"Is Man Just Another Animal?" Professor Steve Jones says...

[Orang Utan]

Here's a question for you to answer: how does it help us and the planet to think of ourselves as separate from the rest of the animal kingdom (even though this is a biological impossibility)?

 

[joustmaster]

Heheheheeeee... For crying out loud JM - leave the "classifications" alone, for once and start thinking...

We are alive, creatures of this Earth, we are related to anything and everything on it, this is not in dispute - why are you constantly knocking on an open door? Do you not get tired of regurgitating the same old same old? Do you have no thirst for a different perspective, to get out of the well trodden path? If you do - start reading and thinking!

Well, I'll take you seriously: read my posts in this thread slowly and carefully. There is another thread, now in the "Bin" section, also loaded with what I "really think". The two have lots of stuff that pretty precisely works "on top" of what SJ is saying. His arguments are carefully based from what he reads, what he studied etc. And he is very careful, honest and doesn't take huge steps from the evidence he has at his disposal, which is why I respect him! No scientism, no far reaching conclusions, always carefully concluding as much as he can but no more. That deserves respect!

My arguments are "different" to your everyday, BBC "we are animals" so called science. You must get into them and if you can post a counter argument that has any merit - hat down. If such "definitive proof" from science was available - we would all know.

Just stop the crap "we evolved from... hence we can not be but the same as that", pretty please. It is getting really tiresome...

Its a strange request to ask me to leave the classifications alone. We are talking about humans being (or not) in the classification of animal.
It feels like there are some goal posts, but you've moved them and aren't telling me where they are.

Before I start digging through 8 years of posts that are in the bin, can you give me a clear point that you are putting forward?

If we aren't talking about human being part of the classification of animal, what do you mean by "is man an animal"?

 

[gorski]

Another empty post, saying nowt

To you. You should say "to me". Learn.

And I would believe you, if you put like that.

It's fucking not you know. It's loaded with you being really rude to a lot of people and has very little of your actual position on the topic.

Every time I did it I REacted, I did not start it! Period!

And not a word from you or anyone else about THOSE ATTACKS! SISSIES!!!

As for how much - no one contributed on this topic, in my specific way, on this forum, more than me, period!

Here's a question for you to answer: how does it help us and the planet to think of ourselves as separate from the rest of the animal kingdom (even though this is a biological impossibility)?

But I agreed with your previous post. I mean, honestly...

Its a strange request to ask me to leave the classifications alone. We are talking about humans being (or not) in the classification of animal.

Not. (OK, warmer, warmer... keep it up, don't spoil it now... )

It feels like there are some goal posts, but you've moved them and aren't telling me where they are.

Erm, no, that is not true, I posted quite a lot on precisely where the argument is - the nature of Human Nature v. Animal Nature, not taxonomy, blah-bla...

Before I start digging through 8 years of posts that are in the bin, can you give me a clear point that you are putting forward?

If we aren't talking about human being part of the classification of animal, what do you mean by "is man an animal"?

You may "mean" that, I don't. Human Being is a historical being, animals aren't.

 

[gorski]

DP, sorry...

 

[joustmaster]

Ok, you're trolling.
Bye.

 

[maomao]

As for how much - no one contributed on this topic, in my specific way, on this forum, more than me, period!

'Your specific way' being long angry posts with lots of insults that don't add any content whatsoever. You have truly contributed more of them than anyone else on this forum ever.

 

[maomao]

Ok, you're trolling.
Bye.

'Trolling' would suggest that he is deliberately trying to wind other people up. In reality he's the only one getting wound up.

 

[gorski]

Brainless, lazy moron, MM, wilfully misrepresenting... ArghhH!!! Bye!!!

JM, how on Earth did you come to that conclusion? What on Earth is going on in your head?!?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Good to see yet another quality gorski thread.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We have two definitions of culture in this thread. The first from me:



The second from gorski:



The second is human-specific, but what aspect of this human-specific definition is not contained in the former non-human specific definition? And what is added by the second, aside from unnecessary baggage? Which definition here really gets to the heart of what culture is?

