words!)

You are missing the greatest civilisation ever existing because you don't even realize the power that you have in the ability to speak, you take it such for granted as to attempt to equate us all on the same level as the rest of all of the animals.

Sadly, a very blind to yourself point of view. Are you going to keep elaborating on your only point, until we just give in? You are still wrong, man.

Ok, here's a useful way to look at things:
Imagine Pong, the first arcade game. Now, imagine a line forming to the right of it, with each advance in video games taking its place in the lane, with today's 3-D rendered games on the other end of the line. Would you agree that even though todays games are far beyond the ones of 30 years ago, that they are all still video games?

If I haven't lost you, we'll move forward...

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
Are you going to keep elaborating on your only point, until we just give in? You are still wrong, man.
WOW, did you miss the point? WE, Humans ARE DIFFERENT, VERY different, because we can talk, YIKES, how difficult is that?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
WOW, did you miss the point? WE, Humans ARE DIFFERENT, VERY different, because we can talk, YIKES, how difficult is that? And birds are different because they can fly...they are still animals, and so are we.

Now, are you going to accept that everything from Pong up to the latest arcade game all falls under the category of 'video game', or are you not interested in further discussion?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
And birds are different because they can fly...they are still animals, and so are we. But that's all they are furthered enabled to do, we go waaaaay farther, and we build planes then fly, sooo

Now, are you going to accept that everything from Pong up to the latest arcade game all falls under the category of 'video game', or are you not interested in further discussion?
If you wish to accept the differences between Humans, and Animals as something so simple as a differentiation 'tween levels of "video games", well, that's your loss not mine.
It is small minded, and trite!

As originally asked by Dissident Dan
If you have such a belief about humans and a justification for it, you should ask yourself which came first. If the belief came first, then you should question the belief. If you have the belief and no justification, then you should question the belief.
Clearly what I believe is justified by the evidence, disirreguardlessly
(A triple negative) of whatever dimunishion of humanities accomplishemnts, that you would blindly indulge yourselves in.

[Zero]

So, in other words, you don't have any interest in discussing anything. Ok, fine.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
So, in other words, you don't have any interest in discussing anything. Ok, fine.
Discuss away, I have been reading..........

[THANOS]

There can only be one superior species. And it is obvious that we humans rule above all animals. But that doesn't make us less animal. Like the days of Empires and Kingdoms, they may have been royal people and the rest may have been peasents but they were all still human. We were weak compared to many other animals but our gained knowledge for tools made us superior over all animals. Only thing making us differnt then any other animal is that we care less to worry about our survival then animals do. We found ways to make survival easy. It's amazing what one can do when they do not worry about how are they going to live next year or the years to come. So much free time to worry about other things. (hence our technology)

[Zero]

Originally posted by THANOS
There can only be one superior species. And it is obvious that we humans rule above all animals. But that doesn't make us less animal. Like the days of Empires and Kingdoms, they may have been royal people and the rest may have been peasents but they were all still human. We were weak compared to many other animals but our gained knowledge for tools made us superior over all animals. Only thing making us differnt then any other animal is that we care less to worry about our survival then animals do. We found ways to make survival easy. It's amazing what one can do when they do not worry about how are they going to live next year or the years to come. So much free time to worry about other things. (hence our technology) I would say that calling humanity 'superior' is another example of the post-justification that this thread stands against. We are good at what we do, and no animal does it better, but if you change to a different(and valid) criteria, other animals have us beat.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
I would say that calling humanity 'superior' is another example of the post-justification that this thread stands against. We are good at what we do, and no animal does it better, but if you change to a different(and valid) criteria, other animals have us beat.

I would agree that there is nothing inherently 'special' about human beings, as opposed to other animals, that makes humans clearly superior in an absolute sense. However, we can abstract a bit from specific claims like "humans are the best at language whereas apes (or insects, or whatever) are the best at climbing trees" to a more general claim that humans are the most superior form of life on Earth in a purely evolutionary sense.

We can make this claim insofar as we recognize that humans have the ability to manipulate virtually any environment on Earth to their needs-- as opposed to other animals, who are quite well adapted to their specific niches, but cannot thrive in diverse new niches as readily as humans can. More generally put, most animals rely on the biologically engineered structures of their bodies given to them by their genetics to thrive in their niches, whereas humans can engineer their own novel structures to serve various purposes. A bird can fly because it is gifted with wings, an aerodynamical body, and a brain specialized to coordinate the motions needed for flight; a human can fly because it is gifted with a brain specialized for the general faculty of logical reasoning, which can be used to deduce the principles of flight, and then create an airplane with wings and an aerodynamical body. So while most animals are limited mainly by the physical capacities of their bodies, humans are limited mainly by the mental capacities of their brains.

For instance, it is possible in principle that humans will one day be able to live on Mars, and of course no other animals on Earth would not be able to do this, with the possible exception of certain micro-organisms. Of course this implies that certain micro-organisms are evolutionarily 'superior' to (say) great apes, which contradicts the usual premises for arguments to the effect that humans are 'superior' to apes. The important thing is to realize is that superiority can only be established with respect to a certain set of critera, so while we can say A is superior to B when it comes to a certain set of criteria X, we can't generalize from this to say that A is superior to B for all sets of criteria X.

[Fliption]

It's interesting how these threads evolve and get twisted. The original post didn't say anything about "What is it that makes humans qualitatively different?" It's interesting to note how this thread turned into that. The original question was "What is it that makes us human?" To me, the answer to this doesn't exclude differences of degree as everyone is pointing out. When I originally read the question, all sorts of things came to my mind just like MRP. But this doesn't seem to jive with the title of the topic and I am aware of some hot buttons with science types and suspected the real intent of that question by the author was to challenge any "mystical" beliefs people may have about mankind. The author seems to have produced an invitation for conflict with the wording of this question though.

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
I would agree that there is nothing inherently 'special' about human beings, as opposed to other animals, that makes humans clearly superior in an absolute sense. However, we can abstract a bit from specific claims like "humans are the best at language whereas apes (or insects, or whatever) are the best at climbing trees" to a more general claim that humans are the most superior form of life on Earth in a purely evolutionary sense.

We can make this claim insofar as we recognize that humans have the ability to manipulate virtually any environment on Earth to their needs-- as opposed to other animals, who are quite well adapted to their specific niches, but cannot thrive in diverse new niches as readily as humans can. More generally put, most animals rely on the biologically engineered structures of their bodies given to them by their genetics to thrive in their niches, whereas humans can engineer their own novel structures to serve various purposes. A bird can fly because it is gifted with wings, an aerodynamical body, and a brain specialized to coordinate the motions needed for flight; a human can fly because it is gifted with a brain specialized for the general faculty of logical reasoning, which can be used to deduce the principles of flight, and then create an airplane with wings and an aerodynamical body. So while most animals are limited mainly by the physical capacities of their bodies, humans are limited mainly by the mental capacities of their brains.

For instance, it is possible in principle that humans will one day be able to live on Mars, and of course no other animals on Earth would not be able to do this, with the possible exception of certain micro-organisms. Of course this implies that certain micro-organisms are evolutionarily 'superior' to (say) great apes, which contradicts the usual premises for arguments to the effect that humans are 'superior' to apes. The important thing is to realize is that superiority can only be established with respect to a certain set of critera, so while we can say A is superior to B when it comes to a certain set of criteria X, we can't generalize from this to say that A is superior to B for all sets of criteria X. You are way off teh mark again, by applying the same biased standard. Humans are teh best at being humans, so fill the niche we are in better than another animal would. That don't make us superior.

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Zero
You are way off teh mark again, by applying the same biased standard. Humans are teh best at being humans, so fill the niche we are in better than another animal would. That don't make us superior.

We are superior in our general ability to adapt to new niches. This is all I said, nothing more and nothing less.

[Mentat]

Alright, this is getting just ridiculous. Anyone who says that one animal is "better" than any other has missed the point of Darwinian evolution entirely. Nature is amoral, it doesn't care about the success of any being under any niche or circumstance. It just doesn't matter. The only reason anthropecentric nonsense can be spouted about it because no other animal has evolved an ego.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mentat
The only reason anthropecentric nonsense can be spouted about it because no other animal has evolved an ego. And an ego makes us superior?!? LOL, it remind me of Douglas Adams and the dolphins.

[hypnagogue]

There's nothing egocentric about the statement "humans are superior to most animals when it comes to adapting to new niches." This is not some delusion of grandeur; it's simply a fact, just as it is a fact that copper is superior to wood when it comes to conducting electricity. Note that I did not claim that humans are superior to all animals, in a general sense.

I could equally well state that "birds are superior to humans when it comes to non-technologically aided flight." This too is a fact. There's nothing wrong with saying animal A is superior to animal B, so long as you qualify the statement by saying "but only when it comes to X," where X is a specific set of objective criteria. We get into trouble when we mean "superior" to be some kind of all encompassing superiority, or likewise when we conclude superiority in some kind of subjective sense involving value judgments.

