Is there anything that makes humans unique?

[Ozkilla]

Animals change themselves to suit their enviroment, we change the enviroment to suit ourselves.

 

[Delicious]

We invented the fucking internet.

Let's see a dolphin do that.

Bingo.

We are much smarter than any animal could ever hope to be. That is why we, despite our frailty, are at the top of the motherfucking food chain.

Oh, and we have this

Suck it, animals.

 

[Verp]

We are the only image conscious species.

What do you mean by that?

Animals change themselves to suit their enviroment, we change the enviroment to suit ourselves.

*cough*BEAVERS*cough*

 

[Soxafloppin]

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.

 

[Ozkilla]

We are the only image conscious species.

What do you mean by that?

Animals change themselves to suit their enviroment, we change the enviroment to suit ourselves.

*cough*BEAVERS*cough*

Dam Beavers, Always ruin it for me >.<

 

[Khedive Rex]

Humans invent.

What animal could have ever, in any number of generations, created the computer on which you read this? Generated the electricity that illuminates your screen? What animal could create something even a thousand times simpler? None could. That is what separates humans from animals.

Actually, in its simplest form invention is used by lots of animals. All invention is, is crafting tools. The tools get more complex over time (it starts with a hammer and ends with an electron accelerator) but the complexity of the tool in question isn't the deciding factor. The drive to utilize tools is the most important indication of invention in animals.

If we are to judge by the complexity of the tools we establish a logical fallacy. It's all well and good to say that animals don't invent because they haven't created microchip processors but it's a similar fallacy to saying people don't eat because they don't eat bricks. You establish a broad category X (Invention in your case and Eating in mine) and choose an item that fits into X, lets call it Y (Microchip Processors in your case and Bricks in mine) It's possible to invent a microchip processor, but lack of one does not disprove invention. Similarly, it's possible to eat a brick but lack of doing so does not invalidate eating. Y is a facet of X and X will continue to exist whether Y is met or not. Therefore disproving Y and saying it disproves X in turn is a logical fallacy.

To apply this to the topic at hand, animals can be proved to have invention without being proved to have computers. If invention is defined as the drive and ability to craft tools than a myriad range of animals have invention. It ranges from chimpanzee's to crows to sea otters.

Don't get me wrong, Human invention is far more intricate and advanced but saying animal invention doesn't exist because it's not at your level of sophistication is incorrect.

 

[Ozkilla]

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.

 

[Khedive Rex]

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, countless species groom themselves (as is apparent if you've ever owned a cat, dog or bird). Additionally in pack species such as wolves and lions many animals devote lots of time to appearing larger and more powerful so as to impress opposing packs / possible mates. And if we're bringing mating into the issue it'd be impossible to count how many animals adjust their appearnace to attract members of the opposite sex. In this case it is the norm. You'd be hard pressed to find animals that don't.

So, yes, other species are image concious. Again, it's possible humans have taken it to a more serious level but the base urge is still present in animals and we are therefore unable to claim it as a unique factor.

 

[Tehpwnsauce]

Um I think that humans (aside from dolphins) are the only animals that enjoy sex....

Suck it dogs

No. Everything enjoys sex. What you are thinking of is that humans are one of the few things that have sex purely for pleasure, so do dolphins and dogs though so it doesn't make us unique.

 

[Soxafloppin]

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?

 

[DigitalJedl]

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCXsI-6zJWI

That is what makes us special.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

We can fly.

Spoiler: Oh, wait...

I'm just gonna go ahead and say that we're not different from the animals. We are not truly unique or original as a lot of our species is based around monkeys. We simply believe we are better than them.

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?

Cats, among other things. They wash and look after themselves like we would.

 

[Khedive Rex]

We invented the fucking internet.

Let's see a dolphin do that.

Bingo.

We are much smarter than any animal could ever hope to be. That is why we, despite our frailty, are at the top of the motherfucking food chain.

You'll forgive me but ...

Could you independantly creating a working internet system right now using only tools that you make yourself and knowledge attained without instruction (no wikipedia)? I know I couldn't. I'm willing to wager that most of the people on this board couldn't. Why then do we gloat about our giagntic cerbral capacity and belittle animals who haven't yet made the, very basic and easy, step to creating the internet?

It is undoubtable we have more intelligence than animals. By the same token, pretending that all of human accomplishment could be replicated by any of it's number is obviously ridiculous. In truth, all of human advancement can be attributed to less than one percent of all humans who have lived on this planet. For every one Leonardo DaVinci there was 1 billion ignorant peasants. Why then do gloat about this one percent and pretend it is indicative of the species as a whole?

Even without this one percent humans are more intelligent than animals, but qualifying the statement to say that intelligence is measured by the number of wi-fi gadgets you can produce by yourself knocks 99% of the human population to a level just barely above animals. It is an unfair measure.

Pattern recognition, problem solving, memory and self awareness are a truer gauge of intelligence. And in at least one of those categories (memory) chimpanzee's regularly score higher than humans. They all have photographic memories.

Again, not trying to knock humans but you've set up an unrealistic criteria and I felt the need to adress it.

 

[aussiesniper]

Humans invent.

What animal could have ever, in any number of generations, created the computer on which you read this? Generated the electricity that illuminates your screen? What animal could create something even a thousand times simpler? None could. That is what separates humans from animals.

Actually, in its simplest form invention is used by lots of animals. All invention is, is crafting tools. The tools get more complex over time (it starts with a hammer and ends with an electron accelerator) but the complexity of the tool in question isn't the deciding factor. The drive to utilize tools is the most important indication of invention in animals.

