Here we sit behind our computer screens pondering what makes humans special…
Just had to laugh at this thought.
Time to get high now.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]eraserhead wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Your question is philosophical in nature and it warrants a philosophical response. “Special” is not a scientific term. Humans are objectively different from other animal species in innumerable ways, just as more generally all entities are different from all other entities.
But the term “special” connotes a value judgement, and objective science is usually pretty weak in the area of value judgements.[/quote]
It’s quite apparent that you are an empiricist. You also make it clear that all posts in this thread should adhere to your reductionist worldview by providing “real data”. smh23 is of course right in pointing out that your question is philosophical in nature. So I will give you a philosophical musing to think about.
The materialistic astronomer concluded his lecture with: “So you see that astronomically speaking, man is utterly insignificant.” Kant replied: “Professor, you forgot the most important thing, man is the astronomer.”
[/quote]
I’m simply asking that if you muse about it, you find some connection to reality other than your own vantage point to connect us all to your idea. Otherwise, it might be impossible for me to admit you are right because I don’t live in your brain.
As for those who think I think I’m smart, why do you assume that? What about me asking for evidence makes you think I think I’m smart? What a weird conclusion.
I actually think I am far less intelligent than many of those I hang around with; I would guess I have an average IQ. I think it’s fun to talk about these things, which is why I do it. It has nothing to do with intelligence.
Many people on here state a conclusion as if it’s fact; that doesn’t mean they think they are smart. They also deny other’s opinions using reasoning; once again doesn’t mean they’re smart.
Let’s get back on topic :)[/quote]
Uh, comprehension and nuance fail; no one here thinks you’re especially “smart”. But you certainly come across as fancying yourself as smart. It’s the Holiday Inn Express Effect.
What separates man from animals, what makes us “special”, is our ability to reason. In short, our ability to even have this conversation makes us “special”. Other animals may display intelligence beyond what humans display in terms of memory retention, conditioning and so forth, but they cannot THINK about what it is that is going on around them.
Animals see food for instance, and they know that it’s food and they know how to use their intellect to get it and maybe they’re smart enough to adapt the way they get it if their prey is pretty smart as well. But they can’t sit there and think about the significance of the food; they can’t grasp what that food is in relation to the world around it, they can’t think about their future, they can’t communicate to others what it is they are, etc., etc.
Man can do all of this. We can think about ourselves in terms of our relationship to the rest of the world, we can reason and make decisions that do or don’t make sense, we aren’t driven by instinct in the same manner that animals are and we can settle disputes or rid ourselves of our enemies without resorting to physicality. We can plan for the future, not just the near future but the distant future as well.
We can prepare for the future, we can prepare against bad fortune, we can foresee things that we have never experienced because we can use logic and deduction to come to a conclusion about what must happen in various situations. Animals can’t do this. They aren’t Aware. In many ways humans are just like all other animals, in many ways we seem to be inferior to them. But the ability to reason is so much different than anything else that separates or unites animals and humans that it has to be considered something that makes us “special” by comparison.
here is another conjecture, by which I simply mean a challenge for others to consider:
Someone, I can’t remember whom, argued that humans can create systems of morality because psychologically they can not just see things from their point of view, nor from the point of view of a person they may effect, but from the point of view of an objective third person.
What do you think? Do animals see their interactions from the point of view of an objective third person?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Your question is philosophical in nature and it warrants a philosophical response. “Special” is not a scientific term. Humans are objectively different from other animal species in innumerable ways, just as more generally all entities are different from all other entities.
But the term “special” connotes a value judgement, and objective science is usually pretty weak in the area of value judgements.[/quote]
Fair enough. All I am trying to say is that if you think there is a trait that separates us from other animals, please post evidence that, in fact, other animals do not possess that trait.[/quote]
This is a fair expectation.
I think it is because human beings ask questions. In trying to answer those questions they create philosophy and art and thus give meaning to an otherwise indifferent universe. I think that though the Earth and its bounty are beautiful and powerful they were literally nothing until Man bent down and rose with fistfuls of ochre and climbed into a still cave and painted a mural on the wall that he could neither eat nor fuck and yet he treasured it nonetheless. She dragged stones into a still field in the British Isles and arranged them in answer to some existential question that was burning inside her.
The universe is meaningless without life. All life provides at least some semblance of meaning to its environment. Water is good for the leaf, therefore the leaf gives meaning to water. Leaves are in turn good for giraffes, therefore the giraffe has given meaning to the leaf. Human beings create the most meaning of the things we know to exist in the universe–they give meaning to leaves and water but also to sunsets, abstractions (justice), even lies. That is why I think life is most valuable in human form.[/quote]
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the above, but pose the following questions to further explore your thoughts in this matter.
