Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
Friedrich Nietzsche
"Is Man Just Another Animal?" Professor Steve Jones says...
- Thread starter gorski
- Start date
Friedrich Nietzsche
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
There are interesting questions raised by the thread title. Sadly none of them are explored in the thread.
The question in inverted commas is, of course, a leading question.
The answer to "is man another animal?" (if we interpret "man" as Homo sapiens) is "no". No animal is another animal. Snails are not chaffinches. Chaffinches are not alligators. Alligators are not duck billed platypuses.
But the "just" is asking if we're unique, not just in the sense that snails are uniquely snails, but the implication is that there is something that "raises us above" the rest of animalia. Other animals may be remarkable, some, like the duck billed platypus, so much so that their existence was not believed when first discovered. But that's not the kind of difference we want. Humans throughout history have wanted not just dominion over animals, but to be apart. We want meaning. We have demanded that our life on this earth is not the same as cattle. We want to deny that that which makes each individual human a person is extinguished when their body wears out. They have merely cast off this mortal coil. The flame that was their personality, their being, their essence must be somewhere else. Even the most atheist among us have pondered this, even if we conclude in the end that the chemistry is just that.
None of this means we are not animals. We are the animal that ponders. We even named ourselves "wise man", "thinking man".
In the world today there are no other examples of our genus. But there were at one time other homo species that shared the world with us. Maybe that's where our tales of goblins and ogres come from.
If they existed today would we include them in "human"? Would they share any degree of humanity in our eyes? Would they, if we got to know them, have a personality that we considered extinguished upon death?
Anyone who has a dog gets to know their dog's nature. Dog owners will say that their dog has a personality. It might be projection. I used to think it probably was. But I don't any longer.
I can give you many anecdotes about times my dog has demonstrated she knows I have a different perspective on the world to her. She seems to know when I see things she can't see, and when she sees things I can't. Psychologists call the ability to do this Theory of Mind. And it's not just anecdote, well designed experiments suggest that dogs may indeed be able to perform this trick, despite their relatively simple brains.
So not all of the mental tricks we once thought of as uniquely ours are so unique as we once thought. And if my dog, with her simple brain, can tell when she can see a biscuit on the floor I haven't noticed and knows I can't see it from where I am, why rule out pre-H. sapiens homo ancestors being able to do even more impressive tricks?
They must have done. They didn't just have weak jaws and cooking, they had art, funeral rites, manufacturing skills. They used fire.
Why jealously guard all degree of mental agility and the tricks that go with it? Why assume they all sprung into being with our species?
The question in inverted commas is, of course, a leading question.
The answer to "is man another animal?" (if we interpret "man" as Homo sapiens) is "no". No animal is another animal. Snails are not chaffinches. Chaffinches are not alligators. Alligators are not duck billed platypuses.
But the "just" is asking if we're unique, not just in the sense that snails are uniquely snails, but the implication is that there is something that "raises us above" the rest of animalia. Other animals may be remarkable, some, like the duck billed platypus, so much so that their existence was not believed when first discovered. But that's not the kind of difference we want. Humans throughout history have wanted not just dominion over animals, but to be apart. We want meaning. We have demanded that our life on this earth is not the same as cattle. We want to deny that that which makes each individual human a person is extinguished when their body wears out. They have merely cast off this mortal coil. The flame that was their personality, their being, their essence must be somewhere else. Even the most atheist among us have pondered this, even if we conclude in the end that the chemistry is just that.
None of this means we are not animals. We are the animal that ponders. We even named ourselves "wise man", "thinking man".
In the world today there are no other examples of our genus. But there were at one time other homo species that shared the world with us. Maybe that's where our tales of goblins and ogres come from.
If they existed today would we include them in "human"? Would they share any degree of humanity in our eyes? Would they, if we got to know them, have a personality that we considered extinguished upon death?
Anyone who has a dog gets to know their dog's nature. Dog owners will say that their dog has a personality. It might be projection. I used to think it probably was. But I don't any longer.
