What is human?

A big welcome from me as well Francisco :-D

truth
No doubt, Fransisco, we are a species of animal. TO ME, the most important property that distinguishes us from other animals is that we know we are going to die; they don't--as far as we know.
When we ask what is the meaning of life, we must specify "for whom?"

JLNobody, Individual actually already trumped your death argument, and although I don't know how scientifically accurate it is...



He may be wrong. Or he might be right. I'm gonna go do some research on how much validity that statement really has.

It has become exceedingly apparent that it is close to impossible to locate a credible scientific source on the topic of mourning elephants. This is a link to a news website that ran an article three years ago about about a hundred or so elephants that supposedly gathered around seven of their recently deceased and, tears streaming down their pachydermal faces, trumpeted for several hours. Interviews with eyewitnesses included. I still don't know how reliable it is, but it's got some credibility.

Elephant Mourning over Slaughtered Pack Members

truth
Francisco and Individual. I think there is a fundamental difference between an elephant's emotional sense of loss (i.e., grieving) and "knowing" that one will someday die. The latter requires the abstractions, "death" and "future" or some equivalents. Loss is something else; we've all seen or heard of dogs pining when their master dies, and gorillas grieve the loss of children. But we never see signs that dogs or gorillas are anticipating their own or another's death.

Our brains are structurally different. We have far greater capacity for language, logical thinking, empathy, and imagination. We are the only species that is truly civilized with codified moral standards of behavior that demand that others be treated fairly (at least members of our own social group). Yes, we have instincts as all animals do, but we can learn to override them.

BTW, bowerbirds appreciate art.

Re: truth

That's because we are blind.



What makes us "human" is our stupendous arrogance in claiming to see and know so much.

I have seen chickens in cages waiting their turn going into the slaughterhouse, and they sure as hell looked anxious. They can see and hear the sounds the others ahead of them make, and of the killing process. The can smell the blood.

We can only observer behaviors not feelings, anticipations etc. , and we tend to humanize behaviors we do observe.

Good points Smiley, when it comes to knowing what it's' like to be a bat, we know diddly-squat.

http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html

truth
Twyvel, I do not doubt that chickens can respond with fear to the smell of chicken blood and dying sounds of other chickens. I was trying to say only that as far as we can tell other animals do not CONCEPTUALLY anticipate their death, by means of an abstract notion of their mortality.

Smiley, I agree that as a species humans are profoundly arrogant and insensitive to the suffering we cause other animal forms. And we SHOULD--as some ethologists do--try to understand the nature of their experience. But are you telling me that we DO have evidence that other animals entertain the abstract notion of their mortality?
I'm sorry I didn't make my point more clearly.

JL, the conceptualization and abstraction of "death" and "future" is indeed different from a simple emotional reaction of "loss". You have a good point there.

But so many features that I've heard people ascribe only to humans have come from deliberately judging what we have very little knowledge of. It's presumptuous, and invites further ignorance. Better to simply say "We don't know", than to say "Hey let's prove we're superior, because we want to be". True understanding can only happen when there's open curiosity without an agenda.

Also, simply enumerating our differences doesn't prove one thing or another. Ants think using chemicals, while humans think using electrical impulses -- but is one or the other superior? Clearly, ants have the advantage and are far more refined and advanced than we are! The argument goes both ways.

Enumerating differences doesn't seem particularly useful. What's the point? How will we use the information now? If we can somehow prove that we're superior to ants (just because they are different) will we then spend the day watching TV, smugly confident that we're so much better, while they actually go out and use their ant-knowledge? Would our new-found superiority justify using or killing ants? What do we do with our understanding? Food for the ego is not the same as food for life.

It comes down to "Why are we asking?" If you can tell me the practical application of this knowledge, then I can construct whatever "knowledge" you need acheive that goal. I'll even make it "correct" and "accurate" in all it's biased glory. Until then, there's no point in judgeing. What distinguishes humans is whatever features we care to distinguish, for whatever reason. If there is no agenda then there is no real difference between species.

Every person and every species will distinguish things differently. Every species can legitimately claim to be more advanced than everyone else -- because they are!

Rather than separating us and denying possibilities, I'd rather see how much we can appreciate.

When I see how our own brains work, it's pretty clear that abstract thought, knowledge, love, reasoning, ethics, and civilization don't even need an organic brain to host it. We could create or find those things in many places! We may not be able to see them very well right now, but many substances and systems could produce those things, not just a human brain. I wouldn't eliminate the possibilities just because we want to.

Right JLNobody, I don't think (other) animals conceptualize as we do, (though they might conceptualize in their own way), yet they do anticipate danger but whether they can determine that 'danger' is danger of dying is another issue. Maybe all danger is related to the fear and danger of dying, that is, (apparent) bodily death.

I completely agree. What is the soverignity that we claim for ourselves? Indeed, we are far more intellectual (for the most part.) We have technology. We harness electrical currents and redirect them through our appliances and electronics in order to prepare food, watch TV for pleasure, listen to music for pleasure, etc. So? Animals have no need for these machines. They live completely in a primitive lifestyle. No TV, video games, books, junk food, loud music, or electric heaters for these 'uncivilized' creatures. As well as there is no daily job, budget, etc. With each ease technology gives, another ten adversities are formed.

In other words, 'human' is a term which describes a species who is not physically capable but has adapted with technologies. I am not developed enough to be able to say which species is better off than the rest, but I have to say I've enjoyed myself so far.

I have to say this though. I believe animals are much more intelligent then we give them credit for. Dogs develop a sense of fear and subordination towards rough masters. I disagree with your arguement that animals don't 'conceptualize'. I am sure they have utter knowledge of the rules of death, but they are different from us in the fact that they don't let those fears bog them down. All animals know the meaning of life and would take you for an imbecile if you asked them what it was.

truth
When I say that only humans know they are going to die, I am not arguing that they are therefore superior in any objective sense. Of course, we think we are the most intelligent species because we have technology. But the fly would argue, if he had a mind to, that he has cow dung to mess with and that humans are totally unable to have this pleasure. There is no such ranking in nature. The very idea is our construction.

From what I've seem of the differences between humans and animals, most of it seems to have to do with memory or the lack of it, not of some kind of fundamental difference. We are animals, really...

The infrastructure is somewhat different. A turtle has one thought a day, humans have one hundred a minute, ……lucky turtle.

My, my, here's the nondualist over here trying to distinguish one individual "thought" from all of the massively complex processes that make up the workings of the mind.

But my point is, their brains may be slower or work a little differently, but there's no more or less difference between turtles and humans than there is between, say, turtles and cheetahs. I don't think you could find one single thing that separated all human minds from all animal minds such that the animal minds were all closer to each other than to the human minds. Even language, they have to some degree, even in some cases some kind syntactical grammar (like bee dances...). The more carefully you look, the finer the lines you have to draw, until there is no line at all.

truth
Rufio, interesting points. I agree that the more carefully we look the finer the lines if demarcation will become. But do you really think that eventually, if the lines become fine enough, all differences will disappear, such that the human and turtle minds will be identical, that their experience will be the same? Or have I misunderstood you point?

truth
Twyvel, I agree, but it still makes me dizzy.

I think discussions such as these would be a good indicator...

I believe that Humans are far superior to any other life form on Earth. To say that Humans are equal, or lesser than animals would be seriously under-estimating humans.