NationStates Jolt Archive

That's the question, what IS it about us that make us human (And while I can HEAR the usual crowd galloping madly to be the first to post something about our genetic or physical makeup, I'm pre-emptively yanking that joke so there! :p)? What is the spark, if you will, that makes us more than other animals we share the planet (And possibly the rest of the universe) with? Is it our intelligence? Creativity? (Somewhat limited) empathy? Something else? What?

For me, I'd say it has to be our imagination. As far as we can tell right now, we humans are not the only ones to have intelligence (Nice, but not unique) and problem solving skills, but we are the only ones that can imagine things that can never and will never happen and work out solutions from there. We can not only build castles in the air, we can come up with the blueprints for them, run the castle, and use anything learned from that day dream in running more traditional earthbound ones, or set about actually building them. I think that a lot of what makes us human is that ability to dream dreams and that ability also makes a lot of other human traits possible.

So what's your take on it?

[We are not "more" than other creatures. We are different, but also very similar to other animals.

We are not the only self-conscious creatures. Dolphins and apes for example pass the mirror test easily.

Our memory is also not "better" than some animals' memory. Monkeys have a great memory for when which trees in the forest bare fruit.

Which definition of intelligence do you use? Intelligence is context dependent. Animals (and plants too!) can have great intelligence for their way of life, even when they are not conscious thinkers.

Imagination is not a bad idea, but how would you test the imagination of an animal? I am agnostic on this point.

It's the human capacity for self-delusion that makes us different and 'supremely better' than other life forms. The statement that nothing else has an imagination is nothing but a baseless assumption as we are unable to fully communicate with other terrestial animals.

Honestly, I think the whole view springs from nothing more than empty self-justification. People have to think they're better than a cow to be able to kill and eat it. I say that all you have to be is HUNGRY. That's what humans do. No more, no less.

It's the human capacity for self-delusion that makes us different and 'supremely better' than other life forms. The statement that nothing else has an imagination is nothing but a baseless assumption as we are unable to fully communicate with other terrestial animals.

Honestly, I think the whole view springs from nothing more than empty self-justification. People have to think they're better than a cow to be able to kill and eat it. I say that all you have to be is HUNGRY. That's what humans do. No more, no less.

I think the 'self delusion' is a very valid point. As far as we know, we are the only animal that has to invent a god.
:)

It's the human capacity for self-delusion that makes us different and 'supremely better' than other life forms. The statement that nothing else has an imagination is nothing but a baseless assumption as we are unable to fully communicate with other terrestial animals.
True, but on the other hand, we have yet to see the kinds of complex behavor that humans do as a matter of course in other animals, nor have we seen the kind of complex soceities that humans build with the *ahem* Wisdom of the Ages (TM) that gets passed down in a complex system called education where symbols are subsituted for actual things, and then subsitued for things that never were or will never be.

Honestly, I think the whole view springs from nothing more than empty self-justification. People have to think they're better than a cow to be able to kill and eat it. I say that all you have to be is HUNGRY. That's what humans do. No more, no less.
Pretty sure there's more to humanity than we're hungry. I mean, you compleately left out sex! :D

The fact that we're the ultimate apex predator.

That's the question, what IS it about us that make us human?

Tacos, whisky and asparin.

The fact that we're the ultimate apex predator.
But how did we get there given our very large physical disavantages? I mean, an unarmed human makes pretty easy prey for just about anything.

I think the 'self delusion' is a very valid point. As far as we know, we are the only animal that has to invent a god.
:)

Nah. I had a dog once. He thought I was god. Pretty sure he was wrong about that. :)

But how did we get there given our very large physical disavantages? I mean, an unarmed human makes pretty easy prey for just about anything.

By evolving intellectual adaptations to compensate for physical failings. Other creatures that do not physically lack what they need to survive have little incentive to evolve down the branch we have.

But how did we get there given our very large physical disavantages? I mean, an unarmed human makes pretty easy prey for just about anything.

Intelligence. People talk about other primates and dolphins being smart, but they still have predators; humans can quite comfortably kill any other animal species.

By evolving intellectual adaptations to compensate for physical failings. Other creatures that do not physically lack what they need to survive have little incentive to evolve down the branch we have.
Still think you're on rather shakey ground though. Other creatures have evolved intelligence, chimps being a very good example of one that also goes to war, uses tools, and so on. But a chimp (President Bush excepted of course) does not meet the standard that most people would define as humanity. Why?

Intelligence. People talk about other primates and dolphins being smart, but they still have predators; humans can quite comfortably kill any other animal species.
Er... 1, besides humans, what predators do chimps actually have? 2, we can only seem to comfortably kill with application of tools, does that not presuppose imagination to design such tools, or bend to use tools ment for other puroposes to kill?

Tacos, whisky and asparin.

You forgot beer and porn.

You forgot beer and porn.
Naw, that's not all that special. I've seen birds get roaring drunk off of fermented berries and even pandas have porn now too. ;)

Chimpanzees have been seen using branches as weapons. They do have imagination too. When confronted with some boxes and an banana on the ceiling they can imagine the solution for their problem before making an attempt.

Forget about the predator thing. We are still predated upon, though most of us don't have to fear predation. Only lonely people in remote areas and people who get too close to cages in zoos have to beware of tigers and crocodiles.
If we are so smart, then why are we destroying our own habitat as if there is no tomorrow?

Maybe our arrogance makes us human.

Chimpanzees have been seen using branches as weapons. They do have imagination too. When confronted with some boxes and an banana on the ceiling they can imagine the solution for their problem before making an attempt.
I submit that there is a difference between problem solving as in how to get that banana that you obviously see (or have seen) and imagination that can dream of things that can never, ever be.

That's the question, what IS it about us that make us human (And while I can HEAR the usual crowd galloping madly to be the first to post something about our genetic or physical makeup, I'm pre-emptively yanking that joke so there! :p)? What is the spark, if you will, that makes us more than other animals we share the planet (And possibly the rest of the universe) with? Is it our intelligence? Creativity? (Somewhat limited) empathy? Something else? What?

We're not more than other animals, maybe different, with more capabilities, but not more.

For me, I'd say it has to be our imagination. As far as we can tell right now, we humans are not the only ones to have intelligence (Nice, but not unique) and problem solving skills, but we are the only ones that can imagine things that can never and will never happen and work out solutions from there. We can not only build castles in the air, we can come up with the blueprints for them, run the castle, and use anything learned from that day dream in running more traditional earthbound ones, or set about actually building them. I think that a lot of what makes us human is that ability to dream dreams and that ability also makes a lot of other human traits possible.

Why do you think we're the only animals with imagination? My dog can certainly dream, if she can do it at night, why can't she do it during the day?

So what's your take on it?

we're the only animal arrogant enough to pose that question? :p

I guess the only thing that sets us apart is our very complex language which seems to be partially 'hardwired'. Although chimpanzees can use sign-language with 2000 words, and some other animals could be using complex languages too. I guess we just don't know enough about other animals to know for sure what set's us apart.

I think the 'self delusion' is a very valid point. As far as we know, we are the only animal that has to invent a god.
:)

Yet we've done so persistently and repeatedly since time immemorial - certainly long before anyone came up with the idea of condescending cynicism.

So how do we know that the invention of gods - or at least the propensity to religion - isn't a perfectly natural drive for humanity, collectively speaking? And, moreover, how do we know the tendency won't develop, or hasn't already developed, in other animals as well?

We're not more than other animals, maybe different, with more capabilities, but not more.
We've managed to dominate the planet like no other creature, removing ourselves from our original habbitat with ease, change our diet and behavor at the drop of a hate, and have boldly gone where life cannot exist without dying pretty damn rappidly. I'd say that's somewhat special.

