What do you think separates humans from other animals?

[Subbies]

Thank you sir, you just made my day.

 

[teebeeohh]

so you are telling me i am an animal because i don't have religion?

i would say art.
at the point we spend energy and creativity on make things pretty instead of making them practical and more useful(painting stuff on cave walls instead of making more/better spears) we became human.
that combined with the level of intelligence we are capable of using(yes, some animals use tools and recognize themselves in the mirror WE BUILD THE FUCKING LHC, totally different levels)

I wouldn't say so for art. Some birds (I forgot the name) build structures whose only use is being pretty. They're useless as nests and offer no camouflage and they're buildt on the ground, easy acces for predators. Their only redeeming feature is that they're pretty. These structures are used for seduction so it means that some birds have an aesthetic sense which implies a sort of art.

but when used for seduction they have purpose other than being pretty, right?

 

[Khada]

A developed neo-cortex, the a depressing number of people don't utilize lol.

 

[The_Emperor]

we are smarter, that is all.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

The belief that we're separate from other animals?

/snarksnarksnark

 

[Ranorak]

What makes you think something does separate us?

Sure we can do some stuff slightly better then the average animal.
But in the end we rely on food shelter and sex just as much.

 

[Subbies]

so you are telling me i am an animal because i don't have religion?

i would say art.
at the point we spend energy and creativity on make things pretty instead of making them practical and more useful(painting stuff on cave walls instead of making more/better spears) we became human.
that combined with the level of intelligence we are capable of using(yes, some animals use tools and recognize themselves in the mirror WE BUILD THE FUCKING LHC, totally different levels)

I wouldn't say so for art. Some birds (I forgot the name) build structures whose only use is being pretty. They're useless as nests and offer no camouflage and they're buildt on the ground, easy acces for predators. Their only redeeming feature is that they're pretty. These structures are used for seduction so it means that some birds have an aesthetic sense which implies a sort of art.

but when used for seduction they have purpose other than being pretty, right?

The selection criterea is "who has the prettiest sculputre". Even if it is used for seduction it still is art. Haven't you ever drawn a pretty picture in hope that the somebody you destined it for takes notice?

 

[KnightOfHearts]

Their not inclined to kill other animals simply because they want to?
Maybe?

 

[Combustion Kevin]

I've seen a lot of people claim that humans are just as intelligent as animals.
exactly what IS intelligence and how do we measure it?

 

[Kirkby]

Good question. You do have to remember we are animals though. Unique animals but animals all the same.
Animals show compassion
know the difference between right and wrong
mourn
think logically
do things for fun
can learn
talk (just because their language isnt as sophisticated as ours it doesnt mean it doesnt happen)

if there is a difference its incredibly slight but there is one thing iv never seen an animal do and thats laugh. If anyone could explain that to me or give me an example of an animal that laughs at things it finds amusing please let me know!

 

[Lieju]

Well, I believe we are just a smarter animal that has luckily (for us, unlucky for all the rest) evolved quicker than any other species. I'm sure once humanity is extinct and other species take our place, one will rise above the rest and shit will start all over again.

It's not like humans evolve particularly quickly, it takes us rather long to achieve maturity and we don't have much chldren compared to many other species, but we compensate with social behaviour and taking care of our offspring.

Something like insects or bacteria will adapt and evolve much quicker.

But we happened to specialise in intelligence and making tools, and the social structures and culture, which has led to us having a wide ecological impact.

What do you think separates humans from other animals?

First of all i don't think we're just animals. Most things we do, the way we live, things we value is far from natural flow of life and that is both the proof that we're not animals and answer to your question i guess.

For example : we're persistently trying to invent some drugs instead of using natural medicines.

Define 'natural flow of life'.
'Natural' is really one of those words that get thrown around a lot with very poor definition, and often with values tacked on that don't make much sense.
Also, do you suppose other animals value 'natural' things more? My cat seems rather content in napping next to the radiator and getting her factory-processed food carried in front of her whenever she wants.

if there is a difference its incredibly slight but there is one thing iv never seen an animal do and thats laugh. If anyone could explain that to me or give me an example of an animal that laughs at things it finds amusing please let me know!

Laughter is a part of the way humans interact socially with one another. Other social animals do as well, a dog wagging it's tail is a rather similar message.

If you mean something that sounds the same, hyenas have cries that sound like human laughter, but they mean something different for those species.