If we are to judge by the complexity of the tools we establish a logical fallacy. It's all well and good to say that animals don't invent because they haven't created microchip processors but it's a similar fallacy to saying people don't eat because they don't eat bricks. You establish a broad category X (Invention in your case and Eating in mine) and choose an item that fits into X, lets call it Y (Microchip Processors in your case and Bricks in mine) It's possible to invent a microchip processor, but lack of one does not disprove invention. Similarly, it's possible to eat a brick but lack of doing so does not invalidate eating. Y is a facet of X and X will continue to exist whether Y is met or not. Therefore disproving Y and saying it disproves X in turn is a logical fallacy.

To apply this to the topic at hand, animals can be proved to have invention without being proved to have computers. If invention is defined as the drive and ability to craft tools than a myriad range of animals have invention. It ranges from chimpanzee's to crows to sea otters.

Don't get me wrong, Human invention is far more intricate and advanced but saying animal invention doesn't exist because it's not at your level of sophistication is incorrect.

Tool use is to invention as senitence is to sapience. One is prerequisite to the other, but they are not the same.

An animal may take a rock from the ground and use it to break something open, but that animal did not just invent the rock, it just used it. In order for it to be an invention, it must take something from the environment and refine it (or otherwise change it to be more useful).

Also, is a high degree of complexity in thinking and invention not something that separates humans from animals as well?

 

[spike0918]

Animals change themselves to suit their enviroment, we change the enviroment to suit ourselves.

Good point that made me ponder that for a little.
I can't explain it but I think humans differ because of the ability to react to rhythm in music. When there is a rhythm and everyone is in tune in a group everbody will do movements at the same time. This ties in with the other unique qualities as well like dance and making music. I'm gonna read more of the thread for anything like Ozkilla's.

 

[Delicious]

We invented the fucking internet.

Let's see a dolphin do that.

Bingo.

We are much smarter than any animal could ever hope to be. That is why we, despite our frailty, are at the top of the motherfucking food chain.

You'll forgive me but ...

Could you independantly creating a working internet system right now using only tools that you make yourself and knowledge attained without instruction (no wikipedia)? I know I couldn't. I'm willing to wager that most of the people on this board couldn't. Why then do we gloat about our giagntic cerbral capacity and belittle animals who haven't yet made the, very basic and easy, step to creating the internet?

It is undoubtable we have more intelligence than animals. By the same token, pretending that all of human accomplishment could be replicated by any of it's number is obviously ridiculous. In truth, all of human advancement can be attributed to less than one percent of all humans who have lived on this planet. For every one Leonardo DaVinci there was 1 billion ignorant peasants. Why then do gloat about this one percent and pretend it is indicative of the species as a whole?

Even without this one percent humans are more intelligent than animals, but qualifying the statement to say that intelligence is measured by the number of wi-fi gadgets you can produce by yourself knocks 99% of the human population to a level just barely above animals. It is an unfair measure.

Pattern recognition, problem solving, memory and self awareness are a truer gauge of intelligence. And in at least one of those categories (memory) chimpanzee's regularly score higher than humans. They all have photographic memories.

Again, not trying to knock humans but you've set up an unrealistic criteria and I felt the need to adress it.

The difference is that, if given the tools and training, I can replicate the internet. Can any other animal claim the same? No, because they only possess the most basic of intelligence. Humans, on the other hand, can build on each others knowledge as a result of our higher intelligence, creating great things. That is why there is no animal internet or Da Vinci.

We are smart and they are dumb.

And did I mention we have toilet paper?

With this, I can even wipe my ass more intelligently than an animal can. Fuck yeah.

 

[Khedive Rex]

Humans invent.

What animal could have ever, in any number of generations, created the computer on which you read this? Generated the electricity that illuminates your screen? What animal could create something even a thousand times simpler? None could. That is what separates humans from animals.

Actually, in its simplest form invention is used by lots of animals. All invention is, is crafting tools. The tools get more complex over time (it starts with a hammer and ends with an electron accelerator) but the complexity of the tool in question isn't the deciding factor. The drive to utilize tools is the most important indication of invention in animals.

If we are to judge by the complexity of the tools we establish a logical fallacy. It's all well and good to say that animals don't invent because they haven't created microchip processors but it's a similar fallacy to saying people don't eat because they don't eat bricks. You establish a broad category X (Invention in your case and Eating in mine) and choose an item that fits into X, lets call it Y (Microchip Processors in your case and Bricks in mine) It's possible to invent a microchip processor, but lack of one does not disprove invention. Similarly, it's possible to eat a brick but lack of doing so does not invalidate eating. Y is a facet of X and X will continue to exist whether Y is met or not. Therefore disproving Y and saying it disproves X in turn is a logical fallacy.

To apply this to the topic at hand, animals can be proved to have invention without being proved to have computers. If invention is defined as the drive and ability to craft tools than a myriad range of animals have invention. It ranges from chimpanzee's to crows to sea otters.

Don't get me wrong, Human invention is far more intricate and advanced but saying animal invention doesn't exist because it's not at your level of sophistication is incorrect.

Tool use is to invention as senitence is to sapience. One is prerequisite to the other, but they are not the same.

An animal may take a rock from the ground and use it to break something open, but that animal did not just invent the rock, it just used it. In order for it to be an invention, it must take something from the environment and refine it (or otherwise change it to be more useful).

Also, is a high degree of complexity in thinking and invention not something that separates humans from animals as well?

Ever seen one of those nests that birds weave from tall grass? It has taken multiple resources from it's environment and combined them in such a way as to maximize it's utility and utilize qualities not immediately present in the raw material. It has refined the grass and invented a building material.

This is the first example that comes to mind. I can provide others if you wish.

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.