[Zero]

Originally posted by hypnagogue
There's nothing egocentric about the statement "humans are superior to most animals when it comes to adapting to new niches." This is not some delusion of grandeur; it's simply a fact, just as it is a fact that copper is superior to wood when it comes to conducting electricity. Note that I did not claim that humans are superior to all animals, in a general sense.

I could equally well state that "birds are superior to humans when it comes to non-technologically aided flight." This too is a fact. There's nothing wrong with saying animal A is superior to animal B, so long as you qualify the statement by saying "but only when it comes to X," where X is a specific set of objective criteria. We get into trouble when we mean "superior" to be some kind of all encompassing superiority, or likewise when we conclude superiority in some kind of subjective sense involving value judgments. When you add the quailfiers, you put yourself on relatively solid ground. Bravo![:D]

[Royce]

As far as successfully filling variable niches is concerned I think that bacteria have it made compared to us. they fill niches where we can't even get to as in rocks thousands of feet below ground level.
By another criteria, worms and insects are far more numerous and far moe varied than humans. So which species is the most successful in evolutionary terms? It depends on the criteria that you use.
Humans are generalist and far more adaptable than a number of other species but far less than others. The point however is that all life on earth is interdependent and very few species but the most basic could survive without the rest of life supporting it. The food chain is just one example of interdependency. Then there are such things a s the water cycle and the carbon cycle that makes life itself dependant on the geological properties of the earth itself. Makes one begin to think that Gaia might be real after all. All of life on earth is basically one life form and interdependent on all of life to exist.
It is true the humans change their local environment to better fit themselves and promote the growth and survival of various plants and animal forms that benefit mankind over those that we have no use for; but, who is using who?
We cannot, I think, pick out one species or one group and say that they are the best or most advanced because one species or group or family or whatever cannot survive without all of the rest of life to support it.
It would be like trying to decide what one thing it is that makes the soup or gumbo so good when it is the particular compination of ingredients compined and cooked in that certain way that makes it so good.
Which finger or toe do you like the best, is most vital to your well being, gives you the edge over all the rest of us? Could you, would you do away with all the others because they are "inferior" to the best one?
Is it our egos, our insecurity or our need to justify our actions that make us feel apart and superior to the rest of life? Is it simply human arrogance or is it ignorance?

[THANOS]

Hehe, i guess the word superior i used caused quite a stir eh. Well i did say when it comes to ruling humans are superior overall. Hence the other word no one seemed to look at was "ruling". We rule territory more then any other animal. well we kinda live with insects so we may rule them when they crawl on us or our floors but we let them stay outside or hiding in home. We might also have no choice. If an animal goes in our community we will act by creating quite a fuss so the big guys can take'em out for the little guys. Whether or not that animal dies we do make them leave our community. Now that is what i meant by humans are the superior over all animals.

We have claimed the most territory and defended it. Help with technology of course. But it is our technology that helps us defend our territory and we need it to be superior. But if we went in the jungle guess who loses the role of superior?

[selfAdjoint]

This is true among large (visible to the human eye) animals, but the greatest biomass around, just about everywhere, is bacteria. And they can live in places we can't. at least so far.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Is it our egos, our insecurity or our need to justify our actions that make us feel apart and superior to the rest of life? Is it simply human arrogance or is it ignorance? I think it is a natural offshoot of survival instincts, maybe. I am not arrogant, or ignorant about the subject, but if you ask me if a human life is worth more to me than an animal's, I would generally say 'yes'. *shrugs* We are just wired that way, I guess.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
(SNIP) So, you are just accepting what everyone else tells you, rather than coming to your own conclusions? What do you mean by "do ideals"? Have you been inside the mind of another animal so that you have the authority to make such an assertion? (SNoP)
In a manner, I have been inside the mind of another animal, but I have certainly noticed that the only 'other' animal minds, that I have any access to, are the human ones, because they can reveal the insides of themselves to the rest of us simply by speaking, or "typiconographic" manerisms.
That one ability places us so far ahead, away, distant, special, superior, on top, first place, the best on the planet, somewhat invincible compared to the rest of the animals, with the only other differences being that we need to find clothing and shelter, the rest of the animals do not, and we have no specialized self defence apendage(s). We are forced/required to use the minds that we have, to survive.

[Royce]

Originally posted by Zero
I think it is a natural offshoot of survival instincts, maybe. I am not arrogant, or ignorant about the subject, but if you ask me if a human life is worth more to me than an animal's, I would generally say 'yes'. *shrugs* We are just wired that way, I guess.

As I sit here having a southern fried steak sandwich with potato chips for lunch I can not disagree with you about this. I much prefer being at the top of the food chain rather than lower down.
My point remains, however, that we are a part of nature and life not apart from it. Until we have survived a couple of hundred million years like the dinosaurs I think its a bit premature to call ourselves the ruleres of this planets and highest form of life.
After all humanity may be a short term selfdistructive abbaration in the normal chain of events. As far as life itself is concerned we are pretty much the new kid on the block and it has yet to be determined whether we are worth keeping around for a while or not.
We may also be nothing more than a transition phase to the REAL superior and ruling being of Earth.
This is what I mean by the arrogance and ignorance of Mankind collectively not necessarily of individuals (though I have met some to whom it would apply).

[Zero]

I'm in agreement with you Royce...how cool is that?

[Royce]

It is amazing isn't it. Is this a great country,world, universe or what?[:D]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
(SNIP) After all humanity may be a short term selfdistructive abbaration in the normal chain of events. (SNoP)
Humm, something NO other animal can do, destroy itself completely, or all of the rest of life. (pretty much)
Oh Ya, also something no other animal SEEKS to do, only us (humans) the intellectual idiots(?).

[Royce]

And possibly lemmings if the folk tales are true.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Humm, something NO other animal can do, destroy itself completely, or all of the rest of life. (pretty much)
Oh Ya, also something no other animal SEEKS to do, only us (humans) the intellectual idiots(?). Ummm...so what? It is still an outgrowth of our animal behavior, not something different from what any other animal would do.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
And possibly lemmings if the folk tales are true.
They are NOT.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
Ummm...so what? It is still an outgrowth of our animal behavior, not something different from what any other animal would do.
It is "something different" as no other animals do it, as for it being "an outgrowth of our animal behaviour", hows that?

[Royce]

Well chimps have wars and raiding parties and kill one another. Of course they are our nearest relatives so I guess thats to be expected.
Insects, ants, wasps, etc, frequenty raid other nests or hives and wipe them out completely. Killing beyond need for food is not exclusive to mankind.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
Well chimps have wars and raiding parties and kill one another. Of course they are our nearest relatives so I guess thats to be expected.
Insects, ants, wasps, etc, frequenty raid other nests or hives and wipe them out completely. Killing beyond need for food is not exclusive to mankind.
So we, humans, must be in the same category inasmuch as we, or I, or you, can sit in a place and wipe out an entire troup of monkeys without even being near them.
It is language that enables us to act out far beyond the rest of the Animals, waaaaaaaay beyond, enables!

[Royce]

I think that language has had as much effect onour developement as Homo sapiens as anything else. I think language influences the way we think as much as the other way around. It IMHO goes far beyond reading and writing enabling the acummulation and preservation of knowledge from one generation to the next; or, the ability to share thoughts and knowledge via spoken language. I think that it was instrumental in our becoming human and in what humans are.
Rather than being a consequence of being human I think it is at least in part what made us become human and determines what being human means as well as human behavior. It may not be the prime or most important influence but it is right up there among the most important.

Think about it. Did our brains develope speech centers so we could communicate or did rudementary communication cause the speach centers to develope so that we could communicate better. I think most of us have the cart before the horse. speech or language is the cause not the effect or at least as much the cause as the effect. I have said as much in FZ+'s thread.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So we, humans, must be in the same category inasmuch as we, or I, or you, can sit in a place and wipe out an entire troup of monkeys without even being near them.
It is language that enables us to act out far beyond the rest of the Animals, waaaaaaaay beyond, enables! We get your point, I think. We are having a trouble getting our point across, though. We are saying that it is a difference of degree, rather than a difference of kind.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
We get your point, I think. We are having a trouble getting our point across, though. We are saying that it is a difference of degree, rather than a difference of kind.
Humm, I suspect that I have 'seen that' just that I have this notion that it's impact upon us, and therefore all of what we can, and do, do, is enourmous, and that that differentiates us from the rest of the animals in a manner that appears (simply) subtle but works out over time to be HUGE, sort of like that "little degree of difference" expanding in orders of magnitude what we can accomplish.
Hence (perhaps) just a little (bit) more then is being admitted to...?

[selfAdjoint]

We are saying that it is a difference of degree, rather than a difference of kind.

Which is just where I get off the train. Language alone would constitute a difference in kind, and human self awareness is so much more than feelings + thinking + language.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Put it this way, if it's a difference of degree, how much/high do you rate that degree of 'difference' to be worth?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Put it this way, if it's a difference of degree, how much/high do you rate that degree of 'difference' to be worth? Not enough to say that humans aren't animals, which we clearly are.

