Are we part of the animal kingdom?

[Sisyphus]

We're related to apes and other animals, but "related" does not mean "exactly the same". There's aspects that are the same, and there's aspects that are different How we differ is what's at stake here. For example, some endogenous molecules are exactly the same, some are not, and it also depends upon the other species. The major systems of the body can be similar, though not the same. Overall, humans are obviously significantly different than any other animal; most parts are not interchangeable.

 

Humans and chimps share about 99% of the same genome, and all humans share about 99.9% of the same genome — about a magnitude of difference between human-human variation and human-chimp variation. So, is it really any wonder why most people find some animal behavior repulsive?

 

Right, different animals are different. That's why we call them different animals. We're a hell of a lot more similar to a chimpanzee than a platypus is to anything. Dividing between platypi and everything else makes more sense than dividing between human and everything else (not that either one makes sense).

[cypress]

We're related to apes and other animals, but "related" does not mean "exactly the same".

 

If by related you mean humans factually are offspring of a common ancestor of apes an other animals, then you are making assumptions that inferences based solely on observed similarity are correct. Can this kind of induction be used to establish truth?

 

 

Humans and chimps share about 99% of the same genome, and all humans share about 99.9% of the same genome — about a magnitude of difference between human-human variation and human-chimp variation. So, is it really any wonder why most people find some animal behavior repulsive?

 

These numbers seem to be in error. Males and female genomes differ by about 4% alone so humans do not share 99.9% of the same genome. Human and chimpanzee genomes are loosely 92-96% similar when the term similar is taken to include assumed homologous genes that are different and exclude gene rearrangements, genes with no analog in the other species, presumed "junk" DNA, and repeating sequences, but the genome is less than even 80% when "same" is taken to mean identical excluding presumed rearrangements. At what point in observing similarities do we draw the line? Are these lines drawn based on objective criteria or metaphysical presumption?

[Moontanman]

If by related you mean humans factually are offspring of a common ancestor of apes an other animals, then you are making assumptions that inferences based solely on observed similarity are correct. Can this kind of induction be used to establish truth?

 

Yes i think it can, while at one time whales were considered fish because they lived in the ocean. The old idea of similar shapes has been refined and the DNA confirms that humans are apes in that we are a closely related group of mammals who shared a common ancestor. Why is this a problem?

[cypress]

Yes i think it can, while at one time whales were considered fish because they lived in the ocean. The old idea of similar shapes has been refined and the DNA confirms that humans are apes in that we are a closely related group of mammals who shared a common ancestor. Why is this a problem?

 

Because it is false that DNA similarities that are orders of magnitude less than similarities directly observed from established relationships confirms relatedness, though some who are predisposed to particular metaphysical beliefs might say it implies a degree of relatedness. It is customary not to pretend that falsehoods are truths.

[pioneer]

It is possible some humans are closer to animals than others. Others may be more advanced than animals. Each would percieve their place relative to animals, and then might assume all people are like them; see through the same filter. Humans tend to break down into two herds. Atheist tend to assume they are more like animals. Religious people see this animal connection more distant to themselves.

 

The human mind makes up its own classifications. PC sort of shows us how leaders can arbitraily make a distinction. Once that is set in the mind, it becomes the new reality for many. Once animal or not is set in the mind, the human mind is able to create its own reality. This ability of the human mind is unique to only the human critters.

 

If one wishes to use the animal standard I suppose one will eventually think the connections to animals is closer. If one uses a standard farther away from the animals the animal connection will appear further away. If we do this for many generations it is possible two herds will form, since selective advantage in each herd will favor genetic changes to or away from the animals.

Edited November 6, 2010 by pioneer

[Edtharan]

Humans tend to break down into two herds. Atheist tend to assume they are more like animals. Religious people see this animal connection more distant to themselves.

However, labouring under a delusion does not make it true. Reality trumps all beliefs.

 

That is if the reality is we are an animal, then no amount of thinking we are not will stop us being an animal.

 

Yes, an arbitary line can be drawn, but it is arbitary and therefore to think of it as a real distinction is a delusion. Even just to ackowledge it as arbitary is to deny that is is real.

 

the human mind is able to create its own reality.

Unfortunately this is not true. It can create it own delusions of reality, but it does not "create" its own reality.

 

This ability of the human mind is unique to only the human critters.

Nope. Delusions are not only limited to huamns. There are many cases where animals come to think of themselves as another species, even against the obvious differences in them.

 

If one wishes to use the animal standard I suppose one will eventually think the connections to animals is closer. If one uses a standard farther away from the animals the animal connection will appear further away.

One might see that, but it is an entirely false perception.

 

No matter where the arbitary line is drawn, and regardless of where different people draw it, the distance we are removed is a constant. It is only wishful thinking and delusion that make it seem closer or further away.

 

The reality is our physiological processes are exactly the same as what occur in animals. Physiologically speaking, we are definitly animals.

 

If your belief is that our mental processes are not based on physiology, then how would one explain brain damage and impaired mental and congnitave function due to that damage, or even recovery from such damage. The only other explaination is that our mids are a result of biological function, but if our mental faculties are biology and our biology is definitly animal, then the conclusion is that even our minds are animal, leaving nothing for us to be, but animals.

