NationStates Jolt Archive

There have been many theories of what separates humans from other animal life, but none so far has been completely effective. At one time it was believed that the ability to recognize oneself in a mirror indicated self-awareness, but now we know that human infants cannot do that while many apes and dolphins can. Some said that language or tool usage were the determining factors, but again we have found animals that have both.

So what makes a human a human? How do we distinguish our consciousness from any other sort? Will there ever be a definition that all people can accept?

Simple answer:DNA

Simple answer:DNA
so each cell in our bodies is an individual human being? since all have complete DNA, your argument seems to imply that each one is a human.

Try adaptability and the ability to act in a manner other than instinct

humans have chins.

but seriously, the possibilities you see tossed out now are things like 'complex vocalized language' (though this may fall to the whales and dolphins, and possibly chimps and gorillas as well) and using tools to make tools (though i'm doubtful that that will hold up in the end either).

Try adaptability and the ability to act in a manner other than instinct

that leaves you with most mammals

Try adaptability and the ability to act in a manner other than instinct

that leaves you with most mammals

yes, and there is substantial debate as to whether humans really are free of instinct or not.

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

how do humans? ;)

apes and dolphins show as much freedom from instinct as humans do, depending on how you measure it, and primate infants are more able to follow complex cognitive tasks (non-instinctive behaviors) than human children under the age of about 5.

Try adaptability and the ability to act in a manner other than instinct

that leaves you with most mammals

yes, and there is substantial debate as to whether humans really are free of instinct or not.

Never said humans were free of instinct. Humans have the capacity to act beyond what is instinctive.

Try adaptability and the ability to act in a manner other than instinct

that leaves you with most mammals

yes, and there is substantial debate as to whether humans really are free of instinct or not.

Never said humans were free of instinct. Humans have the capacity to act beyond what is instinctive.

so do dolphins and great apes, and several species of birds that have been observed (like grey parrots).

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

define 'instinctive'

Humans have the ability to imaginate...

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

how do humans? ;)

apes and dolphins show as much freedom from instinct as humans do, depending on how you measure it, and primate infants are more able to follow complex cognitive tasks (non-instinctive behaviors) than human children under the age of about 5.

But take these animals away from their natural environment and leave them to fend for themselves in the new one chances are they won't last long.

Humans have the ability to imaginate...

based on current research, so do chimps, gorillas, and elephants. wild, huh?

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

how do humans? ;)

apes and dolphins show as much freedom from instinct as humans do, depending on how you measure it, and primate infants are more able to follow complex cognitive tasks (non-instinctive behaviors) than human children under the age of about 5.

But take these animals away from their natural environment and leave them to fend for themselves in the new one chances are they won't last long.

the same is true for humans. what's your point?

The biological basis of the prolitariat is willing and able to embrace the philosophy of Marx indicating the hightened state of conciousness that can be attained.

Humans have the ability to imaginate...

based on current research, so do chimps, gorillas, and elephants. wild, huh?

Cool.

What about a large brain?

I am unsure about this but here goes....

A sense of right and wrong.

Both our blessing and our curse. I don't see animals killing each other with stones out of justice, do you?

I would say that humans are the only animals that can have a will to speak of. We can control everything about us. If we have an instinct to do something we are free to ignore this instinct and most importantly, we understand that we have this choice. What seperates humans from other mammals really is the ability to think and choose a path based not on instinct, not on primal urge, but on logical and fact. Humans can reason something out. For example:

A fish will bite bait on a hook even though there is a hook protruding from the worm and the worm is floating int the water, which is impossible if it didn't have the hook through it and wasn't connected to a line.

A human would be able to see this and deduce that it would be unwise to attempt to eat the worm (putting all thoughts of taste aside for now) without removing the hook and disconnecting it form the line.

A human can also choose not to be governed by instincts like pain or hunger. Humans are capable of psuhing themselves past what is supposedly possible (stories of women lifting cars to save children for example) because we have a mind capable of exerting direct control over our body.

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

how do humans? ;)

apes and dolphins show as much freedom from instinct as humans do, depending on how you measure it, and primate infants are more able to follow complex cognitive tasks (non-instinctive behaviors) than human children under the age of about 5.

But take these animals away from their natural environment and leave them to fend for themselves in the new one chances are they won't last long.

Would humans do any better? And better not just in a sense of higher intelligence enabling them to quickly grasp the rules of the new environment.

I don't believe humans are fundamentally different to all other forms of animal life. We are unique, just as other species or species groups are. For some reason, we seem to have decided that what makes us unique, is much more important than what makes other species unique, and therefore we are somehow elevated above them on a fundamental level.

While human superiority is plain to see - we easily dominate environments, monopolise resources, and suffer no competition from other species - it does not indicate that we are separate from them. Our method of survival is simply better than theirs.

Other species show the same traits as we do; communication, problem solving, tool use, etc. We just do them better. Some things, we are worse at - other creatures are faster, stronger, better swimmers, etc.

Humans are just another face in the crowd; they just happen to be the big ugly face that has pushed its way to the front.

Humans have the ability to imaginate...

based on current research, so do chimps, gorillas, and elephants. wild, huh?

Cool.

What about a large brain?

brain size alone doesn't mean much...a horse has a larger brain than a human does, for example. the relative size of the frontal cortex could be a unique trait in most humans, but what about people who have abnormal brains due to injury or genetic disorders? are they then not human because they don't have the required brain features?

Humans have the ability to imaginate...

based on current research, so do chimps, gorillas, and elephants. wild, huh?

Cool.

What about a large brain?

Whales have larger brains, but I assume you were talking relatively to their body mass.

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

define 'instinctive'

An inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli. For example "the spawning instinct in salmon"

I am unsure about this but here goes....

A sense of right and wrong.

Both our blessing and our curse. I don't see animals killing each other with stones out of justice, do you?

animals have a sense of right and wrong, it's simply not based on the same morals as yours might be. many humans subscribe to the "natural" morality of survival of the fittest, so would they not be human because they use the same moral structure as "lower" forms of life?

laughter, sorrow, guilt, greed, love, hatred, jealousy, rage.

a couple of those may be shared by other animals.

Humans have the ability to imaginate...

based on current research, so do chimps, gorillas, and elephants. wild, huh?

Cool.

What about a large brain?

brain size alone doesn't mean much...a horse has a larger brain than a human does, for example. the relative size of the frontal cortex could be a unique trait in most humans, but what about people who have abnormal brains due to injury or genetic disorders? are they then not human because they don't have the required brain features?

And that about elves? (yeah I know, fantasy, but hey) Are elves humans? They must be, since they have a large brain.

I say that it is not so much possesing a mirror of self-awareness in itself, but the strength and depth of that mirror of self-awareness that sets man apart from the other species. I suspect that it was this well-developed sense of self-awareness that provided the impetus that made man behave in ways that made evolving beyond the level of basic survival and basic social interaction available.

laughter, sorrow, guilt, greed, love, hatred, jealousy, rage.

a couple of those may be shared by other animals.

So they're not all that useful for defining humans eh?

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

define 'instinctive'

An inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli. For example "the spawning instinct in salmon"

right. and many animals engage in behaviors that they do not have any instinctive basis for, such as primates learning sign language, or elephants painting, or pretty much any other learned/trained behavior that humans teach animals.

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

how do humans? ;)

apes and dolphins show as much freedom from instinct as humans do, depending on how you measure it, and primate infants are more able to follow complex cognitive tasks (non-instinctive behaviors) than human children under the age of about 5.

But take these animals away from their natural environment and leave them to fend for themselves in the new one chances are they won't last long.
.
Would humans do any better? And better not just in a sense of higher intelligence enabling them to quickly grasp the rules of the new environment.

I geuss they would survive.
We are the Homo Sapiens!

I say that it is not so much possesing a mirror of self-awareness in itself, but the strength and depth of that mirror of self-awareness that sets man apart from the other species. I suspect that it was this well-developed sense of self-awareness that provided the impetus that made man behave in ways that made evolving beyond the level of basic survival and basic social interaction available.

Now that is far more useful, but it still does not rule out other sentient beings.

Survival of the fittest is not morality. Morality is the concept of right and wrong.
Survival of the fittest is pragmatism at its most extreme.
Could not one say that humanity differs from animals through its lack of pragmatism and/or through its ability to see justice and injustice?

fudge

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

how do humans? ;)

apes and dolphins show as much freedom from instinct as humans do, depending on how you measure it, and primate infants are more able to follow complex cognitive tasks (non-instinctive behaviors) than human children under the age of about 5.

But take these animals away from their natural environment and leave them to fend for themselves in the new one chances are they won't last long.

the same is true for humans. what's your point?

Thats not entirely true humans can survive in a multude of different environments, hot, cold, wet or dry - Put a gorilla in desert and what happens a man may die the gorilla will die. Humans can also also survive or thrive in group or as a single entity.

A few seconds later, yet another thought...

Our inability to strike a balance with the natural world.

Survival of the fittest is not morality. Morality is the concept of right and wrong.
Survival of the fittest is pragmatism at its most extreme.
Could not one say that humanity differs from animals through its lack of pragmatism and/or through its ability to see justice and injustice?

i strongly disagree. survival of the fittest is just as much a moral system as any other arbitrary system of morality. some people believe things are right or wrong because God says so, others believe things are right or wrong because nature says so...neither is more valid than the other, and it is very insulting to tell people their morality isn't really morality.

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

how do humans? ;)

apes and dolphins show as much freedom from instinct as humans do, depending on how you measure it, and primate infants are more able to follow complex cognitive tasks (non-instinctive behaviors) than human children under the age of about 5.

But take these animals away from their natural environment and leave them to fend for themselves in the new one chances are they won't last long.

the same is true for humans. what's your point?

Thats not entirely true humans can survive in a multude of different environments, hot, cold, wet or dry - Put a gorilla in desert and what happens a man may die the gorilla will die. Humans can also also survive or thrive in group or as a single entity.

How is it certain the gorilla will die?

How about the desire for some to somehow see your species as being above all other animals?
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man.
And yes I am a demon bent on torturing souls and frightening little children.

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

define 'instinctive'

An inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli. For example "the spawning instinct in salmon"

you can teach a dog to come when you call its name, yes?

