Why do humans see themselves as different from animals?

  • Thread starter Jupiter60
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Animals
In summary, the appeals court is hearing the case of a chimpanzee named Tommy and is to decide if he has the right to bodily integrity and liberty, just like a person. The question of whether human rights can transcend the species divide is simply a way of asking who we include when we talk about basic rights. While humans are primates too, many people think of themselves as something different from the animals. This may be due to ego or due to the fact that humans have a stronger social element than most animals.
  • #1
Jupiter60
79
22
While humans are scientifically classified as animals, we frequently see ourselves as being something different from the animals. Why is this?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
Are you sure that many people still think that?. I think of myself as an animal, for instance.

I think many people think of themselves as distinct from other animals due to ego. It's the same human thought process that led us to believe we were the center of the universe, the sun was a god obsessed with our conduct, etc etc
 
  • Like
Likes Thom Snow
  • #3
Jupiter60 said:
While humans are scientifically classified as animals, we frequently see ourselves as being something different from the animals. Why is this?

There is a long history of doing that, for complicated and (it seems to me) largely unexplored reasons. (Say, do you really want to feel more or less similar to the organisms you hunt, eat, enslave and work all their life?)

A probe to get at some of that may be to ask how robust such notions are:

"A US appeals court is currently hearing the case of a chimpanzee named Tommy and is to decide if he has the right to bodily integrity and liberty, just like a person. ...

In the same way, the question of whether human rights can transcend the species divide is simply a way of asking who we include when we talk about basic rights. Nobody now regards the old limits of sex, race, nationality, religion and property ownership as justifiable reasons for excluding others from basic rights. But is species? ...

I share the common view among human rights theorists and practitioners that basic rights are about protecting an individual's well-being. And to have well-being is not merely to benefit from certain goods, but also to experience the benefits of those goods. On this view, then, basic rights should not be extended to all things, but certainly should be extended all other animals who possesses conscious life."

[ http://phys.org/news/2014-10-comment-monkeying-aroundanimals-human-rights.html ]

(FWIW, I accept realpolitik, and note that our "extended family" has barely started to include pets. That may be the two extremes of the move against the notion that animals differ from us when push comes to shove.)
 
  • #4
I wonder if it's natural for other animals to consider all animals besides themselves as distinct. I imagine so.

Certainly humans have a stronger social element than most animals. We can read the words of our ancestors and add them to our knowledge. We can idealize ourselves and our social image in comparison to dead people we admire. This ties into the ego mentioned earlier a lot, but it's also a sort of objective difference between us and other animals. To some extent, it's semantics - as long as we're all clear that man descended from primates.
 
  • #5
  • #6
Torbjorn_L said:
Actually humans are primates too, so it would make more sense to say that humans (and other primates) descended from Primatomorpha. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primatomorpha ].

That would depend on how you defined and grouped the clades (in addition to, as your wiki links says, how you interpret molecular data) wouldn't it? We can look at a clade in which we descended from primates through the Haplorhini line. Of course, we are primates too, but we are also chordates and craniates - and we also descended from them. Descending from and being aren't mutually exclusive, are they?
 
  • #7
Pythagorean said:
I wonder if it's natural for other animals to consider all animals besides themselves as distinct. I imagine so.

It would seem there is considerable evidence for the above since most animals will instinctively either fight or flight from specific other species. Some of this has to do with smell since it seems that the first animals willing to share a watering hole are herbivores, but even carnivores can, under the right conditions, learn to overcome this predisposition.

Pythagorean said:
Certainly humans have a stronger social element than most animals. We can read the words of our ancestors and add them to our knowledge. We can idealize ourselves and our social image in comparison to dead people we admire. This ties into the ego mentioned earlier a lot, but it's also a sort of objective difference between us and other animals. To some extent, it's semantics - as long as we're all clear that man descended from primates.

It might be treading on thin ice to characterize our social element as stronger than in most animals and we don't have to even get to certain kinds of insects like termites, and ants, although things do get rather blurry with insects that are obviously social and gather in great numbers yet allow for cannibalism.

There are many mammals that either hunt in packs and keep a social group with very strong sets of rules and bonds even when not hunting as well as prey animals that employ herding and other social forms to find safety in numbers. I would go so far as to say that lone or immediate family grouped only animals are the rarity. Humans are somewhere in between since we are obviously social but also rather fiercely individualistic, although it is possible that this individualism only came into prominence as it became affordable (and in some cases, desirable for diversity) within fixed civilizations. Hunter-Gatherers had less room for individual behavior since they lived most often right on the edge of survival.