[Incendia]

Yes...Yes we are animals...

 

 

If the human mind could make it's own reality then why am I here? Your worlds don't make sense pioneer...

[pioneer]

Let do this with logic. Humans are animals. Cats are animals. Therefore humans are cats and cats are humans. The reason this logic does not add up is although both may be animals, based on the definition science has created, there are other differences we need to add to the equation.

Edited November 20, 2010 by pioneer

[D H]

Let do this with logic. Humans are animals. Cats are animals. Therefore humans are cats and cats are humans. The reason this logic does not add up is although both may be animals, based on the definition science has created, there are other differences we need to add to the equation.

Oh please. That isn't logic; it is a logical fallacy. Specifically, it is an association fallacy.

Edited November 20, 2010 by D H

[AzurePhoenix]

Let do this with logic. Humans are animals. Cats are animals. Therefore humans are cats and cats are humans. The reason this logic does not add up is although both may be animals, based on the definition science has created,

Men are humans. Woman are humans. Therefore men are women and women are men. No wait, you're just a moron.

 

The scientific definition is what it is. I figured you might have noticed by now, but this happens to be a science forum. An animal is any heterotrophic, typically multicellular , eukaryotic organism lacking rigid cell-walls, motile at some point in their lifecycle, and sharing a common ancestor.

 

A cat is a mammal of particular descent within the kingdom animalia with a particular set of distinguishing characteristics.

 

A human is a mammal of particular descent within the kingdom animalia with a completely different set of distinguishing characteristics and immediate ancestry.

 

A human is only a cat if it shares the distinguishing characteristics and ancestry of felidae. In which case it wouldn't be a human at all, would it?

 

there are other differences we need to add to the equation

Yes. And those differences are what distinguish modern humans as a species within the genus Homo, within the order Primates, as opposed to a species within the genus Felis, within the order Carnivora. So, obviously, we're perfectly distinguished from felines as per our myriad differences. So what's your issue?

 

 

But let's pretend for a minute that reality was bent to your random whims of preference and sense of human exceptionalism. How would you define the kingdom animalia, and on what biological grounds would you separate humans into our own distinct kingdom? And, here's the kicker, where would you draw the oh-so-arbitrary line between the two kingdoms? At what particular point along the chain of ancestry do our ancestors stop being members of the "People Kingdom" and become members of the "Animal Kingdom" ?

Edited November 20, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[ydoaPs]

Let do this with logic. Humans are animals. Cats are animals. Therefore humans are cats and cats are humans. The reason this logic does not add up is although both may be animals, based on the definition science has created, there are other differences we need to add to the equation.

No, the reason the logic doesn't add up is because you fail at set theory.

 

 

Either that, or I'm both Socrates and a cat.

Edited November 20, 2010 by ydoaPs

[cypress]

Yes, an arbitary line can be drawn, but it is arbitary and therefore to think of it as a real distinction is a delusion. Even just to ackowledge it as arbitary is to deny that is is real.

 

Not all distinctions between humans and other biological organisms are arbitrary. Many are objective measurable differences. Introspection/self awareness, morality and altruism are examples of a characteristic that are objectively known only to exist in humans. Assigning differences as arbitrary is a common tool for conformational bias. If one chooses to downplay differences, the human mind is quite capable of deluding oneself into seeing it that way.

 

Nope. Delusions are not only limited to huamns. There are many cases where animals come to think of themselves as another species, even against the obvious differences in them.

 

We can't be sure the animals are deluded, as other explanations are possible. We can only observe behavior and deduce cause based on our knowledge of human behavior. You are projecting.

 

One might see that, but it is an entirely false perception.

 

No matter where the arbitary line is drawn, and regardless of where different people draw it, the distance we are removed is a constant. It is only wishful thinking and delusion that make it seem closer or further away.

 

Since you admit that making such distinctions can involve delusions on either side of the argument, how can you be sure that your argument is not a result of delusion? Even one example of an objective difference is enough to show you are incorrect.

 

The reality is our physiological processes are exactly the same as what occur in animals. Physiologically speaking, we are definitly animals.

 

Physiologically we are the same as some organisms and different from others. If you choose to define "animal" as those organisms that are physiologically the same as humans, then we are indeed animals by that definition, but this approach fails to address the nature of the question posed by the OP.

 

If your belief is that our mental processes are not based on physiology, then how would one explain brain damage and impaired mental and congnitave function due to that damage, or even recovery from such damage. The only other explaination is that our mids are a result of biological function, but if our mental faculties are biology and our biology is definitly animal, then the conclusion is that even our minds are animal, leaving nothing for us to be, but animals.

 

Your bias seems to limit your ability to consider alternatives. Here is one alternative that explains what we observe as well or better than your preferred explanation. If the brian is the medium by which mind interfaces with the environment, and the brain is damaged, then the brain will be unable to project the mind as it is. With a damaged brain, the mind also will be unable perceive and respond as it previously did. It will be impaired by false and incomplete signals and data. Consider this experiment as a test of this idea: The television is not the program but if the television is damaged, the program will be obscured or not come through at all.