I can give you many anecdotes about times my dog has demonstrated she knows I have a different perspective on the world to her. She seems to know when I see things she can't see, and when she sees things I can't. Psychologists call the ability to do this Theory of Mind. And it's not just anecdote, well designed experiments suggest that dogs may indeed be able to perform this trick, despite their relatively simple brains.
So not all of the mental tricks we once thought of as uniquely ours are so unique as we once thought. And if my dog, with her simple brain, can tell when she can see a biscuit on the floor I haven't noticed and knows I can't see it from where I am, why rule out pre-H. sapiens homo ancestors being able to do even more impressive tricks?
They must have done. They didn't just have weak jaws and cooking, they had art, funeral rites, manufacturing skills. They used fire.
Why jealously guard all degree of mental agility and the tricks that go with it? Why assume they all sprung into being with our species?
gorski
customised free radical
Indeed, the Q is "Is Man JUST another animal" and his answer to it is quite clear, expressis verbis, as well as what he implied, both in terms of content, as well as on an emotional level!
However:
This is "just" your wrong understanding of all aspects of this "idea".
No, "atheists" do not have these prejudices. The only thing "they" deem is that depending on what we did, as Human Beings, we may live on, in other people's lives, through our deeds/acts/whatever those might be. Exactly the same in this aspect as agnostics, who are just not going to be drawn into unanswerable Qs. And that brings us to the underlying, answerable Q.
What is the difference between Human and Animal "Nature"?!?
From this point on, you just make humongous "travel" errors, to put in basketball terms.
When the reductionists - at their best, to my mind - are trying to reduce that in us which is unachievable by animals, they draw on any little thing they can find, especially in other "higher" (the word used for alleged fraternity purposes is "sentient") species, pile it up, anthropomorphise it, shove tons of our "meaning" into it and "feel" how noble they are in doing so, as that way they will somehow save us and them, because "we are essentially the same, we must feel it and then stop killing what is essentially the same as us". (One doesn't have to "miss" or "deny" the part where we must be extremely careful [with all the power at our fingertips] with all life on Earth, even if one doesn't feel "reductionist", so please stop petting yourselves on the back for no good reason - there is no difference in that regard between us!) So, I wonder: why not with Neanderthals etc. - the Q is a non-Q, put here tendentiously and rather erroneously, when the A was obvious from the start! I mean, the same "logic" should apply, non? So, why knock so vehemently on an open door? Given your prejudices, that is, this never was in question.
In fact, none of what I keep saying none of you dare touch with a barge pole. You only regurgitate the same old same old and never actually enter a debate, most here just keep parroting "Yes, we are" and then all too frequently cursing starts. And that speaks volumes.
Ahem...
However:
This is "just" your wrong understanding of all aspects of this "idea".
No, "atheists" do not have these prejudices. The only thing "they" deem is that depending on what we did, as Human Beings, we may live on, in other people's lives, through our deeds/acts/whatever those might be. Exactly the same in this aspect as agnostics, who are just not going to be drawn into unanswerable Qs. And that brings us to the underlying, answerable Q.
What is the difference between Human and Animal "Nature"?!?
From this point on, you just make humongous "travel" errors, to put in basketball terms.
When the reductionists - at their best, to my mind - are trying to reduce that in us which is unachievable by animals, they draw on any little thing they can find, especially in other "higher" (the word used for alleged fraternity purposes is "sentient") species, pile it up, anthropomorphise it, shove tons of our "meaning" into it and "feel" how noble they are in doing so, as that way they will somehow save us and them, because "we are essentially the same, we must feel it and then stop killing what is essentially the same as us". (One doesn't have to "miss" or "deny" the part where we must be extremely careful [with all the power at our fingertips] with all life on Earth, even if one doesn't feel "reductionist", so please stop petting yourselves on the back for no good reason - there is no difference in that regard between us!) So, I wonder: why not with Neanderthals etc. - the Q is a non-Q, put here tendentiously and rather erroneously, when the A was obvious from the start! I mean, the same "logic" should apply, non? So, why knock so vehemently on an open door? Given your prejudices, that is, this never was in question.
In fact, none of what I keep saying none of you dare touch with a barge pole. You only regurgitate the same old same old and never actually enter a debate, most here just keep parroting "Yes, we are" and then all too frequently cursing starts. And that speaks volumes.