Why do you think we're the only animals with imagination? My dog can certainly dream, if she can do it at night, why can't she do it during the day?
Haven't seen evidence of actual artisitic or purely symbolic behavor in other creatures. Yes, I've seen my dogs (When I had them dream), but they seemingly dream of what they know, they don't seem to dream of what they could not phsysically know.

I guess the only thing that sets us apart is our very complex language which seems to be partially 'hardwired'. Although chimpanzees can use sign-language with 2000 words, and some other animals could be using complex languages too. I guess we just don't know enough about other animals to know for sure what set's us apart.
Language then? But, as you say, it might be that other animals use it as well, or is it our creative use that sets us apart?

That's the question, what IS it about us that make us human (And while I can HEAR the usual crowd galloping madly to be the first to post something about our genetic or physical makeup, I'm pre-emptively yanking that joke so there! :p)? What is the spark, if you will, that makes us more than other animals we share the planet (And possibly the rest of the universe) with? Is it our intelligence? Creativity? (Somewhat limited) empathy? Something else? What?

A lot of factors are proposed. We're more intelligent, supposedly - but, as with all IQ tests, what you're measuring is a fairly subjective value:

For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much -- the wheel, New York, wars and so on -- whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man -- for precisely the same reasons.

Sci-fi, yes - but the point is made. We measure 'intelligence' based on our own established (and subjective) set of behavioural ideals. So we can't realistically use 'intelligence' as a way to set ourselves apart from other animals.

What about problem solving? Others have already pointed out that many animals demonstrate problem-solving abilities - so unless we're willing to narrow the parameters even further, and say "the ability to solve problems this complex", we can't use that either.

We can't use our social tendency: lots of animals socialise, and have complex social structures. So it's not that.

Is it our capacity for intellectual reason? For morality and ethics? No. Again, many different animals, especially the social ones, live by moral codes; albeit perhaps expressed in less flowery terms than ours: this you can do; that you can't do; and this is what happens to you if you do that anyway. They understand, and live by, those rules.

Some have argued that humanity is defined by its ability to change its environment to suit itself, whereas animals have to change to suit their environment. Again, this comes down to a matter of scale. Yes, we can make colossal changes - but it's not always under our control, it's not always to our benefit; and of course, there are animals that change their environment as well - for example, a beaver building a dam.

It's not even our ability to communicate, since that's shared by a large part of the animal world. Perhaps their communication is not as sophisticated as ours - but that in itself is only an assumption. Dolphins and whales are accepted as having a tremendously rich range of calls - and in species evolved perfectly to an underwater environment, there's no telling what additional use they might make of water density, temperature, salinity, and so on, for modulating their calls. So that's not it, either.

The only other suggestion I've heard is the notion that a human is the only animal that knows it's going to die. But that's precarious, too: is a tiny child (or a teenager or a motorcyclist) therefore not human? Or does this theory mean that the human at some point during its life realises it's going to die? In which case, we have to ask why animals - ourselves included - have evolved the ability to fear.

Personally, I don't think there is an answer to this question except the one you ruled out at the beginning: we're human only because we are members of this particular species, and 'human' is the name, the word, the noise, that this species uses to refer to itself.

Er... 1, besides humans, what predators do chimps actually have? 2, we can only seem to comfortably kill with application of tools, does that not presuppose imagination to design such tools, or bend to use tools ment for other puroposes to kill?

Chimps are only safe because they're fast and agile; a tiger could easily kill a chimp. Whereas a human, in an arena with a suitable weapon and any animal, could win comfortably.

Chimps are only safe because they're fast and agile; a tiger could easily kill a chimp. Whereas a human, in an arena with a suitable weapon and any animal, could win comfortably.
A tiger can easily take a human too, sometimes even with a weapon.

We can not only build castles in the air, we can come up with the blueprints for them, run the castle, and use anything learned from that day dream in running more traditional earthbound ones, or set about actually building them. I think that a lot of what makes us human is that ability to dream dreams and that ability also makes a lot of other human traits possible.


Apart for the "more than other animals" ... which of course I understand that is an attempt at defining humans as -let's say- more successful than other animals, I'd say that the part of the OP that I have bolded is the key.
That is, technology, expecially prosthetics. Prosthetics not in the mere meaning of artificial replacements for missing or malfunctioning body parts, but in the more general meaning.
We cannot fly: an airplane is a technological replacement (a prosthesis?) which enables us to fly. We cannot survive naked in the cold: clothing is a prosthesis substituting other animals' natural hides and furs. We cannot send our thoughts through space and time directly: writing is how we manage to do it (think about the "magical" value of the written word). We cannot fight some pathogenic agents, so we created an artificial way of improving our immunitary system. Etc etc...

A tiger can easily take a human too, sometimes even with a weapon.

I did say ANY weapon. I'd like to see a tiger take on a cruise missile. Or a M-16, that'd do alright too.

Chimpanzees have been seen using branches as weapons. They do have imagination too.

Gorillas also.
Devising and using tools (that is, prosthetics) isn't just about imagination, is about putting imagination and perception together.
Yes, we aren't the only technologically-apt species on this planet. Give them apes a million years and they'll begin using the fire. They're on the same road we already travelled. We're all primates after all, aren't we?

I did say ANY weapon. I'd like to see a tiger take on a cruise missile. Or a M-16, that'd do alright too.
I'd like to see you aim a cruise missile at an incoming tiger. :D

Apart for the "more than other animals" ... which of course I understand that is an attempt at defining humans as -let's say- more successful than other animals, I'd say that the part of the OP that I have bolded is the key.
That is, technology, expecially prosthetics. Prosthetics not in the mere meaning of artificial replacements for missing or malfunctioning body parts, but in the more general meaning.
We cannot fly: an airplane is a technological replacement (a prosthesis?) which enables us to fly. We cannot survive naked in the cold: clothing is a prosthesis substituting other animals' natural hides and furs. We cannot send our thoughts through space and time directly: writing is how we manage to do it (think about the "magical" value of the written word). We cannot fight some pathogenic agents, so we created an artificial way of improving our immunitary system. Etc etc...
Ok... but what gives us that ability? Imagination.

We have a unique tool of survival, namely our brain, which is capable of rational thought. Perhaps even more strangely, precisely because we are capable of that we are also the only animal that routinely chooses not to use it. A big cat doesn't choose not to use its teeth or claws, but humans choose not to think, or to put emotion, faith or whatever over thought all the time.

In a way, we can choose life, animals cannot.

We have a unique tool of survival, namely our brain, which is capable of rational thought. Perhaps even more strangely, precisely because we are capable of that we are also the only animal that routinely chooses not to use it. A big cat doesn't choose not to use its teeth or claws, but humans choose not to think, or to put emotion, faith or whatever over thought all the time.

In a way, we can choose life, animals cannot.
Interesting, please go on.

i'd say corruption makes us human.
i've yet to see a chimp become a nasty dictator and misappropriate large amounts of fruit into his own personal store place.
there isnt any animal i know of that abuses its power of authority over others of its kind like us humans do.

I believe a good definition would be the Bene Gesserit one.
The ability to act against our instinct.

About chimps:

Chimps are known to use branches as spears and clubs when warring another tribe.

Chimps are known to make total war with other tribes with the winning one pursuing the other one until it is totally destroyed.

Chimps are known to eat the corpses of their fallen enemyes after a battle. They do not engage in cannibalism otherwise. A ritual?

Chimps are known to display good strategical and tactical behaviour before (arming themselves, disposition), during (communication between themselves, precise roles) and after such battles (pursuit of the fleeing enemy performed only by part of the tribe).

My point? There's at least another species almost good at warring as we are, and warring requires communication skills, learned abilityes and imagination.

Common Chimpanzees have an omnivorous diet, a troop hunting culture based on beta males led by an alpha male, and highly complex social relationships.

