The 'We are Just Animals' Perspective

[Aqueous Moon]

lol...metaphorical language is my joy

[hectis]

Humans And Animals Are Not The Same Thing Sure We Do A Lot Of The Same Things But We Are Not The Same

[My First Timbs]

but animals do not have this intelligence that speaks phonetic words and creates advertising campaigns and puts the fork on the left side of the plate

thats a subjective assertion.. what we define as intelligence is biased from the get go if u base us as a standard

phonetic speech is one form of a myriad of animal communication.. it could be argued that it is hardly the most advanced form of animal communication.

[My First Timbs]

How can you broker between humans and elephants by using "increased brain size" as a factor
And then say "don't get hung up on intelligence"?

What does psuedo subjective mean?
Doesn't that imply some level of objectivity?

Does OUR nervous system "allow" for intelligence?

If my assertion is biased from HUMAN ego,
compare the human ego to another animal's ego.

Does a non-human animal's ego go any further than mating, territory, and self preservation?

great questions..

here is where i think we are getting hung up

How can you broker between humans and elephants by using "increased brain size" as a factor
And then say "don't get hung up on intelligence"?

increased brain size is not the same thing as intellgence.. when i spoke of increased brain size, im talking about the relative organ (brain weight) to nominal body weight ratio!...

i was merely pointing out how one could in no way rationalize elephants and humans belonging to the same suborder...

Does OUR nervous system "allow" for intelligence?

here is the crux of the issue.. we have to agree on a defintion of intelligence.. by intelligence im referring to a nervous system that allows for conscious thought and ability to retrieve sensory input, process it and then make a decision based on current input or prior input that was processed in a similar situation. the human nervous system allows for this.. as does the central nervous system of many other animals.

If my assertion is biased from HUMAN ego,
compare the human ego to another animal's ego.

an assertion that humans are the greatest of all animals is biased from human ego because it implies that there exists a heirarchy where certain characteristics are placed above other characteristics.. (with human abilities of course appearing at the apex).. how does one determine which abilities are better than other animal abilities? is it purely based on survival value to the species? or is it qualified on a trait by trait basis?

Does a non-human animal's ego go any further than mating, territory, and self preservation?

thats a hard question.. because ultimately it would require a test to demonstrate the conscious animal psyche... but what can be stated about this area are results obtained from studies involving many different animals and their ability to recognize the concept of "self" vs "others", and symbolic thinking and altrusim. many animals do indeed have the ability 2 recognize the concept of self and symbolic thought. from this and what we know about our own abilities and CNS is that with that mechanism in place, u have all the necessary components to allow for inner thought processes (ie an "ego") or cognitive ability to perceive ones self and one's goals.

on another level, it must be understood that the basic fundamental point of any and all egos are purely for self preservation and reproduction (when i talk about self preservation, im talking not about the actual individual, but the survival value of the species itself)

[june181972]

Timbs,

Don't humans have the highest brain mass to body mass ratio?

Are not humans the ones most capable of using ALL five senses to process information?
(I know some animals might have one or two superior to humans, but as a whole working together effectively)

Ultimately, when it comes to survival, animals will never displace humans because they decided to move in to the neighborhood.
(I have deers and rabbits in my back yard because they built houses where animals used to roam and live)

I understand the basic ego and self-preservation premise
But are not humans the only animals to truly decide between fight and flight when put in a hostile, one-on-one situation?

Do animals ever search for or even debate the existence of a higher power?
All they are motivated by is procreation, appetite, and protecting their territory and family.

Our motivation goes beyond basic creature comforts and survival.
If not, we would not even have scientists.