[Mr Skeptic]

Not all distinctions between humans and other biological organisms are arbitrary. Many are objective measurable differences. Introspection/self awareness, morality and altruism are examples of a characteristic that are objectively known only to exist in humans. Assigning differences as arbitrary is a common tool for conformational bias. If one chooses to downplay differences, the human mind is quite capable of deluding oneself into seeing it that way.

 

You mean, these are objectively known to exist in animals other than humans. And even if it were true, what you need to say humans are not animals is to find something not that is unique to humans, but that is unique to animals and humans do not share. Which of the attributes of Animalia did you say that humans do not possess?

[ydoaPs]

Introspection/self awareness, morality and altruism are examples of a characteristic that are objectively known only to exist in humans.

False.

[Edtharan]

Not all distinctions between humans and other biological organisms are arbitrary. Many are objective measurable differences. Introspection/self awareness, morality and altruism are examples of a characteristic that are objectively known only to exist in humans. Assigning differences as arbitrary is a common tool for conformational bias. If one chooses to downplay differences, the human mind is quite capable of deluding oneself into seeing it that way.

I will give you morality and Alturism as these can be expressed mathematically through game theory. However, Introspection and Self awareness are not at all objective.

 

Can you tell me a way to objectivly determine if I am an actual self aware human sitting at a keyboard, or a very clever robot (or AI) typing this?

 

If I am a clever enough robot my response can be indistinguishable from a human, but then I would not be a human or self aware.

 

However, there are plenty of animals that disply moar behaviours that we think of as human. Ants will defend the other members of their nest (even to the death). Earwigs (yes the tiny insects) will nurture and protect their young. Meerkats will aid each other and take on various responsability within the family, including careing for the young of other meerkats (including giving them milk).

 

Go look at animal behaviour. Every sinlge behaviour that humans considder as "Moral" or "Ethical" is also performed by some other animal. Actually, go and read a book called: "Bonobo Handshake" by Vanessa Woods (ISBN 9781863954846). It will open your eyes to "Ethical" behaviours, especially as to what is happening in the Congo.

 

We can't be sure the animals are deluded, as other explanations are possible. We can only observe behavior and deduce cause based on our knowledge of human behavior. You are projecting.

And this just contradicts your previous claim. You are actually destroying your own arguments.

 

Since you admit that making such distinctions can involve delusions on either side of the argument, how can you be sure that your argument is not a result of delusion? Even one example of an objective difference is enough to show you are incorrect.

Not at all. There are objective differences between cats and Dogs, but does this mean that Cats are not animals? No, ofcourse not. Animals are living organisms that have a set of properties and share a common ancestor. We have these properties and therefore are animals. It is as simple as that.

 

Just because we have technology, or have more advanced brains does not mean we are not animals. Gibbons could be said to have a more advanced writs than us (it is a ball and socket, we only have a hinge joint), does this mean that Gibbons aren't aniamls? No, not at all.

 

Just because there are differences, does not mean we are not animals. Being an animal is about having certain properties and being decended from a common ancestor. And just because someone can point to a difference, does not negate this.

 

It would be like saying that My cosin has brown eyes and I have blue eyes, therefore he is not related to me. We have a common ancestor (grandparent) and we have certain properties (genetic code), so we are related, and just because one of us has blue eyes and the other brown does not mean we are not related. It is that silly the argument you are putting forward.

 

Physiologically we are the same as some organisms and different from others. If you choose to define "animal" as those organisms that are physiologically the same as humans, then we are indeed animals by that definition, but this approach fails to address the nature of the question posed by the OP.

Physiologically all organisms are different, but they have similarities. Does this mean that each organism is not related to another. What about organisms that we know are related because humans have continiously bred them over long periods of time.

 

Domesticated bannanas are unable to reproduce via seeds. Wild bannanas can. But, we know that domesitcated bannanas orrigianlly were wild bannanas. OVer time huamns have influenced their breeding by making cuttings and growing new bannana plants and selecting for the traits they wanted. This included larger fruit (wild bannans have small fruit), more fleshy fruit (wild bannanas have woody fruit) and many other traits. If you looked at a wild bannana and a domesticated bannana, it would be hard to actually see them as the same type of plant. But yet, they are and the recods who that they did actually decend from wild bannanas.

 

Does these differences that have been selected for by huamns mean that Domesticated bannanas are not plants. Of course not.

 

This is what you are arguing. You are arguing that because you can point to a percieved difference, then you have to remove it from the group. What you are trying to argue is actually a violation of maths (set theory - go learn it - it is the basis of all mathematics, including computing and programming).

 

The thing is the "Differences" you are talking aqbout are a biased perception. WHy, for instance are brains considdered so good? Why is a mind better than venom, or a long tail. The ony reasonis that we have it (or at least we think we are the only ones with it).

 

Go learn about Bonobos and Chimpanzees. Also look up African Grey Parrots (and what one in particular learned to do). You will be suprised to learn that Humans are not the only animals that show the behaviour of "Mind" (or self awareness, or morality, or ethics or any other trait you think is unique to humans).

 

Your bias seems to limit your ability to consider alternatives. Here is one alternative that explains what we observe as well or better than your preferred explanation. If the brian is the medium by which mind interfaces with the environment, and the brain is damaged, then the brain will be unable to project the mind as it is. With a damaged brain, the mind also will be unable perceive and respond as it previously did. It will be impaired by false and incomplete signals and data. Consider this experiment as a test of this idea: The television is not the program but if the television is damaged, the program will be obscured or not come through at all.

