Is there anything that makes humans unique?

[Delicious]

Animals do refine tools. Gorillas and chimpanzees will take branches and strip the leaves and bark off of them so that they'll fit into the holes in a termite mound.

Animals also learn and teach each other. They don't independantly come up with the idea for stripping the leaves off the sticks. Parent apes will deliberately sit their children down with them while they do this.

They also practice.. it ain't easy getting termites out of a termite mound, even if you do have a stick that's been made the right size. However, they'll keep trying even through multiple failures until they get it right.

Humans only differ from animals in the degree of our abilities, not the kind of abilities we have. And if you feel that's enough to make us somehow "different" from animals, then I ask what of those humans who are born with severe retardation or disabilities, so that the degree of their abilities do not differ much from animals. Does that make them an animal? If not, why not?

Still human. Human vs animal isn't decided on a case by case basis, and I'd still say that a retarded human is more intelligent than a regular animal. And the whole looking similar thing helps too.

Also, keep in the mind that the average human has a much greater arsenal of abilities than that of the animals you described. Most that show case abilities similar to ours often only are able due to intense specialization.

Not every animal is a monkey, ya know.

You're basing your definition of what's an animal on how it looks? Seriously? So tell me: man or animal [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html]?

And once again, all you're pointing to is a difference in degree, but those differences are individual in nature -- you can't use an individual difference and say "That makes this whole species human, even though these other individuals don't have that ability." After all, I could then turn and look at those very few humans that are born with vestigal tales and say "Well see, that's the sign of an animal, therefore all these humans are just animals.. even those without tales" It's bad logic.

Your supposition about a retarded person having more intelligence is quickly discarded when you do any research. Some people have been born with basically nothing for a frontal cortex. Does this make them animal? Oh wait.. they "look" right to you, so that makes them human -- because that's a really good determinant of what is animal and what isn't. Hey, you know, I've got a few black friends who look a lot different from me. Are they human to you?

As for not every animal is a monkey, so what? We only need to show that humans and animals really aren't separated by anything other than the degree we've managed to attain of abilities that are common to both, ie. that we're nothing more than a more advanced species of monkey, to show that humans are indeed animals.

Way to take an off-hand and turn it into my entire argument. That's called the straw man fallacy, jack ass.

The average human is intelligent and capable of much more than the average animal. As a species, this separates us from animals. Just because you can use the internet to find bizarre exceptions doesn't change that.

And you are right, you can't use individual differences to define a species. That's why a retarded human is still considered a part of the human species, because if he were normal he would be human, not an animal. A monkey who can't climb trees or do other monkey activities due to a birth defect is still a monkey. Oh, and there is a difference between being retarded and missing a significant part of your brain.

I could also argue that genetics help quite a bit in determining this sort of thing, but that's a whole other can of worms.

And are you saying black people don't look human? Are you stupid? Of course they look human! Just like gray foxes and red foxes both look like foxes. A change of color isn't that big of a difference.

Now further semantics aside, do you honestly believe that you can find no differences between yourself and an animal? I'm appealing to your sense of reason right now, because I feel you are arguing for the sake of itself.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

SCIENCE!

 

[Mackinator]

We have nukes.

They don't.

That's enough.

Yeah, we have developed our civilisation so far that we are destroying our planet. We are self-destructive too...

 

[RufusMcLaser]

On topic - Insight and Abstract thought.

Prove they don't have that.

Edit: Hint -- saying "Well.. they just don't" isn't proof.

Hold on, boss. It's intellectually dishonest to declare that dogs have insight and abstract thought, on the basis that they haven't been proven not to. If you're going to make a statement like that, it's up to you to come up with the proof.

By the way, when it comes to dogs having insight/abstract thought, I don't really have an opinion. I'm just asking for some rigour.

 

[Khedive Rex]

You just said you could not teach a monkey how to appreciate the internet in the same way that you could teach me, and then you said that if it had someone to teach it, it would be as smart as I am, according to my criteria. Therein lies my point. Someone could teach me how to fully build and appreciate the internet because I am smart enough to learn. The monkey isn't.

Ignoring that, we've been arguing on the same side since post 1. We've just arguing about how we should argue the same side.

I still say that our accomplishments is a pretty good criteria for intelligence. Using the basic premise on which we have both agreed, which is that humans are smarter than anything else, and that on basic fact, which is that we have accomplished much more than anything else, I feel it is safe to say that only advanced, intelligent beings create advanced, intelligent things.

You can play with what if's all day, but as it stands we are the smartest and we have accomplished the most. I say they are pretty well connected.

