As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Separating "Man" from "Animals"

124

Posts

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Meiz wrote: »
    As for the question posed, what separates us from the rest of the species should be obvious: ?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Meiz wrote: »
    As for the question posed, what separates us from the rest of the species should be obvious. At least it is to me.

    If you say 'a soul' I'll beat you.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Generally, being human deals with logos. It is language, it is our ability to work abstractly, it is our ability to think about being.

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • MeizMeiz Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    Meiz wrote: »
    As for the question posed, what separates us from the rest of the species should be obvious. At least it is to me.

    If you say 'a soul' I'll beat you.

    Hahaha, heavens no.

    It doesn't really require a leap of faith, just open the door, look outside and take a walk.

    Meiz on
  • JebusUDJebusUD Adventure! Candy IslandRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    What seperates us from "animals" is a significantly larger encehpalization index. We think about our actions and interactions much more than other animals.

    Human babies take more time to mature than chimpanzee babies.

    JebusUD on
    I write you a story
    But it loses its thread
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I think the fact that we're discussing this is a good example of our difference from other species. I wouldn't say humans as a species are particularly "special" though, we're still animals.

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Elldren wrote: »
    I think the fact that we're discussing this is a good example of our difference from other species. I wouldn't say humans as a species are particularly "special" though, we're still animals.

    well were not plants and were not minerals....

    Dunadan019 on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Humans don't do anything provably beyond other animals (I seriously doubt dolphins have religion but it can't be backed up until you can communicate fully with them). Every time we try and set a bar some animal shows up that does the same thing. What we have that other animals don't is specific and often high concentrations of these traits.

    Thing is, you can take most of these traits away, and you'll still call someone a human. Maybe not a person, though.

    --

    We're composed of minerals, though.

    Incenjucar on
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Humans don't do anything provably beyond other animals (I seriously doubt dolphins have religion but it can't be backed up until you can communicate fully with them). Every time we try and set a bar some animal shows up that does the same thing. What we have that other animals don't is specific and often high concentrations of these traits.

    Thing is, you can take most of these traits away, and you'll still call someone a human. Maybe not a person, though.

    --

    We're composed of minerals, though.

    yeah well im pretty sure other animals recognize their own species too

    they may not verbalize that recognition as "hey look hes an alligator like me" but i havent seen any confused alligators mating with platypusses lately.

    Dunadan019 on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Of course animals recognize their own species.

    But, like humans, they don't always care.

    Animals like to have pets and interspecies pals too. We didn't invent domestication by a long shot.

    Incenjucar on
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I mean, we're discussing this on an internet forum. I have yet to see the dolphin internet. You really have to go to the higher functional use of tools for demonstrable differences, and other animals do use tools, just not to the same degree.

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I have yet to see a 14th Century English internet.

    Incenjucar on
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    I have yet to see a 14th Century English internet.

    I have yet to see a dolphin windmill. It's not like dolphins have had significantly less time to develop technology, they just haven't.

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • Joe ChemoJoe Chemo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I think using higher brain functions as a criterion could be problematic.

    For instance, what if a baby was born with severe birth defects? Say, this baby was so brain damaged it couldn't communicate at all, or use tools etc.

    Am I right in thinking that the consensus is that this baby, although unable to do things that animals can do, is still a person?

    Joe Chemo on
  • PodlyPodly you unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Joe Chemo wrote: »
    Am I right in thinking that the consensus is that this baby, although unable to do things that animals can do, is still a person?

    You're bringing to light one of the big problems with the cogito. If someone is not cognating their cognitions, do they exist as humans?

    Podly on
    follow my music twitter soundcloud tumblr
    9pr1GIh.jpg?1
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Joe Chemo wrote: »
    I think using higher brain functions as a criterion could be problematic.

    For instance, what if a baby was born with severe birth defects? Say, this baby was so brain damaged it couldn't communicate at all, or use tools etc.

    Am I right in thinking that the consensus is that this baby, although unable to do things that animals can do, is still a person?

    In much the same way that a deformed mutant dog is still a dog, yes.