Before one can state that "the brian is the medium by which mind interfaces with the environment", you first have to establisht eh fact that there exists a thing that is "mind". You have to establish that "mind" is not an emergent property of the brain, as if it is, then the brain is not "the medium by which mind interfaces with the environment", but it is the medium that creates the mind.

 

But then, what is "mind" anyway. can you give an objective definition of what mind is? One that would enable someone to use it and objectively determine if any other animal has one or not.

[ydoaPs]

I will give you morality and Alturism

I won't.

From 'Rethinking Life and Death' by Peter Singer:

An Unusual Institution

In the Netherlands, a few years ago, an observer reported on the lives of some people confined in a new kind of institution. These people had a special condition that did not handicap them at all physically, but intellectually they were well below the normal human level; they could not speak, although they made noises and gestures. In the institutions in which such people were usually kept, they tended to spend much of their time making repetitive movements, and rocking their bodies to and fro. This institution was an unusual one, in that its policy was to allow the inmates the maximum possible freedom to live their own lives and form their own community. This freedom extended even to sexual relationships, which led to pregnancy, birth and child-rearing. The observer was interested in finding out how people without language would behave under these conditions.

 

The behaviour of the inmates was far more varied than in the more conventional institutional settings. They rarely spent time alone, and they appeared to have no difficulty in understanding each other's gestures and vocalisations. They were physically active, spending a lot of time outside, where they had access to about two acres of relatively natural forest, surrounded by a wall. They co-operated in many activities, including on one occasion-to the consternation of the supervisors-an attempt to escape that involved carrying a large fallen branch to the wall, and propping it up as a kind of ladder that made it possible to climb to the other side.

 

The observer was particularly impressed by what he called the 'politics' of the community. A defined leader soon emerged. His leadership-and it was always a 'he'-depended, however, on the support of other members of the group. The leader had privileges, but also, it seemed, obligations. He had to cultivate the favour of others by sharing food and other treats. Fights would develop from time to time, but they would usually be followed by some conciliatory gestures, so that the loser could be readmitted into the society of the leader. If the leader became isolated, and allowed the others to form a coalition against him, his days at the op were numbered.

 

A simple ethical code could also be detected within the community. Its two basic rules, the observer commented, could be summed up as 'one good turn deserves another', and 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'. The breach of the first of these rules apparently led to a sense of being wronged. On one occasion Henk was fighting with Jan, and Gert came to Jan's assistance. Later, Henk attacked Gert, who gestured to Jan for help, but Jan did nothing. After the fight between Gert and Henk was over, Gert furiously attacked Jan.

 

The mothers were with one exception competent at nursing and rearing their children. Then mother-child relationships were close, and lasted many years. The death of a baby led to prolonged grieving. Because sexual relationships were not monogamous, it was not always possible to tell who the father of the child was, and fathers did not play a significant role in the rearing of the children.

 

In view of the very limited mental capacities that these inmates had been credited with, the observer was impressed by instances of behaviour that clearly showed intelligent planning. In one example, two young mothers were having difficulty stopping their small children from fighting. An older mother, a considerable authority figure in the community, as dozing nearby. One of the younger mothers woke her, and pointed to the squabbling children. The older mother made the appropriate noises and gestures, and the children, suitably intimidated, stopped fighting. The older mother then went back to her nap.

 

In order to see just how far ahead these people could think, the observer devised an ingenious test of problem-solving ability. One inmate was presented with two series of five locked boxes made of clear plastic, each of which opened with a different, but readily identifiable, key. The keys were visible in the boxes One series of five boxes led to a food treat, whereas the other series led to an empty box. The key to the first box in each series lay beside it. It was necessary to begin by choosing one of these two initial boxes; and to end up with the treat, one had mentally to work through the five boxes to see which choice would lead to the box with the treat. The inmate was able to succeed in this complex task.

 

The inmates' own awareness of what they were doing was well shown by their extensive practice of deceit. On one occasion, after a fight, it was noticeable that the loser limped badly when in the presence of the victor, but not when alone. Presumably, by pretending to be more seriously hurt than he really was, he hoped for some kind of sympathy, or at least mercy, from his conqueror. But the most elaborate forms of deceit were concerned with-no surprise here for any observer of human behaviour-sexual relationships. Although monogamy was not practised, the leader tried to prevent others having sex with his favourites. To get around this, flirtations leading up to sexual intercourse were conducted with a good deal of discretion, so as not to attract the leader's attention.

 

I have described this community in some detail because I want to raise an ethical question about the way in which people with this condition were regarded by those who looked after them. In the eyes of their supervisors the inmates did not have the same kind of right to life as normal human beings. Though treated with care and consideration for their welfare, they were seen as clearly inferior, and their lives were accorded much less value than the lives of normal human beings. When one of them was killed, in the course of a dispute over who should be leader, the killing was not considered equivalent to the killing of a normal human being. Nor were they eligible for the same kind of medical attention that, throughout the Netherlands, was available for normal human beings. Moreover in the other institutions-not the one I have just described-people with this condition are deliberately infected with diseases such as hepatitis, in order to test the efficacy of experimental drugs or vaccines. In some cases they die as a result of the experiment.