[Royce]

Not only that humans are animals also but are a part of nature and of the natural order of life on earth. We are not seperate from, apart from or different from nature and the rest of life on earth. We are of nature and nature is part of us. We are all one life form on one planet. In this way we are no different from the rest of the animals nor of life itself. The difference is of degree. A vast degree I agree but any more vast than the difference between an amoeba and a mammal?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Not only that humans are animals also but are a part of nature and of the natural order of life on earth. We are not seperate from, apart from or different from nature and the rest of life on earth. We are of nature and nature is part of us. We are all one life form on one planet. In this way we are no different from the rest of the animals nor of life itself. The difference is of degree. A vast degree I agree but any more vast than the difference between an amoeba and a mammal? And, also, we choose what criteria to judge the differences...the difference in strength between a gorilla and human is tremendous, but we are both primates.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

It is agreed that we are animals, but we are the most different animal on the planet, and the most adapted/adaptable.

All of what any of you knows is waaaaaay past anything any other animal will ever learn, in it's entire life!

The rest of the animals learn only from the situational circumstances, they learn from the immediacy (sp?) of where they are!

[Royce]

Okay we're different, even waaaaaaay different than any other single species; but; you are saying this because of one or two criteria. It it those two things, language and ability to learn outside of the immediate circumstances? I don't agree with the latter by the way. Is it correct to say that both are so interrelated that they are actually one characteristic, language; that language is what makes us human and different from the rest of the animals?

[Zero]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Which is just where I get off the train. Language alone would constitute a difference in kind, and human self awareness is so much more than feelings + thinking + language. Do you have vidence? We act just like monkeys, boss.

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Which is just where I get off the train. Language alone would constitute a difference in kind, and human self awareness is so much more than feelings + thinking + language.

Our linguistic abilities are a function of our superior intelligence combined with our capable vocal chords. Other animals have intelligence, too. Therefore, it is a difference of degree. All language really is is using symbols. Even a dog can recognize a correlation between a symbol and what it's related to or supposed to represent. We give them oral commands, don't we? How is that not a simple version of linguistic abilities?

Even more obvious, as I have already pointed out, gorillas have been taught to use sign language to form sentences. If this is not language, then I'm bewildered as to what language is.

It is a difference of degree.
----------------------------

Also, all the debate about what "separates" us from other animals centers on our abilities that give us tremendous power. If our great power is what justifies calling us superior and doing what we want with others, then the 3rd reich was for a time superior and justified in killing all those millions.

[THANOS]

Let me use the dictionary to straighting things out.

Animal: 1. A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.
2. An animal organism other than a human, especially a mammal.

Mammal: Any of various warm-blooded vertebrate animals of the class Mammalia, including humans, characterized by a covering of hair on the skin and, in the female, milk-producing mammary glands for nourishing the young.

Human: A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.

Homo sapiens: The modern species of humans, the only extant species of the primate family Hominidae.

Extant: Still in existence; not destroyed, lost, or extinct.

Primate: A mammal of the order Primates, which includes the anthropoids and prosimians, characterized by refined development of the hands and feet, a shortened snout, and a large brain.
A bishop of highest rank in a province or country.

Hominidae: modern man and extinct immediate ancestors of man.

Anthropoids: Resembling a human, especially in shape or outward appearance.

Prosimians: Of or belonging to the Prosimii, a suborder of primates that includes the lemurs, lorises, and tarsiers.

Prosimii: not used in all classifications; in some classifications considered coextensive with the Lemuroidea; in others includes both Lemuroidea and Tarsioidea.

Lemurs: Any of several small arboreal, mostly nocturnal primates chiefly of the family Lemuridae of Madagascar and adjacent islands, having large eyes, a long slim muzzle, and a long tail.

Lorises: Any of several small, slow-moving, nocturnal prosimian primates of the genera Loris and Nycticebus of tropical Asia, having dense woolly fur, large eyes, and a vestigial tail.

Tarsiers: Any of several small nocturnal arboreal primates of the genus Tarsius, of the East Indies and the Philippines, having large round eyes, a long tail, and long fingers and toes tipped with soft disklike pads.

I'm sure humans end up being linked with animals here don't they???

[THANOS]

I looked up ape and found the meaning also contained Mimic in there. mimic also means: To copy or imitate closely, especially in speech, expression, and gesture; ape.
Now that i think of it. We are close to the meaning of ape. Considering that our technology is based on imitating our surroundings. We can fly because we thought of wings and imitated a bird. We learned speech only by imitating each other. Ben Franklin learned that lighting was electicity and invented the lighting rod. Thomas Alva Edison thought of electricity as a novelty. And lit up the streets by the time he died. I guess we humans are the master of imitating.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Lets try it this way, a group of monkeys a videoed by a film crew. They experiance what humans are, how a filem crew goes around filming them over time, all of us humans, who get to see that video, know of those monkeys, and how they behave, and know that they do not know of us and the rest of the "outside world" (outside of there world)

The monkeys are then left alone in the forest, they go about their activities, and in a mating produce, a baby. When this baby is five years old, the same age of it's parents when they had experianced "The film crew", that baby will still have no idea what a "film crew" is, and it never will if it is never in the presence of one, as there is no input/output for abstractions such as language.

That given, I can hold against any one of you everything you personally know, your entire learning record is on my side for proving that you are special, in comparision to all of the rest of the animals.

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Lets try it this way, a group of monkeys a videoed by a film crew. They experiance what humans are, how a filem crew goes around filming them over time, all of us humans, who get to see that video, know of those monkeys, and how they behave, and know that they do not know of us and the rest of the "outside world" (outside of there world)

The monkeys are then left alone in the forest, they go about their activities, and in a mating produce, a baby. When this baby is five years old, the same age of it's parents when they had experianced "The film crew", that baby will still have no idea what a "film crew" is, and it never will if it is never in the presence of one, as there is no input/output for abstractions such as language.

That given, I can hold against any one of you everything you personally know, your entire learning record is on my side for proving that you are special, in comparision to all of the rest of the animals.

I don't understand what you are trying to point out here. How would you expect a the young monkey to know what a film crew is if it never experienced one? The same would be true of a human...

Anyway, I don't think that anyone is doubting that humans are more intelligent, on average, than other animals. But that does not make some magical barrier between humans and other animals.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I don't understand what you are trying to point out here. How would you expect a the young monkey to know what a film crew is if it never experienced one? The same would be true of a human... Funny, I could just show the human child, a film of it, and they would be able to gain an understanding of it, unlike the "child chimp"

Anyway, I don't think that anyone is doubting that humans are more intelligent, on average, than other animals. But that does not make some magical barrier between humans and other animals. Hummm, your opinion, you seem to miss the "orders of magnitude" of addition to human history (what the monkeys cannot share amongst themselves is their history) that is what arises as "you", and all of what you know from all of what has been collectively learned in humanities history, and how that shapes you, enourmously different from any other animal.

[Zero]

Hmmm...lawn mowers and automobiles?? Certainly different, but not a giant gap between them. It is the same principle involved in both. A giant difference would be if cars hovered on anti-gravity fields.

[Royce]

Years ago I watched a show, Nature, I think, about monkeys or maybe apes in northern Japan. They were being fed and studied. One mother monkey learned I suppose by accident to seperate grains of rice from the sand that it was laying in by throwing it in the water. /The rice floated and the sand of course sank. She then scooped up the cleaned rice and ate it. She taught her daughter how to do this. A few years later when the Japanese again visited the island to study the monkeys they found that most of that group had learned to do the same thing. Isn't this learning and passing along from generation to generation and monkey to monkey a new learned skill? How does this differ from mankind before writing was developed?
We are different from animals by degree only and then only in one or two criteria are we superior. Agreed that these differences have pushed us over the top and we are vastly more technologially developed than any other animals. Never the less is is by degree only and we are animals ourselves. We are not as large as some. we are not as strong as some. we can not see as well as some. we cannot smell as well as some. we cannot hear as well as some. we can not make the sounds that some can. We do not have as big a brain as some.
So how is it that we are superior and seperate and different and have the right to use and rule the world as we see fit at the moments?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
Years ago I watched a show, Nature, I think, about monkeys or maybe apes in northern Japan. They were being fed and studied. One mother monkey learned I suppose by accident to seperate grains of rice from the sand that it was laying in by throwing it in the water. /The rice floated and the sand of course sank. She then scooped up the cleaned rice and ate it. She taught her daughter how to do this. A few years later when the Japanese again visited the island to study the monkeys they found that most of that group had learned to do the same thing. Isn't this learning and passing along from generation to generation and monkey to monkey a new learned skill? How does this differ from mankind before writing was developed? As I tried to explain it is a demonstrable teaching, unlike me telling you about M 31 and you knowing that that is real, is there. (can be seen and confirmed in a manner of speaking)
We are different from animals by degree only and then only in one or two criteria are we superior. Agreed that these differences have pushed us over the top and we are vastly more technologially developed than any other animals. Never the less is is by degree only and we are animals ourselves. We are not as large as some. we are not as strong as some. we can not see as well as some. we cannot smell as well as some. we cannot hear as well as some. we can not make the sounds that some can. We do not have as big a brain as some.
So how is it that we are superior and seperate and different and have the right to use and rule the world as we see fit at the moments? The very fact that you can "write" that out, I can "read" it, "respond", that is what is so enourmously different about us humans, our collective ability to deal with these abstractions we call language/typiconography/sybolisms. The rest of the animals have no access to the recioprocity of inner imagination that we have, the ability to correlate the outer with the inner, the ability to lie about either of those, and on and on and on, keep writing....................you prove my point

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmm...lawn mowers and automobiles?? Certainly different, but not a giant gap between them. It is the same principle involved in both. A giant difference would be if cars hovered on anti-gravity fields.
And the difference between an oxen driven cart, and a car, and a space shuttle, and a motorcycle, and a horse, and "an artificial horse" (AKA Bicycle) and what is it that the rest of the animals use, "X" driven whatchamacallits?????

