Is there anything that makes humans unique?

[Khedive Rex]

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.

Yes but without the tools and training you could not. And if I were to give tools and extensive training to a chimpanzee (Attach chip to circuit board, recieve banana.) in time I could teach him to recreate the internet. Both animals can meet the criteria you set forth for advanced intelligence. The difference is that, where you would understand what you had just created and appreciate the rewards, the chimpanzee would have no idea what it had just been trained to produce.

This is why your criteria for advanced intelligence is flawed. If I give a gorrilla a roll of your toilet paper and teach him to use it has he become any more intelligent than when he shat on leaves? No. He's still the same gorrilla. If you wish to judge the intelligence of a species, the number of fancy doo-hickeys it posseses is not the appropriate measure. Pattern recognition, problem solving, memory and self awareness are the appropriate measure.

 

[Delicious]

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.

Yes but without the tools and training you could not. And if I were to give tools and extensive training to a chimpanzee (Attach chip to circuit board, recieve banana.) in time I could teach him to recreate the internet. Both animals can meet the criteria you set forth for advanced intelligence. The difference is that, where you would understand what you had just created and appreciate the rewards, the chimpanzee would have no idea what it had just been trained to produce.

This is why your criteria for advanced intelligence is flawed. If I give a gorrilla a roll of your toilet paper and teach him to use it has he become any more intelligent than when he shat on leaves? No. He's still the same gorrilla. If you wish to judge the intelligence of a species, the number of fancy doo-hickeys it posseses is not the appropriate measure. Pattern recognition, problem solving, memory and self awareness are the appropriate measure.

You really think you can teach a monkey, in it's natural lifetime, how to make the internet?

Yeah, try it and get back to me on that one. I can because I am smarter, and can build upon the intelligence and achievements of others through rapid learning. Monkeys can't educate each other the way we can, because they are less intelligent.

And by the way, our advanced "pattern recognition, problem solving, memory and self awareness" could be said to have very large parts in the creation of the various "doo hickey's" of our species. Our doo hickeys don't make us unique, but our ability, as a species, to make these doo hickeys does.

 

[Kajt]

Animals don't know that they're going to die.

We do.

 

[similar.squirrel]

We're..fully bipedal?Correct me if this isn't unique.

 

[pliusmannn]

we have life...oh...

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.

it's not quite right, refining tools is when you can make something out of some pieces, like axe or spear out of stick rope and stone, branch doesn't count in this way

 

[Daveman]

THUMBS!!! damn right bitches!

they're awesome

allows us to grip things better and use tools much more effectively, unlike our more retarded monkey brethren

We're..fully bipedal?Correct me if this isn't unique.

kangaroos? they do lean on their fore legs occasionally but I'm pretty sure it's almost all hind leg stuff

anyway, this topic is kind of retarded, we are unique because we are a separate species, that kind of is the definition of completely separate from everything else, besides that means it's the cumulative effect of everything that makes us special

or if you like the jungle book, it's fire

 

[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.

 

[FROGGEman2]

Look around you. What are you using right now? A fucking computer. What are you doing on that computer? Browsing the fucking internet.

Really? You can't think of anything?

~EDIT~

...

Animals build nests. We build houses. Animals gibber. We speak.

...OK. You're using a magical box to magically connect with multiple people who are all over the world. You can watch videos. You can even digitally step into the shoes of a non-exsistent person to live out certain events of his/her life.

Has a monkey ever designed a game?

...Has a monkey ever made... something even as simple as a brick?

Look. What I'm tring to say is that there is a HUGE intelligence gap.

 

[Khedive Rex]

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.

Yes but without the tools and training you could not. And if I were to give tools and extensive training to a chimpanzee (Attach chip to circuit board, recieve banana.) in time I could teach him to recreate the internet. Both animals can meet the criteria you set forth for advanced intelligence. The difference is that, where you would understand what you had just created and appreciate the rewards, the chimpanzee would have no idea what it had just been trained to produce.