Isn’t “asking questions” in fact, “problem solving”? That said, we do know that some animals engage in “problem solving”.
Next, you use art to distinguish the species. I think that’s an astute and fair observation. But what if human art is no more an expression of some intrinsic human need that is no different than a spider weaving a web? The spider does it to trap food, but do we do it to satisfy an intrinsic need to create that is unique to the species? And by unique to the species, I mean “just is”, not “special” or thereby making us “unique”. I hope I am understood - it’s not easy to articulate my point.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Your question is philosophical in nature and it warrants a philosophical response. “Special” is not a scientific term. Humans are objectively different from other animal species in innumerable ways, just as more generally all entities are different from all other entities.
But the term “special” connotes a value judgement, and objective science is usually pretty weak in the area of value judgements.[/quote]
Fair enough. All I am trying to say is that if you think there is a trait that separates us from other animals, please post evidence that, in fact, other animals do not possess that trait.[/quote]
This is a fair expectation.
I think it is because human beings ask questions. In trying to answer those questions they create philosophy and art and thus give meaning to an otherwise indifferent universe. I think that though the Earth and its bounty are beautiful and powerful they were literally nothing until Man bent down and rose with fistfuls of ochre and climbed into a still cave and painted a mural on the wall that he could neither eat nor fuck and yet he treasured it nonetheless. She dragged stones into a still field in the British Isles and arranged them in answer to some existential question that was burning inside her.
The universe is meaningless without life. All life provides at least some semblance of meaning to its environment. Water is good for the leaf, therefore the leaf gives meaning to water. Leaves are in turn good for giraffes, therefore the giraffe has given meaning to the leaf. Human beings create the most meaning of the things we know to exist in the universe–they give meaning to leaves and water but also to sunsets, abstractions (justice), even lies. That is why I think life is most valuable in human form.[/quote]
And I forgot to add, that I’m not sure I agree that the “universe is meaningless without life”. I find that a bit anthropomorphic. I see the universe itself as “life”. The sun, all the stars, are “life” and we are no more than constituent parts of the universe. If we were to define life more broadly, we might conclude that a star has more claim to life than a mere human with a 70 year life span? No?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What separates man from animals, what makes us “special”, is our ability to reason. In short, our ability to even have this conversation makes us “special”. Other animals may display intelligence beyond what humans display in terms of memory retention, conditioning and so forth, but they cannot THINK about what it is that is going on around them.
Animals see food for instance, and they know that it’s food and they know how to use their intellect to get it and maybe they’re smart enough to adapt the way they get it if their prey is pretty smart as well. But they can’t sit there and think about the significance of the food; they can’t grasp what that food is in relation to the world around it, they can’t think about their future, they can’t communicate to others what it is they are, etc., etc.
Man can do all of this. We can think about ourselves in terms of our relationship to the rest of the world, we can reason and make decisions that do or don’t make sense, we aren’t driven by instinct in the same manner that animals are and we can settle disputes or rid ourselves of our enemies without resorting to physicality. We can plan for the future, not just the near future but the distant future as well.
We can prepare for the future, we can prepare against bad fortune, we can foresee things that we have never experienced because we can use logic and deduction to come to a conclusion about what must happen in various situations. Animals can’t do this. They aren’t Aware. In many ways humans are just like all other animals, in many ways we seem to be inferior to them. But the ability to reason is so much different than anything else that separates or unites animals and humans that it has to be considered something that makes us “special” by comparison.[/quote]
Well, looked at another way, relative to your post above, perhaps the human ability to “reason” is not in fact special, but a burden. After all, “reason” has not saved this planet from the destruction we cause it or, each other.
To imply our ability to reason is a higher function, thereby making us superior to other life is just a value judgment at the end of the day and, perhaps myopic. We certainly do not live in harmony with our surrounding, or each other. Food for thought?
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< As for those who think I think I’m smart, why do you assume that? >>>[/quote]You can address me by name, I won’t bite.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
here is another conjecture, by which I simply mean a challenge for others to consider:
Someone, I can’t remember whom, argued that humans can create systems of morality because psychologically they can not just see things from their point of view, nor from the point of view of a person they may effect, but from the point of view of an objective third person.
What do you think? Do animals see their interactions from the point of view of an objective third person?[/quote]
I’d ask you why this “ability” is “special”? And I’d certainly argue against your contention that we can see from the point of view of an “objective third person”. We are both immoral and moral by nature, probably due to social evolution. And, “moral” is by it’s nature, a value judgment. For instance, thou shalt not kill is just a value judgment; animals kill each other every day. Removing the attribution of the foregoing command from a divine source, it serves a perfectly social need.