[Royce]

We all agree that humans are different from "lower" animals. We are saying that we are different in degree by limited criteria. Inects, birds, mammals all build or make homes and modify their environment to better suit their need.
Man is not unigue in this or any other life activity with the exception of writing. I know of no other animal that "writes" although many communicate and leave signs and records of their passing by or their territorial boundaries. This can be loosely concidered a form of nonverbal communication as is writing because it is done with the conscious effort of communicating with another of it's species without the other being present at that time. So even writing can be concidered just a matter of degree. It is just an adaptation of a trait that has existed in the animal kingdom for millions of years. This is an oversimplification and an extreme viewpoint but could still be valid.
So Mr. Parsons, what is your point?

[jammieg]

What I don't understand is how did humans get this far, I mean what is it that has given them such an edge to go from fire to the moon in so short a time span, a chimp wouldn't have a prayer at such a feat not in a billion billion years in it's present state.

[Zero]

Originally posted by jammieg
What I don't understand is how did humans get this far, I mean what is it that has given them such an edge to go from fire to the moon in so short a time span, a chimp wouldn't have a prayer at such a feat not in a billion billion years in it's present state. Well, in billions and billions of years, they might...just not in their present state. [6)]

I think what it comes down to is evolutionary pressure...as populations grow, competition becomes greater, and each species has to have its own 'trick' to survive. Brain-power is the path humans took, but it is no more or less impressive than some of the other incredible adaptations that animals and plants have arrived at.

[THANOS]

What I don't understand is how did humans get this far, I mean what is it that has given them such an edge to go from fire to the moon in so short a time span, a chimp wouldn't have a prayer at such a feat not in a billion billion years in it's present state.

heh. Well a probaly 500 years ago we humans didn't seem like we will ever go in space and land on a moon. Hell even then is when our world was flat. All it takes is one simple idea that will make life easier for your species. Like tools.

[Royce]

I think Zero is right as far as he goes (I can't tell you how hard this is for both of us to actually agree so much on any subject). Our brains developed as a survival tactic under environmental pressure. We had little else to rely on. We as a species are physically rather ill equiped for survival. The more brains we had, the smarter and more adaptable and clever that we were, the better we were at surviving.
I think we were pushed beyond a threshold. Our intelligence, adaptability, tool making and language all fed and supported one another causing our brains to develope these talents even further unit we went over the top and became Homo sapiens.
From there through trade and communication, by passing along and passing down information our knowledge grew and continued to grow at a nonlinear if not expotentional rate.
The smarter we became the more able were we at surviving. The more knowledge we gathered the more we were able to gather more. It soon went way beyound survival.
One idea or piece of knowledge builds on another and poses even more problems to be solved. There was a PBS series a number of years ago with David Attenburough (sp?) named "Connections." In it he showed how one technilogical and/or scientific breakthrough or developement lead to others that lead to even more advancement.
In many ways its surprising that we are not further along than we are. We are continously stepping through new thresholds and entering new eras. We cannot keep up with the advances and developements we are making now. We do not even know yet how to best apply the scientific data and technology that we have available now. Our only limits are energy, money and time. Which direction do we take? What new world will that lead to? I used to wonder what my grandmother thought of the world and how it had changed from 1900 to the 1980's. Now I think back from when I was born in 1942 to what has happened in my lifetime. Try to imagine what the world will be like for you people in your twenties forty years from now at the rate of growth and advancement increasing every generation.
Yet we are still animals and all of the same life form that is interdependent and mutually supporting.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Forgive me, Me, quoting myself
. Hummm, your opinion, you seem to miss the "orders of magnitude" of addition to human history (what the monkeys cannot share amongst themselves is their history) that is what arises as "you", and all of what you know from all of what has been collectively learned in humanities history, and how that shapes you, enourmously different from any other animal.
You are proving my point, all of the words, letters, paragraphs, accumulations of knowledge~expressed!

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You are proving my point, all of the words, letters, paragraphs, accumulations of knowledge~expressed!

From your view point, yes, I agree that I am proving your point.
Our point, however, is that such accumulations of knowledge is possible only because of a trait that differs only in degree from similar traits of lower animals; and, hense, the term "lower animals" is not a proper term. We think that your point is that this trait is different in type and seperate from any and all traits held by lower animals; and, thus, the term "lower animals" is valid.
This, I think, is the point of disagreement and discussion. Other than this fine and possibly irrelavent point, I think, we all agree.
I, if not we, feel that this very piont of mankind being seperate from and different from the rest of life on earth is a damaging and dangerous as well as wrong viewpoint. It has led to the religious idea that man was created seperate from and to rule and use and abuse the world and life as he sees fit in the short term despite the long term effects it may have.
On the other hand if we adopt the "one world one life form" paradigm then it hopefully will lead to a more knowledgeble and responsible stewardship of the world and all of life.

[Zero]

The main issue, as I see it right now, is that we decide that 'human' is the standard, and judge all other animals by that standard...conveniently ignoring the places where other animals have us beat.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
I, if not we, feel that this very piont of mankind being seperate from and different from the rest of life on earth is a damaging and dangerous as well as wrong viewpoint. It has led to the religious idea that man was created seperate from and to rule and use and abuse the world and life as he sees fit in the short term despite the long term effects it may have.
On the other hand if we adopt the "one world one life form" paradigm then it hopefully will lead to a more knowledgeble and responsible stewardship of the world and all of life.
Why do you decide that this is a "religious idea", as opposed to a very human activity/practise.

"One life form" you mean like the vegetables? cause they are alive too!

Aside, it is a danger to ignore our ability, and difference, that willfully being ignorant of the difference is a greater danger than trying to pretend that we are NOT radically different in our collective enablements.

As for "The degree of difference" is it possible that because of the current, and ongoing, (since your birth) inundantion of information, distractive noise, knowledge, talk, words, language usage, you have simply lost the relative respect for just what language is, and does?

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Why do you decide that this is a "religious idea", as opposed to a very human activity/practise.

I think that I meant to say that it leads to the Judeo-christian idea among others,i.e. that man was created to have dominion over all the world. It is apperantly a very human activity/practric, anthrocentricity. (Is that the word I want?)


"One life form" you mean like the vegetables? cause they are alive too!

Yes, vegetables too. We eat and gain nurishment from veggies, share DNA, etc. Bacteria have been gene spliced to produce human insulin that diabetics such as myself inject to stay alive. Isn't this proof that we are of the same life form if not related.


Aside, it is a danger to ignore our ability, and difference, that willfully being ignorant of the difference is a greater danger than trying to pretend that we are NOT radically different in our collective enablements.

I am neither ignoring nor ignorant of the vast differences between mankind and the "lower animals and life forms." I am pointing out that there are equally vast differences between other families, kindoms, whatever and that the differences are of DEGREE not KIND.


As for "The degree of difference" is it possible that because of the current, and ongoing, (since your birth) inundantion of information, distractive noise, knowledge, talk, words, language usage, you have simply lost the relative respect for just what language is, and does?

Not hardly. In this and other threads in other posts I have stated that, IMO, language has been as much a cause, driver, of our advancement,evolution, as it has been a result of our evolution and advancement as a species. Language, the complexity of it, our use of it and the way we use it, may be the one thing that really distinguishes humankind from the rest of the animals and life on earth.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
And an ego makes us superior?!?


That's exactly the opposite of my point. I said that anyone who says that one animal (including humans, obviously) is "better than" (or "superior to") another has missed the point of Darwinian evolution entirely.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
The main issue, as I see it right now, is that we decide that 'human' is the standard, and judge all other animals by that standard...conveniently ignoring the places where other animals have us beat.

This is a very important point, in light of a new thread (http://physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7587), that I have started myself. Zero is absolutely right that to judge people against the human standard is wrong, since it ignores where they have us beat. I add to that (as per the aforementioned thread) that most all (if not all) other animals are more successful than Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Also, all the debate about what "separates" us from other animals centers on our abilities that give us tremendous power. If our great power is what justifies calling us superior and doing what we want with others, then the 3rd reich was for a time superior and justified in killing all those millions.