Also regarding this attitude of equality or near equality with those we eat or enslave, hunter-gatherer societies have little or no problem with this since they tend to be naturalistic and accept that we can't survive eating rocks. They accept the Law of the Jungle. Something alive has to die to feed us and apparently Nature manages to handle a balance.
 
  • #8
I don't think "individualism" really conflicts, since those individuals benefit from an education and/or knowledge and social structures that reach far back into humam history. No other animal is able to construct and retain social constructs likes we do through books and paintings and photography and other media.
 
  • #9
@Pythagorean - Perhaps we are dealing with semantics here, since I would call those things recorded language (technology), somewhat different from fundamental social structure.
 
  • #10
enorbet said:
@Pythagorean - Perhaps we are dealing with semantics here, since I would call those things recorded language (technology), somewhat different from fundamental social structure.

What I said was that social structure is encoded in those things (language and technology) and passed down. The social structures themselves are things like religion, laws, methodology, political structures, etc.
 
  • #11
@Pythagorean - I quite understand that for the human species social structure is encoded in language and technology but not only do we have many social structures, many of which are in conflict, language and technology are somewhat ephemeral, witness The Dark Ages or the incalculable loss of the Libraries at Alexandria.

Social structure is also encoded in our genes and these too are often in conflict not only with language and technology but even sometimes with our best interests. Stephen Hawking pointed this worrisome conflict out in a general way in Brief History of Time and such works by other authors such as Growing Up Absurd have pointed out the "house of cards" we deal with and the conflicts our systems ignore.

I don't think animals have such conflicts and healthy animals rarely exhibit self-destructive behavior. So I conclude that even if we are not comparing "apples to oranges" that it is further human conceit to assume our social structures are stronger. If 80% of all wolves were wiped out in a day the remaining wolves would get along just fine, at the very least continuing their social structure. I'm very skeptical that if 80% of all humans were wiped out in a day, there would still be 20% left in just a few months, and have no doubts that social structure would utterly collapse.
 
  • #12
You're using a different measuring stick than me. The point is how big of a role social elements play in our behavior, not whether it's "good" or "bad" or other moral arguments about "conflict" or "self-destructive". Your point:

I'm very skeptical that if 80% of all humans were wiped out in a day, there would still be 20% left in just a few months, and have no doubts that social structure would utterly collapse.

Only supports my point! Because of our important social structure, we'd have trouble surviving without all the social roles that have developed being around to keep things going. Most humans are dependent on social structures like commerce and trade. Most people don't know how to hunt their own food or find appropriate shelter - it's all done for us in exchange for us performing our social roles.
 
  • #13
For the record I didn't say anything about "good, bad, or moral". I said stronger. From my point of view since in the example case of the wolves theirs would remain intact after such a blow while ours would likely not, theirs appears stronger. It may be because it is a simpler, less complicated structure but that doesn't diminish it's ability to survive impact - QED stronger.

However we are beginning to beat a dead horse and probably because one things seems objectively true - we are using different measuring sticks or weighting algorithms. So I'll just walk the rest of the way home.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
It just seemed to me like you were making value judgments about the quality of the social interactions; because values are dependent on value systems, they're hard to debate and discuss in a rigorous fashion, whereas the biological perspective is more about behavior and survival.
 
  • #15
Pythagorean said:
Descending from and being aren't mutually exclusive, are they?

Agreed.
 
  • #16
Mental states can be difficult to identify from outside, and behaviorist psychologists believe in ignoring them as much as possible. Some behaviorists even make a philosophical principle out of ignoring them, on the ground that they are not directly observable. But such epistemological skepticism can easily be extended to everything but one's own consciousness, giving solipsism.

But I do think that they have an important methodological point, that internal states of other entities are inferred from externally-accessible features of them, like their behavior.

So let us look at what is accessible from the outside.

Langauge is a big one. Human language has a level of complexity that no other species' communication system has, as far as we have been able to tell. Most animals' communication systems are analogues of single human words, though some are more complicated, especially bird songs and whale songs. But there is not much evidence that they hold conversations with them. They seem mainly to advertise their singers' presence and possibly also what species their singers are and how big and strong their singers are, like various other sexually-selected features. Dolphins go a bit further, with some dolphin whistles apparently for self-identification -- names.

There have been various attempts to teach human languages to our closest simian relatives, like chimpanzees. They have had the most success learning sign language, but though they can learn lots of individual signs, they seem unable to string them together to make much more than simple noun phrases -- and often not even that.
 
  • #17
Explain the behavior of these water buffalo in deciding "as a pack" to go back and save a baby.