Survival of the fittest is not morality. Morality is the concept of right and wrong.
Survival of the fittest is pragmatism at its most extreme.
Could not one say that humanity differs from animals through its lack of pragmatism and/or through its ability to see justice and injustice?

i strongly disagree. survival of the fittest is just as much a moral system as any other arbitrary system of morality. some people believe things are right or wrong because God says so, others believe things are right or wrong because nature says so...neither is more valid than the other, and it is very insulting to tell people their morality isn't really morality.

You just mentioned an idea. One that no animal seems to uphold.

Superstition.

A few seconds later, yet another thought...

Our inability to strike a balance with the natural world.
we are quite able to do that, we just chose not to. and, to be fair, many other organisms don't find "balance"; species will often invade an ecosystem and wipe out the existing life, because natural selection doesn't support being nice to your competition. for an individual organism in nature, life is about winning, not about letting everybody else win too.

Survival of the fittest is not morality. Morality is the concept of right and wrong.
Survival of the fittest is pragmatism at its most extreme.
Could not one say that humanity differs from animals through its lack of pragmatism and/or through its ability to see justice and injustice?

i strongly disagree. survival of the fittest is just as much a moral system as any other arbitrary system of morality. some people believe things are right or wrong because God says so, others believe things are right or wrong because nature says so...neither is more valid than the other, and it is very insulting to tell people their morality isn't really morality.

You just mentioned an idea. One that no animal seems to uphold.

Superstition.

yes, but many humans (such as myself) also don't hold superstition. so am i not a human?

A few seconds later, yet another thought...

Our inability to strike a balance with the natural world.

Thats not true I 'm afraid. Tribes do. Not all people in the western world are polluters. Not all people drive animals to extinction.

A few seconds later, yet another thought...

Our inability to strike a balance with the natural world.

Thats not true I 'm afraid. Tribes do. Not all people in the western world are polluters. Not all people drive animals to extinction.

A few seconds later, yet another thought...

Our inability to strike a balance with the natural world.

Thats not true I 'm afraid. Tribes do. Not all people in the western world are polluters. Not all people drive animals to extinction.

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

define 'instinctive'

An inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli. For example "the spawning instinct in salmon"

you can teach a dog to come when you call its name, yes?

Yes a dog is a social animal.

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

define 'instinctive'

An inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli. For example "the spawning instinct in salmon"

you can teach a dog to come when you call its name, yes?

Yes a dog is a social animal.

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

define 'instinctive'

An inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli. For example "the spawning instinct in salmon"

you can teach a dog to come when you call its name, yes?

Yes a dog is a social animal.
responding to a human vocalization is not an instinctive behavior for a dog. a dog that has not been artificially trained to respond to such commands will not do so because there is no inborn programming for it. thus it is a non-instinctive activity.

Religion is what sets humans apart from animals.

I still have them; I just ignore them. What makes us human isn't being free of instinct or being able act outside instinct; it is the free will to GET free OF instinct that few people exercise. :|

I still have them; I just ignore them. What makes us human isn't being free of instinct or being able act outside instinct; it is the free will to GET free OF instinct that few people exercise. :|

So a human infant raised by wolves might get free of instincts?

Survival of the fittest is not morality. Morality is the concept of right and wrong.
Survival of the fittest is pragmatism at its most extreme.
Could not one say that humanity differs from animals through its lack of pragmatism and/or through its ability to see justice and injustice?

i strongly disagree. survival of the fittest is just as much a moral system as any other arbitrary system of morality. some people believe things are right or wrong because God says so, others believe things are right or wrong because nature says so...neither is more valid than the other, and it is very insulting to tell people their morality isn't really morality.

You just mentioned an idea. One that no animal seems to uphold.

Superstition.

yes, but many humans (such as myself) also don't hold superstition. so am i not a human?

Very well. The ability to be superstitious.

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

define 'instinctive'

An inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli. For example "the spawning instinct in salmon"

you can teach a dog to come when you call its name, yes?

Yes a dog is a social animal.
responding to a human vocalization is not an instinctive behavior for a dog. a dog that has not been artificially trained to respond to such commands will not do so because there is no inborn programming for it. thus it is a non-instinctive activity.

Instigated by a human

That we seem to overdramatize EVERYTHING!

Oh wait, that's just women. :P

There have been many theories of what separates humans from other animal life, but none so far has been completely effective. At one time it was believed that the ability to recognize oneself in a mirror indicated self-awareness, but now we know that human infants cannot do that while many apes and dolphins can. Some said that language or tool usage were the determining factors, but again we have found animals that have both.

So what makes a human a human? How do we distinguish our consciousness from any other sort? Will there ever be a definition that all people can accept?

The fact that you can ponder like you are doing now makes you human.

or....


:shock: :shock: A CONSCIOUS MACHINE!! :shock: :shock:

_____________________________________
http://www.blurbco.com/~gork/random/ignignot.gif
"Everyone, please, bow your heads, and pretend to be serious."

There have been many theories of what separates humans from other animal life, but none so far has been completely effective. At one time it was believed that the ability to recognize oneself in a mirror indicated self-awareness, but now we know that human infants cannot do that while many apes and dolphins can. Some said that language or tool usage were the determining factors, but again we have found animals that have both.

So what makes a human a human? How do we distinguish our consciousness from any other sort? Will there ever be a definition that all people can accept?

The fact that you can ponder like you are doing now makes you human.

or....


:shock: :shock: A CONSCIOUS MACHINE!! :shock: :shock:

Exactly, most people in this thread seem to be forgetting that we humans are (probably) not the only sentient beings in this universe.
So let me up the stakes eh? What sets us humans apart from other sentient beings?

responding to a human vocalization is not an instinctive behavior for a dog. a dog that has not been artificially trained to respond to such commands will not do so because there is no inborn programming for it. thus it is a non-instinctive activity.

Instigated by a human

but it is a learned behavior. all learned behaviors are definitionally not instinctive. basically, anything that can learn new behaviors can act in non-instinctive ways. thus almost all mammals and at least some birds (and probably some reptiles and amphibians, but i'm not sure) are not bound entirely by instinct

There have been many theories of what separates humans from other animal life, but none so far has been completely effective. At one time it was believed that the ability to recognize oneself in a mirror indicated self-awareness, but now we know that human infants cannot do that while many apes and dolphins can. Some said that language or tool usage were the determining factors, but again we have found animals that have both.

So what makes a human a human? How do we distinguish our consciousness from any other sort? Will there ever be a definition that all people can accept?

The fact that you can ponder like you are doing now makes you human.

or....


:shock: :shock: A CONSCIOUS MACHINE!! :shock: :shock:

Exactly, most people in this thread seem to be forgetting that we humans are (probably) not the only sentient beings in this universe.
So let me up the stakes eh? What sets us humans apart from other sentient beings?

If you are referring to aliens, I guess we'll have to wait until we actually meet some to compare ourselves with. :D

You just mentioned an idea. One that no animal seems to uphold.

Superstition.

Actually, elephants are superstitious. They have areas that are almost like graveyards, where basically they go to die, and other elephants will avoid the area like the plague. (Not trying to call you an idiot or anything)


I think what makes us human is:
1) Our ability to go against our instincts.
2) Our ability to infer things.
3) Our ability to have complex emotions.

'Course, monkeys come close to that.
Oh, and our ability to have complex language, including words for abstract ideas.

You just mentioned an idea. One that no animal seems to uphold.

Superstition.I think what makes us human is:
1) Our ability to go against our instincts.
2) Our ability to infer things.
3) Our ability to have complex emotions.

Elves do that too.

A number of things make us human:

*Our ability to imagine, write, and build
*Our ability to knowingly destroy our environment and continue to do so despite we know the harm we are doing
I can think of others, but there are some animals that have those too.

Yes, I didn't read the rest of the thread, so sue me.

Well if you notice, in the animal world most species pick their mates based on strength for survival. We pick our mates based on personality and looks, a whole different set of standards.

I think what makes us human is:
1) Our ability to go against our instincts.
2) Our ability to infer things.
3) Our ability to have complex emotions.
1. Demons can do that
2. Demons can do that too
3. What makes them complex?
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man.
And yes I am a demon bent on torturing souls and frightening little children.

Well if you notice, in the animal world most species pick their mates based on strength for survival. We pick our mates based on personality and looks, a whole different set of standards.
Nope, some animals judge based on looks too. Like the Peacock
Strength is more than just strength, it’s an aggressive personality that helps make them strong.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man.
And yes I am a demon bent on torturing souls and frightening little children.

I think a lot of difficulty in separating our behaviours from those of other animals comes from a combination of an inevitably anthocentric viewpoint and a lack of understanding of other animal behaviours. We tend to regard any (other) animal behaviour as "merely instinctive", and see everything we do as originating in our free will. Yet much of what we do is pure instinct. For example, a major factor in maternal affection for newborn babies comes from the flooding of the mother's brain with oxytocin at parturition, and babies will instictively smile back at a smiley face made up of only two dots and a curved line (one dot, or three dots, or two dots one above the other, and there is no smile response).

We also don't know enough about the behaviour of otehr animals. It is arguably posible that wolves howing at the moon are engaged in what could be called "religious activity". Different bands of chimpanzees appear to have distinct "cultures", and use different tools and techniques to achieve different results. Cuttlefish may have a highly complex symbolic language that we are physically unequipped to decypher.

I suppose the best biological definition of what makes us human is our ability to successfully interbreed with other humans. Somewhat cyclical, I admit, and not extensivly tested. Lions and tigers, or sheep and goats, or horses and donkeys can interbreed, although I'm not sure if ligons and their ilk are viable or if they are sterile. Very occasionally, it seems to be possible to produce sexually fertile mules -- but the matter of human interbreeding with other species is not, so far as I know, extensively tested.

Beyond biology, there's only philosophy, and ultimately the only true judge of an individual is the individual in question -- so suppose if you regard yourself as human, then you are. Which probably admits quite a few domestic dogs. This is going to create merry hell with the census and voter registration, so I'll stop here.

OK how about this, your smell. Humans smell differently than any other creature. I can always tell the difference between a human and a demon and any other animal for that matter by getting a good whiff. Your scents are all distinctly human, and each human has their own distinct scent.
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man.
And yes I am a demon bent on torturing souls and frightening little children.