Excellent point, and very eloquently written, Dan.

It really doesn't require that I add anything at all, but there is a point that I wanted to mention that is along the lines of what you are saying. Anyone who's seen The Matrix: Reloaded should see the folly in saying "I have power over this or that, simply because I can destroy it whenever I wish". Dan used the term "power" in this light, and demonstrated how it is fallacious to assume that "power" makes us "better"; but I also wish to point out that the "power" itself is an illusion. Remember, if we destroy everything, we destroy ourselves (much like in the The Matrix: Reloaded with regard to the machines), which is in no way a "victory" for us, and thus we are powerless, if we define "power" as the ability to destroy.

This was also touched on by Ghandi, when he talked about the philosophy of Satyagraha, which strengthened the people, since it exposed the utter lack of "power" that the English had, inspite of their confidence in their "power" (ability to destroy). Ghandi showed that, if the English were to destroy them completely, they would have no people to call their new "property"...there would be no "losers" and thus no "winners".

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

So at this point I would like to point out that I can go to the Queensu librarie's reading room, pick out any one of "several tens" of magazines, (Trade, science, bio, journals, ect. ect.) start reading, and learn something new, for every sigle day of the rest of my life, you too!

I find the comparison/analogy of the "just a 'step up' in another computer program" as being like comparing the plastic "model" of an M1 A1 Abrahms Tank, to a 'model' of the real thing, no comparison!

It is a danger for us to not recognize that we have (Currently) 'Dominion of the Earth', as that is something that, we have, that the rest of the Animals do NOT, responcibilities!

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So at this point I would like to point out that I can go to the Queensu librarie's reading room, pick out any one of "several tens" of magazines, (Trade, science, bio, journals, ect. ect.) start reading, and learn something new, for every sigle day of the rest of my life, you too!

I find the comparison/analogy of the "just a 'step up' in another computer program" as being like comparing the plastic "model" of an M1 A1 Abrahms Tank, to a 'model' of the real thing, no comparison!

It is a danger for us to not recognize that we have (Currently) 'Dominion of the Earth', as that is something that, we have, that the rest of the Animals do NOT, responcibilities!

But we have imposed those responsibilites on ourselves. Remember what I said before, we just happen to be the only animals that have egos. A sense of responsibility is probably just our way of compensating for not being able to "fit in" comfortably with the rest of the world like the rest of the Animal Kingdom does.

Basically, what you call an advantage (responsibility over the rest of the world) is really just our (imperfect) compensation for being a destructive species by nature.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by Royce Language, the complexity of it, our use of it and the way we use it, may be the one thing that really distinguishes humankind from the rest of the animals and life on earth.
I can't agree with you more. The ability to name objects and concepts, and to refer to them and discuss them when they are not in our presence, to engage in sophisticated mental modeling by means of language, truely distinguishes us from animals.

You might enjoy reading Seeing Voices by Oliver Sacks, a book about deafness parts of which discuss the truely powerless situation of deaf people in the past before the development of widely used sign languages.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
But we have imposed those responsibilites on ourselves. Remember what I said before, we just happen to be the only animals that have egos. A sense of responsibility is probably just our way of compensating for not being able to "fit in" comfortably with the rest of the world like the rest of the Animal Kingdom does.
Basically, what you call an advantage (responsibility over the rest of the world) is really just our (imperfect) compensation for being a destructive species by nature.
And just how do you go about deciding that all of the rest of the animals don't have 'egos'??, how do you prove that one???

"Respocibility" is meant in it's simplest understanding, it is an Ideal.

Animals still behave responcibly, they just don't talk about it, and work out 'what is the most responcible path', they have no need to!

[jammieg]

I agree and think it could be considered both religious or human, or the human tendency to want a definitive religious certainty.

Well I was going to say imagination was probably the most important thing we had going for us, I mean what else could drive someone to study bees for 40 years and win a noble prize, whereas most of us would say that was quite mad I'm sure he was delighted the whole time because he choose to make it an adventure by turning on his imagination to long analytical study of something that wasn't really that big of a deal but then who knows until one does it, to me he won the noble prize by demonstrating that we humans are crazy and could turn anything we want it to a passion and adventure with the deliberate use of imagination, almost as if to imagine a thing is to fire up and stimulate the neurons themselves to grow, in effect turn whatever we choose into something enjoyable, no other animal seems to freak out about and be able to make such a big deal out of such trivial things as we do, but in the process who knows what one gems one may find if a person could spend 40 years on bees, then who knows what depths of knowledge might lie in such seemingly mundane things as Bruce Lee's fixation with physical speed and adaptability and formlessness...I wonder what he was talking about....

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
And just how do you go about deciding that all of the rest of the animals don't have 'egos'??, how do you prove that one???


Because none of them has ever declared itself superior. If this happens, I will consider that member of that species egotistical, but not necessarily the entire species (though I would concede that they all had "egos"). It is only after many of the species subscribe to such an arrogance that I will conclude that the species itself is egotistical.


"Respocibility" is meant in it's simplest understanding, it is an Ideal.


Exactly, and no animal but Homo Sapiens has any knowledge of that Ideal, since no other animal needs it (no other species is as destructive, and thus they have infinitely less to be "responsible" for).


Animals...


You mean "other animals", don't you?


still behave responcibly, they just don't talk about it, and work out 'what is the most responcible path', they have no need to!

No, they don't, because they don't have our enormous disadvantage of being destructive creatures by nature.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
Because none of them has ever declared itself superior. If this happens, I will consider that member of that species egotistical, but not necessarily the entire species (though I would concede that they all had "egos"). It is only after many of the species subscribe to such an arrogance that I will conclude that the species itself is egotistical.
Hummm, has never seen a Great Ape Beating it's own chest, a demonstration of EgO(?) Oh and BTW not all humans are Egotistical, either!
Exactly, and no animal but Homo Sapiens has any knowledge of that Ideal, Humm, kinda makes us special, don't ya think?? since no other animal needs it (no other species is as destructive, and thus they have infinitely less to be "responsible" for).
You mean "other animals", don't you?
No, they don't, because they don't have our enormous disadvantage of being destructive creatures by nature. By Nature?? don't you mean by choice, as that is what our advantage is, we get to choose, they, "the rest of the animals", don't!!

[mikelus]

whats seperates us from animals is power. In other words we don't let the animal eat us. Dosen't that embark a new terrority on the food chain list. But yes we still have a heart and mind.

[zoobyshoe]

Originally posted by mikelus
whats seperates us from animals is power. In other words we don't let the animal eat us.
All the animals that can eat people still manage to do it in this day and age. In India and Southast Asia, people still get eaten by tigers. Divers and snorkelers disappear when there are great whites around. Grizzley bears have killed and eaten humans. Anyone who dies without being embalmed or cremated gets eaten by insects and bacteria.
Dosen't that embark a new terrority on the food chain list. But yes we still have a heart and mind.
I don't think the food chain is a good representation of people's superior power. More important is our ability to seize and control huge amounts of territory for our own purposes. The main difference still boils down to our use of language: Gorillas still don't use the internet.

[Rader]

Originally posted by Zero
Most of the things pointed out are mere differences in degree, which is no justification for saying that humans are anything more than just another animal. We humans are better at the things that make us human, but those qualities do not make us different or better than other animals. I am a better guitarist than I am a football player, but it doesn't make me superior to or qualitatively different from an NFL player. Other animals are uniquely suited for their niche, as are humans...but that doesn't make us any less of a member of the animal kingdom.

You must be referring to humans that are not human. American dictionary meaning. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character that distinguish human beings from the lower animals. Humans have emotions.
[8)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Hummm, has never seen a Great Ape Beating it's own chest, a demonstration of EgO(?)


It is not a demonstration of an ego, but a demonstration of victory or supremacy. There's a difference (in case you can't see it on your own, the difference is that an ego is a conscious choice, while declarations of supremacy can occur without an sentience on the part of the animal).


Oh and BTW not all humans are Egotistical, either!


But only humans (not every individual, but as a species) have been stupid enough to declare themselves "superior" to the other animals when: 1) "Superiority" does not even exist in a Darwinian framework; and 2) We are the least adapted to life on this planet, and pose the greatest threat to ourselves and the planet itself, and are thus (if we're going to play the "I'm better than you" game) significantly inferior to the rest of the Animal Kingdom.


By Nature?? don't you mean by choice, as that is what our advantage is, we get to choose, they, "the rest of the animals", don't!!


If we could choose, we would never have chosen the destructiveness that we have now, but would have learned to "get along" with the rest of nature and with each other. The destructiveness is part of our nature.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by mikelus
whats seperates us from animals is power. In other words we don't let the animal eat us. Dosen't that embark a new terrority on the food chain list. But yes we still have a heart and mind.