Intelligence
Chimpanzees make tools and use them to acquire foods and for social displays; they have sophisticated hunting strategies requiring cooperation, influence and rank; they are status conscious, manipulative and capable of deception; they can learn to use symbols and understand aspects of human language including some relational syntax, concepts of number and numerical sequence. [16] Young chimpanzees have outperformed human college students in tasks requiring remembering numbers.[17]

[edit] Tool use
Modern chimpanzees use tools, and recent research indicates that chimpanzee stone tool use dates to at least 4300 years ago.[18] A recent study revealed the use of such advanced tools as spears, which Common Chimpanzees in Senegal sharpen with their teeth, being used to spear Senegal Bushbabies out of small holes in trees.[19][20] Prior to the discovery of tool use in chimps, it was believed that humans were the only species to make and use tools, but several other tool-using species are now known.[21][22]

[edit] Altruism
Recent studies have shown that chimpanzees engage in apparently altruistic behaviour.[23][24]

[edit] Studies of language
Main article: Great ape language

Side profile of a ChimpanzeeScientists have long been fascinated with the studies of language, as it was potentially the most uniquely human cognitive ability. To test the hypothesis of the human-uniqueness of language, scientists have attempted to teach several species of great apes language. One early attempt was performed by Allen and Beatrice Gardner in the 1960s, in which they spent 51 months attempting to teach a chimpanzee, named Washoe, American Sign Language. Washoe reportedly learned 151 signs in those 51 months.[25] Over a longer period of time, Washoe reportedly learned over 800 signs.[26] Numerous other studies including one involving a chimpanzee named Nim Chimpsky have been conducted since with varying levels of success. There is ongoing debate among some scientists, notably Noam Chomsky and David Premack, about the great apes' ability to learn language.

[edit] Laughter in non-human apes
Laughter might not be confined or unique to humans, despite Aristotle's observation that "only the human animal laughs". The differences between chimpanzee and human laughter may be the result of adaptations that have evolved to enable human speech. Self-awareness of one's situation such as the monkey-mirror experiments below, or the ability to identify with another's predicament (see mirror neurons), are prerequisites for laughter, so animals may be laughing in the same way that we do.

Chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans show laughter-like vocalizations in response to physical contact, such as wrestling, play chasing, or tickling. This is documented in wild and captive chimpanzees. Chimpanzee laughter is not readily recognizable to humans as such, because it is generated by alternating inhalations and exhalations that sound more like breathing and panting. There are instances in which non-human primates have been reported to have expressed joy. One study analysed and recorded sounds made by human babies and bonobos (also known as pygmy chimpanzees) when tickled. It found, that although the bonobo’s laugh was a higher frequency, the laugh followed a pattern similar to that of human babies and included similar facial expressions. Humans and chimpanzees share similar ticklish areas of the body, such as the armpits and belly. The enjoyment of tickling in chimpanzees does not diminish with age. [27]

That's the question, what IS it about us that make us human (And while I can HEAR the usual crowd galloping madly to be the first to post something about our genetic or physical makeup, I'm pre-emptively yanking that joke so there! :p)? What is the spark, if you will, that makes us more than other animals we share the planet (And possibly the rest of the universe) with? Is it our intelligence? Creativity? (Somewhat limited) empathy? Something else? What?

For me, I'd say it has to be our imagination. As far as we can tell right now, we humans are not the only ones to have intelligence (Nice, but not unique) and problem solving skills, but we are the only ones that can imagine things that can never and will never happen and work out solutions from there. We can not only build castles in the air, we can come up with the blueprints for them, run the castle, and use anything learned from that day dream in running more traditional earthbound ones, or set about actually building them. I think that a lot of what makes us human is that ability to dream dreams and that ability also makes a lot of other human traits possible.

So what's your take on it?

Stories.
I once read about an anthropologist who said that the latin term for "human" shouldn't be "homo sapiens sapiens", since it doesn't describe us too well. It ought to be "pans narrans", the story-telling chimp.

To make it sound more professional, our ability to communicate in depth and about abstract concepts, as well as repeating stories through generations would be rather uniquely human.

Interesting, please go on.
It's an objectivist argument, but if you don't tell people upfront you usually get much better responses. ;)

Basically any living organism has a certain role it must perform in a certain way if it is to stay alive. Animals, since their tools needed to perform this role are generally physical in nature and they aren't capable of the sort of abstract thought that would make them realise it, can't choose not to perform this role. I'm not sure whether some very smart animals ever voluntarily chose suicide, but I doubt it.

But as a general rule lions don't stop hunting, chameleons don't stop changing colour and so on.

Humans must perform a slightly different and somewhat more complex role: they have to realise the difference between the world they're faced with and their own values and then change the world to make it conform with their values. The greater the extent to which they can do it, the more successful they are as humans.

The way they do it is by perceiving complex and abstract causal relationships and then putting that knowledge into practice. Even something as simple as building a hut is an incredibly complex process of cause and effect. You mentioned imagination...that's a part of it, but it alone wouldn't allow us to build a hut if we didn't realise what it took to actually make one.

But there is another part to the story. The funny thing about our brains is that they are tools, but to perform this function they also need to be smart enough to allow us the ability to not use them. The same brain that can tell me how to build a hut can also tell me what might have been if I hadn't built it and even what would have happened if someone else had built it for me. Being presented with these alternative scenarios, we have a choice. Choose the wrong one consistently in a natural environment, and you die in a way that no animal could have died. I'll stop here, lest it develops into a discussion of a whole different kind, but you can see what the implication is in an "unnatural" environment.

So according to objectivism every person has the ability to be a heroic being. It involves the realisation that one's values are worth it, that one has the ability to do it, that you only have your own brain to rely on and tell you what is going on and what needs to be done and therefore that no one has the right or indeed capability to stop you.

I believe a good definition would be the Bene Gesserit one.
The ability to act against our instinct.

About chimps:

Chimps are known to use branches as spears and clubs when warring another tribe.

Chimps are known to make total war with other tribes with the winning one pursuing the other one until it is totally destroyed.

Chimps are known to eat the corpses of their fallen enemyes after a battle. They do not engage in cannibalism otherwise. A ritual?

Chimps are known to display good strategical and tactical behaviour before (arming themselves, disposition), during (communication between themselves, precise roles) and after such battles (pursuit of the fleeing enemy performed only by part of the tribe).

My point? There's at least another species almost good at warring as we are, and warring requires communication skills, learned abilityes and imagination.
I'd argue though that isn't imagination as humans can. Planning for war is still a concrete problem, you can see the enemy, the roles are defined, that isn't the same as symbolic thought about non-concrete things.

Stories.
I once read about an anthropologist who said that the latin term for "human" shouldn't be "homo sapiens sapiens", since it doesn't describe us too well. It ought to be "pans narrans", the story-telling chimp.

To make it sound more professional, our ability to communicate in depth and about abstract concepts, as well as repeating stories through generations would be rather uniquely human.
Pans narrans? *Heh* This anthopologist wouldn't happen to be Terry Pratchett and the book Science of Discworld II: The Globe would it? ;)

Pans narrans? *Heh* This anthopologist wouldn't happen to be Terry Pratchett and the book Science of Discworld II: The Globe would it? ;)

I honestly can't remember. I read bits of the Science of Discworld II, so it's possible I picked it up there. Keep in mind, Terry Pratchett is only the co-author of those books, the scientific bits are written by scientists ;)

We have a unique tool of survival, namely our brain, which is capable of rational thought. Perhaps even more strangely, precisely because we are capable of that we are also the only animal that routinely chooses not to use it. A big cat doesn't choose not to use its teeth or claws, but humans choose not to think, or to put emotion, faith or whatever over thought all the time.

In a way, we can choose life, animals cannot.

Nicely put, I was going to answer "Free will" as well but couldn't find a fitting description. On the other hand define rational tought.