One might conclude we are, by nature, “social”. In that sense, we’re not much different than other social animals that tend to congregate in tribes or families. You don’t see tigers hunting and kill tigers. It seems they too have a “morality”!
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< As for those who think I think I’m smart, why do you assume that? >>>[/quote]You can address me by name, I won’t bite.
[/quote]
You might not bite, but there is no guarantee of protection from a sermon 
Some would rather be bitten Touche !
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
here is another conjecture, by which I simply mean a challenge for others to consider:
Someone, I can’t remember whom, argued that humans can create systems of morality because psychologically they can not just see things from their point of view, nor from the point of view of a person they may effect, but from the point of view of an objective third person.
What do you think? Do animals see their interactions from the point of view of an objective third person?[/quote]
Valid
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What separates man from animals, what makes us “special”, is our ability to reason. In short, our ability to even have this conversation makes us “special”. Other animals may display intelligence beyond what humans display in terms of memory retention, conditioning and so forth, but they cannot THINK about what it is that is going on around them.
Animals see food for instance, and they know that it’s food and they know how to use their intellect to get it and maybe they’re smart enough to adapt the way they get it if their prey is pretty smart as well. But they can’t sit there and think about the significance of the food; they can’t grasp what that food is in relation to the world around it, they can’t think about their future, they can’t communicate to others what it is they are, etc., etc.
Man can do all of this. We can think about ourselves in terms of our relationship to the rest of the world, we can reason and make decisions that do or don’t make sense, we aren’t driven by instinct in the same manner that animals are and we can settle disputes or rid ourselves of our enemies without resorting to physicality. We can plan for the future, not just the near future but the distant future as well.
We can prepare for the future, we can prepare against bad fortune, we can foresee things that we have never experienced because we can use logic and deduction to come to a conclusion about what must happen in various situations. Animals can’t do this. They aren’t Aware. In many ways humans are just like all other animals, in many ways we seem to be inferior to them. But the ability to reason is so much different than anything else that separates or unites animals and humans that it has to be considered something that makes us “special” by comparison.[/quote]
Well, looked at another way, relative to your post above, perhaps the human ability to “reason” is not in fact special, but a burden. After all, “reason” has not saved this planet from the destruction we cause it or, each other.
To imply our ability to reason is a higher function, thereby making us superior to other life is just a value judgment at the end of the day and, perhaps myopic. We certainly do not live in harmony with our surrounding, or each other. Food for thought?[/quote]
Well, when I say “special” I put it in quotes because that is the term Oleena initially used. I tend to agree with you that it isn’t special because of the burden that it places on humanity and that perhaps unique is a better term to use. But I also think that while we may have a heavy burden placed on our shoulders, it’s due to the fact that our ability to reason also means that we have the power to drastically alter the environment we live in, from being able to provide better and better forms of transportation, food, clothing, shelter to things as mundane as better forms of entertainment. To reason is to have a power that no other animal on the planet has. So this reasoning ability is really just a huge responsibility rather than a burden. The responsibility can be a burden, but I think that THAT is what is relative here, namely how we look at our role on the planet and how our ability to reason impacts that role.
I would argue that the power to reason does indeed make us a superior life form in many ways. Intellectually I would argue that it makes us very much the superior being on the planet. But how we use that intellect and that power is totally separate from its value. We may not use this power well and we may fall short in our reasoning to horrific consequences, but that does not make the ability to reason an insignificant ability. Humans, by nature, may very well be predisposed to do wrong, as many philosophers would argue, and as such the fact that we are doomed to failure in some way, shape or form, ALONG with the fact that we have this huge responsibility as beings and we HAVEN"T destroyed ourselves and the planet entirely sometimes makes me think that humans are superior simply because we have bucked the odds thus far.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Your question is philosophical in nature and it warrants a philosophical response. “Special” is not a scientific term. Humans are objectively different from other animal species in innumerable ways, just as more generally all entities are different from all other entities.
But the term “special” connotes a value judgement, and objective science is usually pretty weak in the area of value judgements.[/quote]
Fair enough. All I am trying to say is that if you think there is a trait that separates us from other animals, please post evidence that, in fact, other animals do not possess that trait.[/quote]
This is a fair expectation.
I think it is because human beings ask questions. In trying to answer those questions they create philosophy and art and thus give meaning to an otherwise indifferent universe. I think that though the Earth and its bounty are beautiful and powerful they were literally nothing until Man bent down and rose with fistfuls of ochre and climbed into a still cave and painted a mural on the wall that he could neither eat nor fuck and yet he treasured it nonetheless. She dragged stones into a still field in the British Isles and arranged them in answer to some existential question that was burning inside her.