[LHX]

thats a subjective assertion.. what we define as intelligence is biased from the get go if u base us as a standard

what if you dont base us as a standard, but rather an example of something that possibly could be called 'The Standard™'?

phonetic speech is one form of a myriad of animal communication.. it could be argued that it is hardly the most advanced form of animal communication.

negative

phonetic language has nothing to do with speech

it has everything to do with the use of symbols

this is as abstract as it gets

[LHX]

here is the crux of the issue.. we have to agree on a defintion of intelligence..

no
we dont

it would be useful for this discussion to be able to have a definition of intelligence, but it is the nature of the beast that we run into that age old flaw - when something tries to define itself

by intelligence im referring to a nervous system that allows for conscious thought and ability to retrieve sensory input, process it and then make a decision based on current input or prior input that was processed in a similar situation. the human nervous system allows for this..

yes - these bodies are capable of holding intelligence

as does the central nervous system of many other animals.

clearly, not the same way

an assertion that humans are the greatest of all animals is biased from human ego because it implies that there exists a heirarchy where certain characteristics are placed above other characteristics..

what if it has nothing to do wiff 'greatest'
but just different?

[Os3y3ris]

Are not humans the ones most capable of using ALL five senses to process information?
(I know some animals might have one or two superior to humans, but as a whole working together effectively)

I don't think so. Humans tend to suck in regards to the senses.

I understand the basic ego and self-preservation premise
But are not humans the only animals to truly decide between fight and flight when put in a hostile, one-on-one situation?

I disagree here. I think animals do make a choice. Consider a dog or a cat. They often come into conflict with humans and then need to decide what level of force to use.

All they are motivated by is procreation, appetite, and protecting their territory and family.

As well as self preservation.

Our motivation goes beyond basic creature comforts and survival.

Not really. Even religion tends to offer comfor or survival.

If not, we would not even have scientists.

Curiosity is a survival instinct.

On a related note, has anyone read Nietzche? If so, what do you think of his argument as relates to this subject? His seperation of man and animal is one of a will to survive vs a will to power. Will to power, borrowed decades later by the nazis, basically meant that man had a desire to dominate those around him, which seperated him from the animals.

[june181972]

I don't think so. Humans tend to suck in regards to the senses.



I disagree here. I think animals do make a choice. Consider a dog or a cat. They often come into conflict with humans and then need to decide what level of force to use.



As well as self preservation.



Not really. Even religion tends to offer comfor or survival.



Curiosity is a survival instinct.

We process information more efficiently and accurately through sight, sound, smell, touch and taste, as a whole, better than animals.

Predators are predators, prey is prey. The line is very clear in nature.

Self preservation is appetite, procreation, and protection of family and territory

I NEVER MENTIONED RELIGION
In college, religion 101: Death and the after life
All religion devalues "life"/survival with promises of the here after

Curiosity is not an outright survival instinct.
It only can benefit you if it does not get you killed in the process.

"Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back"
Depends on what happens when you stick your nose in it.

[june181972]

On a related note, has anyone read Nietzche? If so, what do you think of his argument as relates to this subject? His seperation of man and animal is one of a will to survive vs a will to power. Will to power, borrowed decades later by the nazis, basically meant that man had a desire to dominate those around him, which seperated him from the animals.

Never read Nietzche,
but sounds like someone else that is pointing out very clear differences between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

[My First Timbs]

We process information more efficiently and accurately through sight, sound, smell, touch and taste, as a whole, better than animals.

Predators are predators, prey is prey. The line is very clear in nature.

Self preservation is appetite, procreation, and protection of family and territory

I NEVER MENTIONED RELIGION
In college, religion 101: Death and the after life
All religion devalues "life"/survival with promises of the here after

Curiosity is not an outright survival instinct.
It only can benefit you if it does not get you killed in the process.

"Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back"
Depends on what happens when you stick your nose in it.

We process information more efficiently and accurately through sight, sound, smell, touch and taste, as a whole, better than animals.

that just simply isnt true.. there are many other animals that use their sense in a more complicated way then we do and achive better results from the processing of these senses than we could ever dream of.

our 5 senses are actually quite weak (even when used in conjuntion with other senses)

Predators are predators, prey is prey. The line is very clear in nature.

the line is just as clear once u throw humanity in the mix as well...we are omnivorous mammals with a predatory drive.

All religion devalues "life"/survival with promises of the here after

completely un true.. one of humanity's greatest survival values is a natural result of man's belief and understanding of religion! religion has been one of the most valuable tools in our survival on this planet... religion provides a framework thru which one can completely strive to live his or her life in such a way so that it potentiallu can yield more benefit than detriment! thats the ultimate in survival value ! in addition, it provides an inate sense of fear of many things (which potentially can steer one clear of harms way and thus provide survival value!)