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • ZombiemamboZombiemambo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Yes we share a lot of basic traits but when it comes right down to it is it more humane to test a possible cure to a disease that is devestating our population on an animal or on another human? Don't get me wrong there are some very fucked up people out there and I'm not saying that we are entitled to destroy nature or anything of that sort we can learn a lot through mutual respect of animals and coexistance but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that sacrifices have to be made so we can continue to thrive.

    Now see, this where you and I differ. We've virtually eliminated natural selection in our artifical environment, allowing weak genes to thrive where naturally they should fail. The more 'threats' we eliminate in the short term, the more harm we do to our offspring.

    Zombiemambo on
    JKKaAGp.png
  • Joe ChemoJoe Chemo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Podly wrote: »
    Joe Chemo wrote: »
    Am I right in thinking that the consensus is that this baby, although unable to do things that animals can do, is still a person?

    You're bringing to light one of the big problems with the cogito. If someone is not cognating their cognitions, do they exist as humans?


    Right. And I would argue that higher brain functions/tool building/language can't be what differentiates humans from animals. See Terry Schiavo, or any other person without higher functions. They are still valued persons. But a lab mouse, who can do many things Terry couldn't, isn't anywhere near as valued. Otherwise we'd be experimenting on retarded children left and right.

    So it must be something other than our heads, amirite?

    Joe Chemo on
  • Joe ChemoJoe Chemo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Elldren wrote: »
    Joe Chemo wrote: »
    I think using higher brain functions as a criterion could be problematic.

    For instance, what if a baby was born with severe birth defects? Say, this baby was so brain damaged it couldn't communicate at all, or use tools etc.

    Am I right in thinking that the consensus is that this baby, although unable to do things that animals can do, is still a person?

    In much the same way that a deformed mutant dog is still a dog, yes.

    So, a dog is still a dog; a human is still a human. A person who is unable to use tools is still a person.

    So how can we rely on level of tool use to differentiate humans from animals? As much as I want to see a dolphin internet, I do not think the lack thereof is what separates us.

    Joe Chemo on
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Joe Chemo wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Joe Chemo wrote: »
    I think using higher brain functions as a criterion could be problematic.

    For instance, what if a baby was born with severe birth defects? Say, this baby was so brain damaged it couldn't communicate at all, or use tools etc.

    Am I right in thinking that the consensus is that this baby, although unable to do things that animals can do, is still a person?

    In much the same way that a deformed mutant dog is still a dog, yes.

    So, a dog is still a dog; a human is still a human. A person who is unable to use tools is still a person.

    So how can we rely on level of tool use to differentiate humans from animals? As much as I want to see a dolphin internet, I do not think the lack thereof is what separates us.

    The existence of a dog that cannot bark is not a good reason to not class barking as something dogs do. Just because a handful of examples cannot perform a task or function properly that the vast majority of a species can is a pretty bad reason to discard it as a descriptor for the species as a whole.

    While the science of speciation is fairly fuzzy (still) I don't understand why anyone is arguing that humans can suddenly become not humans, or that there aren't any differences between people and cats. Anyone with any sensation whatsoever could tell you they are different species.

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • Apothe0sisApothe0sis Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Podly wrote: »
    Joe Chemo wrote: »
    Am I right in thinking that the consensus is that this baby, although unable to do things that animals can do, is still a person?

    You're bringing to light one of the big problems with the cogito. If someone is not cognating their cognitions, do they exist as humans?

    That's the worst non sequitur I've ever heard with regard to Descartes, Podly, you should be ashamed.

    The cogito has nothing to do with being human, and nothing to do with existing, it only relates to what can and cannot be doubted.

    According to Descartes, you cannot doubt that you are doubting, hence you can be sure that you think and therefore exist.

    Apothe0sis on
  • Joe ChemoJoe Chemo Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Elldren wrote: »
    Joe Chemo wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Joe Chemo wrote: »
    I think using higher brain functions as a criterion could be problematic.

    For instance, what if a baby was born with severe birth defects? Say, this baby was so brain damaged it couldn't communicate at all, or use tools etc.