This is why your criteria for advanced intelligence is flawed. If I give a gorrilla a roll of your toilet paper and teach him to use it has he become any more intelligent than when he shat on leaves? No. He's still the same gorrilla. If you wish to judge the intelligence of a species, the number of fancy doo-hickeys it posseses is not the appropriate measure. Pattern recognition, problem solving, memory and self awareness are the appropriate measure.

You really think you can teach a monkey, in it's natural lifetime, how to make the internet?

Yeah, try it and get back to me on that one. I can because I am smarter, and can build upon the intelligence and achievements of others through rapid learning. Monkeys can't educate each other the way we can, because they are less intelligent.

I wish there were an easy way to type a sigh that didn't make me look like a dick.

I don't think I could make a monkey appreciate the internet. I don't think I could make a monkey utilize the internet with any kind of efficency or independance. I don't think I could make a monkey do tech support. However, if as you say the person learning is provided all the tools to construct the internet, then yes, I believe I could teach a monkey to put the chips in the right place. It wouldn't know why those were the right places or what it was doing but in time it'd recognize that if it puts a chip there it gets a banana. After long enough you have basic internet.

If I wasn't provided with the tools, if I had to teach the monkey to make the chips that it used, then hell no. By the same token, if you weren't provided with the tools it would be a similarly daunting act. The whole point of this example is that, through the criteria you've established, you and the monkey will preform on the same level. I object to this criteria because you are obviously smarter than a monkey. This measure does not reflect that.

And because I cannot help myself, the reason you can be taught is because someone else knows. Without that someone else you would be as hopeless as the monkey. Similarly if a monkey had someone to teach it, it would be as bright as you (according to your criteria). When we factor in that that "someone else" started as an outstanding statistcall anomoly the difference start to fade. This is why your criteria is flawed.

And by the way, our advanced "pattern recognition, problem solving, memory and self awareness" could be said to have very large parts in the creation of the various "doo hickey's" of our species. Our doo hickeys don't make us unique, but our ability, as a species, to make these doo hickeys does.

You admit here that the doo-hickeys in question are product of intelligence, not intelligence themselves. You are arguing essentially the same thing I'm arguing. The doo-hickeys are not unique to our species and shouldn't be considered so. Our ability to produce doo-hickeys is what potentially differentiates us from animals. I agree with this basic premise. We should measure intelligence by our ability to produce, not what has been produced. Unfortunately, I disagree with the statement that our ability to produe is unique to humans, but I agree with the premise that this is what should be judged.

 

[Annoying Turd]

Humans worship god, insects don't.

 

[pliusmannn]

we have life...oh...

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.

it's not quite right, refining tools is when you can make something out of some pieces, like axe or spear out of stick rope and stone, branch doesn't count in this way

Why not? They're taking what nature provides, and altering it to suit their needs. But if that doesn't blow your mind.. here's a fun one.. they'll actually use multiple tools [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_chimps.html] to achieve a single end.

ok, maybe you are right, but still my opinion for "tool" is when you construct something useful, not only use raw materials

 

[Danzaivar]

The thing that makes us different is that we are so poorly adapted to exist. We can't swim very well, run fast and aren't all that strong. The only thing we have going for us is brains. That's how we survive. We even lack basic instincts.

If our situation changed and humans had to survive in a way that our brains were of no use, just plain out instinctual survival, we would pretty much all fail and die.

So yeah, we are unique.

On the other hand, if our situation changes we can adapt because of our brains. If we had to rely on instinct or physical traits, we'd probably die out within a few generations of said change.

On topic - Insight and Abstract thought.

edit: you won't find a TOTALLY unique trait with no hint of it anywhere else in the animal kingdom, because what we have works REALLY well. Evolution tends to mean stuff slowly works better and better, so if something works it'll pop up all over

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Je pense, donc je suis.