 

How should we regard this situation? Is it moral outrage? Or is it ethically defensible, given the more limited intellectual capacities of these people?

 

Your answer to this question may vary according to the mental image you formed of the inmates of the community I have described. I referred to them as 'people'. In doing so I was using 'people' as the colloquial plural of 'person' and for that term I had in mind the definition offered by the seventeenth-century English philosopher John Locke: 'A thinking intelligent being that has reason and reflection and can consider itself itself, the same thinking thing, in different times and places'. But because the term 'person', like 'people', is commonly used only of members of the species Homo sapiens, my use of the term may have led you to think the community I was describing was made up of intellectually disabled human beings. My use of Dutch names probably reinforced that assumption. In that case, you probably also thought it very wrong that the lives of these people were accorded less value than those of normal human beings; and the mention of their use as experimental subjects very likely caused shock and a sense of outrage.

 

Perhaps some readers, however, were able to guess that I was not describing human beings at all. The 'special condition' that these people have is their membership of the species Pan troglodytes. They are a community of chimpanzees, living in Arnhem Zoo, not far from Amsterdam. If you guessed this, you may not have been so shocked that the supervisors thought the value of the lives of the inmates was markedly less than that of normal humans; perhaps you were not even disturbed by the use of the inmates in lethal experiments.

 

In all the cases I have discussed so far, the human nature of the life in question has set the whole framework of the ethical discussion. I began this chapter with a subterfuge to make each reader aware of the extent to which his or her attitudes vary according to whether it is a human or nonhuman being who is killed-even when the actual capacities of the being are known, though its species is not. Becoming aware of this is a first step towards a critical examination of another part of the foundations of our ethical attitudes to life and death. I have already noted the curious fact that the term 'pro-life' is used to describe people who oppose killing human fetuses but are quite happy to support the killing of calves, pigs and chickens. This is in itself powerful testimony to the extent to which the killing of any human beings, even fetal human beings, seems to us an overwhelmingly more important issue than the killing of nonhuman animals. But here, too, we shall find that the traditional ethic now looks decidedly shaky.

[cypress]

what you need to say humans are not animals is to find something not that is unique to humans, but that is unique to animals and humans do not share. Which of the attributes of Animalia did you say that humans do not possess?

I addressed this issue of definition previously and most recently in the post you are replying against. This is not the sense that the OP asked the question. I don't find it a very useful definition to address the question asked.

 

False.

 

Objective evidence, please.

 

I will give you morality and Alturism as these can be expressed mathematically through game theory. However, Introspection and Self awareness are not at all objective.

 

I have discussed the problem of applying math and other models invented by humans to model reality but is not itself reality.

 

Can you tell me a way to objectivly determine if I am an actual self aware human sitting at a keyboard, or a very clever robot (or AI) typing this?

 

If I am a clever enough robot my response can be indistinguishable from a human, but then I would not be a human or self aware.

 

I don't need to objectively determine if you are self aware. It is self evident that I am self aware. I can can safely state self awareness by noting I think therefore a am.

 

However, there are plenty of animals that disply moar behaviours that we think of as human. Ants will defend the other members of their nest (even to the death). Earwigs (yes the tiny insects) will nurture and protect their young. Meerkats will aid each other and take on various responsability within the family, including careing for the young of other meerkats (including giving them milk).

 

Go look at animal behaviour. Every sinlge behaviour that humans considder as "Moral" or "Ethical" is also performed by some other animal. Actually, go and read a book called: "Bonobo Handshake" by Vanessa Woods (ISBN 9781863954846). It will open your eyes to "Ethical" behaviours, especially as to what is happening in the Congo.

 

Morality and moral behaviors are two different things.

 

And this just contradicts your previous claim. You are actually destroying your own arguments.

 

Again your are confusing morality with behavior.

 

 

It would be like saying that My cosin has brown eyes and I have blue eyes, therefore he is not related to me. We have a common ancestor (grandparent) and we have certain properties (genetic code), so we are related, and just because one of us has blue eyes and the other brown does not mean we are not related. It is that silly the argument you are putting forward.

 

Irrelevant, I don't make this claim.

 

 

Does these differences that have been selected for by huamns mean that Domesticated bannanas are not plants. Of course not.

 

I conclude that you have little interest in the context of the original post. If you chose to wax on about classifying humans according to a definition not intended in the original post, don't let me stop you.

 

This is what you are arguing. You are arguing that because you can point to a percieved difference, then you have to remove it from the group. What you are trying to argue is actually a violation of maths (set theory - go learn it - it is the basis of all mathematics, including computing and programming).

 

I am pretty sure I understand set theory. I acknowledge that you can define a set that has humans in a set called "animals" while still remaining in other sets that don't include other "animals". Set theory is not the question posed in the original post.

 

The thing is the "Differences" you are talking aqbout are a biased perception. WHy, for instance are brains considdered so good? Why is a mind better than venom, or a long tail. The ony reasonis that we have it (or at least we think we are the only ones with it).

 

I'm not sure how this demonstrates bias on my part. I have not claimed mind is better than a long tail. I do claim it is different.