And that so-called "power" is our own greatest threat...we have no advantage that does not come with a greater or equal disadvantage.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
You must be referring to humans that are not human. American dictionary meaning. Having or showing those positive aspects of nature and character that distinguish human beings from the lower animals. Humans have emotions.
[8)]

Other, semi-sentient, animals have semi-emotions. Besides, the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "humans" as:

A bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs.


Clearly, we are mammals, and mammals are animals.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
It is not a demonstration of an ego, but a demonstration of victory or supremacy. There's a difference (in case you can't see it on your own, the difference is that an ego is a conscious choice, while declarations of supremacy can occur without an sentience on the part of the animal).
But only humans (not every individual, but as a species) have been stupid enough to declare themselves "superior" to the other animals when: 1) "Superiority" does not even exist in a Darwinian framework; and 2) We are the least adapted to life on this planet, and pose the greatest threat to ourselves and the planet itself, and are thus (if we're going to play the "I'm better than you" game) significantly inferior to the rest of the Animal Kingdom.
If we could choose, we would never have chosen the destructiveness that we have now, but would have learned to "get along" with the rest of nature and with each other. The destructiveness is part of our nature.
A question, why do you equate superior with a seeming need of proof of good nature, as opposed to bad nature?

Superior simply means "better then at....." fill in the blank/language (which equals alot of history they have no access to)

Our destructiveness is still an indication of Superior ability, perhaps an even more obvious one.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
A question, why do you equate superior with a seeming need of proof of good nature, as opposed to bad nature?

Superior simply means "better then at....." fill in the blank/language (which equals alot of history they have no access to)

Our destructiveness is still an indication of Superior ability, perhaps an even more obvious one.

The problem is that anthropocentric philosophies - even yours - do not meet up with your own qualifications of what "superior" means. I can say that a bird is "better than" humans "at..." flying. I can also say that every other animal on Earth is "better than" humans "at..." coexisting with the rest of the environment. So, anthropocentricism is unwarranted and illogical.

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mentat
Other, semi-sentient, animals have semi-emotions. Besides, the Merriam Webster Dictionary defines "humans" as:

A bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs.

Clearly, we are mammals, and mammals are animals.

So animals have semi-emotions; That could be a nice new thread. I will not say anymore on that for the time being.

Thats a nice scientific description of humans.

A dictionary meaning of ANYTHING is NOTHING more than a general conscensus of the author and his superiors who pay him to publish it. Whats more important is mine and your description of everything. Its called peace of mind. What the other says reinforece your own description, to your satisfaction. There is no one answer to describe anything, all descriptions equal the total descriptive reality of anything.

Thats very true also. May I add we are KING of the the animal kingdom. The only Mammmanimal that has a intellect to question its origin and ask Who we are? Why we are?

[8)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
The problem is that anthropocentric philosophies - even yours - do not meet up with your own qualifications of what "superior" means. I can say that a bird is "better than" humans "at..." flying. I can also say that every other animal on Earth is "better than" humans "at..." coexisting with the rest of the environment. Yes you can, but it would be a lie! So, anthropocentricism is unwarranted and illogical.
It is in human history that we have very successfully co-existed with the environment.

So you seem to think that birds are better a flying then Humans, you mean 'like' as a natural function of corporeal being, cause Humans IS WAAAAAAAY better at flying then ANY BIRD!!

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
So animals have semi-emotions; That could be a nice new thread. I will not say anymore on that for the time being.

Thats a nice scientific description of humans.

A dictionary meaning of ANYTHING is NOTHING more than a general conscensus of the author and his superiors who pay him to publish it. Whats more important is mine and your description of everything. Its called peace of mind. What the other says reinforece your own description, to your satisfaction. There is no one answer to describe anything, all descriptions equal the total descriptive reality of anything.

Thats very true also. May I add we are KING of the the animal kingdom. The only Mammmanimal that has a intellect to question its origin and ask Who we are? Why we are?

[8)]

We are not the "king" of anything, we are the BANE of the rest of nature, at almost every turn.

[Eddie French]

My my,
Let's all just forget the most important attribute of all.
What we have that 'Lifts' us above the animal kingdom (Let's not even talk about opposable thumbs or articulated elbows) is compassion!
Did you ever hear about a lion that paused for even a second before suffocating a wilderbeast with a well positionded fang?

No?

This is what makes us human

No amount of advanced physiology can come close to explaining this 'difference'

We are human because we feel. That is all there is to it.

[Rader]

The difference between any organic entity or inorganic is, that the human species can evolve above and beyond its works to ascend the ladder of ideas and transcend its actual works.
[8)]

[Eddie French]

Originally posted by Rader
The difference between any organic entity or inorganic is, that the human species can evolve above and beyond its works to ascend the ladder of ideas and transcend its actual works.
[8)]

That's a nice quote, and it reads really well.
However, It does not move me. It has no romance, no art.
This is what defines us as human.
Try again, tickle my intellect!

[Rader]

Originally posted by Eddie French
That's a nice quote, and it reads really well.
However, It does not move me. It has no romance, no art.
This is what defines us as human.
Try again, tickle my intellect!

OK I will, is this romantic and artistic enough?

The beauty of creation is in its diversity and its strife for perfection. Rader
[8)]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
We are not the "king" of anything, we are the BANE of the rest of nature, at almost every turn.
And yet, in the measure of the "Milk Of Human Kindness" that is present/existing/working in the world, today, it's continuance as 'Normal' is a testament to the very fact of the opposite of that very true aspect of reality, as it is present in both views (A balance) as would only be capable in such as present society. (as in Radio/television/internet*)

EDIT * Oooops and Newspapers/Journals/Magazines/BOOKS/etc./etc.

[Eddie French]

Originally posted by Rader
OK I will, is this romantic and artistic enough?

The beauty of creation is in its diversity and its strife for perfection. Rader
[8)]

It certainly seems to be so. But it was creation and the quest for perfection which set us out on the path to arrive where we are now. it has not been the guiding hand on that journey. There is perfection in the successful kill of the hungry lion, but as I said before, where is the compassion in that?

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eddie French
It certainly seems to be so. But it was creation and the quest for perfection which set us out on the path to arrive where we are now. it has not been the guiding hand on that journey. There is perfection in the successful kill of the hungry lion, but as I said before, where is the compassion in that?
The "Quest for Perfection" is an entirely Human notion, the Universe itself is perfect, from it's creation.

The "Compassion" of the lion, is in it's ability to feed it's cubs, where you been?

[Rader]

Originally posted by Eddie French
It certainly seems to be so. But it was creation and the quest for perfection which set us out on the path to arrive where we are now. it has not been the guiding hand on that journey. There is perfection in the successful kill of the hungry lion, but as I said before, where is the compassion in that?

Creation is the work, perfection is the quest, the CREATOR is the moving force that imbeded in the work his image and likeness.

The compassion is > the end justifies the means if the parameter is perfection.
[8)]

[Eddie French]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
The "Quest for Perfection" is an entirely Human notion, the Universe itself is perfect, from it's creation.

I've been around.
You agree with me, though it seems that you do not fully see it.

The "Compassion" of the lion, is in it's ability to feed it's cubs, where you been?

You Anthropomorphise here. The lion does not 'feel' compassion in its ability to feed its cubs. It is merely a survival trait; instinctive, as when it kills cubs belonging to a vanquished ex alpha male.

[Eddie French]

I think I'm going to 'Drop' the lion now. It seems to be taking on a life of its own. I never meant it to [:)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Eddie French
My my,
Let's all just forget the most important attribute of all.
What we have that 'Lifts' us above the animal kingdom (Let's not even talk about opposable thumbs or articulated elbows) is compassion!
Did you ever hear about a lion that paused for even a second before suffocating a wilderbeast with a well positionded fang?

No?

This is what makes us human

No amount of advanced physiology can come close to explaining this 'difference'

We are human because we feel. That is all there is to it.

Ever heard of the dolphin that pushes a sick dolphin up for air as the latter dies. Why is ours not just an evolved form of that? (Note: I'm not saying it is, compassion may indeed set us above all the rest of animals, and we may indeed be special; I'm arguing this side for other reasons).

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eddie French
(SNIP) You Anthropomorphise here. The lion does not 'feel' compassion in its ability to feed its cubs. It is merely a survival trait; instinctive, as when it kills cubs belonging to a vanquished ex alpha male. (SNoP)
You attribute different event situations, as having identical origins, 'sans' emotion, when you cannot prove that they don't feel compassion, just as I cannot prove (to you) that they do, so why is it you decide, for the lion, what it feels?

(The answer is the first thing you state, in the quote of you, above)

[mikelus]

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
All the animals that can eat people still manage to do it in this day and age. In India and Southast Asia, people still get eaten by tigers. Divers and snorkelers disappear when there are great whites around. Grizzley bears have killed and eaten humans. Anyone who dies without being embalmed or cremated gets eaten by insects and bacteria.

I don't think the food chain is a good representation of people's superior power. More important is our ability to seize and control huge amounts of territory for our own purposes. The main difference still boils down to our use of language: Gorillas still don't use the internet.

but what about the chickens and the cows and the bulls and all the species we control for our own food with the tools of the present such as fences and guns. wouldn't that prove humans have more power in the sense of the overall. Did gorillas what to use the internet?