Animals can't ponder their own existence or entertain any deeper thoughts than those relating to their immediate condition and needs. Or at least, I assume they can't. It's not measurable, but their mental capabilities are. Even the smartest animals are much stupider than the least intelligent people.

Dogs, for example, tend to forget any single thing that happens to them about 30 seconds after it occurs, maybe 2-3 minutes at most. If you want to punish your dog, you have to catch him/her in the act of doing the evil deed of the moment. If you try to punish your dog for, say, peeing on the carpet an hour after he/she did it, the dog will be confused and not understand why it's being punished.

 

[Delicious]

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.

Yes but without the tools and training you could not. And if I were to give tools and extensive training to a chimpanzee (Attach chip to circuit board, recieve banana.) in time I could teach him to recreate the internet. Both animals can meet the criteria you set forth for advanced intelligence. The difference is that, where you would understand what you had just created and appreciate the rewards, the chimpanzee would have no idea what it had just been trained to produce.

This is why your criteria for advanced intelligence is flawed. If I give a gorrilla a roll of your toilet paper and teach him to use it has he become any more intelligent than when he shat on leaves? No. He's still the same gorrilla. If you wish to judge the intelligence of a species, the number of fancy doo-hickeys it posseses is not the appropriate measure. Pattern recognition, problem solving, memory and self awareness are the appropriate measure.

You really think you can teach a monkey, in it's natural lifetime, how to make the internet?

Yeah, try it and get back to me on that one. I can because I am smarter, and can build upon the intelligence and achievements of others through rapid learning. Monkeys can't educate each other the way we can, because they are less intelligent.

I wish there were an easy way to type a sigh that didn't make me look like a dick.

I don't think I could make a monkey appreciate the internet. I don't think I could make a monkey utilize the internet with any kind of efficency or independance. I don't think I could make a monkey do tech support. However, if as you say the person learning is provided all the tools to construct the internet, then yes, I believe I could teach a monkey to put the chips in the right place. It wouldn't know why those were the right places or what it was doing but in time it'd recognize that if it puts a chip there it gets a banana. After long enough you have basic internet.

If I wasn't provided with the tools, if I had to teach the monkey to make the chips that it used, then hell no. By the same token, if you weren't provided with the tools it would be a similarly daunting act. The whole point of this example is that, through the criteria you've established, you and the monkey will preform on the same level. I object to this criteria because you are obviously smarter than a monkey. This measure does not reflect that.

And because I cannot help myself, the reason you can be taught is because someone else knows. Without that someone else you would be as hopeless as the monkey. Similarly if a monkey had someone to teach it, it would be as bright as you (according to your criteria). When we factor in that that "someone else" started as an outstanding statistcall anomoly the difference start to fade. This is why your criteria is flawed.

And by the way, our advanced "pattern recognition, problem solving, memory and self awareness" could be said to have very large parts in the creation of the various "doo hickey's" of our species. Our doo hickeys don't make us unique, but our ability, as a species, to make these doo hickeys does.

You admit here that the doo-hickeys in question are product of intelligence, not intelligence themselves. You are arguing essentially the same thing I'm arguing. The doo-hickeys are not unique to our species and shouldn't be considered so. Our ability to produce doo-hickeys is what potentially differentiates us from animals. I agree with this basic premise. We should measure intelligence by our ability to produce, not what has been produced. Unfortunately, I disagree with the statement that our ability to produe is unique to humans, but I agree with the premise that this is what should be judged.

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.

 

[RufusMcLaser]

Animals don't have written language. In fact, I'm fairly certain no animals have ever been observed preserving information externally.

You can argue that cetaceans have language, although I'm unconvinced, so I've left that one out. It certainly seems like we're better at communicating complex ideas than than anyone else.

There's agriculture. I know certain ant species have fungus gardens, but AFAIK no species has been able to wrap its collective mind around the abstract concept of "find an edible plant, put the seeds in the dirt, harvest the result."

And then there's fire.

 

[Cocal]

We have self conscience, the ability to perceive the world and what is beyond it.

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