Survival of the fittest is not morality. Morality is the concept of right and wrong.
Survival of the fittest is pragmatism at its most extreme.
Could not one say that humanity differs from animals through its lack of pragmatism and/or through its ability to see justice and injustice?

i strongly disagree. survival of the fittest is just as much a moral system as any other arbitrary system of morality. some people believe things are right or wrong because God says so, others believe things are right or wrong because nature says so...neither is more valid than the other, and it is very insulting to tell people their morality isn't really morality.

You just mentioned an idea. One that no animal seems to uphold.

Superstition.

yes, but many humans (such as myself) also don't hold superstition. so am i not a human?

Very well. The ability to be superstitious.

i do not have the ability to be superstitious. seriously, i can't do it. i can't make myself believe in fairies or spirits or god or any of it. i just can't do it. so i guess i'm not human :(.

Religion is what sets humans apart from animals.

yuck, no way. religion is an expression of the most primative and unevolved aspects of the human mind, and many humans have developed beyond the need for religion.

Religion is what sets humans apart from animals.

yuck, no way. religion is an expression of the most primative and unevolved aspects of the human mind, and many humans have developed beyond the need for religion.

But that has nothing to do with whether it sets 'us' apart from 'them'.

Religion is what sets humans apart from animals.

yuck, no way. religion is an expression of the most primative and unevolved aspects of the human mind, and many humans have developed beyond the need for religion.

But that has nothing to do with whether it sets 'us' apart from 'them'.

well, if religion is what makes humans different from animals then i guess agnostics and atheists are a different species. it sure does feel that way sometimes :).

Religion is what sets humans apart from animals.

yuck, no way. religion is an expression of the most primative and unevolved aspects of the human mind, and many humans have developed beyond the need for religion.

But that has nothing to do with whether it sets 'us' apart from 'them'.

How would you recognise religious behaviour in an animal? Like I said above, wolves howl at the moon.

How about using fire?

How about using fire?

babies can't use fire. so are they not human until they can?

Well, I do know that humanity is the only species on this world which would end up in a discussion like this. :wink:

...at least that we know of. Who knows what dolphins chat about on their off-hours. :)

Religion is what sets humans apart from animals.

yuck, no way. religion is an expression of the most primative and unevolved aspects of the human mind, and many humans have developed beyond the need for religion.

But that has nothing to do with whether it sets 'us' apart from 'them'.

well, if religion is what makes humans different from animals then i guess agnostics and atheists are a different species. it sure does feel that way sometimes :).

So the answer is: No, religion is not something that sets humans apart from non-humans?

How about using fire?

Fire is a tool, animals use tools, so no.

Religion is what sets humans apart from animals.

yuck, no way. religion is an expression of the most primative and unevolved aspects of the human mind, and many humans have developed beyond the need for religion.

But that has nothing to do with whether it sets 'us' apart from 'them'.

How would you recognise religious behaviour in an animal? Like I said above, wolves howl at the moon.

No they do not.

Well, I do know that humanity is the only species on this world which would end up in a discussion like this. :wink:

...at least that we know of. Who knows what dolphins chat about on their off-hours. :)

i firmly believe that dolphins are plotting to overthrow the planet. they're so playful and loveable, a little too loveable, if you get me...i just KNOW they are up to something.

There were like 5 total traits that we possess - no other animal possesses all five:


The ability to walk upright on two legs

Opposable thumbs

A reasoning mind

(i forgot the other two)

Religion is what sets humans apart from animals.

yuck, no way. religion is an expression of the most primative and unevolved aspects of the human mind, and many humans have developed beyond the need for religion.

But that has nothing to do with whether it sets 'us' apart from 'them'.

How would you recognise religious behaviour in an animal? Like I said above, wolves howl at the moon.

No they do not.

Okay, maybe they don't. What do I know about wolves? The point is still valid. How do you know that all other animals don't practice religious activities? Would you recognise a bovine prayer? Or a squirrel's obesiance? Or the genuflection of a gibbon? Or the meditation of a sturgeon?

the problem that scientists are running into at this point is that there is no definition of consciousness or "human-ness" that will apply to all humans and no animals; all the current ones either include several other animal species or exclude certain classes of humans, like the mentally disabled or infants. it's a very interesting problem, i think.

Okay, maybe they don't. What do I know about wolves? The point is still valid. How do you know that all other animals don't practice religious activities? Would you recognise a bovine prayer? Or a squirrel's obesiance? Or the genuflection of a gibbon? Or the meditation of a sturgeon?

It's quite possible that all "religion" is, per se, is an extension of the search for heirarchy and order found in every species. If this is true, you could say every animal practices "religion," just not a particularly God-based one.

How about using fire?

Fire is a tool, animals use tools, so no.Animals use tools I don't disagree, but there are no animals that use fire.

How about using fire?

babies can't use fire. so are they not human until they can?I was commenting on a difference between the human species and other animal species, rather than a way to tell if a lifeform is a human or another type of animal.

the problem that scientists are running into at this point is that there is no definition of consciousness or "human-ness" that will apply to all humans and no animals; all the current ones either include several other animal species or exclude certain classes of humans, like the mentally disabled or infants. it's a very interesting problem, i think.
Not even scent?
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man.
And yes I am a demon bent on torturing souls and frightening little children.

How about using fire?

Fire is a tool, animals use tools, so no.Animals use tools I don't disagree, but there are no animals that use fire.

What's so special about fire then?

What's so special about fire then?

Nothing's so special about fire, inherantly. However, our ability to reason and control fire to a certain extent gave us a reproductive advantage over other species that couldn't do this at the time.

How about using fire?

Fire is a tool, animals use tools, so no.Animals use tools I don't disagree, but there are no animals that use fire.

What's so special about fire then?Well, we use it and animals don't...

Why would consciousness be a more appropriate answer? (if it were true) Whats so special about consciousness, or communication, or opposable thumbs...

There isn't, but its a difference. And fire makes a big difference, as it leads to metalurgy and to machines and to rockets that can take us into outer space and things.

How about using fire?

babies can't use fire. so are they not human until they can?I was commenting on a difference between the human species and other animal species, rather than a way to tell if a lifeform is a human or another type of animal.

well, it's kind of about both. i mean, we can say that a certain amount of genetic resemblence tends to be indicative of organisms that are human. but it's on the individual level that these definitions start getting dicey...i mean, what about people with chromosomal abnormalities, who don't share that DNA structure? so if fire use is the defining factor then what about mentally retarded individuals who are incapable of using fire at any point in their lives? are they not human then?

How about using fire?

Fire is a tool, animals use tools, so no.Animals use tools I don't disagree, but there are no animals that use fire.

What's so special about fire then?Well, we use it and animals don't...

Why would consciousness be a more appropriate answer? (if it were true) Whats so special about consciousness, or communication, or opposable thumbs...

There isn't, but its a difference. And fire makes a big difference, as it leads to metalurgy and to machines and to rockets that can take us into outer space and things.

Thats merely a matter of scale. Are South American Indians less human than me? They (rarely) use fire, have few tools, and certainly no metalurgy, machines and rockets to take them to space.

Arent humans the only creature that kills for sport?

Humans are the only creature that creates art, art that represents emotions.

Humans are the only creature that has awareness of thier own social position, and social hierarchy. Other animals have such hierarchies, but i doubt that they are aware of it, and i doubt that the members at the bottom have the drive to increase in ranking.

Humans are the only creature that has religion. Not all humans believe in religion, but they have the capacity to believe in the supernatural.

Arent humans the only creature that kills for sport?

Humans are the only creature that creates art, art that represents emotions.

Humans are the only creature that has awareness of thier own social position, and social hierarchy. Other animals have such hierarchies, but i doubt that they are aware of it, and i doubt that the members at the bottom have the drive to increase in ranking.

Humans are the only creature that has religion. Not all humans believe in religion, but they have the capacity to believe in the supernatural.

I'll agree on your first and last point, but not on the other two.

How about using fire?

Fire is a tool, animals use tools, so no.Animals use tools I don't disagree, but there are no animals that use fire.
It's not so much simple, all-inclusive characteristics as it is the details of those characteristics. Sure, animals use tools, but humans use MUCH better tools. Animals such as apes and cetaceans may be able to reason, but humans are obviously much better at it.

How about using fire?

Fire is a tool, animals use tools, so no.Animals use tools I don't disagree, but there are no animals that use fire.
It's not so much simple, all-inclusive characteristics as it is the details of those characteristics. Sure, animals use tools, but humans use MUCH better tools. Animals such as apes and cetaceans may be able to reason, but humans are obviously much better at it.

Do humans instinctively know how to use fire, or is it taught to them?

You just mentioned an idea. One that no animal seems to uphold.

Superstition.I think what makes us human is:
1) Our ability to go against our instincts.
2) Our ability to infer things.
3) Our ability to have complex emotions.

Elves do that too.

Yes, but elves don't exist :p

Arent humans the only creature that kills for sport?

Humans are the only creature that creates art, art that represents emotions.

Humans are the only creature that has awareness of thier own social position, and social hierarchy. Other animals have such hierarchies, but i doubt that they are aware of it, and i doubt that the members at the bottom have the drive to increase in ranking.

Humans are the only creature that has religion. Not all humans believe in religion, but they have the capacity to believe in the supernatural.

again, these all are problematic if we are looking at an organism and trying to determine if it is human. many organisms we currently call human (like babies, the mentally handicapped, or even many average humans) are not capable of killing for sport, making art, or engaging in superstition.

and yes, animals in hierarchies very much do have the drive to increase station. only in social insects do you not see that, and that's because of a special chromosomal state that i won't bore you with here.

Humans have souls. Apparently animals don't.

Thats merely a matter of scale. Are South American Indians less human than me? They (rarely) use fire, have few tools, and certainly no metalurgy, machines and rockets to take them to space.Not if you say that any use of fire makes you human, and that human is a either/or state, rather than a sliding scale.

Also, you're wrong. Amerindians do use fire for, among other things, clearing land in the rainforest for faming.

Humans have souls. Apparently animals don't.

erm, prove it. sorry, but your claim of souls is just an extension of the religion-makes-us-human argument, and since i don't buy it that means that by your definition i am not human. reduction to absurdity.

How about using fire?

babies can't use fire. so are they not human until they can?I was commenting on a difference between the human species and other animal species, rather than a way to tell if a lifeform is a human or another type of animal.

well, it's kind of about both. i mean, we can say that a certain amount of genetic resemblence tends to be indicative of organisms that are human. but it's on the individual level that these definitions start getting dicey...i mean, what about people with chromosomal abnormalities, who don't share that DNA structure? so if fire use is the defining factor then what about mentally retarded individuals who are incapable of using fire at any point in their lives? are they not human then?Again, I make the exact same point I made before. Human species is one which uses fire, being born to human parents is enough to make you human. You won't find any person who's ancestors did not at any point use fire, or any society of people who do not use fire in some form for some purpose.