    Am I right in thinking that the consensus is that this baby, although unable to do things that animals can do, is still a person?

    In much the same way that a deformed mutant dog is still a dog, yes.

    So, a dog is still a dog; a human is still a human. A person who is unable to use tools is still a person.

    So how can we rely on level of tool use to differentiate humans from animals? As much as I want to see a dolphin internet, I do not think the lack thereof is what separates us.

    The existence of a dog that cannot bark is not a good reason to not class barking as something dogs do. Just because a handful of examples cannot perform a task or function properly that the vast majority of a species can is a pretty bad reason to discard it as a descriptor for the species as a whole.

    While the science of speciation is fairly fuzzy (still) I don't understand why anyone is arguing that humans can suddenly become not humans, or that there aren't any differences between people and cats. Anyone with any sensation whatsoever could tell you they are different species.

    I absolutely agree with you: there are certainly differences between people and cats. I guess I sort of lost track of what this thread is addressing. In my mind, the question is "what makes us human?"

    I am not saying that tool building isn't a valid descriptor of the species as a whole. What I'm trying to say is that an individual who lacks tool building doesn't lack humanity. Therefore, isn't it something other than tool building that makes us human?

    Joe Chemo on
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Joe Chemo wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Joe Chemo wrote: »
    Elldren wrote: »
    Joe Chemo wrote: »
    I think using higher brain functions as a criterion could be problematic.

    For instance, what if a baby was born with severe birth defects? Say, this baby was so brain damaged it couldn't communicate at all, or use tools etc.

    Am I right in thinking that the consensus is that this baby, although unable to do things that animals can do, is still a person?

    In much the same way that a deformed mutant dog is still a dog, yes.

    So, a dog is still a dog; a human is still a human. A person who is unable to use tools is still a person.

    So how can we rely on level of tool use to differentiate humans from animals? As much as I want to see a dolphin internet, I do not think the lack thereof is what separates us.

    The existence of a dog that cannot bark is not a good reason to not class barking as something dogs do. Just because a handful of examples cannot perform a task or function properly that the vast majority of a species can is a pretty bad reason to discard it as a descriptor for the species as a whole.

    While the science of speciation is fairly fuzzy (still) I don't understand why anyone is arguing that humans can suddenly become not humans, or that there aren't any differences between people and cats. Anyone with any sensation whatsoever could tell you they are different species.

    I absolutely agree with you: there are certainly differences between people and cats. I guess I sort of lost track of what this thread is addressing. In my mind, the question is "what makes us human?"

    I am not saying that tool building isn't a valid descriptor of the species as a whole. What I'm trying to say is that an individual who lacks tool building doesn't lack humanity. Therefore, isn't it something other than tool building that makes us human?

    There really isn't any one thing that every single member of the species possesses. It can't be boiled down to a single factor: it's a large set of things which, if you meet any number of, you can safely be classed as human.

    Elldren on
    fuck gendered marketing
  • Zilla360Zilla360 21st Century. |She/Her| Trans* Woman In Aviators Firing A Bazooka. ⚛️Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    So, we know that Dolphins as a [great variety of] species returned to the Oceans after spending time on Land.

    The question that intrigues me the most, is what were their brains like before returning to the seas? Did they ever come close to our level of neurological complexity whilst on land?

    Zilla360 on
    |Ko-Fi Me! ☕😎|NH844lc.png | PSN | chi-logo-only-favicon.png(C.H.I) Ltd. |🏳️⚧️♥️
  • AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    Zilla360 wrote: »
    So, we know that Dolphins as a [great variety of] species returned to the Oceans after spending time on Land.

    The question that intrigues me the most, is what were their brains like before returning to the seas? Did they ever come close to our level of neurological complexity whilst on land?

    Presumably not, they were something between a dog and a cow. They probably didn't have the complex social interactions that they do now so they didn't have a need to evolve significant intelligence. Mind you that whales and dolphins evolved from the same ancestors and whales have less complex social interactions, so I would doubt that the dolphins were very complex animals before they entered the sea. I'm going to guess that perhaps the need to organize in order to catch fish is what drove their intelligence upwards.