The universe is meaningless without life. All life provides at least some semblance of meaning to its environment. Water is good for the leaf, therefore the leaf gives meaning to water. Leaves are in turn good for giraffes, therefore the giraffe has given meaning to the leaf. Human beings create the most meaning of the things we know to exist in the universe–they give meaning to leaves and water but also to sunsets, abstractions (justice), even lies. That is why I think life is most valuable in human form.[/quote]
And I forgot to add, that I’m not sure I agree that the “universe is meaningless without life”. I find that a bit anthropomorphic. I see the universe itself as “life”. The sun, all the stars, are “life” and we are no more than constituent parts of the universe. If we were to define life more broadly, we might conclude that a star has more claim to life than a mere human with a 70 year life span? No?[/quote]
I know this is one way of seeing the world, and I often find myself torn between the two. In the end I tend to side with anthropomorphism.
Life, which is only known to exist here on Earth, is the only created entity that has been observed to act of its own will. Stars and planets and burning clouds of dust in space are awesome in ways unfathomable to man–our modest dimensions shrink to the point of non-existence in the shadow of the universe’s other wonder, the strength in our arms is nothing compared with the white hot fire of a star. But we care and they don’t, and that makes all the difference to me. They are inanimate puppets caught in a cycle of cause and effect, reaction after reaction all governed by and never deviating from physical laws. To them there is nothing intrinsically bothersome about the prospect of the cessation of their existence: a star will neither fight to stay alive nor wish to die. Men do both, and in that, to me, is the key to–and the only source of–meaning in the universe.
I’m sorta rushed right now and I’m sure this was explained horribly. I’ll try and be more clear later on today.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< As for those who think I think I’m smart, why do you assume that? >>>[/quote]You can address me by name, I won’t bite.
[/quote]
You might not bite, but there is no guarantee of protection from a sermon Some would rather be bitten Touche ![/quote]Touche indeed LOL!!!
The concept of special does not exist, along with the concept of worth. You are asking if something has or not a propriety that doesnt exist.
This I feel is a key point. In terms of man being “special” that really boils down to what exactly you think is important does it not? Reason could be considered a unique trait as DB said, however, it doesn’t necessarily equate special or useful, simply different. I would argue that man is greater than the sum of his parts or could be considered special BECAUSE of the sum of his parts. We may have capabilities that other organisms have, but do we not classify by both what is different AND what is the same? We are not the only animals to have created “art” (which is an entirely subjective term), or expressed sadness. We are not the only ones to demonstrate problem solving or self recognition. But I think all the parts we do have,is the best argument for a perceived supperiority
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
What separates man from animals, what makes us “special”, is our ability to reason. In short, our ability to even have this conversation makes us “special”. Other animals may display intelligence beyond what humans display in terms of memory retention, conditioning and so forth, but they cannot THINK about what it is that is going on around them.
Animals see food for instance, and they know that it’s food and they know how to use their intellect to get it and maybe they’re smart enough to adapt the way they get it if their prey is pretty smart as well. But they can’t sit there and think about the significance of the food; they can’t grasp what that food is in relation to the world around it, they can’t think about their future, they can’t communicate to others what it is they are, etc., etc.
Man can do all of this. We can think about ourselves in terms of our relationship to the rest of the world, we can reason and make decisions that do or don’t make sense, we aren’t driven by instinct in the same manner that animals are and we can settle disputes or rid ourselves of our enemies without resorting to physicality. We can plan for the future, not just the near future but the distant future as well.
We can prepare for the future, we can prepare against bad fortune, we can foresee things that we have never experienced because we can use logic and deduction to come to a conclusion about what must happen in various situations. Animals can’t do this. They aren’t Aware. In many ways humans are just like all other animals, in many ways we seem to be inferior to them. But the ability to reason is so much different than anything else that separates or unites animals and humans that it has to be considered something that makes us “special” by comparison.[/quote]
Well, looked at another way, relative to your post above, perhaps the human ability to “reason” is not in fact special, but a burden. After all, “reason” has not saved this planet from the destruction we cause it or, each other.
To imply our ability to reason is a higher function, thereby making us superior to other life is just a value judgment at the end of the day and, perhaps myopic. We certainly do not live in harmony with our surrounding, or each other. Food for thought?[/quote]
Well, when I say “special” I put it in quotes because that is the term Oleena initially used. I tend to agree with you that it isn’t special because of the burden that it places on humanity and that perhaps unique is a better term to use. But I also think that while we may have a heavy burden placed on our shoulders, it’s due to the fact that our ability to reason also means that we have the power to drastically alter the environment we live in, from being able to provide better and better forms of transportation, food, clothing, shelter to things as mundane as better forms of entertainment. To reason is to have a power that no other animal on the planet has. So this reasoning ability is really just a huge responsibility rather than a burden. The responsibility can be a burden, but I think that THAT is what is relative here, namely how we look at our role on the planet and how our ability to reason impacts that role.