Thats merely a matter of scale. Are South American Indians less human than me? They (rarely) use fire, have few tools, and certainly no metalurgy, machines and rockets to take them to space.Not if you say that any use of fire makes you human, and that human is a either/or state, rather than a sliding scale.

Alright, but what is keeping animals from using fire?

How about using fire?

babies can't use fire. so are they not human until they can?I was commenting on a difference between the human species and other animal species, rather than a way to tell if a lifeform is a human or another type of animal.

well, it's kind of about both. i mean, we can say that a certain amount of genetic resemblence tends to be indicative of organisms that are human. but it's on the individual level that these definitions start getting dicey...i mean, what about people with chromosomal abnormalities, who don't share that DNA structure? so if fire use is the defining factor then what about mentally retarded individuals who are incapable of using fire at any point in their lives? are they not human then?Again, I make the exact same point I made before. Human species is one which uses fire, being born to human parents is enough to make you human. You won't find any person who's ancestors did not at any point use fire, or any society of people who do not use fire in some form for some purpose.

so infants created through reproductive technology are not human? genetically modified or recombined fetuses, who have no ancestors and no parents, would not be human (in theory)? that's a conclusion many people reach, i just want to make sure i understand your position.

Thats merely a matter of scale. Are South American Indians less human than me? They (rarely) use fire, have few tools, and certainly no metalurgy, machines and rockets to take them to space.Not if you say that any use of fire makes you human, and that human is a either/or state, rather than a sliding scale.

Alright, but what is keeping animals from using fire?

as i have tried to point out, several animal species can and do. but i'm just trying to argue his underlying point for now.

Thats merely a matter of scale. Are South American Indians less human than me? They (rarely) use fire, have few tools, and certainly no metalurgy, machines and rockets to take them to space.Not if you say that any use of fire makes you human, and that human is a either/or state, rather than a sliding scale.

Alright, but what is keeping animals from using fire?I don't know. Why don't you ask them?

You just mentioned an idea. One that no animal seems to uphold.

Superstition.I think what makes us human is:
1) Our ability to go against our instincts.
2) Our ability to infer things.
3) Our ability to have complex emotions.

Elves do that too.

Yes, but elves don't exist :p

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion.

Humans have souls. Apparently animals don't.

erm, prove it. sorry, but your claim of souls is just an extension of the religion-makes-us-human argument, and since i don't buy it that means that by your definition i am not human. reduction to absurdity.

Well, one argument would be:

how often do you see an animal get down on their knees and pray? Apes, they say, have 97% of the genes similar to humans. I don't see them praying as we know it.

Humans have souls. Apparently animals don't.

erm, prove it. sorry, but your claim of souls is just an extension of the religion-makes-us-human argument, and since i don't buy it that means that by your definition i am not human. reduction to absurdity.

Well, one argument would be:

how often do you see an animal get down on their knees and pray? Apes, they say, have 97% of the genes similar to humans. I don't see them praying as we know it.

how often do you see me get down on my knees and pray? so i'm not human. again, it doesn't work. we've already established this.

also, many human groups don't pray as you know it. for many religious sects in the Americas, getting on your knees and bowing your head would be an insult and an affront to the gods; to pray you dance and sing, or you sacrifice animals, or many other behaviors. how can you prove that animals aren't just praying in their own way? just because we don't recognise it doesn't mean it's not there.

Thats merely a matter of scale. Are South American Indians less human than me? They (rarely) use fire, have few tools, and certainly no metalurgy, machines and rockets to take them to space.Not if you say that any use of fire makes you human, and that human is a either/or state, rather than a sliding scale.

Alright, but what is keeping animals from using fire?

as i have tried to point out, several animal species can and do. but i'm just trying to argue his underlying point for now.I wasn't aware that you point that out. Quote?

Thats merely a matter of scale. Are South American Indians less human than me? They (rarely) use fire, have few tools, and certainly no metalurgy, machines and rockets to take them to space.Not if you say that any use of fire makes you human, and that human is a either/or state, rather than a sliding scale.

Alright, but what is keeping animals from using fire?I don't know.

Then how can you use "The use of fire is what sets humans apart from other beings"?

so infants created through reproductive technology are not human? genetically modified or recombined fetuses, who have no ancestors and no parents, would not be human (in theory)? that's a conclusion many people reach, i just want to make sure i understand your position.I don't know, I think that moral issues get very confused when you factor in human meddling in life. The issues around even something as simple as stem-cell research...

My thinking is: fire marks a clear line between human species and other animal species. Someone with human parents would be human. But, I don't need to check everyones lineage to believe them to be human, so if I were to encounter a genetically modified or recombined person, I would assume them to be human based on the same way I normally ascertain whether someone is a human or some sort of cleverly disguised, upright walking ape.

Thats merely a matter of scale. Are South American Indians less human than me? They (rarely) use fire, have few tools, and certainly no metalurgy, machines and rockets to take them to space.Not if you say that any use of fire makes you human, and that human is a either/or state, rather than a sliding scale.

Alright, but what is keeping animals from using fire?

as i have tried to point out, several animal species can and do. but i'm just trying to argue his underlying point for now.I wasn't aware that you point that out. Quote?

sorry, wasn't clear; it was in a related discussion, not on this thread. the gist is that there are many animal species that use fire when it is present, largely insect life. no species other than humans has been observed to make fire, but this is almost entirely attributable to their physical inability to do so; most animals simply couldn't generate fire because they can't manipulate objects in the necessary ways. apes could, but have no need to...in the lab they can be trained to do it, they just don't in the wild because fire serves no purpose for them so there is no evolutionary drive to do it.

Humans have souls. Apparently animals don't.

erm, prove it. sorry, but your claim of souls is just an extension of the religion-makes-us-human argument, and since i don't buy it that means that by your definition i am not human. reduction to absurdity.

Well, one argument would be:

how often do you see an animal get down on their knees and pray? Apes, they say, have 97% of the genes similar to humans. I don't see them praying as we know it.Yes, but prayer isn't the only form of religious worship.

our legs make us human. our mind is a computer that feeds off of endorphins.

Humans have souls. Apparently animals don't.

erm, prove it. sorry, but your claim of souls is just an extension of the religion-makes-us-human argument, and since i don't buy it that means that by your definition i am not human. reduction to absurdity.

Well, one argument would be:

how often do you see an animal get down on their knees and pray? Apes, they say, have 97% of the genes similar to humans. I don't see them praying as we know it.

how often do you see me get down on my knees and pray? so i'm not human. again, it doesn't work. we've already established this.

also, many human groups don't pray as you know it. for many religious sects in the Americas, getting on your knees and bowing your head would be an insult and an affront to the gods; to pray you dance and sing, or you sacrifice animals, or many other behaviors. how can you prove that animals aren't just praying in their own way? just because we don't recognise it doesn't mean it's not there.

That's just you. 80% of the world happens to be religious. I'm sure you've got something you cling on to when you need emotional help. That's your substitute God, really.

so infants created through reproductive technology are not human? genetically modified or recombined fetuses, who have no ancestors and no parents, would not be human (in theory)? that's a conclusion many people reach, i just want to make sure i understand your position.I don't know, I think that moral issues get very confused when you factor in human meddling in life. The issues around even something as simple as stem-cell research...

My thinking is: fire marks a clear line between human species and other animal species. Someone with human parents would be human. But, I don't need to check everyones lineage to believe them to be human, so if I were to encounter a genetically modified or recombined person, I would assume them to be human based on the same way I normally ascertain whether someone is a human or some sort of cleverly disguised, upright walking ape.

that's sensible, and definitely the best construct yet. i personally don't feel comfortable distinguishing between "natural" humans and "artificial" ones created via our technology, but that's just a feeling...maybe i should get comfortable with it, because there's no way to resolve it. hmm, must ponder...:P

Thats merely a matter of scale. Are South American Indians less human than me? They (rarely) use fire, have few tools, and certainly no metalurgy, machines and rockets to take them to space.Not if you say that any use of fire makes you human, and that human is a either/or state, rather than a sliding scale.

Alright, but what is keeping animals from using fire?I don't know. Why don't you ask them?

Then how can you use "The use of fire is what sets humans apart from other beings"?Because they don't use it. I don't know why animals don't use fire, but they don't. Theres a difference.

At a guess, I'd say intelligence. I think that probaly most species don't use fire because they aren't smart enough to know how or to see the benefits. (I'll except dolphins from this, cos even I'm not smart enough to light a fire underwater.)

Arent humans the only creature that kills for sport?

No.

Humans are the only creature that has awareness of thier own social position, and social hierarchy. Other animals have such hierarchies, but i doubt that they are aware of it, and i doubt that the members at the bottom have the drive to increase in ranking.

That's complete nonsense.

Humans are the only creature that has religion. Not all humans believe in religion, but they have the capacity to believe in the supernatural.

I doubt animals make any distinction between natural and supernatural, since they are not sufficiently intelligent or educated to understand the physical processes behind the natural world, and assume that there can be anything else. It could be argued that humans are the only species with the capacity to believe in the natural, since no other species has accumulated knowledge on the mechanics of the natural world.

Belief in the supernatural is not something that comes from a unique human-ness. It simply comes from a lack of understanding of the natural. It isn't some glowing enlightenment that shows that you can see beyond the mundane; it's primitive superstition that fills in the gaps in our knowledge of the natural world.

Also, it isn't conclusively proven that animals do not have religion. It is just generally assumed that they aren't sufficiently intelligent to be concerned with such things that have no relevence to their current situation.

I really think it's just a combination of higher intelligence, especially the development of language, and some chance evolutionary factors (that the mice and dolphins could manage without, of course)
i know that's been said, kind of, but i didn't really see why there was as much discussion.

that's sensible, and definitely the best construct yet. i personally don't feel comfortable distinguishing between "natural" humans and "artificial" ones created via our technology, but that's just a feeling...maybe i should get comfortable with it, because there's no way to resolve it. hmm, must ponder...:PThank you.