It's a pretty simple affair, isn't it? Just have to see what sets us apart from all other species.

So, lets get a list, and check...

Urbanisation... Nah. Social insects, to name only the most impressive example. Hrm, well, maybe
War. Except that Ants & chimpanzees happily engage in it, too. Damn. Okay, next one, which is
Self-Awareness. Oh, wait... Cetaceans, some birds, elephants, assorted primates other than us... Pretty widespread, that thing. Oh well, but
Destruction of the environment! Although... Oxygen catastrophe? Bacteria beat us... Billions of years ago, it seems. Pity :-( But maybe
Tool use. Oh, wait. Assorted Birds & Primates have it, too. Oh, and some otters, I believe. Gah. But the list goes on, so lets look at
Genocide. But that's pretty much 'War'. Forget it. Next is
Language. Hum. Depends a lot on how it's defined - on its lowest level, even bacteria would be included; but even if requiring more complexity than chemical signals suggesting when to huddle together to survive a drought, there's still assorted cetaceans, elephants, birds... Nope, this isn't it, either.
Sexual assault has been observed with Dolphins and chimpanzees. Elephants, too. It's a kinky world, it seems.
Agriculture is... old. Ants and termites; regardless of whether it's plants or animals, no less. Gah. Where is that damn difference :-( Maybe in the
Waste of resources - i.e. the famous case of only eating the tongues of bisons. Pity dolphins do similar things with, say, cuttlefish. Next!
'Culture', that is, social norms and behaviour relayed from one generation to the next through learning. Which has been observed in... Chimpanzees, orcas, and assorted corvids, be it 'Language Dialects', the use of specific tools, enforcement of social norms - i.e. punishing wrongdoers, the likes...

I can't find i- Oh, wait. I forgot one thing.

Controlled use of fire.

There we go. And it's a pretty damn important distinction, too. Previous to the use/ control of fire, humans were, well, somewhere in the middle of the food chain. But the day a Homo Erectus specimen decided to do the exact opposite of what all other animal species do - fleeing from fire -, and took up a burning branch, figuring out how to keep it burning, and how to safely control it, can, with some justification, be considered the day we put ourselves apart from any other species on the planet. Everything else had been done before - this hadn't.

And then everything changed. For the use of fire - specifically, the use of fire for cooking/ frying food - should become one of the most significant - if not the most significant - event(s) in human evolution.

Why? Well, because frying meat made it easier to digest. In effect, we 'Outsourced' a good part of our digestive system. And over the course of (Many, many) millenia, the relative size of our intestines shrunk - resources formerly spent on them were now reallocated, chiefly to the brain. We became smarter - we also became unable to properly digest food without the use of fire, making us entirely dependent on technology (Which, unlike the mere use thereof, is unique to us, too).

Previous to the use of fire, there was always a way back (I.e. australopithecus robustus) - after it, there was not. At the same time, previous to the use of fire, the maximum intelligence of a human was rather limited simply by the relative amount of the resources the body could spent on the brain - too much had to be spent on feeding to become intelligent in the way we are now. This, too, changed - suddenly (By evolutionary standards), the barely-above-chimpanzee-intelligence species ended up with intelligence far surpassing everyone, and everything else, and the sticks-and-stones tools in use by apes and crows alike turned into complex machines no other species could think up.

So yes. The controlled use of fire is what sets us apart from any other species on this planet. Every other distinction is either imaginary, or inherently a part of it, as it wouldn't be there, hadn't we started to use fire the way we do.

I'd argue though that isn't imagination as humans can. Planning for war is still a concrete problem, you can see the enemy, the roles are defined, that isn't the same as symbolic thought about non-concrete things.

Briefly.
Planning for war when you see the enemy is too late, especially in a jungle where visibility is 10 meters or less.
For symbolic tought in chimps i repeat from my wiki quote:
Chimpanzees make tools and use them to acquire foods and for social displays; they have sophisticated hunting strategies requiring cooperation, influence and rank; they are status conscious, manipulative and capable of deception; they can learn to use symbols and understand aspects of human language including some relational syntax, concepts of number and numerical sequence. [16] Young chimpanzees have outperformed human college students in tasks requiring remembering numbers.[17]

...humans choose not to think, or to put emotion, faith or whatever over thought all the time.

I'm curious. You began by making reference to the human brain. I wonder how you come to the conclusion that emotion and faith are not functions of the human brain?

On the other hand define rational tought.
Well, that's not particularly difficult. I think Aristotle started with it, and there was probably someone before him. In ancient Greek reason and logic apparently were more or less the same. Objectivists call reason "the human mental faculty of understanding the world abstractly and logically".

I'm curious. You began by making reference to the human brain. I wonder how you come to the conclusion that emotion and faith are not functions of the human brain?
I probably shouldn't have said "brain" - "mind" is a better word. The "higher" functions, the ones that distinguish us from animals. I'm pretty sure animals can feel emotions (dogs certainly can).

Faith is not something animals do, because its development involves extremely abstract thought. In fact, it involves thought to abstract that it ends up denying the knowledge we derive from what actually exists. And that's assuming whoever comes up with a religion is actually honest - the majority are probably people who simply scam others. Either way adopting a faith is very clearly not an act of reason, because you're taking things as given without verification and without an honest attempt at understanding yourself.

Faith is not something animals do, because its development involves extremely abstract thought. In fact, it involves thought to abstract that it ends up denying the knowledge we derive from what actually exists. And that's assuming whoever comes up with a religion is actually honest - the majority are probably people who simply scam others. Either way adopting a faith is very clearly not an act of reason, because you're taking things as given without verification and without an honest attempt at understanding yourself.Incorrect, actually. Supposing that 'Faith' starts as 'Superstition' - well, animals have been shown to have the latter. Article was in BdW a while ago, I think - basically, if an animal was doing $Completely_Unrelated_Thing, and it got food in that moment, chances were pretty high that the animal would then repeat $Completely_Unrelated_Thing in the hope that food would show up again. Note - notably different from 'You get food if you press that button'. It was 'You get food', and whatever the animal was doing at the moment, it'd tend to repeat.

Superstition, not really different from dancing to appease the rain god.

I repeat my call for renaming Homo Sapiens to Homo Ignis.

I am going to go with lying and wearing hats.

Its intelligence, plain and simple. Don't give me any of that 'how do you measure it' crap, because thats what it is, crap. Humans are vastly more intelligent than any other animal. We have created houses, cities, cars, tanks, medicines, bombs, computers, alcohol, agriculture, atomic warfare, genetic engineering and countless other things. Even when our inventions are not in our best interest, they still display an unparralelled intelligence.

We can see clear examples that prove it is our intelligence that seperates us when we look at the mentally handicapped. These people are very much like animals in their ability to express human like emotion, yet lack that spark of intelligence that has allowed us to carve mountains to look like men and build space shuttles.

Our creativity, though greatly enhanced by our intelligence, is not what seperates us, as many animals mimic us. Elephants and sheep can paint, crows create and reuse tools ect.

Music!:D and the composition of it.....hehe!

I honestly can't remember. I read bits of the Science of Discworld II, so it's possible I picked it up there. Keep in mind, Terry Pratchett is only the co-author of those books, the scientific bits are written by scientists ;)
Of course, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen to be precise (I'm currently re-reading the first book, The Science of Discworld). II is one of my favorite science books and I reconized the reference, and am NOT putting it down as it makes a lot of sense.

That said though, I'm off to bed, I have a cranky 6-month-old son who is pretty sure it's time to sleep so I'll get back to the longer posts tomorrow.

Oyasuminasai.

I probably shouldn't have said "brain" - "mind" is a better word.
Okay.