I have personally witnessed two squirrels decide together to attack a hawk that had been harassing the area birds and squirrels. The hawk was up in a tree just sitting there on a branch. The two squirrels came together and chattered awhile to each other, then they went up and out on a single branch to rush the hawk together. It was amazing. I've seen groups of small birds dive at cats to drive them away.

How do they decide to perform a deliberate act in unison? It's not one animal attacking, then others join in. They have a plan and all carry it out together.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Evo said:
How do they decide to perform a deliberate act in unison? It's not one animal attacking, then others join in. They have a plan and all carry it out together.

It would be difficult to determine whether they have a plan or they are just very experienced at improvising.
 
  • #19
Pythagorean said:
It would be difficult to determine whether they have a plan or they are just very experienced at improvising.
Odd improvising as a group all at once to address a single problem that doesn't really involve them personally, but to help a friend? Or if you prefer, a herd member?
 
  • #20
Evo said:
Odd improvising as a group all at once to address a single problem.

Odd planning too, no?
 
  • #21
Pythagorean said:
Odd planning too, no?
I wouldn't have thought this possible just from reading about animal behavior, I think we need to rethink things.
 
  • #22
It seems to me that how anything resembling intelligence must develop along different lines given a difference in sensory hierarchy, acuity, and type. For example some lifeforms depend heavily on olfactory information and apparently many have eyesight that is not at all directly comparable to ours, not to mention extremely difficult to test. What matters to them and how they "see" the world must be different if only in what they respond to or deem important.

I can't help but wonder if our own "homocentricity" anthropomorphism gives us bias against such differences. We give, and rightly so... for us, extreme weight to very abstract thought processes and it is likely that there is a tradeoff here in that simplicity and/or single-mindedness (or maybe even just a reduced field of concern and understanding) provides a compensatory focus for problems that face other animals in the here and now. Isn't intelligence, according to us, largely about problem solving?

It seems commonplace that people have skewed understanding of "others" much like the way so many either write off ancient man, for example the progression of civilizations that produced pyramids or feel compelled to introduce some pseudo reverence or Deus ex Machina hocus pocus to answer how they could do it. It is much more reasonable to note that stone, sand, and water was all they had to work with but it had been that way for millenia so it was highly developed and as we advanced we forgot some of those things like "hydraulic sand" as a tool and concrete and mortar removed the concern for extreme accuracy.

Similarly in what we call lower animals it has only been recently that we have begun to give them credit for complex behavior, probably much due to the "man has dominion" nonsense. IIRC it has only been recognized that some animals make and use simple tools in the last hundred years. Why did it take so long?

We may also have a sort of sociopolitical bias in the way that we write off lifeforms that give little value to the individual and call the members "drones", etc. If you've ever witnessed the response time of Carpenter Ants whether communicated or "merely instinctive reaction" I'm sure you were impressed even as you made a hasty retreat.

We have had to revise our concept of the window of what can live under what circumstances (geyser pools, deep mine rocks, black smokers, etc.) and it is likely (maybe even certain since we understand so little about consciousness and intelligence in even ourselves, let alone others- Dr Lily anyone?) that there is a huge area ripe for exploration having to do with intelligence and communication. We are manacled by prejudice and have little firm data as to how much a decision is a thought process and how much is instinct that we rationalize into willful, carefully considered choice.

Experiments that isolate human left hemisphere from right hemisphere often illustrate the lengths we will go to in order to make sense of an event to ourselves.

If anyone knows of recent fundamental studies on this I'd love to see some links. We are barred from "getting inside another's head" but it shouldn't be so difficult to shed much of legacy subjectivity to see behavior through objective eyes and get better data.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Evo said:
I think we need to rethink things.

Oh, there are biases. Especially in "small group, small data" sciences. (Though as Hawks here argue elsewhere on his blog, the example of anthropology is transforming itself now.)

"I must say my favorite part is how she traces Boule's concept of stupid and inferior Neandertals up through the years: Instead of describing these ideas as simply outmoded, she recognizes how they contributed to the work of recent anthropologists, with Richard Klein as a visible manifestation.

"Even the language of extinction imbued Neanderthals with an aura of evolutionary fatalism: “demise,” “fate,” and “loss” helped us cast our interspecies interaction as a relationship between winners and losers. “It is not difficult to understand why the Neanderthals failed to survive,” noted Richard Klein in the third edition of his seminal textbook, The Human Career, in 2009. “The archaeological record shows that in virtually every detectable aspect—artifacts, site modification, ability to adapt to extreme environments, subsistence, and so forth—the Neanderthals lagged their modern successors, and their more primitive behavior limited their ability to compete for game and other shared resources.”"