I'm not comfortable distinguishing between natural and artificial humans for any moral purpose either, but I think that its possible (not certain, but possible) that that feeling lacks a logical basis, as I may be thinking like that along the line of "but they seem so much like humans...".

Apparently for Bottle, the answer to the question posed in the thread's title has to assume that that human being actually made it out of its mother's birth canal! :?

At least that's what I gleaned from another post that I read from the Bottle. :(

Thats merely a matter of scale. Are South American Indians less human than me? They (rarely) use fire, have few tools, and certainly no metalurgy, machines and rockets to take them to space.Not if you say that any use of fire makes you human, and that human is a either/or state, rather than a sliding scale.

Alright, but what is keeping animals from using fire?I don't know. Why don't you ask them?

Then how can you use "The use of fire is what sets humans apart from other beings"?Because they don't use it. I don't know why animals don't use fire, but they don't. Theres a difference.

At a guess, I'd say intelligence. I think that probaly most species don't use fire because they aren't smart enough to know how or to see the benefits. (I'll except dolphins from this, cos even I'm not smart enough to light a fire underwater.)

So, humans are different from animals because, on average, they are more intelligent?

Thats merely a matter of scale. Are South American Indians less human than me? They (rarely) use fire, have few tools, and certainly no metalurgy, machines and rockets to take them to space.Not if you say that any use of fire makes you human, and that human is a either/or state, rather than a sliding scale.

Alright, but what is keeping animals from using fire?I don't know. Why don't you ask them?

Then how can you use "The use of fire is what sets humans apart from other beings"?Because they don't use it. I don't know why animals don't use fire, but they don't. Theres a difference.

At a guess, I'd say intelligence. I think that probaly most species don't use fire because they aren't smart enough to know how or to see the benefits. (I'll except dolphins from this, cos even I'm not smart enough to light a fire underwater.)

So, humans are different from animals because, on average, they are more intelligent?No

Human beings have adapted to and/or altered our environment to the point we now dominate the planet. And. as is the case with any other animal, we must kill to survive.
I would therefore suggest that either we are no different from any other lifeform and console ourselves with the notion that are superior in an effort to deal with the inescapable fact of the cycle of life and death, or that perhaps it is the very awareness of mortality and our response to it that defines us as distinct from other lifeforms; clearly nothiing living wants to die, but no other life seems to exihibit as great a need to rationalize the actions it must take in order to sustain it's life.

Apparently for Bottle, the answer to the question posed in the thread's title has to assume that that human being actually made it out of its mother's birth canal! :?

At least that's what I gleaned from another post that I read from the Bottle. :(
no, that certainly is not the case. my best friend was delivered by c-section, and i am relatively sure he is human.

but yes, i do believe that there is no definition of human that could include pre-viable fetuses yet exclude other animal life. i don't believe there is reason to refer to pre-viable fetuses as humans or as infants, though they may develop into one or both.

Why do we have the need to define ourselves as different or superior in some way? Perhaps that is what makes us different.

Defining human isn't necessarily saying that we're better, only different. A certain amount of pride is natural to slip in though when we're talking about what separates us from the animals.

Defining human isn't necessarily saying that we're better, only different.

I didn't say it did.


A certain amount of pride is natural to slip in though when we're talking about what separates us from the animals.

So? Is that pride something that makes us different?

Defining human isn't necessarily saying that we're better, only different.

I didn't say it did.


A certain amount of pride is natural to slip in though when we're talking about what separates us from the animals.

So? Is that pride something that makes us different?I didn't say that.

Defining human isn't necessarily saying that we're better, only different.

I didn't say it did.


A certain amount of pride is natural to slip in though when we're talking about what separates us from the animals.

So? Is that pride something that makes us different?I didn't say that.

No, but I asked a valid question based on your statement.

erm, prove it. sorry, but your claim of souls is just an extension of the religion-makes-us-human argument, and since i don't buy it that means that by your definition i am not human. reduction to absurdity.
Humans do have souls. However proving it to those who are incapable of perceiving the soul’s aura are rather quite difficult. Having a soul however is not a distinguishing feature for humans. All living things possess a soul, from plants to stink bugs. Some demons can ever extract souls. Even human technology has the ability to suppress the soul and turn people into zombies.

There are three parts that make up the soul. There is the spirit, there is thought, and there is the life force. Not all living things have a complete soul in that sense, but all living things have at least one. Spirit is linked to will among other things, thought is linked to memory and the senses, and the life force is what allows things to live. It is linked to all of the internal systems of the body. The life force is always flowing, and it is what allows the soul to remain rooted within the body. Unless the soul were somehow bound to an object the soul would eventually leave the body.

I guess I could prove to you that the soul existed. I would have to separate the thought center from your body. That would require a personal meeting and a lot of concentration on my part. I’ve never separated anyone else’s soul before, It’s a lot trickier and I would have to do some studying on the matter. Of course that would require me to return home and I would need to get a permit for that. Then I would need to find someone who has successfully done this before and convince them to train me. It’s a long process to go though just to try to prove something that many still won’t believe. Or I could take short cuts and find human guinea pigs and potentially kill them if I screw up.

But like I've said earlier. If it stinks like a human, than it must be human. Humans not only smell bad in general, but they also taste bad. Isn’t that enough?
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man.
And yes I am a Demon bent on torturing souls and frightening little children.

erm, prove it. sorry, but your claim of souls is just an extension of the religion-makes-us-human argument, and since i don't buy it that means that by your definition i am not human. reduction to absurdity.
Humans do have souls. However proving it to those who are incapable of perceiving the soul’s aura are rather quite difficult. Having a soul however is not a distinguishing feature for humans. All living things possess a soul, from plants to stink bugs. Some demons can ever extract souls. Even human technology has the ability to suppress the soul and turn people into zombies.

There are three parts that make up the soul. There is the spirit, there is thought, and there is the life force. Not all living things have a complete soul in that sense, but all living things have at least one. Spirit is linked to will among other things, thought is linked to memory and the senses, and the life force is what allows things to live. It is linked to all of the internal systems of the body. The life force is always flowing, and it is what allows the soul to remain rooted within the body. Unless the soul were somehow bound to an object the soul would eventually leave the body.

I guess I could prove to you that the soul existed. I would have to separate the thought center from your body. That would require a personal meeting and a lot of concentration on my part. I’ve never separated anyone else’s soul before, It’s a lot trickier and I would have to do some studying on the matter. Of course that would require me to return home and I would need to get a permit for that. Then I would need to find someone who has successfully done this before and convince them to train me. It’s a long process to go though just to try to prove something that many still won’t believe. Or I could take short cuts and find human guinea pigs and potentially kill them if I screw up.

But like I've said earlier. If it stinks like a human, than it must be human. Humans not only smell bad in general, but they also taste bad. Isn’t that enough?
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man.
And yes I am a Demon bent on torturing souls and frightening little children.

yes, i know you are superstitious. you have proved nothing, and your argument is getting dull. find something else to use, please.

Defining human isn't necessarily saying that we're better, only different.

I didn't say it did.


A certain amount of pride is natural to slip in though when we're talking about what separates us from the animals.

So? Is that pride something that makes us different?I didn't say that.

No, but I asked a valid question based on your statement.I don't know. I don't think that its significant.

Defining human isn't necessarily saying that we're better, only different.

I didn't say it did.


A certain amount of pride is natural to slip in though when we're talking about what separates us from the animals.

So? Is that pride something that makes us different?I didn't say that.

No, but I asked a valid question based on your statement.I don't know. I don't think that its significant.

Why not?

There have been many theories of what separates humans from other animal life, but none so far has been completely effective.

Note the hidden assumption: human beings are separate from other animal life, and in a privileged category all of their own.

Why should we accept this?

There have been many theories of what separates humans from other animal life, but none so far has been completely effective.

Note the hidden assumption: human beings are separate from other animal life, and in a privileged category all of their own.

Why should we accept this?

we shouldn't, until there is reason to. that is sort of my underlying point, though i certainly think we can all agree humans are in some way distinct from other life, just like dogs are or plants are or insects are. we have different qualities, but is there one fundamental thing that makes humans unique from ALL other life? or is it just individual characteristics that sum to create a unique whole?

yes, i know you are superstitious. you have proved nothing, and your argument is getting dull. find something else to use, please.
So I take it that you feel that the human scent isn't enough of a distinguishing factor? Or do you just not know enough about the subject? So here’s a couple links. The first two involve dogs and tracking humans.
http://www.amrg.info/in_search_of_scent.htm
http://www.reddingshonden.net/research.htm
http://www.hhmi.org/senses/d130.html
A dog will smell different from a human, a cow will smell different from a human, a monkey will smell different from a human. Just what problem do you see with the idea that scent is something that differentiates humans from other animals?
__________________________________________________
Out of all the demons in this world, none is more frightening than man.
And yes, I am a Demon bent on torturing souls and frightening little children.

Defining human isn't necessarily saying that we're better, only different.

I didn't say it did.


A certain amount of pride is natural to slip in though when we're talking about what separates us from the animals.

So? Is that pride something that makes us different?I didn't say that.

No, but I asked a valid question based on your statement.I don't know. I don't think that its significant.

Why not?Well, if we can't tell even if it is a difference (we don't know if animals have pride or not), then it seems like it can hardly be the thing we use to delineate between animals and humans.

Well, if we can't tell even if it is a difference (we don't know if animals have pride or not), then it seems like it can hardly be the thing we use to delineate between animals and humans.

I would agree with that. As there is (to my knowledge) no valid way of quantifying and measuring pride, it would seem silly to assert that it is a difference between humans and other organisms, given the lack of evidence.

DP- !@#$%&* No Post Mode Specified!

How do other (rather than humans) mammals act in a way that is not instinctive?

how do humans? ;)

apes and dolphins show as much freedom from instinct as humans do, depending on how you measure it, and primate infants are more able to follow complex cognitive tasks (non-instinctive behaviors) than human children under the age of about 5.

But take these animals away from their natural environment and leave them to fend for themselves in the new one chances are they won't last long.

the same is true for humans. what's your point?

Thats not entirely true humans can survive in a multude of different environments, hot, cold, wet or dry - Put a gorilla in desert and what happens a man may die the gorilla will die. Humans can also also survive or thrive in group or as a single entity.

That is not exactly true. The primates can adapt. For example, there is a troop of Japanese Snow Monkeys that live on a section of the Texas Plains(I think they are still there as there was talk of moving them).