Ahem...
Last edited:
Only gorski could turn atheism into a religion of self-importance.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
What you are saying doesn't relate to the trivial taxonomical question of whether humans are animals. You open with a distraction from your case and complain nobody pays what you actually believe any attention. Why not just quit the distraction?
bimble
floofy
The Theory of Mind stuff is really interesting, this being the key not just to empathy but also to intentional deception, which some have argued is a vital evolutionary advantage. It's been proven beyond doubt that other social animals do practice tactical deception, and it looks like there's a correlation between this and brain size.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
do other animals have a sense of humour? though i can't imagine how one would prove this?
bimble
floofy
Koko, a gorilla in Woodside, Calif., who has learned more than 2,000 words and 1,000 American Sign Language signs, has been known to play with different meanings of the same word. When she was asked, “What can you think of that’s hard?” the gorilla signed, “rock” and “work.” She also once tied her trainer’s shoelaces together and signed, “chase.”
Do Animals Have a Sense of Humor?
Do Animals Have a Sense of Humor?
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
I think this dolphin at least has a sense of fun:
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
and why do dogs behave the way they do when they know they've done something their owner will disapprove of? it might not be real shame, just a display of shame, but it at least may show that they are aware of another being's thoughts
On the debate between those who argue human uniqueness and those who argue that certain animals might be much more similar than they appear:
1) The debate is not a taxonomical debate. Humans are still animals regardless. This question is utterly trivial and irrelevant.
2) The debate will not result in absolute victory of one side or the other. It will a long series of skirmishes based on the assessment of various observations. The truth is more interesting than any dogmatic position you want to take.
3) That biology (alone) is an insufficient tool to understand human society, behaviour etc. does not weigh heavily on this debate. The rejection of theory reductionism (eg. the idea that theories of history can be reduced to theories of biology) does not imply that questions of biology are irrelevant.
4) The converse idea that all theories of animal behaviour are reducible to theories in biology is just dogmatism (see point 2).
5) On the other hand questions of human evolution are relevant. Some updated version of pineal gland for consciousness appearing and providing a categorical distinction between humans and their ancestors must be rejected.
I find myself being quite able to go along with the idea of human exceptionalism and also go along with critiques of it. One thing is for certain I am not going to form a clear view just by sitting and thinking and forming prejudices.
1) The debate is not a taxonomical debate. Humans are still animals regardless. This question is utterly trivial and irrelevant.
2) The debate will not result in absolute victory of one side or the other. It will a long series of skirmishes based on the assessment of various observations. The truth is more interesting than any dogmatic position you want to take.
3) That biology (alone) is an insufficient tool to understand human society, behaviour etc. does not weigh heavily on this debate. The rejection of theory reductionism (eg. the idea that theories of history can be reduced to theories of biology) does not imply that questions of biology are irrelevant.
4) The converse idea that all theories of animal behaviour are reducible to theories in biology is just dogmatism (see point 2).
5) On the other hand questions of human evolution are relevant. Some updated version of pineal gland for consciousness appearing and providing a categorical distinction between humans and their ancestors must be rejected.
I find myself being quite able to go along with the idea of human exceptionalism and also go along with critiques of it. One thing is for certain I am not going to form a clear view just by sitting and thinking and forming prejudices.
It's hard not to interpret your insistence on strawmen arguments as a failure to listen to and/or think about what others are saying. You lack openness to new ideas to the point of blindness. Ie. you fail to even see what you reject out of hand preferring to characterise it as an intellectual sin that you are already familiar with. You've done this in reverse to Steve Jones, enlisting him as a warrior in this qixotic attempt at arguing humans aren't part of the animal kingdom, just because he has said some things that you find agreeable. Behind all that you are saying are some very blunt emotions about people either backing you or detracting from you, and everyone is in one category or the other with no differences or independence other than whether they give you and your ideas solace or not.
On the other hand your own ideas are always above criticism because you are convinced that nobody else has the ability and education to understand them.
You imagine you understand what people say before they have spoken, but nobody can ever understand you even when you (accidentally?) say something clear.