Curiosity is not an outright survival instinct.
It only can benefit you if it does not get you killed in the process

what do u mean by "outright"? thats not the issue.. the issue is whether or not curiousity provides survival value and of course it does! as long as the behavior or thought process can yield more benefit than detriment.. it has survival value.. curiousity is an evolved cognition that has great survival value because it allows an individual to learn aout the nature of their surroundings and environment (immediate and remote).. with that information (provided it doesnt kill u in the process) u now have a great advantage (especially if u can now communicate what u have learned to the rest of the family unit)

[My First Timbs]

Never read Nietzche,
but sounds like someone else that is pointing out very clear differences between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom.

lets not confuse the issue.. this thread started out under the argument of whether humans were animals or not....

to that, the answer touted by many was either yes or no..

the issue of whether humans are different from other animals is a completely different topic.

[june181972]

that just simply isnt true.. there are many other animals that use their sense in a more complicated way then we do and achive better results from the processing of these senses than we could ever dream of.
our 5 senses are actually quite weak (even when used in conjuntion with other senses)Name such an animal


the line is just as clear once u throw humanity in the mix as well...we are omnivorous mammals with a predatory drive.
My point exactly


completely un true.. one of humanity's greatest survival values is a natural result of man's belief and understanding of religion! religion has been one of the most valuable tools in our survival on this planet... religion provides a framework thru which one can completely strive to live his or her life in such a way so that it potentiallu can yield more benefit than detriment! thats the ultimate in survival value ! in addition, it provides an inate sense of fear of many things (which potentially can steer one clear of harms way and thus provide survival value!)
How does religion help survival? Religion has been one of the most valuable catalyst of wars. You say completely untrue, when this is completely your opinion. But fact is, many religions only promise us great things after are lives are over. That is not survival as a scientist would define it. Right was right, wrong was wrong, life was life, and death was death long before man established religion and any of the rituals that go with them.


what do u mean by "outright"? thats not the issue.. the issue is whether or not curiousity provides survival value and of course it does! as long as the behavior or thought process can yield more benefit than detriment.. it has survival value.. curiousity is an evolved cognition that has great survival value because it allows an individual to learn aout the nature of their surroundings and environment (immediate and remote).. with that information (provided it doesnt kill u in the process) u now have a great advantage (especially if u can now communicate what u have learned to the rest of the family unit)

What do I mean by outright? You just explained it, curiosity can kill you in the process, just like I said in the post you are responding to. ("Maybe" if I do this, then "maybe" it can help me with this. Lets see "if" it works.) One's choice of fight or flight is an "outright" decision to try stay alive. Curiousity "can help" as well as religion, but you must also consider the human trait of zealousness. Which can result in death in both cases.
I'm trying to talk absolutes here.

[june181972]

lets not confuse the issue.. this thread started out under the argument of whether humans were animals or not....

to that, the answer touted by many was either yes or no..

the issue of whether humans are different from other animals is a completely different topic.

Thread title: The 'We are Just Animals' Perspective
The scientific paradigm is that humans are in the animal kingdom.
So the point is to justify Homo sapien as a legitimatly unique, and descriptively sound binomial nomenclature

NO. We are not JUST Animals
If you want a yes or no answer

By the way
You did not answer the question about the brain mass to body mass ratio.
Nor did you respond to statement about animals never displacing humans from our chosen place of habitat.
Post #51

[Robert]

its very simple

microbes that are eukaryotic (meaning composed of more than one cell)

This is completely incorrect, Prokaryotic cells are cells without a membrane bound nucleus, that is thier DNA, RNA is spead throughout the cells, they are primative cells.

Eukaryotic cells have organelles (endoplasmic reticulum, ribosomes etc)
and a membrane bound nucleus. It is though they envolved by a process called endosymbiosis (basically engulfment of other cells to form organelles) from prokaryotic cells.

Calling humans eukaryotic is meaningless, it seems there is a whole lotta misinformation on the science side of things being thrown around in this thread