I would argue that the power to reason does indeed make us a superior life form in many ways. Intellectually I would argue that it makes us very much the superior being on the planet. But how we use that intellect and that power is totally separate from its value. We may not use this power well and we may fall short in our reasoning to horrific consequences, but that does not make the ability to reason an insignificant ability. Humans, by nature, may very well be predisposed to do wrong, as many philosophers would argue, and as such the fact that we are doomed to failure in some way, shape or form, ALONG with the fact that we have this huge responsibility as beings and we HAVEN"T destroyed ourselves and the planet entirely sometimes makes me think that humans are superior simply because we have bucked the odds thus far.[/quote]
It’s a responsibility that we have proven, and continue to prove, that we cannot shoulder. To say that the ability to “reason” is in some fashion “superior” is clearly a value judgment. More likely, what you call “reason”, may in fact be nothing more than “selfish”. We “reason” for our own good, at the expense of other, nature and the planet. Good discussion though.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[/quote]
I knew we couldn’t possibly agree!!!
I find her “intelligence” absolutely middling and its appearance no more a reflection of her transitional age, an unstable past, and still “finding herself”. There is nothing profound there. Only evidence of misdirected, undisciplined thought, and a penchant for short-cuts, intellectually and emotionally.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Your question is philosophical in nature and it warrants a philosophical response. “Special” is not a scientific term. Humans are objectively different from other animal species in innumerable ways, just as more generally all entities are different from all other entities.
But the term “special” connotes a value judgement, and objective science is usually pretty weak in the area of value judgements.[/quote]
Fair enough. All I am trying to say is that if you think there is a trait that separates us from other animals, please post evidence that, in fact, other animals do not possess that trait.[/quote]
This is a fair expectation.
I think it is because human beings ask questions. In trying to answer those questions they create philosophy and art and thus give meaning to an otherwise indifferent universe. I think that though the Earth and its bounty are beautiful and powerful they were literally nothing until Man bent down and rose with fistfuls of ochre and climbed into a still cave and painted a mural on the wall that he could neither eat nor fuck and yet he treasured it nonetheless. She dragged stones into a still field in the British Isles and arranged them in answer to some existential question that was burning inside her.
The universe is meaningless without life. All life provides at least some semblance of meaning to its environment. Water is good for the leaf, therefore the leaf gives meaning to water. Leaves are in turn good for giraffes, therefore the giraffe has given meaning to the leaf. Human beings create the most meaning of the things we know to exist in the universe–they give meaning to leaves and water but also to sunsets, abstractions (justice), even lies. That is why I think life is most valuable in human form.[/quote]
And I forgot to add, that I’m not sure I agree that the “universe is meaningless without life”. I find that a bit anthropomorphic. I see the universe itself as “life”. The sun, all the stars, are “life” and we are no more than constituent parts of the universe. If we were to define life more broadly, we might conclude that a star has more claim to life than a mere human with a 70 year life span? No?[/quote]
I know this is one way of seeing the world, and I often find myself torn between the two. In the end I tend to side with anthropomorphism.
Life, which is only known to exist here on Earth, is the only created entity that has been observed to act of its own will. Stars and planets and burning clouds of dust in space are awesome in ways unfathomable to man–our modest dimensions shrink to the point of non-existence in the shadow of the universe’s other wonder, the strength in our arms is nothing compared with the white hot fire of a star. But we care and they don’t, and that makes all the difference to me. They are inanimate puppets caught in a cycle of cause and effect, reaction after reaction all governed by and never deviating from physical laws. To them there is nothing intrinsically bothersome about the prospect of the cessation of their existence: a star will neither fight to stay alive nor wish to die. Men do both, and in that, to me, is the key to–and the only source of–meaning in the universe.
I’m sorta rushed right now and I’m sure this was explained horribly. I’ll try and be more clear later on today.[/quote]
The star may “care less” because it’s intrinsic to eternity, whereas we are matter trapped in a costume with a foreseeable expiration date, and know no other end but hopeful ends I think your thoughts (and I appreciate they are rushed) are exactly reflective of mankind’s condition, and does little to explore our place in the universe without anthropomorphic bias - the latter which may be quite impossible to disabuse ourselves of ultimately.