Here's the thing. You can't quantitatively measure "appreciation". It's great to say that you and a monkey could both make the internet but it'd only really count if you made it; the problem is this assumption isn't defendable with statistics. We don't know that a monkey doesn't appreciate the internet. We can assume it doesn't because, after all, humans are the smartest, cleverest, wisest and best animals to ever grace the surface of the earth and monkeys are just dumb apes but in this situation you are interpreting data to support a conclusion you've already established. This is the opposite of how science works.

All we can quantitatively measure by your criteria is the existence of doo-hickeys. And if I can teach a monkey to make doo-hickeys this makes him artificially intelligent by you criteria. In casual circumstances it's probably a fair bet to say that smart things make things. In a debate this assertion is untenable. If we want an accurate measure of species intelligence, one we can argue on mutual terms, we do have to side with pattern recognition, problem solving, memory and self awareness.

And for the record, I don't feel that humans are unique from animals. We are on the same side in that we agree humans are far more intelligent than other animals but, whereas you appear to view this as proof of uniqueness, I see a greater level of skill devoted to traits shared by a vast majority of the animal kingdom.

There are only two ways humans are unique from animals. We create tools that have no purpose other than entertainment and we have a concept of currency. Apart from that, all the traits we possess are present in the rest of the animal kingdom.

 

[Azraellod]

oh, i read about this recently. it's because of extelligence influencing us.

*clouts round head those that think i'm talking about aliens*

the human mind can not develop on its own. it needs other minds to interact with. the selection of minds that each person interacts with is their extelligence, and everything inside their own head is their intelligence.

this is why cultures develop. if a view becomes shared among a community, the next generation will then develop it, and the one after that will develop it further.

if you then introduce another culture, and their views conflict, then you are likely to get a war between the two cultures. this is why there are so many wars going on at the moment. cultures that develop in isolation of each other develop conflicting views, and cannot function together.

i love reading. it gives more answers then you ask questions.

 

[Hydro Imp]

Thumbs.

There are other creatures with opposable thumbs, apes, monkeys, kolas have two on each hand, fully opposable

 

[RufusMcLaser]

we don't evolve to make our bodies suit the environment, we make the environment suit us.

Are you implying evolution is a conscious act? Please don't.
Furthermore, the existence of genetic differences between various ethnic groups which can be clearly tied to environmental factors- the correlation of melanin with equatorial proximity, the prevalence of sickle cell trait [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_trait] in malarial environments, etc.- demonstrates that humans have continued to evolve along with everything else.

 

[space_oddity]

Nothing.

 

[Helnurath]

If you ask anyone, they'll claim we're different from the animals but have trouble pinning down how. True, we're more intelligent than other animals and we have some more pronounced traits but is there something only we have or can do?

P.S. Don't bring in religion.

We aren't too much different from animals, We share a lot of common traits with other primates. I think what makes us unique though is the fact that we are apex omnivores, but nature really does not have an effective way of keeping our numbers in check like it does other animals.

 

[Delicious]

You just said you could not teach a monkey how to appreciate the internet in the same way that you could teach me, and then you said that if it had someone to teach it, it would be as smart as I am, according to my criteria. Therein lies my point. Someone could teach me how to fully build and appreciate the internet because I am smart enough to learn. The monkey isn't.

Ignoring that, we've been arguing on the same side since post 1. We've just arguing about how we should argue the same side.

I still say that our accomplishments is a pretty good criteria for intelligence. Using the basic premise on which we have both agreed, which is that humans are smarter than anything else, and that on basic fact, which is that we have accomplished much more than anything else, I feel it is safe to say that only advanced, intelligent beings create advanced, intelligent things.

You can play with what if's all day, but as it stands we are the smartest and we have accomplished the most. I say they are pretty well connected.

Here's the thing. You can't quantitatively measure "appreciation". It's great to say that you and a monkey could both make the internet but it'd only really count if you made it; the problem is this assumption isn't defendable with statistics. We don't know that a monkey doesn't appreciate the internet. We can assume it doesn't because, after all, humans are the smartest, cleverest, wisest and best animals to ever grace the surface of the earth and monkeys are just dumb apes but in this situation you are interpreting data to support a conclusion you've already established. This is the opposite of how science works.

All we can quantitatively measure by your criteria is the existence of doo-hickeys. And if I can teach a monkey to make doo-hickeys this makes him artificially intelligent by you criteria. In casual circumstances it's probably a fair bet to say that smart things make things. In a debate this assertion is untenable. If we want an accurate measure of species intelligence, one we can argue on mutual terms, we do have to side with pattern recognition, problem solving, memory and self awareness.

And for the record, I don't feel that humans are unique from animals. We are on the same side in that we agree humans are far more intelligent than other animals but, whereas you appear to view this as proof of uniqueness, I see a greater level of skill devoted to traits shared by a vast majority of the animal kingdom.