[Eddie French]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You attribute different event situations, as having identical origins, 'sans' emotion, when you cannot prove that they don't feel compassion, just as I cannot prove (to you) that they do, so why is it you decide, for the lion, what it feels?

(The answer is the first thing you state, in the quote of you, above)

I don't believe I do. If we combine the power of choice with the emotion of compassion then we begin to enter that unique realm of humanity.
We can choose to show compassion.. or not as the case may be. No animal has yet demonstrated the ability to do this, not even the other higher primates. To attribute higher emotions to these animals is to Anthropomorphosise and in doing so demean our own place in creation. I am an animal lover and I despise abuse or cruelty to animals, I am certainly not advocating any such thing, merely stating my opinion.
More important than this, in the longer term, is the question of how we should treat each other as sentient beings. This is surely the yardstick by which to measure humanity's intellectual/evolutionary progress. If it turns out that we, the shapers of the destiny of this small planet are truly alone in this galaxy, or within a large enough space that it makes no difference, (A question to which I am sure we will have a statistical answer to quite soon) then we had better get these questions regarding sentience and compassion sorted out pretty darn soon. [b(]

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Eddie French
I don't believe I do. If we combine the power of choice with the emotion of compassion then we begin to enter that unique realm of humanity.
We can choose to show compassion.. or not as the case may be. No animal has yet demonstrated the ability to do this, not even the other higher primates. To attribute higher emotions to these animals is to Anthropomorphosise and in doing so demean our own place in creation.
Isn't that exactly what you have done with your Alpha male and the killing of the cubs, ascribed an emotionallity to it, "Alpha" male.

Aside fomr that, animals choose, just they have less choices, and cannot express choice in anything other the acitions. As that goes I have witnessed a cat and a dog laying together, cuddling, the cat purring, the god moving it's paw over the cat, and the cat snuggling into the dogs belly, purrrring.

Compassion is an expressed emotion, verbally expressed is waaaay easier to recognize whereas "acted out" compassion is much more difficult to adjudicate, and animals can really only 'speak' through actions, not words, not ideals, so, at best it is difficult to make a solid assertion of fact upon whether, or not, they are compassionate.

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Eddie French
My my,
Let's all just forget the most important attribute of all.
What we have that 'Lifts' us above the animal kingdom (Let's not even talk about opposable thumbs or articulated elbows) is compassion!
Did you ever hear about a lion that paused for even a second before suffocating a wilderbeast with a well positionded fang?

No?

This is what makes us human

No amount of advanced physiology can come close to explaining this 'difference'

We are human because we feel. That is all there is to it.

I think that this is yet another example of someone conveniently ignoring the evidence out there in an attempt to find a characteristic to justify his bigotry.

Check out the following quote from Dr. Sagan adn Dr. Druyan:

"In the annals of primate ethics, there are some accounts that have the ring of parable. In a laboratory setting, macaques were fed if they were willing to pull a chain and electrically shock an unrelated macaque whose agony was in plain view through a one-way mirror. Otherwise, they starved. After learning the ropes, the monkeys frequently refused to pull the chain; in one experiment only 13% would do so - 87% preferred to go hungry. One macaque went without food for nearly two weeks rather than hurt its fellow. Macaques who had themselves been shocked in previous experiments were even less willing to pull the chain. The relative social status or gender of the macaques had little bearing on their reluctance to hurt others.

"If asked to choose between the human experimenters offering the macaques this Faustian bargain and the macaques themselves - suffering from real hunger rather than causing pain to others-our own moral sympathies do not lie with the scientists. But their experiments permit us to glimpse in non-humans a saintly willingness to make sacrifices in order to save others - even those who are not close kin. By conventional human standards, these macaques - who have never gone to Sunday school, never heard of the Ten Commandments, never squirmed through a single junior high school civics lesson - seem exemplary in their moral grounding and their courageous resistance to evil. Among these macaques, at least in this case, heroism is the norm.


If that is not compassion, I do not know what is.

Eddie French:

Did you ever hear about a lion that paused for even a second before suffocating a wilderbeast with a well positionded fang?

No?


And how many humans kill other peaceful creatures to satiate their tongues? And it's not even a necessity of survival for us, whereas it is a necessity for lions.

[Dissident Dan]

It is not a demonstration of an ego, but a demonstration of victory or supremacy. There's a difference (in case you can't see it on your own, the difference is that an ego is a conscious choice, while declarations of supremacy can occur without an sentience on the part of the animal).


I completely disagree with the statement that no other animal has an ego. Firstly, the idea that the gorilla does not make a conscious choice does a tremendous injustice to gorillas and other animals. The idea that other animals are just unconscious robots and that humans somehow magically evolved concsiousness as a lone evolutionary anomoly is something that I continually have to fight.

Even looking at examples in my own dog's behavior, I can see egoism. My dog is submissive to my mother, but it will often defy my brother. It seems that she considers herself lower in the hierarchy of authority than my mother, but higher than my brother (especially when it comes to food). She appears to be thinking that in relation to one person, she has certain liberties, but not in relation to another, signifying a boosted ego in relation to the former.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
I completely disagree with the statement that no other animal has an ego. Firstly, the idea that the gorilla does not make a conscious choice does a tremendous injustice to gorillas and other animals. The idea that other animals are just unconscious robots and that humans somehow magically evolved concsiousness as a lone evolutionary anomoly is something that I continually have to fight.


I didn't mean to imply that at all. I do feel, however, that I stepped slightly in the wrong direction, so I take that part back. An ape can indeed make a conscious choice (for all we know, anyway) to show supremacy, and it does, in fact, make more sense to believe that that is the case.

I realize now that what I said could have been interpreted as exactly the kind of anthropocentricism that I, too, am trying to fight. It's just plain wrong to consider us "better" than the other animals, or to assume that they are "robots" and we are the only conscious animals. Daniel Dennett's view, which I agree with (currently), seems to also combat such anthropocentric views. Have you read anything by him?

[Royce]

For one thing the characteristic to think that others outside of our group are less than we are or are to be feared is a suvival technigue that can be traced back quite a ways. Wolf packs will fright with an other over territory or drive off an outsider. Groups of apes often do the same.
It makes sense if we think that our group, tribe, pack, race, species, nation, etc must survive for us or more importantly our children (genes) to survive. If our survival is dependant on the killing or harming of others outside our group so be it. Too often it is either them or us and I usually vote for us.
We are not so different from other animals. We are too soon down out of the trees to think that we are so special or unique. Far too maney of our human traits can be traced back or compared to traits of simplier animals. Our morals and ethics are based on survival more than anything else just as is the behaviour of so many other animals.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
For one thing the characteristic to think that others outside of our group are less than we are or are to be feared is a suvival technigue that can be traced back quite a ways. Wolf packs will fright with an other over territory or drive off an outsider. Groups of apes often do the same.
It makes sense if we think that our group, tribe, pack, race, species, nation, etc must survive for us or more importantly our children (genes) to survive. If our survival is dependant on the killing or harming of others outside our group so be it. Too often it is either them or us and I usually vote for us.
We are not so different from other animals. We are too soon down out of the trees to think that we are so special or unique. Far too maney of our human traits can be traced back or compared to traits of simplier animals. Our morals and ethics are based on survival more than anything else just as is the behaviour of so many other animals.

Listen to my good buddy here, he knows what he's talkin' about. [:D] Seriously, I completely agree with you, Royce, and I don't know how anthropocentrics justify their belief, when (as you said) we can trace so many of our traits back to other animals.

I also don't like the implication that evolution has made us "superior". This is not the case, as we are quite the opposite (as I pointed out in another thread), we are the banes of the Earth, destroying and consuming natural resources at a dangerous rate and posing the biggest threat to the Earth's - and to our own - survival.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
(SNIP) We are not so different from other animals. We are too soon down out of the trees to think that we are so special or unique. Far too maney of our human traits can be traced back or compared to traits of simplier animals. Our morals and ethics are based on survival more than anything else just as is the behaviour of so many other animals. (SNoP)
Prove this will you, explain it to any other animal on the planet and get them to understand it!

BTW the rest of the animals have NO "Morals" or "Ethics" as both of those are as a result of established linguistic codes.....case you forgot, they don't have that!

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

BTW the rest of the animals have NO "Morals" or "Ethics" as both of those are as a result of established linguistic codes.....case you forgot, they don't have that!

Did you not read my quote from Sagan about the macaques? Ethics do not need to be written down or linguistically communicated to guide one's actions.

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mentat
Listen to my good buddy here, he knows what he's talkin' about. [:D] Seriously, I completely agree with you, Royce, and I don't know how anthropocentrics justify their belief, when (as you said) we can trace so many of our traits back to other animals.