 

Go learn about Bonobos and Chimpanzees. Also look up African Grey Parrots (and what one in particular learned to do). You will be suprised to learn that Humans are not the only animals that show the behaviour of "Mind" (or self awareness, or morality, or ethics or any other trait you think is unique to humans).

 

There you go talking about behavior again. Let's talk about the cause of that behavior instead.

 

 

Before one can state that "the brian is the medium by which mind interfaces with the environment", you first have to establisht eh fact that there exists a thing that is "mind". You have to establish that "mind" is not an emergent property of the brain, as if it is, then the brain is not "the medium by which mind interfaces with the environment", but it is the medium that creates the mind.

 

But then, what is "mind" anyway. can you give an objective definition of what mind is? One that would enable someone to use it and objectively determine if any other animal has one or not.

 

It was offered as an alternative as a way to demonstrate that your truth claim was not truth but instead was just one possibility. I have no need or desire to demonstrate my suggested alternative is correct, as the mere possibility is sufficient for the purpose it was offered. I would be surprised to learn that you don't understand the distinction between soul and body. Though I am quite aware that some wish to claim the distinction is an illusion, the more honest of these people seem at least to admit the dichotomy.

[pioneer]

Based on the definition defined by science humans are mammals. But of all the mammals, humans are the only one's with free will. What that means is the human circle will intersect the mammal circle. But the human circle will also exist outside the mammal circle, into a free will circle. Along with free will is the ability to alter any instincts that may have been part of the mammal circle until they become part of the free will circle.

[AzurePhoenix]

Based on the definition defined by science humans are mammals. But of all the mammals, humans are the only one's with free will. What that means is the human circle will intersect the mammal circle. But the human circle will also exist outside the mammal circle, into a free will circle. Along with free will is the ability to alter any instincts that may have been part of the mammal circle until they become part of the free will circle.

Define free will, then tell me a dolphin, african gray parrot, raven, elephant or any of the great apes don't have it too. Any not nonsensical definition of free will that you could mock up would ultimately apply to any of them just as well as it does to members of our own species.

 

 

Your bias seems to limit your ability to consider alternatives. Here is one alternative that explains what we observe as well or better than your preferred explanation. If the brian is the medium by which mind interfaces with the environment, and the brain is damaged, then the brain will be unable to project the mind as it is. With a damaged brain, the mind also will be unable perceive and respond as it previously did. It will be impaired by false and incomplete signals and data. Consider this experiment as a test of this idea: The television is not the program but if the television is damaged, the program will be obscured or not come through at all.

It’s one thing to consider such. I certainly have myself for the sake of fair consideration. But regardless of willingness to consider the hypothesis, ultimately there just isn’t the faintest whisper of evidence in support of it. In the meantime, current neurological theories are becoming increasingly sufficient to at least paint a picture of what we call the mind, without having to randomly tack on a massive complex of baseless assumptions.

 

Regardless, your “alternative” isn’t anything of the sort. It doesn’t suggest or explain anything. What it does is rely on an absolute unknown to explain a partial unknown. It’s rather like trying to explain the origin of life by proposing panspermia. How does the mind work? I dunknow. Oh, I know! What if there’s this thing that makes the mind work!? What is this thing? I have no idea. How’s it work? No clue. Is there any reason to think it might be there? Not really. I’ll call it the soul and anyone who dismisses it upon close examination is close-minded and biased!

 

Great, you’ve arbitrarily removed the problem a step for no reason without explaining anything. Such an “alternative” doesn’t serve any rational purpose, but is solely based on the intellectually crippling bias of wanting it to be true.

 

I would be surprised to learn that you don't understand the distinction between soul and body. Though I am quite aware that some wish to claim the distinction is an illusion, the more honest of these people seem at least to admit the dichotomy.

I’d actually be more surprised if he did have some understanding of the distinction between soul and body considering there is no coherent description of what a soul is supposed to be (as distinct from a materially based mind), how it’s supposed to arise, where it resides, what it consists of, or how it might function or interact with and influence matter.

 

Morality and moral behaviors are two different things.

I’ll bite, are you distinguishing between descriptive morality and normative morality (which is something we’ve discussed incessantly already)? Or something else? Edited November 21, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[Incendia]

Nothing has free will...not even humans...we are all bound be the laws of this reality.If I had true free will I wouldn't have to walk. I would just hover above the ground in the direction I want to go...I can't do that, can I? Laws of reality prevent me from doing what I want to.

There is no such thing as a soul.

[pioneer]

The term mammal is simply a definition we have agreed upon to help categorize life. We could separate rocks in rough and smooth, but that does not mean we are defining an eternal truth. But if we condition people to accept this rock definition, as though it reflects an eternal truth, many won't be able to see the line is arbitrary. Since it is arbitrary, if one wishes to add even more distinctions to the rocks, such as big and small, don't take it as an assault on your religion, simply because it breaks protocol. All I did was add another aspect to humans that extends beyond mammal even if aspects of humans also extends into line in the sand called mammal.

 

One thing that separates humans from other mammals is subjectivity. Animals tend to be in touch with cause and effect relative to their instincts. To them an apple is a piece of food they either like or don't like. But with humans we can add subjective overlay to make the apple a forbidden fruit. We can also turn arbitrary into an absolute using the same subjectivity. I appear to be touching this subjectivity taboo, which should allow you gain first hand data of another aspect of humans that is outside the rest of the mammal circle. Free will is able to be conscious of this extra subjectivity and therefore choose to go along or not. If one is not conscious of the subjectivity, free will makes little sense.