Pyne comes at the end to an essential point about Neandertals: We long defined ourselves as whatever the Neandertals are not. Now we have begun to explore the implications of defining them as part of our family."

[ http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/...neandertals-inside-outside-humanity-2014.html ]

And it is hard to research. Just the other day I read a press release about an article claiming that they have identified play in fishes. Some traits run deep. :p
 
  • #24
Humans are different to other animals.

We possesses neural structures which enable us to think rationally, empathize with things similar to us, and construct complex concepts of reality. I do not believe that any other animal on Earth can do this.
 
  • #25
k9b4 said:
Humans are different to other animals.

We possesses neural structures which enable us to think rationally, empathize with things similar to us, and construct complex concepts of reality. I do not believe that any other animal on Earth can do this.
We may have different capabilities, but that doesn't detract from the emotions and intelligence of other species. We have seen where animals grieve over dead friends, and where others of their species come to the aid of a fallen friend.

I witnessed buzzards attempting to help a wounded friend on a highway. One of them was hit by a semi and was in the freeway lane, injured, the other two kept coming to it, trying to get it up and out of the highway, it was terribly sad. Those birds are HUGE the wingspread covered the entire lane.
 
  • #26
Evo said:
We may have different capabilities
Yes exactly. Humans have different capabilities. Humans are different. Humans possesses the most complex nervous system on earth. Humans are 'smarter', 'more intelligent', 'more emotional', whatever words you want to use. Our nervous system is what makes us different to other animals.
 
  • #27
k9b4 said:
Yes exactly. Humans have different capabilities. Humans are different. Humans possesses the most complex nervous system on earth. Humans are 'smarter', 'more intelligent', 'more emotional', whatever words you want to use. Our nervous system is what makes us different to other animals.
We also have the capacity for doing evil against our species and others for pleasure. We are destructive to our environment for our pleasure, we are motivated by greed, we are self destructive. Those traits do separate us from animals. ;)
 
  • #28
Evo said:
We also have the capacity for doing evil against our species and others for pleasure. We are destructive to our environment for our pleasure, we are motivated by greed, we are self destructive. Those traits do separate us from animals. ;)
Yes thank you, those are more ways in which humans are different to other animals.
Evo said:
we are motivated by greed
All organisms are motivated by greed.
 
  • #29
k9b4 said:
Yes thank you, those are more ways in which humans are different to other animals.

All organisms are motivated by greed.
But we are motivated by personal financial gain and social status. I'm not too impressed with our species.
 
  • #30
Evo said:
But we are motivated by financial gain and social status.
And no other organism on Earth is motivated by financial gain and social status. Therefore, I conclude, humans are different to other animals.
 
  • #31
k9b4 said:
And no other organism on Earth is motivated by financial gain and social status. Therefore, I conclude, humans are different to other animals.
I don't think anyone is saying we aren't different, different doesn't mean better.
 
  • #32
Evo said:
I don't think anyone is saying we aren't different, different doesn't mean better.
"Why do humans see themselves as different from animals?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
k9b4 said:
Yes exactly. Humans have different capabilities. Humans are different. Humans possesses the most complex nervous system on earth. Humans are 'smarter', 'more intelligent', 'more emotional', whatever words you want to use. Our nervous system is what makes us different to other animals.

The origins of consciousness and cognition is actually my central field of study. I serve on the editorial board of one central publication in the field and essentially referee for most of the other main players. It's actually a very contentious subject even among those doing the principle research on the matter, much less the lay public who may have other social, religious concerns wrapped up in it. Two conferences I regularly attend and present at are the ASSC: http://www.theassc.org/, and the biennial Tucson conference:http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/

But after 15+ years of arguing over it, I don't think I've made much headway on my position. The debate essentially boils down to a "continuity versus discontinuity" perspective, a term coined by Kathleen Gibson, an anthopologist and colleague of of one of my early mentors. http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...e=online&aid=7252412&fileId=S0140525X00071326

Sorry, I think the article may behind a paywall, but the gist of it is that the human brain and all other mammalian brains are remarkably similar in structure, with no unique structures or pathways distinguishing humans from any other mammal, let alone primates. Yet, our experience and patently obvious capacity for technological progress relative to even our closest primate ancestor put me squarely in the "discontinous" camp. However, you'd be surprised at the high volume of tenured professors and published scholars that continue to vociferously argue that we are none other than marginally smarter apes whose intelligence falls along a linear or "continuous" graph with all other mammal/primates according to gross brain volume (a measure known as the encephalization quotient (EQ).