Perhaps you are a very superior person to the rest of us, more human than the rest of us. Or perhaps you are just very insecure. I know and you know that everybody believes the second possibility - even those being polite to you. But you believe the first possibility. This will not get resolved on these boards.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Try to tag me in if you're wanting a response, gorski. I'll try to go through what you've said.
"reductionists - at their best - are trying to reduce that in us which is unachievable by animals"
"unachievable by animals". I specifically discussed Theory of Mind. There is very good evidence that is may be achievable by some other animals. If you're dismissing that research, you'll need to explain on what basis. And if you're talking about something else, then please say who said it, what they said that you're disagreeing with, and why you're disagreeing with it.
"reductionists"
Who are they, and what are they reducing?
"that in us which is unachievable by animals"
What in us? How do you know it isn't achievable by animals? (Whatever it is. Maybe you're right, but what is it? - Speech? Correct, we know of no other animal which can do this. - Theory of Mind? I beg to differ. If you'd like to see studies I can provide references. - Cooking? Jones specifically mentioned there were pre-sapiens Homos who could do this).
"anthropomorphise it"
Examples?
"shove tons of our "meaning" into it"
What meaning is who shoving into what?
""feel" how noble they are in doing so"
Who are you talking about? How do you know what their motivations are? (Maybe you do, but since we only know of an undefined group being referred to, we can't verify this allegation).
"as that way they will somehow save us and them"
What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that "reductionists", whoever and whatever they are, are also redemptionists? In what way?
"we must feel it and then stop killing what is essentially the same as us"
What is this? The reductionists, whoever they are, are all vegetarians? Are you basically arguing with Pete Singer and using everyone on this thread as a proxy for him? Don't.
This is the question regarding pre-Sapiens Homo species (ie our ancestors):
If brain growth is powered by cooking (external pre-digestion), and if our ancestors had increasing brain size (as they must have, since there things happen incrementally), then could not our pre-sapiens ancestors not have been more and more mentally agile as they approached the dawn of our own species?
My analogy with ring species comes into play here. If there is no sensible place to draw a line, we must either impose one, or assume a gradual dawning into "humanity": a continuum from non-human to human. You seem to want to draw a line. I'm asking why. (If I'm wrong, and you aren't drawing a line, show me why I'm mistaken about your view. Try to put it another way).
I'm up for a debate, but this seems more like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
If you don't want to go through all this post (and who'd blame you?), then try asking me something that you think might get me thinking about what you think are the issues.
By "he" you mean Jones? I wasn't here addressing Jones' video (though I have several times during the thread asked for your response to something arising from what he said, and which you have repeatedly refused to answer, dismissing it as a "religious" question, though you haven't explained why), I expressly said I was talking about: "the question in inverted commas".
Since you frequently misinterpret what people are saying, and since you don't give any explanation of how you arrive at your declarations, I have no confidence that you know which idea I'm addressing.
What are you talking about? I think you're confusing my discussion of the historic notion of a division between human and animal (and here I used "we" meaning humanity in general). For clarity: I'm an atheist. And I'm very well aware of what I've pondered and what I haven't pondered, so don't say "no" to something I'm telling you I've pondered! And yes, I did come to the conclusion that the mind, the self, the person are all products of bio-chemistry. (And for background, I'm a retired psychology lecturer, though I don't claim that gives me any special insight into human nature).
You've misread me.
Depends on what you mean by the terms. You'd need to define.
Never having played or watched basketball, I don't know what a travel error is. (I vaguely thought it meant illegally carrying the ball).
Woah, you've made several leaps there.
"reductionists - at their best - are trying to reduce that in us which is unachievable by animals"
"unachievable by animals". I specifically discussed Theory of Mind. There is very good evidence that is may be achievable by some other animals. If you're dismissing that research, you'll need to explain on what basis. And if you're talking about something else, then please say who said it, what they said that you're disagreeing with, and why you're disagreeing with it.
"reductionists"
Who are they, and what are they reducing?
"that in us which is unachievable by animals"
What in us? How do you know it isn't achievable by animals? (Whatever it is. Maybe you're right, but what is it? - Speech? Correct, we know of no other animal which can do this. - Theory of Mind? I beg to differ. If you'd like to see studies I can provide references. - Cooking? Jones specifically mentioned there were pre-sapiens Homos who could do this).