There are only two ways humans are unique from animals. We create tools that have no purpose other than entertainment and we have a concept of currency. Apart from that, all the traits we possess are present in the rest of the animal kingdom.

...This is casual argumentation. Debates are idiotic things that prove nothing, as are statistics (which is the why the term "statistical fact" is an oxymoron).

Side stepping the whole "we don't know" part of your post, as it's sort of a given, considering proving things scientifically is unnecessary (and impossible in this case, as you yourself stated that it is impossible to quantify a significant part of our argument) if it is readily apparent as far as I'm concerned, I say that, as per the definition of "unique", being more intelligent does make us unique because no other creature is as intelligent as we are or can do the same things as we can as proven by our accomplishments and through basic observation of the animal's shared limitations.

 

[space_oddity]

We are the only image conscious species.

What do you mean by that?

basically, we care about the way we look, we choose our clothing because of the way it looks, we style our hair, trim our nails, shave etc.

Actually a lot of animals care about the way they look. Its a major factor when it comes to finding a mate.

Realy? what animals?

Most birds.
Peacocks in particular.
Cuttlefish.

 

[Danzaivar]

On topic - Insight and Abstract thought.

Prove they don't have that.

Edit: Hint -- saying "Well.. they just don't" isn't proof.

No. I'm not sure it's even possible to prove that no other animal on the planet is capable of insight and abstract thought. I'm fairly sure you couldn't wrap that up with all the research that goes into a PhD, let alone to prove someone wrong on the Internet with a single forum post.

I will use some of your moon logic against you tho. God says, right in the bible, that we are unique in that we hold dominion of the world. That's a way we're unique!

Prove that we don't, to do that you'll need to disprove Christianity completely, since it's pretty fundamental for those guys.

Hint -- saying "Well...God's wrong" or "Well...God just doesn't exist" isn't proof.

 

[Helnurath]

we don't evolve to make our bodies suit the environment, we make the environment suit us.

Are you implying evolution is a conscious act? Please don't.
Furthermore, the existence of genetic differences between various ethnic groups which can be clearly tied to environmental factors- the correlation of melanin with equatorial proximity, the prevalence of sickle cell trait [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle_cell_trait] in malarial environments, etc.- demonstrates that humans have continued to evolve along with everything else.

Wasn't there something in recent years about South African Bushmen evolving some kind of trait to help them survive droughts or something?

 

[monkey_man]

We can create or destroy anything we want.

we still cant create worldfreedom/peace

 

[The_Prophet]

Our brain, thought, thumbs, we stand upright on two legs, brain...

 

[Agent Larkin]

We have morality.

 

[Khedive Rex]

...This is casual argumentation. Debates are idiotic things that prove nothing, as are statistics (which is the why the term "statistical fact" is an oxymoron).

Side stepping the whole "we don't know" part of your post, as it's sort of a given, considering proving things scientifically is unnecessary (and impossible in this case, as you yourself stated that it is impossible to quantify a significant part of our argument) if it is readily apparent as far as I'm concerned, I say that, as per the definition of "unique", being more intelligent does make us unique because no other creature is as intelligent as we are or can do the same things as we can as proven by our accomplishments and through basic observation of the animal's shared limitations.

I think I already rebuffed this argument somewhere in the thread. I'll do it again though.

Wait, Sure enough, here it is

To adress the second question, no I don't feel that a high degree of complexity in thinking and invention should be considered a trait in and of itself. It is, in effect, denoting skill at a trait. I would not say that a cheeta who can run 60 miles an hour is unique from a emu who can run 50 miles an hour simply because the cheeta is better at what it does. It is undeniable that it has more skill at a trait than animals around it but this skill does not become an independant trait. For true uniqueness to be claimed I want to see the cheeta sprout wings and breathe fire. It should do something that is truely unmatched in the animal kingdom by any degree of skill.

Sorry to be lazy but it's getting late out my way (early technically but ...)

As for the introduction you'll forgive the miss-speak. I was a debator and I forget that 'debate' can be something of a dirty word. What I meant to say is that if you don't intend to argue something, if you're in a room with people who mostly agree with you, it is unnecessary to qualify the statement "Smart things make things." any more than it already is. If you intend to support this assertion in an argument however, it's necessary to provide the logical rationale behind this assertion. In this case that rationale is that the construction of complex devices requires, in those who would make them, skills at pattern analysis, problem solving, memory and self awareness. These skills can therefore be interpreted as the basis of establishing whether a creature is "smart" and thus predicting whether it will make "things". I've been trying to adress the base assumption of your argument so that we can agree on it and move on (whether to further debate upon the implications of this assumption or just to bed is another matter).

 

[BakaSmurf]

We have morality.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/5373379/Animals-can-tell-right-from-wrong.html

So do they.