    EDIT:
    Did anyone else see "Evolve" on the history channel? It was actually totally awesome and I'm considering making a thread about it. Anyway, they suggested that primates evolved such significant intelligence primarily because they have forward facing eyes that give them depth perception. Because of their forward facing eyes they had a small range of vision, so they began to rely on many sets of eyes all looking in different directions, so they had to develop the intelligence to handle social interactions.

    AJAlkaline40 on
    idiot.jpg
  • ege02ege02 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    EDIT:
    Did anyone else see "Evolve" on the history channel? It was actually totally awesome and I'm considering making a thread about it. Anyway, they suggested that primates evolved such significant intelligence primarily because they have forward facing eyes that give them depth perception. Because of their forward facing eyes they had a small range of vision, so they began to rely on many sets of eyes all looking in different directions, so they had to develop the intelligence to handle social interactions.

    The way you state it, it doesn't make much sense to me.

    Maybe there's more to it, though.

    ege02 on
  • AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    ege02 wrote: »
    EDIT:
    Did anyone else see "Evolve" on the history channel? It was actually totally awesome and I'm considering making a thread about it. Anyway, they suggested that primates evolved such significant intelligence primarily because they have forward facing eyes that give them depth perception. Because of their forward facing eyes they had a small range of vision, so they began to rely on many sets of eyes all looking in different directions, so they had to develop the intelligence to handle social interactions.

    The way you state it, it doesn't make much sense to me.

    Maybe there's more to it, though.

    Yeah, there is. I'm just not good at this :P.

    Basically, monkeys developed forward-facing eyes to give them depth perception, which is crucial when living in the canopy. This was a major disadvantage for them against predators, however. For instance, rabbit eyes have no overlap, and they actually have nearly 360 degree vision, which is crucial for knowing when a bird of prey is swooping down on you. Monkeys lost that advantage so instead they developed the strategy of banding together, two sets of eyes are better than one, you get what I mean? Because it requires a much more complex brain to handle social interactions, monkeys were forced to evolve greater communication skills. Presumably they hit some threshold of brain development where they began receiving an evolutionary benefit just by being smart, and with thousands of other pressures this eventually lead to ape-like intelligence. Now the evolution of human intelligence is a good deal more complicated explain.

    AJAlkaline40 on
    idiot.jpg
  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited July 2008
    Thinking like this seriously hurts my brain. Lots of people claim that abortion is a holocaust and if, in 20 years, we determine it's wrong and make it illegal... we'll look back and go "oh my God, look what we did".

    Imagine if in 20 years pretty much all domestic mammals, even all pain-sensitive creatures, are considered 'rights-bearing'. That shit messes with you, man.

    Organichu on
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Thinking like this seriously hurts my brain. Lots of people claim that abortion is a holocaust and if, in 20 years, we determine it's wrong and make it illegal... we'll look back and go "oh my God, look what we did".

    Imagine if in 20 years pretty much all domestic mammals, even all pain-sensitive creatures, are considered 'rights-bearing'. That shit messes with you, man.

    Then eventually we will figure out all living things strive to live, even plantlife which vegetarians seem to think deserve death more than animals because they are not "cute." Then the people who do not accept that you have to do a little killing to live will die. The rest of us will go on enjoying being at the top of the food chain.

    Cliff on
  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited July 2008
    Cliff wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Thinking like this seriously hurts my brain. Lots of people claim that abortion is a holocaust and if, in 20 years, we determine it's wrong and make it illegal... we'll look back and go "oh my God, look what we did".

    Imagine if in 20 years pretty much all domestic mammals, even all pain-sensitive creatures, are considered 'rights-bearing'. That shit messes with you, man.

    Then eventually we will figure out all living things strive to live, even plantlife which vegetarians seem to think deserve death more than animals because they are not "cute." Then the people who do not accept that you have to do a little killing to live will die. The rest of us will go on enjoying being at the top of the food chain.

