Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
Of course we are animals ffs.
"Is Man Just Another Animal?" Professor Steve Jones says...
- Thread starter gorski
- Start date
gorski
customised free radical
The "I bet" thing does not work in science...
First of all, one would need to define culture a wee bit... Because, frequently something that can be described as instinctual behaviour is not culture. Not in Human sense, that is. Here, I'll go (for now) with "science" site, just for fun: What is Culture? | Definition of Culture
Then, one would need to show that the same quality is present in animal kingdom. Not just some little element in some species and then another little element in another, all of which have to be seriously overstretched to make it look like, ever so slightly, as if what they are doing is essentially the same as what we do, i.e. with creativity and forethought, as self-aware, reflective beings, that we potentially are - but which animals are not, period, no potential of it whatsoever, full stop! So, good luck with that...
Being a geneticist, he showed a number of things that make us "failed animals", i.e. we were no longer "fit to compete with them on their terms", I guess. Convincingly. We simply lost tons of capacities that animals have, period.
But then, he showed some changes that made us unique and "out of animal kingdom league". Remember the "cooking" advancement? Instead of chewing 10 hours a day - we do it only 1/2 hour a day. And we get our brains free to grow and do what only we can do on this planet. Those changes, it seems, did coincide with some physical attributes we have, which animal do not have, especially potential for language with grammar and cross-generational communication being an obvious case in point, enabling us to co-operate effectively even in terms of long term planning, teaching our kids etc. He stopped short of our potential/capacity to foresee the consequences of our actions, as thinking, reflective beings, sadly. Not that genetics could show god knows what there - except the physiological part, the humongous potential to create gazillion connections in our brains etc. Again, good luck showing that in animal kingdom.
But he never went into moral issues, the issues only Human Beings have, being free to decide for ourselves how to act, on the basis of principles we choose for ourselves, not being determined by our genes, instincts, environment and so on, of course. This is way beyond anything a geneticist can say from such a viewpoint. He simply doesn't have the tools for that. But philosophers and other social scientists do...
OK, he may well try:
And because he knows a lot, unlike some here, he concludes sincerely: "Biology, science as a whole, will tell you everything you wanna know about yourself... apart from the interesting stuff." (So, give it up, LBJ!
)
We have the potential to change our culture, we can invent a new civilisation, even, our Human Nature keeps changing over epochs, we can even be(come) revolutionaries.
Remember the chimp and human babies upbringing that did not differ? How far did a chimp baby go, after a fast start? And how far did a human baby go after a slow start?
Good luck with all those inconvenient facts, all showing that in animal kingdom, even if you take all the animals together, pile it all up (it won't go very high, mind), then try desperately to anthropomorphise it heavily and... they fail to amount to anything human-like, indeed...
First of all, one would need to define culture a wee bit... Because, frequently something that can be described as instinctual behaviour is not culture. Not in Human sense, that is. Here, I'll go (for now) with "science" site, just for fun: What is Culture? | Definition of Culture
Then, one would need to show that the same quality is present in animal kingdom. Not just some little element in some species and then another little element in another, all of which have to be seriously overstretched to make it look like, ever so slightly, as if what they are doing is essentially the same as what we do, i.e. with creativity and forethought, as self-aware, reflective beings, that we potentially are - but which animals are not, period, no potential of it whatsoever, full stop! So, good luck with that...
Being a geneticist, he showed a number of things that make us "failed animals", i.e. we were no longer "fit to compete with them on their terms", I guess. Convincingly. We simply lost tons of capacities that animals have, period.
But then, he showed some changes that made us unique and "out of animal kingdom league". Remember the "cooking" advancement? Instead of chewing 10 hours a day - we do it only 1/2 hour a day. And we get our brains free to grow and do what only we can do on this planet. Those changes, it seems, did coincide with some physical attributes we have, which animal do not have, especially potential for language with grammar and cross-generational communication being an obvious case in point, enabling us to co-operate effectively even in terms of long term planning, teaching our kids etc. He stopped short of our potential/capacity to foresee the consequences of our actions, as thinking, reflective beings, sadly. Not that genetics could show god knows what there - except the physiological part, the humongous potential to create gazillion connections in our brains etc. Again, good luck showing that in animal kingdom.
But he never went into moral issues, the issues only Human Beings have, being free to decide for ourselves how to act, on the basis of principles we choose for ourselves, not being determined by our genes, instincts, environment and so on, of course. This is way beyond anything a geneticist can say from such a viewpoint. He simply doesn't have the tools for that. But philosophers and other social scientists do...
OK, he may well try:
And because he knows a lot, unlike some here, he concludes sincerely: "Biology, science as a whole, will tell you everything you wanna know about yourself... apart from the interesting stuff." (So, give it up, LBJ!
)We have the potential to change our culture, we can invent a new civilisation, even, our Human Nature keeps changing over epochs, we can even be(come) revolutionaries.
Remember the chimp and human babies upbringing that did not differ? How far did a chimp baby go, after a fast start? And how far did a human baby go after a slow start?