Faith is not something animals do, because its development involves extremely abstract thought. In fact, it involves thought to abstract that it ends up denying the knowledge we derive from what actually exists. And that's assuming whoever comes up with a religion is actually honest - the majority are probably people who simply scam others. Either way adopting a faith is very clearly not an act of reason, because you're taking things as given without verification and without an honest attempt at understanding yourself.

I'm assuming then that, as is often the case, you're taking 'faith' to mean 'religion'; rather than the sort of faith that leads us to trust ourselves to a doctor when we're ill. But in that case, we have to realise that we simply have no way to know how other animals view and think about the world around them. As I mentioned before, the tendency towards religion - and I speak of humans collectively - is something that's been part of the human condition for as far back as we can see. It's (if you'll pardon the term) fundamental to humanity. However much it may rile those who think a religious person is somehow a lower form of life, religion is common to all societies throughout history - and even those societies that were nominally atheistic, such as the Soviet Union, had to enforce that atheism by prohibiting the practice of religion. Beliefs in just what God or the gods might be vary wildly - some religions don't even have a specific deity concept. But like it or not, religion has been an intrinsic part of human development.

So, with that in mind, I tend to assume that it's a tendency (again, speaking for humanity in general, not for every single individual) that has some natural basis. And since parallel evolution is frequently observed in nature, I see no reason to assume that animals, in their own way, could not possess any comparable concept - even if they lack the ability to express it (especially in the frilly terms we use) or even acknowledge it for themselves. What does a chimpanzee think the Sun is, for example? Does s/he know that it's a ball of nuclear fire floating 150 million kilometres away? Probably not. Who knows what other explanations s/he might come up with? It might not be Sol Invictus in the animal's mind, but - if you'll excuse me getting a bit whimsical; I'm just making the point - it might well be "that which makes me warm and lights my world". It's only a short step from there to "that which cares for me".

Of course, it may be that the chimp doesn't register the Sun at all - but given how close a chimpanzee is to a human, I'd be surprised if they aren't capable of some pretty sophisticated thinking. Even so, all this is still a long way from being able to say "animals are religious", so don't misunderstand what I'm saying here.

We can see clear examples that prove it is our intelligence that seperates us when we look at the mentally handicapped. These people are very much like animals in their ability to express human like emotion, yet lack that spark of intelligence that has allowed us to carve mountains to look like men and build space shuttles.

I'm not sure that it's accurate to suggest that mentally handicapped people are collectively less intelligent than others. Or that the emotions that they display are 'human-like' as opposed to 'human'.

Otherwise, your conclusion seems sound, so long as we obey your initial instruction and refrain from asking the question of how one defines intelligence (and specifically, how a human defines intelligence without inherently favouring human intelligence).

yes, creativity and imagination, the need to sythasize to feel gratified.

many other life forms adopt, occasionaly even make, tools of some sort in some sense. have individuality, curiosity, emotions, even affection and sometimes a degree of altruism.

only humans among the life forms indiginous to this earth, have the same degree of drive to be creative though.

that's pretty much the only objectively observable signifigant distinction.

every other obvious real difference between humans and other critters, which pretty much come down to the degree to which humans surround themselves with human made artifacts, they all come ultimately from that drive for creative self expression.

which is why when i see someone totally hung up on out imitating everyone else, i really have to wonder if their really human and how did they get born in human bodies.

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

That's the question, what IS it about us that make us human (And while I can HEAR the usual crowd galloping madly to be the first to post something about our genetic or physical makeup, I'm pre-emptively yanking that joke so there! :p)? What is the spark, if you will, that makes us more than other animals we share the planet (And possibly the rest of the universe) with? Is it our intelligence? Creativity? (Somewhat limited) empathy? Something else? What?

For me, I'd say it has to be our imagination. As far as we can tell right now, we humans are not the only ones to have intelligence (Nice, but not unique) and problem solving skills, but we are the only ones that can imagine things that can never and will never happen and work out solutions from there. We can not only build castles in the air, we can come up with the blueprints for them, run the castle, and use anything learned from that day dream in running more traditional earthbound ones, or set about actually building them. I think that a lot of what makes us human is that ability to dream dreams and that ability also makes a lot of other human traits possible.

So what's your take on it?

Your question is based on an unsupportable assumption.

Who says we are "more than other animals we share the planet with"?

Different, yes - perhaps. More? Sounds like optimism.

Its intelligence, plain and simple. Don't give me any of that 'how do you measure it' crap, because thats what it is, crap. Humans are vastly more intelligent than any other animal. We have created houses, cities, cars, tanks, medicines, bombs, computers, alcohol, agriculture, atomic warfare, genetic engineering and countless other things. Even when our inventions are not in our best interest, they still display an unparralelled intelligence.

We can see clear examples that prove it is our intelligence that seperates us when we look at the mentally handicapped. These people are very much like animals in their ability to express human like emotion, yet lack that spark of intelligence that has allowed us to carve mountains to look like men and build space shuttles.

Our creativity, though greatly enhanced by our intelligence, is not what seperates us, as many animals mimic us. Elephants and sheep can paint, crows create and reuse tools ect.

You define intelligence in very arbitrary terms. Most of which can be described as conflicted, at the very least - atomic warfare is evidence of our intelligence? We've continuously invented more and more effective ways of what... destroying ourselves? That's a mark of intelligence?

Well, that's not particularly difficult. I think Aristotle started with it, and there was probably someone before him. In ancient Greek reason and logic apparently were more or less the same. Objectivists call reason "the human mental faculty of understanding the world abstractly and logically".

Nice how you dismiss one of the most complex discussions in philosophy... ;)
From your "brain - mind" distinction i take it that you are interested in the matter.
I found very interesting Gregory Bateson's "Steps to an Ecology of Mind". Did you read it?

I believe a good definition would be the Bene Gesserit one.
The ability to act against our instinct.


Trust VM to quote Dune. ;) You'd need to define instinct now, though.


Chimps are known to eat the corpses of their fallen enemyes after a battle. They do not engage in cannibalism otherwise. A ritual?
...more likely, they recognise their group fellows as "true chimpanzee" (quite beholderish, if you catch my drift... here's a smiley for you: Oo ) or "family", and the enemies as "other".

Ok... but what gives us that ability? Imagination.
Not just imagination. Eye-hand coordination, opposing thumbs also help, frontal double-eyed sight, memory, speech (so we can communicate ideas to others), the ability to walk upright and to sit down, social instincts etc.

So the most general single factor is the ability of devising and using technology, I'd say.

You define intelligence in very arbitrary terms. Most of which can be described as conflicted, at the very least - atomic warfare is evidence of our intelligence? We've continuously invented more and more effective ways of what... destroying ourselves? That's a mark of intelligence?

Please read before you post. As I said, the sheer intelligence required to create and control atomic fission is what I was talking about, not the common sense behind it. The conflict was intentional, as our intelligence is a mixed bag. With our ability to create comes our ability to destroy. We get into trouble when one surpasses the other.

Stories.
I once read about an anthropologist who said that the latin term for "human" shouldn't be "homo sapiens sapiens", since it doesn't describe us too well. It ought to be "pans narrans", the story-telling chimp.

To make it sound more professional, our ability to communicate in depth and about abstract concepts, as well as repeating stories through generations would be rather uniquely human.

This is quite interesting, expecially if we put this together with ape-human dialogue experiments.

(it would be pan narrans since the chimp is pan troglodytes)

Trust VM to quote Dune. ;) You'd need to define instinct now, though.
...more likely, they recognise their group fellows as "true chimpanzee" (quite beholderish, if you catch my drift... here's a smiley for you: Oo ) or "family", and the enemies as "other".

Here.
in·stinct (ĭn'stĭngkt') Pronunciation Key
n.
An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
Btw I wasn't quoting... I was referring to. I'm too lazy to quote today ;)

The fact about chimps is that it appears that they commit cannibalism only under particular conditions.