    It certainly is a pleasant existence. :winky:

    It's funny, because I just always held it as intrinsic that conceptualizing (the ability to integrate two like concepts into a more complex... concept, or whatever) was the determinant for whether we were good to go, rights wise. It sounded simple and concrete and helped me sleep. Someone recently challenged that, though, and it made me start to doubt it. Their argument is that pain is the best yard stick for this issue, but they didn't qualify that to me and I don't accept it, either.

    Basically I don't know where I stand (though I am an omnivore and I frankly don't care much about destroying different habitats assuming it doesn't negatively affect mankind), and that's kind of unsettling.

    Organichu on
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    It is impossible to quantify pain. You can only ever know how much you yourself hurt. For all we know, uprooting cabbage causes the plant a tremendous amount of pain.

    Cliff on
  • AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited July 2008
    Pain is a terrible metric, too. The manner in which we experience pain is worlds away from the manner in which an insect experiences pain.

    People attempt to stretch human values beyond humans. I mean, a lot of the time we can't help it, but it's just not rational. I guess people just often wish to treat other animals as though they were humans, but they're just not (like people who talk to and assign mentally and socially complex actions to their cats).

    AJAlkaline40 on
    idiot.jpg
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Cliff wrote: »
    It is impossible to quantify pain. You can only ever know how much you yourself hurt. For all we know, uprooting cabbage causes the plant a tremendous amount of pain.

    OK, this might be a stupid question, but do plants have nerves? Or anything similar?

    I'm pretty sure they don't, that it's really just more like automated growths. But maybe they have a mechanism that is reasonably similar.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    As far as we can tell, no they do not. However, that doesn't rule out cellular communication schemes instead of central nervous system.

    Edit: But yeah, it seems like everything they do is an automated response, however when their cells are infiltrated by diseases like bacterium and viruses, they do have some sort of cellular communication that helps them isolate damaged areas. If I remember correctly.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • CliffCliff Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I think there is a lot about plants we do not know. I think we make many asinine judgements about them simply because they live in such a different manner from animals. Still, I think it is rediculous to somehow hold them in lesser regard than other living things. They want to survive as much as anything else. Many plants have defense mechanisms, and I am sure everyone has seen plants tear through fucking concrete.

    Besides, the whole pain= rights thing is enormously retarded. Someone without pain sensors has no rights? Anyone on anastesia has no rights? That's silly.

    Cliff on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    I agree, any basis on that is completely retarded. If it's wrong to eat animals, then it's also wrong to eat plants. To me, anyways.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Cliff wrote: »
    Besides, the whole pain= rights thing is enormously retarded. Someone without pain sensors has no rights? Anyone on anastesia has no rights? That's silly.

    No, it's No nervous system=no rights.

    Anything that has no nervous system or one that is under developed like animal or insect is not at the same level as humans or some of the more clever simians.

    DanHibiki on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Pretty much the only things that don't have a nervous system are plants.

    Even hydra have a nervous system, although it's a nerve net.

    Edit: And underdeveloped is a matter of opinion. Hydra, for instance, function as well as any land animal that eats grass, and probably is on par with predatory animals. Just because they don't look cute doesn't mean they're not functioning wonderfully.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • OrganichuOrganichu poops peesRegistered User, Moderator mod
    edited July 2008
    Yes, I agree pain=rights is wrong.

    So I don't know.

    That's what creeps me out. This is a huge issue. I'm a quarter through my life, a decade into adolescence. And I don't know where I stand, really. I'm honest to myself about the fact that I don't really have an argument.

    Organichu on
  • bowenbowen How you doin'? Registered User regular
    edited July 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Yes, I agree pain=rights is wrong.

    So I don't know.

    That's what creeps me out. This is a huge issue. I'm a quarter through my life, a decade into adolescence. And I don't know where I stand, really. I'm honest to myself about the fact that I don't really have an argument.

    Hey that's fine. Just don't get into some philosophical funk and stop eating or wearing completely hemp clothing because you can't decide.

    bowen on
    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Sign In or Register to comment.