Good luck with all those inconvenient facts, all showing that in animal kingdom, even if you take all the animals together, pile it all up (it won't go very high, mind), then try desperately to anthropomorphise it heavily and... they fail to amount to anything human-like, indeed...
Last edited:
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
^^^^^^
Homo librarius.
Homo librarius.
gorski
customised free radical
Here he starts by explaining how we barely survived, for a rather long time, and were indeed an endangered species, much more than apes etc. - and only recently we became so dangerous, not just for great apes but for all life on Earth, due to birthrate and survival rates of our babies, plus our general longevity.......
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
I would have thought most species of animals were unique
Sure...
He never said that humans were not animals...
What he said was... we are failed chimpanzees...with big brains and a cranial structure that has facilitated the production of sophisticated sound creation...ie...the means to spoken language.
But he does not ever say that we are not animals.
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
What he does say that's interesting is that as homo sapiens ...humans have had a sense of spiritualism...shamanism...whatever you want to call it for a very long time and that as yet "we" are not aware "to our knowledge" that other animals have this.
But as we can't communicate with most other animals then that's still not written in stone. He's careful enough to keep saying "to our knowledge" and "we are not aware".
So what he is saying is that it's a supposition on our part as humans, that the family pet dog doesn't recall it's puppyhood..or it's first day as our pet...or believe in a dog god..or whatever.
But as we can't communicate with most other animals then that's still not written in stone. He's careful enough to keep saying "to our knowledge" and "we are not aware".
So what he is saying is that it's a supposition on our part as humans, that the family pet dog doesn't recall it's puppyhood..or it's first day as our pet...or believe in a dog god..or whatever.
gorski
customised free radical
Oh, dear... From just before 51 minute onwards (the first video) - pay attention to the conclusion, which goes right against these divisions most here have, between general discomfort Victorians had with theory of evolution and his own, modern conclusion in that regard.
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
The Victorians believed in a wide variety of theories that seemed correct to them at the time.....including lots of crap science...like the ridiculous idea that the shape of someone's head or their facial features could predict their potential as a criminal.
We are animals.
We are part of the Ape family .
We evolved to have larger brains and the capacity for spoken complex language.
But ..... basically we are animals with extreme intelligence compared with the vast majority of other animals.
If you really want to go back far enough, we are closer to worms than many other species.
Anyway.
Pointless discussion.
We're on a road to self destruction . We wont last as long as the dinosaurs did.
We human animals have messed up this planet and we really deserve to be extinct.
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Who's doing that?
joustmaster
offcumdun
After two threads I still have no idea why Gorski thinks we aren't animals.
gorski
customised free radical
No, it won't just "come" to you, one must actually read, study, think carefully about the issues, go against the grain of ideology many here suffer from badly...
joustmaster
offcumdun
Can you give me a paragraph as a clue?
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Ideology?
Eh?
Geneticism isn't an ideology.
Why do you not see that there's absolute proof humans are animals related to apes?
Can't you allow that thought to coexist with the knowledge that the human brain is exceptionally advanced but that we are still animals? Why do we need to be something other than animals? If we are not animals then why do we share 98% of our DNA with another animal...namely chimps ? Language, culture, brain size and high level intelligence have made us what we are today. But ... aren't they are all part of our evolution.
gorski
customised free radical
"Related to" does not mean "equal to". Also, this is a theory. Not a religion. (Unless, of course, you really need contemporary Science to be what Religion used to be, otherwise you may... dunno, fall apart or something...) But don't take my word for it.... if you can actually listen to some good, honest, careful scientists, like Steve Jones, if philosophers are too much for you...
Science needs a specific ideology behind it to operate and yes, the context in which it was created and in which it operates does... how shall we put it mildly... shape and influence it, shall we say...
Joust, do you really think it is possible to do that with such complex phenomena?
Science needs a specific ideology behind it to operate and yes, the context in which it was created and in which it operates does... how shall we put it mildly... shape and influence it, shall we say...
Joust, do you really think it is possible to do that with such complex phenomena?
gorski
customised free radical
Btw, "geneticism" sure as Hell sounds like an ideology to me... (And no, I don't think this is purely accidental...)
Genetics as a scientific discipline doesn't - but it still must be open to a critique... else this goes into scientism and therefore a substitute for religion...
Genetics as a scientific discipline doesn't - but it still must be open to a critique... else this goes into scientism and therefore a substitute for religion...
You're genetically related to a doughnut
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Genetic study is advanced enough right now to see what we are at a nuclear level. It is aligning with physics.... The physics of DNA.
Who said related meant equal?
Science is observing the essence of what we are made of and describing it....and genetics is observing our DNA at a molecular level. It doesnt need an ideology to describe and record what is there....
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
....think about the fact that every atom in the universe is made up of the same "stuff".
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
What do you think you're made of?
You're a collection of atoms ...
You're made of the same crap that everything else in the universe is made of.
You are the current version 10.0 of a human. Your species may or may not survive the next century. You are capable of exterminating or saving every living thing on this planet.
If you want to debate souls then that's a whole other discussion. But you do know this.
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
Might be worth a look...
bubblesmcgrath
Well-Known Member
It actually is worth it.
Similar threads