Beholder smilie:

° ° ° ° °
° ° ° ° ° °
( O )
\_/

This is quite interesting, expecially if we put this together with ape-human dialogue experiments.

(it would be pan narrans since the chimp is pan troglodytes)

I've made an efford to forget every shred of Latin since the day I left school, sorry about the grammar mistake ;)

I think what makes humans uniquely human are the opinions we hold and voice, especially of each other.

Here.
We might define reasoning, thinking and pondering actions as an instinct, too, by this definition. Not valid for all humans, though...


Btw I wasn't quoting... I was referring to. I'm too lazy to quote today ;)

I humbly apologise, sir. ;)


The fact about chimps is that it appears that they commit cannibalism only under particular conditions.

Ma che davéro? Stà a ddì sur sério? Anvedi quésta...
Would you mind about giving more details?


Beholder smilie:

° ° ° ° °
° ° ° ° ° °
( O )
\_/

This isn't a smilie. It's ASCII art! (whop!) It looks like it's smiling, though... what a scary thought.

I've made an efford to forget every shred of Latin since the day I left school, sorry about the grammar mistake ;)

Never mind, I'm just being my usual picky self. :)

We might define reasoning, thinking and pondering actions as an instinct, too, by this definition. Not valid for all humans, though...

Not valid for most humans IMO therefore not an instinct.
Do i have to quote Masaryk to you? Really?

Ma che davéro? Stà a ddì sur sério? Anvedi quésta...
Would you mind about giving more details?

I would if i could find more.
The only sources i found say mostly "it looks like" and "nobody knows why".

Human nature is what makes us human

which is why all forms of human government suck. :P

That's the question, what IS it about us that make us human (And while I can HEAR the usual crowd galloping madly to be the first to post something about our genetic or physical makeup, I'm pre-emptively yanking that joke so there! :p)? What is the spark, if you will, that makes us more than other animals we share the planet (And possibly the rest of the universe) with? Is it our intelligence? Creativity? (Somewhat limited) empathy? Something else? What?

For me, I'd say it has to be our imagination. As far as we can tell right now, we humans are not the only ones to have intelligence (Nice, but not unique) and problem solving skills, but we are the only ones that can imagine things that can never and will never happen and work out solutions from there. We can not only build castles in the air, we can come up with the blueprints for them, run the castle, and use anything learned from that day dream in running more traditional earthbound ones, or set about actually building them. I think that a lot of what makes us human is that ability to dream dreams and that ability also makes a lot of other human traits possible.

So what's your take on it?

I would have to go with creativity, the ability to dream and empathy as the better aspects that makes us human. Small argument, but I think, to me, surmizes it all.

Why has nobody responded to the "controlled use of fire" argument. Is it because it is an extension of tool-use, and we just master it better?

Creativity doesn't cut it for me, for are bower birds (name?) not wonderfully creative? What is creativity?

I am disappointed that Nervun ruled out physical traits at the start of the discussion, because in evolution, all the concepts we are talking about here have their origin in our physical characteristics. Our primate thumb enabled us to handle tools much better, which gave us the ability to eat high energy food and develop our brain.

If you look at us from an evolutionary perspective, any species could theoretically in time do anything we do. Hence the question becomes futile. It is a point in time.

I know Nervun would really like people to agree with his "imagination" argument. There is no reason for me to assume we are the only ones who can imagine abstract phenomena. Arguments for this have been given by some more eloquent people than me. Gratitude.

I am very inclined to say there is no fundamental difference that puts us on another plane than other animals. If that was so, the answer should be easy.

We have specialized our brain, but in what way is that different from specializing running skills or the ability to change color? Our specialization does not make us more developed or better than any other species. It is just the way we "created" our niche in the world around us. Other species have other ways, and any comparison is useless.

It would be nice to be special. Or "chosen", as monotheists generally think. But i think it is nothing more than wishful thinking.

I changed my mind about this thread. I rated it before, but want to give it the highest rating now the discussion has developed. I call on others to compensate for my lower rating. thnx.

I'm not sure whether some very smart animals ever voluntarily chose suicide, but I doubt it.

they can and have. for example, rats will consistently choose electrically induced pleasure over everything else when experimentally given the option. the rats in the experiment literally had to be force fed, iirc. and we know that chimps and elephants can act really depressed. not sure if we have actually documented suicide in them though. but whales and dolphins do suicidally beach themselves from time to time.

and, of course, there are entire species whose reproductive cycle is predicated on suicide - maybe not voluntary in your sense, but not actively opposed either.

the essence of humanity is the chin

the essence of humanity is the chin

We were not allowed to use that argument.

Read Robert Heinlein's short story, Jerry was a Man. Humanity is determined by one's ability and willingness to sacrifice others for his/her benefit.

Er... 1, besides humans, what predators do chimps actually have? 2, we can only seem to comfortably kill with application of tools, does that not presuppose imagination to design such tools, or bend to use tools ment for other puroposes to kill?

some animals use tools in exactly the way you described here.

By evolving intellectual adaptations to compensate for physical failings. Other creatures that do not physically lack what they need to survive have little incentive to evolve down the branch we have.

Then demonstrate how smart you are by building a weapon and killing an animal.

AN UNDYING LOVE FOR ALL THINGS DISNEY, INC. :D:(:mad::upyours:

intelligence, creativity, empathy, my cat has those. I read a book recently that said what separates humans from all other animals, is dignity.

my cat has no dignity, he'll lick his balls when company is over.

Most of which can be described as conflicted, at the very least - atomic warfare is evidence of our intelligence? We've continuously invented more and more effective ways of what... destroying ourselves? That's a mark of intelligence?

This is one of those continuously repeated aphorisms that simply isn't true. We do NOT continuously invent more and more effective ways of destroying ourselves. Absolutely not. We invent more and more effective ways of destroying others.

Problem is, we're also hamstrung by that other strangely Human quality, mercy (no animal is ever concerned about suffering beyond its family) and we let the others survive in large numbers, and then they invent more and more effective ways of destroying us!


I postulate the following: any intelligent species which has developed nuclear weapons, but does not experience mercy for members of other cultures, has successfully made warfare obsolete.

>>The fact about chimps is that it appears that they commit cannibalism only under particular conditions. <<
Ma che davéro? Stà a ddì sur sério? Anvedi quésta...
Would you mind about giving more details?

.

Like if you strand them in the Andes?

Here's a thought for us Humans:

Perhaps intelligence is not what you do so much as the speed with which you innovate? Yes, we've all seen the long list of ways animals use technology. Sure, ants do agriculture. But there is no ant that is going to make planned, rational changes in how it farms. There is no "You know, S-Z-2300165, I've been thinking, if we forget about aphids for a while because they're just not working out, and planted fungus in the north forty..."

Humans are the only creatures which innovate as a matter of routine over the course of a single lifespan, and regularly incorporate those innovations into their culture.

Of course I'd be happy to hear contradictory opinions from non-Humans.

(If you're reading this and you are a Border Collie, just stay out of it for now, you know that is an entirely different issue)

I find it best described in one Latin word:

Sum.

Translation: I Am. Philosophically, it represents both the sum total of my physical and mental attributes, as well as the fact that I am aware of all that I am.

What makes us human is the ability to, if we are not sterile, of age, and of the appropriate sex, to produce fertile offspring with Edward Drinker Cope.

I'm serious. That is the actual definition.

We like to kill each other with awesome explosions, then complain that were doing something evil after we get done with the OZMGBLOODLUST. Or something along those lines involving cool rag-doll physics and awesome full-blown explosions with lots of blood and gore that a graphics card would just SPAZ at....oh yea....

Comparing a human to an animal is like comparing an ice cube to a glacier. Animals can do everything humans can do, to a lesser extent. Crows are great at building tools and passing them down through generations, and if you watch a dog sleeping it's obvious they dream.