Edited November 21, 2010 by pioneer

[cypress]

Define free will, then tell me a dolphin, african gray parrot, raven, elephant or any of the great apes don't have it too. Any not nonsensical definition of free will that you could mock up would ultimately apply to any of them just as well as it does to members of our own species.

 

I don't see any way to objectively establish your statement as any more factual than pioneer's. Can you describe a way to show that these animals definitely have the same characteristics of mind as humans including what is widely understood as ability to exercise choice and make contingent plans?

 

 

It’s one thing to consider such. I certainly have myself for the sake of fair consideration. But regardless of willingness to consider the hypothesis, ultimately there just isn’t the faintest whisper of evidence in support of it.

 

Victims of brain damage do act in ways that are more consistent with this description of duality, Alzheimer patients in particular do. Furthermore there is abundant evidence that the mind is able to influence physiological changes to the brain. The placebo effect is also indication that the mind is able to influence the body independently. These are more than whispers. For those who are interested, there is a fair amount of literature in favor of duality but since this topic is not primary to this thread I will leave it at that.

 

In the meantime, current neurological theories are becoming increasingly sufficient to at least paint a picture of what we call the mind, without having to randomly tack on a massive complex of baseless assumptions.

 

Your bias is showing, many many people strongly disagree that some new half-baked neurological speculations paint an accurate picture of the mind.

 

Regardless, your “alternative” isn’t anything of the sort. It doesn’t suggest or explain anything. What it does is rely on an absolute unknown to explain a partial unknown. It’s rather like trying to explain the origin of life by proposing panspermia. How does the mind work? I dunknow. Oh, I know! What if there’s this thing that makes the mind work!? What is this thing? I have no idea. How’s it work? No clue. Is there any reason to think it might be there? Not really. I’ll call it the soul and anyone who dismisses it upon close examination is close-minded and biased!

 

You have constructed a straw man for my response to a poster other than yourself and now you are simply attempting to knock it down. My example demonstrated that edtharan's claim that the mind can only be a physiological product of the brain because there are no alternatives is incorrect. I offered one to demonstrate that Edtharan was incorrect. As I have previously explained, I don't need to show that it is correct to achieve the purpose that the alternative was offered you have admitted that as well. I now add that further discussion takes us off the primary point of this thread. If you go looking through literature you will find it is far better supported than your bias will admit.

 

Great, you’ve arbitrarily removed the problem a step for no reason without explaining anything. Such an “alternative” doesn’t serve any rational purpose, but is solely based on the intellectually crippling bias of wanting it to be true.

 

No, it was introduced to show that Edtharan's truth statement was incorrect.

 

I’d actually be more surprised if he did have some understanding of the distinction between soul and body considering there is no coherent description of what a soul is supposed to be (as distinct from a materially based mind), how it’s supposed to arise, where it resides, what it consists of, or how it might function or interact with and influence matter.

 

The literature is so full of these discussions, particularly in the past 100 years it is shocking that you would deny it. Again though traipsing further into the idea of duality is off topic, the purpose of introducing this idea was as described now thrice.

 

I’ll bite, are you distinguishing between descriptive morality and normative morality (which is something we’ve discussed incessantly already)? Or something else?

 

Something else. Since morality is the sense of right and wrong, it is a belief or thought, while moral behavior is an act. It was to make the point that we don't know if animal behavior that is labeled as "moral" is a result of morality. It may well be a result of programming.

Edited November 21, 2010 by cypress

[pioneer]

If you are walking along and someone jumps out of the dark to scare you, the unconscious reacts first, which is why this is so funny. Some people may pretend they have conscious control, but when they yelp like a child, they get embarrassed, by their lack of control and composure. Something else reacted first, which was not under their conscious control. It was able to process the data faster and achieve a reaction, before the conscious mind could step in and control it.

 

Someone who is a professional card player will look for tells. These are unconscious body language that many people are not aware off, which tells the value of their hand. Even for the pro, these still continue to exist, so one has to be vigilant to control them. But as time goes on, these can be conditioned away, but it that only means the output is regulated, not the input. This is only the tip of the iceberg. Unconscious tells (faster data processing) impact behavior right down to the bias of traditions. Just because the entire herd has the same tell, does not mean it is conscious to it.

 

To see this data one needs to experience it. This type of data means less from the outside. The pro card player can control their tells on the surface, but they still are aware, but only from the inside, where they can hide it from others. The next time, someone jumps out of the dark to scare you, you may be prepared and can avoid the yelp. But the startle will still be there, but can be hidden from surface data collection. That is why second hand data is not the best source of data. An unconscious tell can also control other unconscious tells.

 

The animal would react to you scaring it in an unconscious way, but it doesn't try to hide this. Human instincts are also unconscious tells. But like the pro-card player these can be controlled until they start to become unconscious. Then we will use fads to play them out in a conscious way. But if you go inside to the source of these tells, what had become unconscious starts to become conscious. The term mammal is only for the surface of things and does not reflect the unique relationship that humans have between conscious and unconscious.