Thoughts, gorski?

 

[Knotted]

Nah, you can't consider this is not "culture". Which proves you haven't been reading my posts, you silly old troll... The main issue is valid for LBJ, too, 'course...

Of course I/we can. However it fits the definition of culture that YOU gave, you muppet.

 

[Orang Utan]

You may "mean" that, I don't. Human Being is a historical being, animals aren't.

So are you saying that the ability to write elevates us as beyond animals? This is dodgy ground. There are humans that have no historical records. Are they merely animals then?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So are you saying that the ability to write elevates us as beyond animals? This is dodgy ground. There are humans that have no historical records. Are they merely animals then?

Humans were historical beings in this sense before writing. I would think that the claim rests on language. It would seem to me (as far as I can tell, which probably isn't that far) that this is the basis for the whole of G's position - language and its existence in our thoughts, whose possibilities turn humans into something apart from all other life. The strong version of this position is one that identifies thought (and specifically reasoning) with language, which seems pretty common among philosophy types, and is, imo, a fundamental mistake.

It's still dodgy ground, though. Would human groups such as the Piraha pass the gorski test for humanity?

 

[pengaleng]

this thread is fucking retarded.

 

[gorski]

Of course I/we can. However it fits the definition of culture that YOU gave, you muppet.

Achhh, noooo, the honour of being a real 'muppet' goes to you, Sir.

Perhaps BSE? I wish I gave that definition to the world, alas... And it isn't even that controversial, FCOL...

So are you saying that the ability to write elevates us as beyond animals? This is dodgy ground. There are humans that have no historical records. Are they merely animals then?

Uh, PhD in Logics, I see... Woof, woof, I am now all fired up at the prospects of learning from such a titan...

Humans were historical beings in this sense before writing. I would think that the claim rests on language. It would seem to me (as far as I can tell, which probably isn't that far) that this is the basis for the whole of G's position - language and its existence in our thoughts, whose possibilities turn humans into something apart from all other life. The strong version of this position is one that identifies thought (and specifically reasoning) with language, which seems pretty common among philosophy types, and is, imo, a fundamental mistake.

It's still dodgy ground, though. Would human groups such as the Piraha pass the gorski test for humanity?

Ach, sometimes your logics makes me wish you'd pass the Piranha test...

 

[gorski]

this thread is fucking retarded.

A number of "contributions" certainly are, I agree...

 

[Orang Utan]

We're not going to get anywhere if you behave like this.
I still haven't seen you demonstrate how humanity has somehow transcended its biology.

 

[Knotted]

Achhh, noooo, the honour of being a real 'muppet' goes to you, Sir.

Perhaps BSE? I wish I gave that definition to the world, alas... And it isn't even that controversial, FCOL...

What you are saying and what Steve Jones are saying are two completely different things. Perhaps you want to check the definition of culture that you gave and decided was unique to humans.

Culture is the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of people, defined by everything from language, religion, cuisine, social habits, music and arts.

Particular groups (pods) of killer whales have particular "cuisines". Ie. they specialise in hunting sea mamals or fish or other whales. Look it up. Why is this difficult for you?

 

[gorski]

I think that you do not understand the beginning of it - that's the issue here!

As I posted in the other thread, most here are biological determinists without even knowing it. Ideologically fucked up and completely unaware of it. Now, that's one powerful ideology! And some badly educated humans...

There are huge rifts in science around the very notion of culture, also Human Nature and so on. And most here are blissfully ignorant of "the other side" and keep banging on about "their side" without ever having being even minimally informed of the "other side's" arguments, "thinking" that only their world exists. Barkley was right, solipsism rules!!!

I mean, really... you guys... make me chuckle all the time...

 

[Knotted]

Human Being is a historical being, animals aren't.

If that's true then it is true in a precise sense ie. you know exactly what you mean by "historical being" (you don't, but let's indulge you). But if you know exactly what mean and you manage to show that humans are unique in this quality, all you have done is draw a line and lines are arbitrary in evolution.