They adapted. Found new food sources, water, and quickly learned about poisonous snakes.

Survival of the fittest is not morality. Morality is the concept of right and wrong.
Survival of the fittest is pragmatism at its most extreme.
Could not one say that humanity differs from animals through its lack of pragmatism and/or through its ability to see justice and injustice?

i strongly disagree. survival of the fittest is just as much a moral system as any other arbitrary system of morality. some people believe things are right or wrong because God says so, others believe things are right or wrong because nature says so...neither is more valid than the other, and it is very insulting to tell people their morality isn't really morality.

You just mentioned an idea. One that no animal seems to uphold.

Superstition.

How can we tell if they do?

Superstitions are not universal to man.

Note the hidden assumption: human beings are separate from other animal life, and in a privileged category all of their own.

Why should we accept this?

we shouldn't, until there is reason to. that is sort of my underlying point, though i certainly think we can all agree humans are in some way distinct from other life, just like dogs are or plants are or insects are. we have different qualities, but is there one fundamental thing that makes humans unique from ALL other life?

No, no fundamental thing, in my opinion: just more developed in certain directions, and less so in others. I believe that just as parallel evolution has given the octopus an eye structure very similar to that of a human being, it is possible for similar instances of parallel evolution to occur in other animals over time - even to the extent of other species developing brains as complex and adaptable as the human one.

Whether a similar level of complexity would entail similar thought processes to the human is an entirely different question, as is whether mutual understanding across species would be possible. ("If a lion could talk, we would not understand him." - Wittgenstein).

The fact that we do have brains which are of a highly complex nature and can do really kewl stuff does not make us in any way special in a cosmic way:

"Once upon a time, in a faraway corner of the universe, poured out and glistening in infinite solar systems, there was a constellation on which clever animals invented knowledge. It was the most arrogant and devious minute of 'world history': but still only a minute. After just a few breaths that nature took, the constellation froze, and the clever animals had to die."

Friedrich Nietzsche
Truth and Falsehood in an Extramoral Sense

We appear to be the animal with the most complex brain structure, but in the end it is just a survival mechanism. Instead of claws or horns we have a brain, but that doesn't make us anything special. Interesting, definitely, special, no.

\/\/3 (4/\/ 5P34|< |_33+

Earlier today I was interrupted from reading this thread to go listen to a lecture from my retiring professor. He's into neuroscience, so one of the things he was talking about was consciousness- and what makes the human brain different from the brains of other animals (so this is just from a brain standpoint) If you take a piece of cortex from an animal and show it to a neuroscience, he can tell you what it does and what part of the brain it's from- but not what animal it came from, so physically, there's not really any difference. Sure humans have more cortex per body mass than most other animals, but not all- we also don't have the most convolutions.
So this is what my professor proposed (I wrote it down just so I could post it here...I'm such a loser):
~~Dominance of cortico-cortical (white matter) fibers providing massive positive feedback ~~[distinguishes the human brain from the brains of other animals]
He also noted the amount of positive feedback we have in different states:
anesthesia - strong positive feedback
~~Parkinsons - too much positive feedback
schizophrenia - too much negative feedback
brain death - no positive feedback~~
So according to this, people who are braindead are no longer human...but I can see how that would be a legitimate claim.
I, personally, don't think there's a specific thing that makes humans distinct. Everything is on a spectrum, even the amount of positive feedback- we're higher in some areas, and lower in others. What makes us human is our general genetic structure. If you wonder if people with genetic disorders (not meaning a disorder that is genetic, but rather a mutation) are no longer human...I'm almost inclined to say yes. I mean, isn't that what evolution is?

(all the stuff inside the ~~ is from Paul L. Nunez)

And New Genoa, no. we can't....!

Survival of the fittest is not morality. Morality is the concept of right and wrong.
Survival of the fittest is pragmatism at its most extreme.
Could not one say that humanity differs from animals through its lack of pragmatism and/or through its ability to see justice and injustice?

i strongly disagree. survival of the fittest is just as much a moral system as any other arbitrary system of morality. some people believe things are right or wrong because God says so, others believe things are right or wrong because nature says so...neither is more valid than the other, and it is very insulting to tell people their morality isn't really morality.

You just mentioned an idea. One that no animal seems to uphold.

Superstition.

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/

our soul, our consciousness/self awareness, the fact we call ourselves human and not something different...dont know...this looks like flame bait to me...trying to spark an arguement between religious people who will say souls and God, science people/atheists who say DNA, and the rest who say "who cares" basically...

Actually, Bottle rarely flamebaits. She simply proposes topics that tend to draw flamers from both sides, which is unfortunate because I think she usually has some good points and excellent questions.

You, on the other hand, have yet to answer my question regarding what specific policies of Clinton have created the current economic meltdown the United States is laboring under from the other day.

[/hijack...sorry Bottle, I'll try not to do it again. :D ]

I'll go with a capacity for creativity; for example we're the only animal that painted on cave walls, we're the only animal that saw that our pointy stick would be better than the other guy's pointy stick if it was lighter, straighter with a sharp bit of rock on the end, so-on and so-forth.

The one who said religion seperated us from the animals wasn't entirely wrong; as such things arose from our capacity for creativity. We bury/burn/mummify/whatever our dead, we use ceremony.

Not even the closest of the other animals do the same. Not dolphins, not the great apes, not even our direct precursors. Just us.

Actually, Bottle rarely flamebaits. She simply proposes topics that tend to draw flamers from both sides, which is unfortunate because I think she usually has some good points and excellent questions.

You, on the other hand, have yet to answer my question regarding what specific policies of Clinton have created the current economic meltdown the United States is laboring under from the other day.

[/hijack...sorry Bottle, I'll try not to do it again. :D ]
The USA is in an economic meltdown, when did this happen? Oh My God, it must be those liars at Fox obfuscating the Great Democratic Truth!

Actually, Bottle rarely flamebaits. She simply proposes topics that tend to draw flamers from both sides, which is unfortunate because I think she usually has some good points and excellent questions.

You, on the other hand, have yet to answer my question regarding what specific policies of Clinton have created the current economic meltdown the United States is laboring under from the other day.

[/hijack...sorry Bottle, I'll try not to do it again. :D ]

lol, no worries. i do try to post topics that will get a lively debate, otherwise what's the point? but i don't deliberately try to piss anybody off...i don't think that helps the debate, it just brings in people who post one-liner insults and run away. i'm sorry if somebody thought this topic was flamebait, it was just a subject i was thinking about in class that seemed like it would make for good discussion. so far i think it has, and i haven't noticed anybody getting really out of line.

Actually, Bottle rarely flamebaits. She simply proposes topics that tend to draw flamers from both sides, which is unfortunate because I think she usually has some good points and excellent questions.

You, on the other hand, have yet to answer my question regarding what specific policies of Clinton have created the current economic meltdown the United States is laboring under from the other day.

[/hijack...sorry Bottle, I'll try not to do it again. :D ]
The USA is in an economic meltdown, when did this happen? Oh My God, it must be those liars at Fox obfuscating the Great Democratic Truth!

dude, please tell me you don't really think Fox News is legit, right?

Our souls.

Our souls.

please people, read at least the last page of a thread. the "souls" idea has been addressed several times already, and it's not gonna fly. come up with something better.

Hmmm....what sets humans apart from other animals? Touchy subject at best.
Well...what sets a lion apart from other animals? What sets dolphins apart? What sets cuttlefish and amoeba apart?
We are all living creatures...we have all evolved a certain way. Each species has its own unique characteristics...we are no differant.
I see many people here trying to "seperate" humanity from other species...trying to place them apart from other creatures upon this planet...the only differance between humans and other creatures is our evolutionary path...just as the only differance between a polar bear from other species is its evolutionary path. We are unique. But so are all other species. We are not above and beyond...we are just..."differant".

Actually, Bottle rarely flamebaits. She simply proposes topics that tend to draw flamers from both sides, which is unfortunate because I think she usually has some good points and excellent questions.

You, on the other hand, have yet to answer my question regarding what specific policies of Clinton have created the current economic meltdown the United States is laboring under from the other day.

[/hijack...sorry Bottle, I'll try not to do it again. :D ]
The USA is in an economic meltdown, when did this happen? Oh My God, it must be those liars at Fox obfuscating the Great Democratic Truth!

dude, please tell me you don't really think Fox News is legit, right?
Please, dude, don't tell me you really think CNN is legitimate.

Standing up straight.

That's pretty much the only thing that our species has that no other species on the planet has; standing upright being the preferred position... except for lazy bums like me who'd rather lie down.

Simple. Potatoes.

Sorry for bumping this up, but I thought of something at last:

One difference between humans and other animals is their 'ability' to kill themselves.
An animal will under no circumstances kill itself. It might take extreme and hopeless risks, but it will never have the intention of actually killing itself.

Wow thats more pages than I initially thought I was in for. I'm just going to risk repitition-

the ability to form abstraction.

unless we can understand what other creatures are doing we don't really know if they do this or not, but it seems a good start.

DP

To repond the initial question.

I created all animals but the main difference between you humans and the other annimals is your bloody wars between your own specie. :x

Wow thats more pages than I initially thought I was in for. I'm just going to risk repitition-

the ability to form abstraction.

unless we can understand what other creatures are doing we don't really know if they do this or not, but it seems a good start.

Is a neonate able to form abstractions? If not, then they are not human...

To repond the initial question.

I created all animals but the main difference between you humans and the other annimals is your bloody wars between your own specie. :x

Don't ants do that too?

To repond the initial question.

I created all animals but the main difference between you humans and the other annimals is your bloody wars between your own specie. :x


Anything that has intraspecies wars are human.
Ants have intraspecies wars.
Therefore ants are human.

To repond the initial question.

I created all animals but the main difference between you humans and the other annimals is your bloody wars between your own specie. :x

Don't ants do that too?

Curse you, Hakartopia - server problems meant you were able to post this before I was.

Sorry for bumping this up, but I thought of something at last:

One difference between humans and other animals is their 'ability' to kill themselves.
An animal will under no circumstances kill itself. It might take extreme and hopeless risks, but it will never have the intention of actually killing itself.

hmmm...that has a lot of potential, actually. even if you set aside the large number of suicides that are the result of a disease (chronic medical depression), you still have many cases where suicide is the course chosen by a fully aware and functioning human mind, cases like with the terminally ill who wish to end their lives early. animals will not, so far as we know, directly attempt to end their own lives, even if hopelessly sick. their instinct to continue living has never been observed to be overwhelmed by other processes (to the best of my knowledge).

that's a really interesting idea.