Edited November 21, 2010 by pioneer

[Incendia]

...That is because we a sentient...but there are people who argue that dolphins are sentient...

[Edtharan]

I have discussed the problem of applying math and other models invented by humans to model reality but is not itself reality.

But if the model matches reality, then can't one say that the model is a good description of reality (although not reality obviously).

 

Since the whol epuropse is to describe reality as best we can, is not a good model useful?

 

I don't need to objectively determine if you are self aware. It is self evident that I am self aware. I can can safely state self awareness by noting I think therefore a am.

So, if you can't objectivly tell if I am self aware, then may be you are the only self aware entitiy in the universe. that means, by your definitions, that Huamns are animals, but you are not.

 

So, how does this prove your point? As there is now no objective way to prove that any other humans are anything other than animals by your own admission. And as you objection to including other animals as being sentient was there was no objective way to prove they were or weren't. As this, by your own admission, can now no longer even apply to humans, then your objects that Humans are objectively different from animals is disproved.

 

This is what I was getting at about delusions. How can you now, objectivly determine that you are not delusional about your self awareness? You have no other reference to go off, you have admitted that you can not tell if any other huamns are self aware, so what refernce do you have that you are not deluding yourslef that you are self aware?

 

Morality and moral behaviors are two different things.

How? How can you objectivly tell the difference?

 

Again your are confusing morality with behavior.

If you can provide an objective difference between the tow, then I'll discuss this further, otherwise you are just making wild unsupported claims.

 

As you seem to have a problem of others doing this, that would make you a hypocrit.

 

Irrelevant, I don't make this claim.

It is the logical equivelent of your claim. So although you didn't use those words, you are still making that same claim.

 

I conclude that you have little interest in the context of the original post. If you chose to wax on about classifying humans according to a definition not intended in the original post, don't let me stop you.

I am just applying your claims to their locical conclusions. If you have a problem with them either show wher the logic is wrong, or admit your claims are not valid.

 

I am pretty sure I understand set theory. I acknowledge that you can define a set that has humans in a set called "animals" while still remaining in other sets that don't include other "animals". Set theory is not the question posed in the original post.

Based on the post I quotes, No you do not have an undersntaing of Set Theory. I have provided evidence of your lacxk of undersntading. So you don't have an understnading, and this has been objectivly verified by your post.

 

I'm not sure how this demonstrates bias on my part. I have not claimed mind is better than a long tail. I do claim it is different.

You have used mind as a differnce (and now admitted you can not objectivly determine if it exists or not in anything other than your self - and even then you could be deluded in thinking that you have it as you have admitted there is not way you could tell if you were or wern't). But every single orgnaism (not just animals) hase unique difference to any other animal (if they didn't they would be the same as another organism and so would not be single out as being different). So why have you chose Mind as being something that is the difference between us and animals. One could equally point to some other ability of any other organism and use that to claim it is not part of whatever group of organisms it has been classed under.

 

It is only because you assume that we are the only ones with it (and you have just admitted you can't prove that Huamns have it, only your self - so you could be a robot constructed to think it is human and to be physically indistinguishable form huamns, but not huamn and the only being in the universe with a mind) that you use it as something to differentiated us.

 

The only OBJECTIVE way to determine anyhting about something is to observe its behaviour. But, as you seem to reject behaviour as being indicitive of anything about the internal workings of an organism, then you are rejecting the only way of objective observation.

 

But as you seem to think everyone else needs to use this, but you yourself are exempt, you are acting in a hypocritical manner.

 

There you go talking about behavior again. Let's talk about the cause of that behavior instead.

Well as it has been objectivly determined that neurological activity causes behaviours, then we could use some kind of "magical" device that allowes us to look at neurological activity and match it with behaviours. Oh wait, we do have such devices. they are called Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging systems, and these are accurate enough to allow us to see an image someone is looking at just by looking at the pattern of nuronal activity (including if thery are just imaginine the image rather than looking at it with their eyes). Hey there are enven computer perhipherals that you can get designed so you can play computer games (they are about $300) that use systems like this.

 

So, that neural activity drives behaviour is so well established that they use it for games now, means that it is a very well established process. To claim otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

 

And, because of that, it is objective proof I am right.

 

It was offered as an alternative as a way to demonstrate that your truth claim was not truth but instead was just one possibility. I have no need or desire to demonstrate my suggested alternative is correct, as the mere possibility is sufficient for the purpose it was offered. I would be surprised to learn that you don't understand the distinction between soul and body. Though I am quite aware that some wish to claim the distinction is an illusion, the more honest of these people seem at least to admit the dichotomy.

It is pointless to posit that gravity is caised by invisible pink fairies. Sure, it is a possible explaination, but it is pointless as there is no objective evidence (which you seem find of saying yourself) that invisible pink fairies exist. But there is no objective evidence of a soul.

 

So, on the same grounds that you want to reject things, I can reject that. the only way I will accept that is if you accept everything else posited without the need (even if it was given) of objective evidence, or you can provide objective evidence of a soul.

 

It is under your own criteria (and a criteria I also requier anyway) that I reject it. If you ask me to accept the existance of a soul wihtout objective evidence, but reject things because you don't have objective evidence then that is hypocritical.