So that's one reason I've stayed out of these discussions thus far, it's just very hard to sway opinion on this matter. It's going to take some extremely compelling study or model to even make a dent in public, even scientific opinion, and that might not even do much.
 
  • #34
DiracPool said:
the gist of it is that the human brain and all other mammalian brains are remarkably similar in structure
Similar, sure. But still different. An airplane is similar to a car, but an airplane is not a car.

DiracPool said:
with no unique structures or pathways distinguishing humans from any other mammal, let alone primates.
Are you saying that all mammals think in the same way as humans, the difference is quantitative only?
 
  • #35
k9b4 said:
Similar, sure. But still different. An airplane is similar to a car, but an airplane is not a car.

Well, that's the quandary isn't it? If you're talking about a prop plane with an internal combustion engine (ICE), maybe, but a jet plane is clear structural discontinuous change from the ICE that's easy to characterize. When we are talking about the brain, we are basically talking about a discontinuous change occurring from a structural organization equivalent from upgrading from a 4 cylinder to a 6 cylinder engine, there's no obvious reformatting of the propulsion technology as seen in the jet example above. So that's what you are working with. What you have is a gross overdevelopment of the prefrontal cortex in higher primates and humans. That's what you have to work with if you want to explain the anomaly.

k9b4 said:
Are you saying that all mammals think in the same way as humans, the difference is quantitative only?

I'm not saying that at all, in fact I'm saying the opposite. I'm in the discontinuous camp, but I'm not going to go into my personal model on the subject. I'm saying that there is a camp out there that thinks all mammals think qualitatively in the same way humans do, and believe it or not, this camp actually comprises more than 50% of the community as far as my subjective estimate. But this isn't the camp I'm in.
 
<h2>1. Why do humans have a sense of self?</h2><p>Humans have a sense of self because of our highly developed brains and complex cognitive abilities. This allows us to think abstractly and reflect on our own thoughts, emotions, and experiences. We are also able to understand and recognize ourselves as separate individuals from others.</p><h2>2. How do humans differ from animals?</h2><p>Humans differ from animals in many ways, including our ability to use language, think critically and creatively, and develop complex societies. We also have a greater capacity for self-awareness and self-reflection, as well as the ability to imagine and plan for the future.</p><h2>3. Why do humans have a stronger sense of morality than animals?</h2><p>Humans have a stronger sense of morality due to our ability to think abstractly and empathize with others. This allows us to understand the consequences of our actions and consider the well-being of others. Additionally, our complex social structures and cultural norms also play a role in shaping our moral values.</p><h2>4. Are humans the only animals capable of consciousness?</h2><p>While it is difficult to definitively determine consciousness in other animals, research has shown that many animals exhibit behaviors and brain activity that suggest some level of consciousness. However, the level and type of consciousness may differ from that of humans.</p><h2>5. How do humans' interactions with animals affect our perception of ourselves?</h2><p>Humans' interactions with animals can greatly influence our perception of ourselves. For example, domestication of animals has led to a closer relationship between humans and certain species, while the consumption of animals has led to a sense of superiority over them. Our interactions with animals also shape our cultural beliefs and values, which can impact our perception of ourselves as distinct from animals.</p>

1. Why do humans have a sense of self?

Humans have a sense of self because of our highly developed brains and complex cognitive abilities. This allows us to think abstractly and reflect on our own thoughts, emotions, and experiences. We are also able to understand and recognize ourselves as separate individuals from others.

2. How do humans differ from animals?

Humans differ from animals in many ways, including our ability to use language, think critically and creatively, and develop complex societies. We also have a greater capacity for self-awareness and self-reflection, as well as the ability to imagine and plan for the future.

3. Why do humans have a stronger sense of morality than animals?

Humans have a stronger sense of morality due to our ability to think abstractly and empathize with others. This allows us to understand the consequences of our actions and consider the well-being of others. Additionally, our complex social structures and cultural norms also play a role in shaping our moral values.

4. Are humans the only animals capable of consciousness?

While it is difficult to definitively determine consciousness in other animals, research has shown that many animals exhibit behaviors and brain activity that suggest some level of consciousness. However, the level and type of consciousness may differ from that of humans.

5. How do humans' interactions with animals affect our perception of ourselves?

Humans' interactions with animals can greatly influence our perception of ourselves. For example, domestication of animals has led to a closer relationship between humans and certain species, while the consumption of animals has led to a sense of superiority over them. Our interactions with animals also shape our cultural beliefs and values, which can impact our perception of ourselves as distinct from animals.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
5
Views
939
Replies
1
Views
866
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
43
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
11
Views
531
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
15
Views
2K
Back
Top