One difference between humans and other animals is their 'ability' to kill themselves.

... animals will not, so far as we know, directly attempt to end their own lives, even if hopelessly sick...

A quick spin on Google shows that nothing is cut-and-dried here:

http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/soc/behavioural/s00204d.html

"Can animals commit suicide?

This is a very difficult question to answer. It has been suggested that dolphins in captivity have done it; one has battered itself to death and soon after its companion did the same."

Wow thats more pages than I initially thought I was in for. I'm just going to risk repitition-

the ability to form abstraction.

unless we can understand what other creatures are doing we don't really know if they do this or not, but it seems a good start.

Is a neonate able to form abstractions? If not, then they are not human...
thats a little too selective. It contains the potential for abstraction as a member of the species. its not not a pre-qualifier-your not human until you abstract. If you are going to that then the qualifier is that all important 2% (the difference between chimp and human DNA). The question is what inherent ability humans have that is distinct from other species. The ability to form abstractions as a species seems reasonable, that does not by any stretch mean someone is not human until they are able to abstract, nor does it mean that a human who is unable to form abstractions isn't human. (though I don't know of an instance of someone not being able to do that, as it is requisite for a complex language.)

Foresight

Now ya’ll might not think that’s the answer but it is.

Foresight

Now ya’ll might not think that’s the answer but it is.

Ah: so those furry critters with the bushy tails that gather nuts for the winter are human then?

A hatred of Michæl Jackson. That is what defines someone as human.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

One difference between humans and other animals is their 'ability' to kill themselves.

... animals will not, so far as we know, directly attempt to end their own lives, even if hopelessly sick...

A quick spin on Google shows that nothing is cut-and-dried here:

http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/soc/behavioural/s00204d.html

"Can animals commit suicide?

This is a very difficult question to answer. It has been suggested that dolphins in captivity have done it; one has battered itself to death and soon after its companion did the same."

Did they batter themselves with the intention of ending their lives, or did they do so in an attempt to escape?

sentience...probably already said before and debunked.

simple
humans addapted their environment.
animals didnt.
:wink:

A large cerebral cortex.

The genetic code as it pertains exclusively to humans is the only fool-proof answer to the question at hand.

That or our greed.

Or our apparent inability to learn from past mistakes.

simple
humans adapted their environment.
animals didnt.
:wink:

My hamster turned a barren plastic box into an ultra-deluxe 5-star hamster lovebed, so no.

A large cerebral cortex.

I'm pretty sure elephants and whales have bigger cortexi. Are they more human than us?

The genetic code as it pertains exclusively to humans is the only fool-proof answer to the question at hand.

How exlusive? 99.9% 99.95%? 99.99%?
If you set it too high, having red hair could cost you your humanity. Set it too low, and we can expect a chimp as a president soon. (please, no Bush jokes)

That or our greed.

Animals can be greedy. Just look at hamsters (again).

Or our apparent inability to learn from past mistakes.

My hamster constantly rubs against his water bottle, and wonders why he gets wet.

The genetic code as it pertains exclusively to humans is the only fool-proof answer to the question at hand.

How exlusive? 99.9% 99.95%? 99.99%?
If you set it too high, having red hair could cost you your humanity. Set it too low, and we can expect a chimp as a president soon. (please, no Bush jokes)

Just set it exactly right.


That or our greed.

Animals can be greedy. Just look at hamsters (again).

You are right. I should have said "the extend of our greed". Which no other animal has equaled yet, not even the greedy hamster.



Or our apparent inability to learn from past mistakes.

My hamster constantly rubs against his water bottle, and wonders why he gets wet.

Interesting. You must be the only man on earth who knows what a hamster is wondering about...

Wow thats more pages than I initially thought I was in for. I'm just going to risk repitition-

the ability to form abstraction.

unless we can understand what other creatures are doing we don't really know if they do this or not, but it seems a good start.

Is a neonate able to form abstractions? If not, then they are not human...
thats a little too selective. It contains the potential for abstraction as a member of the species. its not not a pre-qualifier-your not human until you abstract. If you are going to that then the qualifier is that all important 2% (the difference between chimp and human DNA). The question is what inherent ability humans have that is distinct from other species. The ability to form abstractions as a species seems reasonable, that does not by any stretch mean someone is not human until they are able to abstract, nor does it mean that a human who is unable to form abstractions isn't human. (though I don't know of an instance of someone not being able to do that, as it is requisite for a complex language.)

actually, neonates do NOT contain the ability for abstraction; they don't have the brain regions for that. a human child cannot form many types of abstract thought until 5 or 6 years of age, or even later, while a chimp can do so at 18 months.

One difference between humans and other animals is their 'ability' to kill themselves.

... animals will not, so far as we know, directly attempt to end their own lives, even if hopelessly sick...

A quick spin on Google shows that nothing is cut-and-dried here:

http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/database/soc/behavioural/s00204d.html

"Can animals commit suicide?

This is a very difficult question to answer. It has been suggested that dolphins in captivity have done it; one has battered itself to death and soon after its companion did the same."

Did they batter themselves with the intention of ending their lives, or did they do so in an attempt to escape?

yeah, that's not clear from the study. true, the matter isn't completely covered by any data, but i think so far there is not sufficient evidence to conclude than any non-human species intentionally kills itself. but that's a very interesting study, and it's true that nothing is cut-and-dried.

simple
humans addapted their environment.
animals didnt.


Ergo, termites and coral are human.

What makes us human?

I think it has to do with the fact that we feel. We feel so strongly, so passionately, that we do things we shouldn't do for survival's sake.

That's what being human is about; being able to make a mistake because emotion drives us to it.

What makes us human?

I think it has to do with the fact that we feel. We feel so strongly, so passionately, that we do things we shouldn't do for survival's sake.

That's what being human is about; being able to make a mistake because emotion drives us to it.

Therefore, when my cat gets over-excited chasing flies and falls off the table, she is human?

Ok, a more developed cerebral cortex.

Ok, a more developed cerebral cortex.

More developed than what?

The level of development in itself surely wouldn't be sufficient - we see examples of parallel evolution taking place in nature, witness the similarities between the human eye and that of an octopus, and so this definition would fail ifsome other animal were to develop a cerebral cortex of equivalent complexity to the human one.

If we gave chimpanzees (picking an animal at random) a couple of tens of million years, and they evolved such a highly developed cortex, would they then be human?

Scientists have done heaps of tests and it has been proved time after time that we are superior than other animals. we have better methods of communicating and also socializing. we don't fight over land or over each other's houses. so i think i tried my best. i hope you understand.

we don't fight over land or over each other's houses.

Exactly which planet are you posting from?
It sure doesn't sound like C21st Earth to me.

The genetic code as it pertains exclusively to humans is the only fool-proof answer to the question at hand.

How exlusive? 99.9% 99.95%? 99.99%?
If you set it too high, having red hair could cost you your humanity. Set it too low, and we can expect a chimp as a president soon. (please, no Bush jokes)

Just set it exactly right.

How exactly?

Or our apparent inability to learn from past mistakes.

My hamster constantly rubs against his water bottle, and wonders why he gets wet.

Interesting. You must be the only man on earth who knows what a hamster is wondering about...

I'm the only man on earth with the ability to observe a hamster's behavior, compare it to previous behavior and make connections between them in my head, in posession of even the basest form of empathy and animal knowledge?

Simple answer:DNA

animals have DNA how would they reproduce



(sorry if this has already been answered

Simple answer:DNA

animals have DNA how would they reproduce



(sorry if this has already been answered

He probably means human DNA, which means that, if the standards are set too high, as our friend 1248B suggests, a certain percentage of people would not be classed as humans.

Our complex emotions and thoughts make us humans.

Simple answer:DNA

animals have DNA how would they reproduce



(sorry if this has already been answered

He probably means human DNA, which means that, if the standards are set too high, as our friend 1248B suggests, a certain percentage of people would not be classed as humans.


hahaha

Our complex emotions and thoughts make us humans.

So mentally retarded people are not human?

Our complex emotions and thoughts make us humans.

So mentally retarded people are not human?

Yes, they still have our range of emotions and thoughts, they just aren't capable of utilising them.

And some people would argue that mentally defective people are not human...

while i have no credentialed experties qualifying me to do so i have given this question considerable thought over a span of several decades. many speculative fiction stories have been written on this theame as well. building tools and making fire is by no means foolproof. that we create music, poetry, and paintings is somewhat more reliable.

while there are many potential differentiations between ourselves and our presumably less sentient neighbors, trying to isolate anything both objectively externaly observable and unique to our species, really the only thing i've been able to come up with is the drive to express ourselves creatively. ok that may be difficult to observe externaly other then anicdotaly but it is as close as anything totaly unique on our world to our own species as i've been unable to eliminate or disqualify.

even claims involving souls, spirits and 'afterlives' are highly subjective and largely speculative. that the 'ghosts' of other creatures have been observed and experienced by at least some the same sorts of people who have been able to do so with human ones, would also seem to call any such as claim to any sort of absolute uniqueness of having them into question.

it may be possible, even likely that the ghosts, souls, spirits of nonhuman higher mammels and perhaps other creatures might be smaller and simpler, perhaps significantly so, then our own. but here one enters vertualy undiniably into an area clearly of unverifyable speculation.

and if as the question as i understand it asks for something, more solid then the speculations of beliefs, whether common and shaired or otherwise, then there is really, as i say, as far as i've been able to descern and surmise, only the desire to express ourselves creatively.

now i'm saying desire rather then capacity because there is plenty of evidence that the capacity does exist at the very least among the higher primates and perhapse among other intelligent and complex mammels, and possibly reptiles and amphibians, though i have some serious doubts about claims to have observed it in birds.

and agian i'm talking hear about creative synthasis and not mere using of found objects as tools, which seems to be as close to anything resembling this displayed by other species under natural conditions.

=^^=
.../\...

Our complex emotions and thoughts make us humans.

So mentally retarded people are not human?

Yes, they still have our range of emotions and thoughts, they just aren't capable of utilising them.

How do you know they have them, if they are unable to use them?

And some people would argue that mentally defective people are not human...