Thanks, Mentat, for the vote of confidence....I guess. I find it hard to accept that we agree once more. There may be hope for ou yet. [:))] [:D] [;)]


I also don't like the implication that evolution has made us "superior". This is not the case, as we are quite the opposite (as I pointed out in another thread), we are the banes of the Earth, destroying and consuming natural resources at a dangerous rate and posing the biggest threat to the Earth's - and to our own - survival.

We are not the banes of the earth just another species undergoing a population explosion. It is a self limiting problem. Either Mankind does something about it and improve our stewardship of the earth or Nature will do something about us. We will reach and equalibrium and our population will stabalize even if it is ZERO.

We are destroying nothing nor using anything up. We are merely converting forms of matter from one form to another. It isn't lost nor used up. It is still here on earth in another form.

The earth and nature and life have experienced much more drastic cataclysms than mere Man and survived and recovered. Remember the span of time in which mankind had been so populous and so destuctive has been but a blink in time and as destructive and wasteful as we may seem to us we are rather puny and ineffective when compared to an ice age, meteor or super volcano. This too is a form of anthropocentrics and arrogance. We are as far as the earth is concerned a rather minor temporary rash not worth doing anything about yet. Bothersome maybe. No more.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
Did you not read my quote from Sagan about the macaques? Ethics do not need to be written down or linguistically communicated to guide one's actions.
So then it isn't a moral 'code' or ethical 'process' but simply instinctual reactions, according to you, right?

If they are not written down, then they cannot be passed on, (by any animal other then a human) in any manner other then as "demonstrated"/"actions" and speaking nothing but the truth.

See, animals cannot lie............we can!

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Royce
(SNIP) The earth and nature and life have experienced much more drastic cataclysms than mere Man and survived and recovered. Remember the span of time in which mankind had been so populous and so destuctive has been but a blink in time and as destructive and wasteful as we may seem to us we are rather puny and ineffective when compared to an ice age, meteor or super volcano. This too is a form of anthropocentrics and arrogance. We are as far as the earth is concerned a rather minor temporary rash not worth doing anything about yet. Bothersome maybe. No more. (SNoP)
WOW, talk about someone anthropomorphisizing, your making nature out to be an entity that has concern about how we humans, act upon the face of the planet, how anthropocentric of you!

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Royce
Thanks, Mentat, for the vote of confidence....I guess. I find it hard to accept that we agree once more. There may be hope for ou yet. [:))] [:D] [;)]


Hmm...so there's only hope for me if I agree with you? [;)]

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
WOW, talk about someone anthropomorphisizing, your making nature out to be an entity that has concern about how we humans, act upon the face of the planet, how anthropocentric of you!

First off, there is a huge difference between anthropomorphisizing and anthropocentricism.

Secondly, I agree that it was rather anthropomorphic of Royce to have referred to the Earth as "tolerating" us, and all that.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So then it isn't a moral 'code' or ethical 'process' but simply instinctual reactions, according to you, right?

If they are not written down, then they cannot be passed on, (by any animal other then a human) in any manner other then as "demonstrated"/"actions" and speaking nothing but the truth.


But they are still passed. How this happens is irrelevant, but ethical memes are being propogated.

I also wish you'd remember that Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a very new innovation, compared to those animals that we have been referring to, since all of humanity's ancestors are extinct. Each of them was "better" at certain things than the previous one, but we are still not so far seperated as you (for some reason) wish to believe.


See, animals cannot lie............we can!

There are lots of other animals that can decieve. The chimp is one, but that's no surprise, since it's 98% identical to us genetically; but a dog is another; so is a cat. I've seen them do it. To avoid impending punishment, a dog or cat can beg, snuggle up to you to make sure there's no way you could get mad at them, and they can even decieve you into thinking that something else was responsible for whatever they did, or into thinking that nothing happened at all.

I can name specific instances where my pets have done exactly these things, if you want; but, if you've ever owned a dog or cat, you already know I'm right.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
But they are still passed. How this happens is irrelevant, but ethical memes are being propogated. So, assert something as a fact and therefore it is?? HUH??

I also wish you'd remember that Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a very new innovation, compared to those animals that we have been referring to, since all of humanity's ancestors are extinct. Each of them was "better" at certain things than the previous one, but we are still not so far seperated as you (for some reason) wish to believe.
Genetically, no, in ability YUP!...Huge>>>Language!!!

There are lots of other animals that can decieve. The chimp is one, but that's no surprise, since it's 98% identical to us genetically; but a dog is another; so is a cat. I've seen them do it. To avoid impending punishment, a dog or cat can beg, snuggle up to you to make sure there's no way you could get mad at them, and they can even decieve you into thinking that something else was responsible for whatever they did, or into thinking that nothing happened at all.
Ahem, you are fooling yourself, the animals are not the ones fooling you, they only use action to make "exhibition of communication" and action ALWAYS speaks truly.

I can name specific instances where my pets have done exactly these things, if you want; but, if you've ever owned a dog or cat, you already know I'm right.
In my lifetime there have been many a pets that have been a part of that time, that is why I can figure out, that you have not yet figured out, not to fool yourself, when attempting to read the communications of other types of animals, because anthropomorphisizing is a very common occurance in such attempts, a very quick, and un-obvious pitfall.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So, assert something as a fact and therefore it is?? HUH??


What are you talking about? If Dissedent Dan's reference indicates that ethical memes are being propogated among macaques, then I'm not stating anything as fact...Dan's source may be, but I'm not.


Genetically, no, in ability YUP!...Huge>>>Language!!!


And yet, there are so many studies (not just the one that Dan referenced) that show that other animals have many of the necessary abilities, which would build toward full-blown "language". As it is, there are no perfect languages, and humans still, often, find themselves "without words" to describe what they are feeling.


Ahem, you are fooling yourself, the animals are not the ones fooling you, they only use action to make "exhibition of communication" and action ALWAYS speaks truly.


Again, what are you talking about? When the dog uses a piece of paper to cover up the large pile of crap these he's just dropped on the carpet, I don't know how you could interpret it as anything but deciept.


In my lifetime there have been many a pets that have been a part of that time, that is why I can figure out, that you have not yet figured out, not to fool yourself, when attempting to read the communications of other types of animals, because anthropomorphisizing is a very common occurance in such attempts, a very quick, and un-obvious pitfall.


But there is a difference between "anthropomorphizing" and detecting the actual motives of a certain action. My cat hated me, she wouldn't come within 5 feet of me, if she could help it. But, when she coughed up a hair-ball on my bed, she just loved me. She snuggled up to me, she licked my face, etc, etc. How else can you explain this?

BTW, I don't think the term "anthropomorphizing" has nearly as much meaning as you're trying to give it. To anthropomorphize is to attribute "human traits" to something non-human. That very definition is anthropocentric (or anthro-egotistical; a word I used to use a lot, but I think I made it up [t)]), as almost every single human trait (when dealing generically, and not in specifics) was exhibited by other animals long before a human exhibited them.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by Mentat
What are you talking about? If Dissedent Dan's reference indicates that ethical memes are being propogated among macaques, then I'm not stating anything as fact...Dan's source may be, but I'm not.
You State "you state nothing" as fact, but below you state the emboldened as fact, only problem is that, it is relevant how!, as it is demonstrated learning, ergo NOT a "Moral Code", bit a situational reaction, 'empathy' for another member of the troupe.

But they are still passed. How this happens is irrelevant, but ethical memes are being propogated.

Originally posted by Mentat
Again, what are you talking about? When the dog uses a piece of paper to cover up the large pile of crap these he's just dropped on the carpet, I don't know how you could interpret it as anything but deciept.
Please tell me where is the lie?? did the dog fool you??

Originally posted by Mentat
But there is a difference between "anthropomorphizing" and detecting the actual motives of a certain action. My cat hated me, she wouldn't come within 5 feet of me, if she could help it. But, when she coughed up a hair-ball on my bed, she just loved me. She snuggled up to me, she licked my face, etc, etc. How else can you explain this?
How do you know the cat hated you, did it tell you that??
Aside from that, the cat might think it just gave you a great present, to line your bed with, as represented by the fur ball, and the purring that ensued is simply indicative of the fact that it is expressing "its contentment" for knowing that it has been nice towards you.....it's all subjective interpretation, hence your answer is no more correct then mine, BUT the Animal did NOT lie, it cannot, it can only speak with its actions, and actions cannot lie.

Originally posted by Mentat
BTW, I don't think the term "anthropomorphizing" has nearly as much meaning as you're trying to give it. To anthropomorphize is to attribute "human traits" to something non-human. That very definition is anthropocentric (or anthro-egotistical; a word I used to use a lot, but I think I made it up ), as almost every single human trait (when dealing generically, and not in specifics) was exhibited by other animals long before a human exhibited them.
Now this is just downright condescencing, aside from that, you miss completely how that one little differentiation, that permits us language, makes the hugest difference, and your so accustomed to it you take it sooooooo for granted, you don't even realize just how special it is to be able to do it, "speak", speak some more, cause every word you use, counts against you, and for the "we are special" side, keep typing it out, and you Keep proving it/(me) right!