In other words - so what? This is just trivia. Reducing science and philosophy to the art of line drawing.

Come on g. We will get there if you apply yourself.

 

[Knotted]

most here are biological determinists without even knowing it

Nobody here is. Really, nobody.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I

There are huge rifts in science around the very notion of culture,

Tell us about these rifts.

 

[TruXta]

Tell us about these rifts.

In fairness it's not like there's a generally agreed on definition of culture in any science to my knowledge. Then again we can't even seem to agree on what science is or isn't.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

We're not going to get anywhere if you behave like this.

This is all he ever does. Don't waste your time.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

In fairness it's not like there's a generally agreed on definition of culture in any science to my knowledge. Then again we can't even seem to agree on what science is or isn't.

I know. But I want gorski to tell us about these rifts and give us the reason why he falls on one side or other of the argument. I've given my preferred definition, one arrived at by its author after having been through various other definitions at length. It's in a book, otherwise I'd quote the relevant passage.

 

[gorski]

If that's true then it is true in a precise sense ie. you know exactly what you mean by "historical being" (you don't, but let's indulge you). But if you know exactly what mean and you manage to show that humans are unique in this quality, all you have done is draw a line and lines are arbitrary in evolution.

In other words - so what? This is just trivia. Reducing science and philosophy to the art of line drawing.

Come on g. We will get there if you apply yourself.

Klassical K!!! (Now, now, I didn't say classy! ) Luv it! You're a troll's troll!!!

Here is a little teaser...

Only Humans Have Morality, Not Animals

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Philosophy is great but don't make the mistake of believing it defines or even describes reality in anything other than philosophical terms.... It's very much in the realm of imagination, theory and procrastination.

What is reality? French physicist Bernard d'Espagnat, 87, has spent a lifetime grappling with this question. Over the years, he has developed the idea that the reality revealed by science offers only a "veiled" view of an underlying reality that science cannot access, and that the scientific view must take its place alongside the reality revealed by art, spirituality, and other forms of human inquiry. In recognition of these efforts, d'Espagnat has won this year's Templeton Prize, a £1 million ($1.4 million) award sponsored by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research at the intersection of science, philosophy, and religion.

...physicists must abandon naïve realism and embrace a more sophisticated philosophy of reality. Quantum mechanics allows what d'Espagnat calls "weak objectivity," in that it predicts probabilities of observable phenomena in an indisputable way. But the inherent uncertainty of quantum measurements means that it is impossible to infer an unambiguous description of "reality as it really is," he says. He has proposed that behind measured phenomena exists what he calls a "veiled reality" that genuinely exists, independently of us, even though we lack the ability to fully describe it.

Asked whether that entails a kind of mysticism, d'Espagnat responds that "science isn't everything" and that we are already accustomed to the idea that "when we hear beautiful music, or see paintings, or read poetry, [we get] a faint glimpse of a reality that underlies empirical reality." In the possibility of a veiled reality that is perceived in different and fragmentary ways through science, art, and spirituality, d'Espagnat also sees, perhaps, a way to reconcile the apparently conflicting visions of reality that science and religion provide.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009...-describe-reality-says-templeton-prize-winner

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

Confidence comes with ignorance. Keep proving you're arrogant and ignorant, with a dash of aggression to boot.

Is that what you think I am?

 

[bubblesmcgrath]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2009...-describe-reality-says-templeton-prize-winner

I wouldn't disagree...

Post #58....

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think it's dangerous to think that we're not part of the animal kingdom. The animal, plant and the other four kingdoms are all part of the Earth's ecosystem. Much of it exists in a complex symbiosis. Humans are part of this whether we like it or not and human behaviour is destroying that delicate balance to the detriment of the whole ecosystem.
Thinking humans are not part of this is dangerous and irresponsible.

The concepts of human exceptionalism and ecological awareness aren't mutually exclusive. Christianity teaches human exceptionalism, but also the concept of 'stewardship'; ie the idea that humans are responsible for the world, and should work to nurture it.