I think the most important human quality is complex speech. A human raised by wolves never learns how to speak and they are more wolf than human. Someone who never learns to speak may never learn how to think normally and have the entire range of human emotions.

Comparing a human to an animal is like comparing an ice cube to a glacier. Animals can do everything humans can do, to a lesser extent. Crows are great at building tools and passing them down through generations, and if you watch a dog sleeping it's obvious they dream.

I think the most important human quality is complex speech. A human raised by wolves never learns how to speak and they are more wolf than human. Someone who never learns to speak may never learn how to think normally and have the entire range of human emotions.

Let me expand on that and put forth that it is language (spoken/written, but primarily written) that gives humanity its "edge" over the rest of the animal kingdom.

Please read before you post. As I said, the sheer intelligence required to create and control atomic fission is what I was talking about, not the common sense behind it. The conflict was intentional, as our intelligence is a mixed bag. With our ability to create comes our ability to destroy. We get into trouble when one surpasses the other.

I did actually read it before I posted, and I still hold that I am right - you define intelligence in very arbitrary terms.

The ability to innovate isn't the be-all-and-end-all of existence, and I certainly don't think it defines the parameters of 'intelligence'. Indeed, the fact that our capacity to innovate is NOT harnessed by some kind of preservationist urge, is one of the very reasons that I consider our communal 'intelligence' to be so open to question. An 'intelligent' lifeform, it seems to me, doesn't exterminate itself because it lacks the capacity to counter it's own destructive urges.

I would have to go with creativity, the ability to dream and empathy...

None of which can be proved to be peculiar to 'humans', right?

intelligence, creativity, empathy, my cat has those. I read a book recently that said what separates humans from all other animals, is dignity.

my cat has no dignity, he'll lick his balls when company is over.

But, let's be honest... wouldn't most of us, if we could reach?

This is one of those continuously repeated aphorisms that simply isn't true. We do NOT continuously invent more and more effective ways of destroying ourselves. Absolutely not. We invent more and more effective ways of destroying others.

Problem is, we're also hamstrung by that other strangely Human quality, mercy (no animal is ever concerned about suffering beyond its family) and we let the others survive in large numbers, and then they invent more and more effective ways of destroying us!

I postulate the following: any intelligent species which has developed nuclear weapons, but does not experience mercy for members of other cultures, has successfully made warfare obsolete.

There are no 'others' - we are us, even those of us that are 'them'.

But your argument would be wrong anyway, of course... wonders of science like nuclear technology, biological warfare, chemical warfare, continuously seem to 'surprise' those who wield them in anger, by their wantonly mean habit of being entirely non-specific. I nuke you, and I die too... innovate ways of destroying ourselves.

None of which can be proved to be peculiar to 'humans', right?

Yes, they can be proven as human. Can a monkey, for example, create a temple? Granted, animals do dream, but not in our scale.

But, let's be honest... wouldn't most of us, if we could reach?

not while company is over.......well, I guess it depends on the company.

anyway, I think it's dignity. Animals have no dignity, they don't care about whether or not they poop in public or lick their ass during dinner.......they have no concept of it.

squishy brain matter

We were not allowed to use that argument.

rules that rule out the right answer are wrong. chins are essential to being human.

But how did we get there given our very large physical disavantages? I mean, an unarmed human makes pretty easy prey for just about anything.

This is a misconception. Sure, a tiger can take a human down, but a tough, fit human whose lived his life in the wild can handle most critters. We're a lot stronger and more agile than most things out there.

I'd tend to favor symbolic thought and logic as the primary differentiating elements.

And our conception of time.

Yes, they can be proven as human. Can a monkey, for example, create a temple? Granted, animals do dream, but not in our scale.

I've owned cats that definitely dream. They also have petted me while I was sick, so I supect they are empathic as well. And I can't disprove their creativity. Just because they don't build temples (at least, that WE recognise as such...?) doesn't mean they're not creative...

The greatest significant difference, though, is that of degree. The degree of difference between the behaviors of humans, and our other higher mammalian brethren is astounding, and while chimps and others are able to accomplish many of the same things that we are, humans do it on a grand scale.

It's like making a small house out of Legos, and saying its the same thing as the Burj Dubai.

What is the spark, if you will, that makes us more than other animals we share the planet (And possibly the rest of the universe) with?
There is non. Most of us are just so arrogant and egotistical that we think we are special.

For me, I'd say it has to be our imagination. As far as we can tell right now, we humans are not the only ones to have intelligence (Nice, but not unique) and problem solving skills, but we are the only ones that can imagine things that can never and will never happen and work out solutions from there. We can not only build castles in the air, we can come up with the blueprints for them, run the castle, and use anything learned from that day dream in running more traditional earthbound ones, or set about actually building them. I think that a lot of what makes us human is that ability to dream dreams and that ability also makes a lot of other human traits possible.
Incorrect. Other animals dream as well. Just because they haven't built any big structures doesn't mean anything. It's not as if there are millions ef them that are capable of such an undertaking. Furthermore, maybe there are such structures and we haven't discovered them. Even further, maybe they don't have any need for any of that. Personally, I think they are better off without all this modern society jip jap.

However much it may rile those who think a religious person is somehow a lower form of life, religion is common to all societies throughout history - and even those societies that were nominally atheistic, such as the Soviet Union, had to enforce that atheism by prohibiting the practice of religion. Beliefs in just what God or the gods might be vary wildly - some religions don't even have a specific deity concept. But like it or not, religion has been an intrinsic part of human development.

So, with that in mind, I tend to assume that it's a tendency (again, speaking for humanity in general, not for every single individual) that has some natural basis.
I guess that would make for an interesting area of neuroscience. Maybe we can find someone whose "religion centre" has been damaged in an accident. ;)

I think there is a difference between the ability to come up with an abstract idea of "the sun cares for me" and actually believing it to the point where the complex structure that you develop around this idea is held to be true even against very real evidence. And that's where the element of choice comes in: I can either recognise that the world doesn't conform to my values and then start working on changing it, or I can refuse that recognition and sit there not responding to the world, waiting for it to change by itself. A lion doesn't stay under the tree expecting an antilope to appear out of nowhere to commit suicide, but people are known to sit below trees whispering magic formulae, hoping that the antilope does exactly that, against everything their senses and reason would tell them if they're used consistently.

As for having faith in someone, if it's justified then it's a rational thought (ie the available evidence suggests that the probability that this person will do the right thing is very high). If it's unjustified, it's basically the choice to ignore what the available evidence actually tells us. In that its similar to religious faith, even though it doesn't necessarily concern itself with the supernatural - it's simply imagining an alternate reality which we like better and refusing to face the difference between the two. The result of that of course being that you end up starving to death because regardless how cruel you may find it and how hard you believe it should be or is different, food isn't going to magically fly into your mouth.

EDIT: Look what I found...
http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/kant.html
Must men then resign themselves to a total skepticism? No, says Kant, there is one means of piercing the barrier between man and existence. Since reason, logic, and science are denied access to reality, the door is now open for men to approach reality by a different, nonrational method. The door is now open to faith. Taking their cue from their needs, men can properly believe (for instance, in God and in an afterlife), even though they cannot prove the truth of their belief … "I have," writes Kant, "therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith."