Which is why it's important to watch out when you simply say "our dna is what makes us human".

How do you know they have them, if they are unable to use them?


Science, my friend.

How do you know they have them, if they are unable to use them?


Science, my friend.

That isn't much of an answer is it?

The genetic code as it pertains exclusively to humans is the only fool-proof answer to the question at hand.

How exlusive? 99.9% 99.95%? 99.99%?
If you set it too high, having red hair could cost you your humanity. Set it too low, and we can expect a chimp as a president soon. (please, no Bush jokes)

Just set it exactly right.

How exactly?

I never said I knew how.



Or our apparent inability to learn from past mistakes.

My hamster constantly rubs against his water bottle, and wonders why he gets wet.

Interesting. You must be the only man on earth who knows what a hamster is wondering about...

I'm the only man on earth with the ability to observe a hamster's behavior, compare it to previous behavior and make connections between them in my head, in posession of even the basest form of empathy and animal knowledge?

So basically you are saying that your belief in the correctness of your conclusions regarding what your hamster is wondering about is based on the assumption that your interpretation of its behavioural patterns is correct. As such your conclusions are clearly open to debate.

Simple answer:DNA

animals have DNA how would they reproduce



(sorry if this has already been answered

He probably means human DNA, which means that, if the standards are set too high, as our friend 1248B suggests, a certain percentage of people would not be classed as humans.

Luckily, for me, I never said anything about "setting it too high". :roll:

If this has been answered before...

it is simply our higher IQ. :lol: You cant deny that a buffalo has a lower IQ then a human.

And, the wonderful thumb. If humans had no thumb, we would not be able to build basic tools....or it might just take a long time.
You dont see cats building tools, do you? :wink:

If this has been answered before...

it is simply our higher IQ. :lol:

Does that mean that those with a higher IQ are more human than those with a low IQ?


You cant deny that a buffalo has a lower IQ then a human.

Cultural bias.

You do relaise that IQ is a method to determine variations from a mean value within a given population, don't you? It is not an absolute scalar value, and as such is useless here.

And, the wonderful thumb. If humans had no thumb, we would not be able to build basic tools....or it might just take a long time.
You dont see cats building tools, do you? :wink:

Chimpanzees do, is that sufficient to make them human?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Simple answer:DNA

animals have DNA how would they reproduce



(sorry if this has already been answered

He probably means human DNA, which means that, if the standards are set too high, as our friend 1248B suggests, a certain percentage of people would not be classed as humans.

Luckily, for me, I never said anything about "setting it too high". :roll:

Not to mention the fact I wasn't talking about you. :P

The genetic code as it pertains exclusively to humans is the only fool-proof answer to the question at hand.

How exlusive? 99.9% 99.95%? 99.99%?
If you set it too high, having red hair could cost you your humanity. Set it too low, and we can expect a chimp as a president soon. (please, no Bush jokes)

Just set it exactly right.

How exactly?

I never said I knew how.

Then, with all respect, how are you using it as an argument?
How can you first put it forward as 'the only fool-proof answer to the question at hand', and then utterly fail to defend it?



Or our apparent inability to learn from past mistakes.

My hamster constantly rubs against his water bottle, and wonders why he gets wet.

Interesting. You must be the only man on earth who knows what a hamster is wondering about...

I'm the only man on earth with the ability to observe a hamster's behavior, compare it to previous behavior and make connections between them in my head, in posession of even the basest form of empathy and animal knowledge?

So basically you are saying that your belief in the correctness of your conclusions regarding what your hamster is wondering about is based on the assumption that your interpretation of its behavioural patterns is correct. As such your conclusions are clearly open to debate.

Debate them then.
Regardless, the mention of my hamster was merely an example of how a non-human could not learn from it's mistakes. It was never meant to be a ground-breaking scientific Nobel-price winning essay on hamster psychology. :wink:

What makes us human? I think one reason is that we are the only species to study our own brain.

I don't. Am I not human?

I suppose this ties in with a lot of the other stuff about conscious thought but maybe objective thought defines us. Something that has no relationship to us in our current time but we can still imagine it and work out the possible constructs of such a situation. I'm not sure if anyone can actually test this kind of behaviour in any other animals other than us though.

Is there actually any evidence that babies are conscious or do they only act on instinct? Obviously they learn but I'm not sure how they would think without language as a construct in their heads.

What makes us human? Simple, it is our ability to tell stories. Stories about what it would be like to live on the moon, about jack and jill, anything. These stories make us question the world. Seeing is disbelieving

Using utencils is the only thing that separates us from the animals...unless you're at the zoo, then it's the cages. :D

Using utencils is the only thing that separates us from the animals...

Not again.

Do some research on monkeys and non-human great apes and their tool use. Homo Spaiens is not the only manufacturer or user of tools.

What makes us human? Simple, it is our ability to tell stories. Stories about what it would be like to live on the moon, about jack and jill, anything. These stories make us question the world. Seeing is disbelieving

Interesting, but problematic for at least two reasons: (1) we don't know that non-human animals don't tell stories, and (2) does this mean that if someone lived all their life without telling stories, then they wouldn't be human?

i dont know what makes us human (genetics) but i know one when i see one

The thing that makes us human is having DNA within a certain defined tolerance. I don't know off hand what that tolerance is, but it is set so that species borders are clear. I know that one of the requirements for being considered part of a species is the ability to have fertile offspring, so that could be used as a measure for humans.

If the question is really, what sets us apart from other animals, the answer is nothing except that we happen to be the "smartest" in terms of tool making and manipulating our environment. Instead of adapting to our environment we adapt our environment to ourselves, thus physical evolution ends and technological, external evolution begins.

Using utencils is the only thing that separates us from the animals...

Not again.

Do some research on monkeys and non-human great apes and their tool use. Homo Spaiens is not the only manufacturer or user of tools.

I was just making a joke. Jeez...way to ruin it. :roll:

Well, animals don't post on computers.

sfdeafdfsa

That's my dog's opinion. My gerbil is much smarter.

There have been many theories of what separates humans from other animal life, but none so far has been completely effective. At one time it was believed that the ability to recognize oneself in a mirror indicated self-awareness, but now we know that human infants cannot do that while many apes and dolphins can. Some said that language or tool usage were the determining factors, but again we have found animals that have both.

So what makes a human a human? How do we distinguish our consciousness from any other sort? Will there ever be a definition that all people can accept?

The abilility to have sex for enjoyment. Only us and dolphins enjoy sex. For all other species it's just instinct. No enjoyment at all.

The abilility to have sex for enjoyment. Only us and dolphins enjoy sex. For all other species it's just instinct. No enjoyment at all.

oh theres plenty of enjoyment, just no need to talk about it afterwards

What makes us human? Simple, it is our ability to tell stories. Stories about what it would be like to live on the moon, about jack and jill, anything. These stories make us question the world. Seeing is disbelieving

Interesting, but problematic for at least two reasons: (1) we don't know that non-human animals don't tell stories, and (2) does this mean that if someone lived all their life without telling stories, then they wouldn't be human?

this is basicly the only one i haven't seen scientificly eliminated in some way. for this reason i do not question the humanity of the intellectualy challanged but i do question that of even the most brilliant who suppress their and each other's immaginations and are creatively disinclined.

and i don't know how unusual or otherwise this is but i DID dream BEFORE i was physicaly born. i even remember being cramped up inside my mom and being impatient with that.

and my dreams inside my mother's womb were of having lived life as an adult on a tangable material world that was not this one, as an adult among adults who did not look anything like we do here.

i know that memories can be altered and messed with to. but i've been remembering and renewing remembering this as long as i've been living and breathing on this world.

=^^=
.../\...

If this has been answered before...

it is simply our higher IQ. :lol:

Does that mean that those with a higher IQ are more human than those with a low IQ?

No, since no animal can score even a 0 on a standard IQ test.

You cant deny that a buffalo has a lower IQ then a human.

Cultural bias.

Cultural bollocks. Are you claiming a buffalo has a comparable IQ to a human?

And, the wonderful thumb. If humans had no thumb, we would not be able to build basic tools....or it might just take a long time.
You dont see cats building tools, do you? :wink:

Chimpanzees do, is that sufficient to make them human?

What tools do Chimpanzees build then?

The abilility to have sex for enjoyment. Only us and dolphins enjoy sex. For all other species it's just instinct. No enjoyment at all.

Many other species enjoy sexual activity. In fact, some species employ it for more diverse purposes than do humans (e.g. bonobo chimpanzees).

What makes us human? Simple, it is our ability to tell stories. Stories about what it would be like to live on the moon, about jack and jill, anything. These stories make us question the world. Seeing is disbelieving

Interesting, but problematic for at least two reasons: (1) we don't know that non-human animals don't tell stories, and (2) does this mean that if someone lived all their life without telling stories, then they wouldn't be human?

A fair point, it has been proven that chimps can tell stories about the future. For example: 'if i pretend not to have seen this banana i can come back and get it later when that big male wont steal it from me'

This sort of storytelling is inherent to human society, but this argument leaves the door open for someone to say that a person who had no interaction with other humans, a deaf-blind child for example, then they wouldnt be human. This is something i find quite worrying

Foresight

Now ya’ll might not think that’s the answer but it is.

Ah: so those furry critters with the bushy tails that gather nuts for the winter are human then?

Don’t be ridicules. :roll:
Those furry critters with the bushy tails that gather nuts for the winter are acting under instinct.

I am referring to ones ability to predict an likely outcome in the future through attention to detail. This foresight of ours has allowed us to build buildings, domesticate dogs and even breed specific traits in dogs.

It's every man's duty to look after his own nuts.

There have been many theories of what separates humans from other animal life, but none so far has been completely effective. At one time it was believed that the ability to recognize oneself in a mirror indicated self-awareness, but now we know that human infants cannot do that while many apes and dolphins can. Some said that language or tool usage were the determining factors, but again we have found animals that have both.

So what makes a human a human? How do we distinguish our consciousness from any other sort? Will there ever be a definition that all people can accept?

What makes a human a human? the genes, as in post #2. Also, seeing as we have developed a far keener sense of the vocal and tool spectrums, we can be defined as somewhat superior to our other cousins, out in the wild. However, at certain times we are also degraded to such a level and put in frenzy, so really the only difference is how we have adapted to our world, meaning how we have become the dominant technological race on earth and will be until the dolphins rise from the sea and kill us all. :P