"anthropomorphise it"
Examples?
"shove tons of our "meaning" into it"
What meaning is who shoving into what?
""feel" how noble they are in doing so"
Who are you talking about? How do you know what their motivations are? (Maybe you do, but since we only know of an undefined group being referred to, we can't verify this allegation).
"as that way they will somehow save us and them"
What does that even mean? Are you suggesting that "reductionists", whoever and whatever they are, are also redemptionists? In what way?
"we must feel it and then stop killing what is essentially the same as us"
What is this? The reductionists, whoever they are, are all vegetarians? Are you basically arguing with Pete Singer and using everyone on this thread as a proxy for him? Don't.
Is this addressed to me? What am I patting myself on the back about?
Why is the question a non-question? Please explain. In what way has it been put "tendentiously and rather erroneously"? (Tedious I'll concede, since I've asked it several times to no avail).
This is the question regarding pre-Sapiens Homo species (ie our ancestors):
Given that you're impressed by Jones' talk of cooking and jaw strength and brain growth, and that he (correctly) says these were all in train before H. sapiens emerged, why are you convinced nothing else was in train before H. sapiens?
If brain growth is powered by cooking (external pre-digestion), and if our ancestors had increasing brain size (as they must have, since there things happen incrementally), then could not our pre-sapiens ancestors not have been more and more mentally agile as they approached the dawn of our own species?
My analogy with ring species comes into play here. If there is no sensible place to draw a line, we must either impose one, or assume a gradual dawning into "humanity": a continuum from non-human to human. You seem to want to draw a line. I'm asking why. (If I'm wrong, and you aren't drawing a line, show me why I'm mistaken about your view. Try to put it another way).
What is the answer? I think it's that pre-Sapiens Homo species could do a lot of what we do, including versions of what "we" (that is, many people) like to think of as purely human. Is that the obvious answer? In which case, do you agree? Or do you think it obvious but wrong?
What are my prejudices?
Sorry, what do you keep saying? Can you provide a précis? (Not being facetious: I'm not clear about what your position is at all).
What would you like to debate? I've tried coming at the question in inverted commas in a away that makes sense to me, but you say that's erroneous (though not why), I've given my response to Jones' talk, but you say I've missed bits. I asked which bits you thought were important, but you didn't answer.
I'm up for a debate, but this seems more like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
Seriously? Have a look through your own posts.
If you don't want to go through all this post (and who'd blame you?), then try asking me something that you think might get me thinking about what you think are the issues.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's a beluga whale. And yes, it is most certainly having fun.I think this dolphin at least has a sense of fun:
The ethics of keeping such creatures in captivity are very questionable, imo.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
The equivalence between rock and work is interesting here as it implies an ability for metaphorical thinking.
I really don't think it does. It's just how the word "hard" gets used in different contexts. She would have seen the adjective "hard" being used with both "rock" and "work". Very clever but I don't think there is evidence of hard being used as a metaphor. If she said something like "rock", "work" and "rain", then maybe there would be metaphorical thinking (or maybe just a mistake).
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, that is also a possibility. I should have been clearer - if she'd come up with it herself, it would be evidence of metaphorical thinking. It's hard to disentangle what's been come up with in novelty and what has been suggested by the humans around them in this kind of situation.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
fwiw, I suspect that over-concentration on humans as linguistic creatures is to concentrate on a surface feature while missing the deeper important structure, and that that deeper important structure is metaphorical thinking: namely the ability to recognise a pattern and adopt a 'try everything' approach to understanding that pattern by seeing what it might mean in other domains. This, imo, is the deeper ability upon which language sits.
joustmaster
offcumdun
No, thanx
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
.
Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
i hope you answer mineAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
I will respond to some other stuff soon, when I get a moment or three...
bimble
floofy
AHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
I think this means that gorski is the Winner and if he went away now it would be a triumph.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
You really are a buffoon. There's an interesting discussion going on around you here, and you can't even see it.AHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!
I will respond to some other stuff soon, when I get a moment or three...
Similar threads