I found very interesting Gregory Bateson's "Steps to an Ecology of Mind". Did you read it?
I can't say that I have, but it makes "the list". Of course, the list is mythical itself, considering that I can foresee no period over the next ten years that would allow me the time to get started, but hey - I choose to delude myself....

they can and have. for example, rats will consistently choose electrically induced pleasure over everything else when experimentally given the option. the rats in the experiment literally had to be force fed, iirc.
I suppose the question is whether they had the ability to choose pleasure over food, or whether their brain is simply hardwired to go for whatever gives them the most pleasure...being rats and all I suppose the drive to reproduce has to come before all else given the rather limited chances of survival any single rat has. I think that is slightly different to the point I was trying to make.

and we know that chimps and elephants can act really depressed. not sure if we have actually documented suicide in them though. but whales and dolphins do suicidally beach themselves from time to time.
But they don't beach themselves by choice, they do it by accident.

and, of course, there are entire species whose reproductive cycle is predicated on suicide - maybe not voluntary in your sense, but not actively opposed either.
And humans occasionally sacrifice their own lives for their offspring too. But that's not so much refusing life as it is choosing something else over it. If I sit on a desert island but choose not to try and build a hut, make fire or figure out some sort of weapon to hunt, it's not that I want to achieve something by dying, it's just that I don't want to achieve anything at all. The effort required by survival is just not worth it - or worse, I refuse to even do this evaluation by denying that the effort is even necessary.

What is the spark, if you will, that makes us more than other animals we share the planet (And possibly the rest of the universe) with? Is it our intelligence? Creativity? (Somewhat limited) empathy? Something else? What?

It is our individual minds that make us special. Through discoveries in the arts and sciences and the application of these principles, we can increase our power in the universe on Earth.

Unlike other animals, we homo sapiens do not have a fixed relative population potential. We can decimate our own population without the aid of mother nature. But we also have the prospect of increasing our potential population-density while also increasing quality of and longevity of life of the individual. So it all depends on thinking.

Naw, that's not all that special. I've seen birds get roaring drunk off of fermented berries and even pandas have porn now too. ;)
I can't work out what they're trying to do, showing porn to pandas. It's not gonna help the increase the species numbers any.

After watching porn, all Mr Panda is going to want to do is screw Mrs Panda's g/f in the arse beforing coming on Mrs Panda's face.
How is that going to help?



As for what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom? We're the only animals not frightened of a vacuum cleaner.

A lot of factors are proposed. We're more intelligent, supposedly - but, as with all IQ tests, what you're measuring is a fairly subjective value:

*was quote here*

Sci-fi, yes - but the point is made. We measure 'intelligence' based on our own established (and subjective) set of behavioural ideals. So we can't realistically use 'intelligence' as a way to set ourselves apart from other animals.

What about problem solving? Others have already pointed out that many animals demonstrate problem-solving abilities - so unless we're willing to narrow the parameters even further, and say "the ability to solve problems this complex", we can't use that either.

We can't use our social tendency: lots of animals socialise, and have complex social structures. So it's not that.

Is it our capacity for intellectual reason? For morality and ethics? No. Again, many different animals, especially the social ones, live by moral codes; albeit perhaps expressed in less flowery terms than ours: this you can do; that you can't do; and this is what happens to you if you do that anyway. They understand, and live by, those rules.

Some have argued that humanity is defined by its ability to change its environment to suit itself, whereas animals have to change to suit their environment. Again, this comes down to a matter of scale. Yes, we can make colossal changes - but it's not always under our control, it's not always to our benefit; and of course, there are animals that change their environment as well - for example, a beaver building a dam.

It's not even our ability to communicate, since that's shared by a large part of the animal world. Perhaps their communication is not as sophisticated as ours - but that in itself is only an assumption. Dolphins and whales are accepted as having a tremendously rich range of calls - and in species evolved perfectly to an underwater environment, there's no telling what additional use they might make of water density, temperature, salinity, and so on, for modulating their calls. So that's not it, either.

The only other suggestion I've heard is the notion that a human is the only animal that knows it's going to die. But that's precarious, too: is a tiny child (or a teenager or a motorcyclist) therefore not human? Or does this theory mean that the human at some point during its life realises it's going to die? In which case, we have to ask why animals - ourselves included - have evolved the ability to fear.

Personally, I don't think there is an answer to this question except the one you ruled out at the beginning: we're human only because we are members of this particular species, and 'human' is the name, the word, the noise, that this species uses to refer to itself.

Excellent answer. In any objective terms, there is nothing distinctive about being human.

You know one when you meet one, perhaps.

As for what sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom? We're the only animals not frightened of a vacuum cleaner.

You really need to speak for yourself, anthropocentric pig!

I had a nasty accident with a vacuum cleaner, and I'm still afraid of them. I see that long, writhing tube coming for me, and it's crouch and clutch genitals time ...

OK, that might be just me. So I'm not human?

Like if you strand them in the Andes?

:confused:

Perhaps intelligence is not what you do so much as the speed with which you innovate?

A la Harry Turtledove's "Invasion"? Meh. Looks more incidental than essential to me.

Can anyone name me an animal that plays practical jokes?

Nothing but unwarranted self-importance.

Our technological progress is due to having a lucky combination of traits, those being a large brain capable of complex thought and opposable thumbs.

Dolphins have large brains and are capable of complex thought, but they cannot harness technology due to the environment in which they live. An aquatic habitat dictates a streamlined body suited to swimming, somewhat negating thumbs. This greatly limits their ability to manipulate their environment. Another advantage we have that enabled our technological rise, from the start of agriculture to building a rocket to send a human to the moon is our harnessing of the power of fire. Dolphins live in an environment where the possibility of mastering fire is obviously quite remote.

So, even if they are just as intelligent as us, which they might be, they aren't lucky enough to have the advantages we have in manipulating our environment. Chimpanzees have opposable thumbs, but their brains are less developed than ours, though still developed enough to have complex social structure, including open warfare between different social groups for much the same reasons that human groups fight each other, and tool use, including the use of weapons to hunt. We're not even the only animals to be self aware. Chimpanzees, Gorillas, Dolphins and Elephants all are. Additionally, they and Elephants and Wolves understand that death is permanent. To say that only we know that we will die seems a little far-fetched. No single trait makes us unique. If anything does, it's a combination of several traits that other animals also possess.

Humans are best at delusions of grandeur. Some would talk as if we were practically demi-gods, but we're not nearly as special as we think we are.

:confused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571

a bad case of the munchies...

Our destructive capacity is tremendous.

Can anyone name me an animal that plays practical jokes?Monkeys steal your stuff and laugh at you. Monkeys are jerks.

Also my dog likes to bring his toys to me, and then when I reach for it he grabs it and runs away.

I think it was opposable thumbs and rock and roll.

But how did we get there given our very large physical disavantages? I mean, an unarmed human makes pretty easy prey for just about anything.

So does a dead lion.

Humans aren't unarmed. Even without any fabricated tools, a human has little trouble making weapons out of almost anything, and we're probably the best at throwing objects offensively.

We're also the best as cooperating in large groups. One wolf is no match for one bear, but packs of wolves often kill lone bears. "Packs" of humans can kill almost anything. And about the only thing that can kill a large group of humans is another large group of humans.

Yes, they can be proven as human. Can a monkey, for example, create a temple? Granted, animals do dream, but not in our scale.

They can, they just don't because there's no reason for them to.

Birds can and do (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/32154075_b242c23aa8.jpg).

they can and have. for example, rats will consistently choose electrically induced pleasure over everything else when experimentally given the option. the rats in the experiment literally had to be force fed, iirc. and we know that chimps and elephants can act really depressed. not sure if we have actually documented suicide in them though. but whales and dolphins do suicidally beach themselves from time to time.

There is a lot of evidence that when whales do that they are trying to escape sonar signals which are painful to them. There's a difference between a suicide jumper off the George Washington Bridge, and someone taking a suicidal leap out of a burning building.

I think what makes humans uniquely human are the opinions we hold and voice, especially of each other.

I don't know. My cat seems to regard us with the same mixture of affection, scorn, and exploitation.

I don't know. My cat seems to regard us with the same mixture of affection, scorn, and exploitation.

But can it do this