EDIT:
It seems our close relatives do have some kind of laughter at least:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/the-evolution-of-laughter/

 

[Esotera]

Not very much. In terms of intelligence, we're probably at the top, but other species are probably closer than we think. And intelligence is poorly defined anyway. We're very social creatures, but so are many other animals.

I think it's mostly just lucky accidents in evolution - intelligence, sociality - grouped together that make the features that arguably separate us, like changing our environment. We have a long way to go before we become fully civilised/removed from the animal kingdom.

 

[JesterRaiin]

1.point
Yep thats what i was saying. I would indeed say that we need medicine though. Then again "need" isnt defined either. As in: need to survive or need to develop further etc.
2.point
We dont know how big the universe is, maybe there are people out there. We'll never meet them, since spacetravel is pretty impossible unless no further great discoveries are made.
As such, i think its impossible to pin down the "flow of nature" and would identify it as a human construct.
3.
what i meant was: parasites and viruses are part of nature and since humans behave like them, logic dictates they would be part of the "flow" of nature, too.

1. True. However, i fail to see any pragmatism in let's say bubblegums, iOS games, or one million different coughing syrups, toothpastes (each and every suggested by MOST dentist globally) and such. We have plenty of such stuff. Nice and shiny, but not needed.
2. I hope i'm wrong regarding silence of universe. I really hope. However facts are facts, we have nothing more than hopes and theories. Time will tell. Until then your argument is as good as mine. (Also, but that's outside of this thread - i'm counting for scientific breakthrough that will make "normal" space travel obsolete. Wormholes, interstellar gates, hyperspace and such).
3. Not every animal behaves like viruses and parasites, so there's no need for human (if one believes that mankind is part of animal kingdom) to act like parasite.

- We're pretty close to sailing into space. We reached this technological advancement across thousands of years which, compared to the age of universe is more or less "blink of an eye". Billions of billions other civilizations could evolve prior to our own, however universe is silent. We're listening but there's no answer, no sign of intelligent life anywhere. So either we're alone or natural flow of life isn't about going into space. Either way we're unnatural in what we do.

-A fair period of those billions of years would have been entirely inhospitable. The universe can currently support life, but it was not always so.
-Simply because we haven't found anything yet does not mean the overwhelming majority of the universe's life isn't heading down the path of 'To Space!'. It just means that out of the minuscule part of the universe that we can see, we have not detected any signs of life. Hell, even in some of the places we have thoroughly checked for communications from there could be a beacon or something transmitting right now. Thing is, we won't know about it until years later due to the limited speed of light.

- Very true. Still, this life supporting stage still means pretty vast amount of time.
- This is an argument that works both for and against what i said. It really comes down to interpretation and, well, i guess i'm one of those that see glass half-empty, not half-full.

Outside of this thread : If i may suggest, i'd like both of you, fellow Espcapists, to think about possibilities when discussing alien civilizations. Intelligent life evolving in complete different environment should be capable of producing different science, walk different paths.
They don't have to invest into rocketery and build spaceships, but instead harness the power of teleportation. They may be capable of traveling outside of what we consider time-space and distances may mean nothing for them. Concept of war could be completely "alien" to them and while we kill ourselves over some laughable matters, they could rush into galaxy to plant seeds of life wherever they can just because so. We're products of our history and it is violent, bloody, primitive story full of betrayals, murders - aliens aren't "obliged" to commit our crimes.
My point is : i may be wrong, but you both think about possible aliens as about ourselves, and there's no need to do so.

Also, if i may interest you in this masterpiece : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C5%82os_pana it's one of best studies (at least known to me) regarding possible contact between Mankind and alien civilization. Rather hard to comprehend, there's no action per se, but logic, conclussions makes it worth reading.

What do you think separates humans from other animals?

First of all i don't think we're just animals. Most things we do, the way we live, things we value is far from natural flow of life and that is both the proof that we're not animals and answer to your question i guess.

For example : we're persistently trying to invent some drugs instead of using natural medicines.

Define 'natural flow of life'.
'Natural' is really one of those words that get thrown around a lot with very poor definition, and often with values tacked on that don't make much sense.
Also, do you suppose other animals value 'natural' things more? My cat seems rather content in napping next to the radiator and getting her factory-processed food carried in front of her whenever she wants.

Certainly.
I'm aware about "flow of life" not being universally defined. I'm using it as a simplification only. As i understand it (and this is definition made "ad hoc", without heavy thinking mind you, so expect no great discovery here), living part of planet (also animal kingdom) is governed by very simple, yet vast system of actions and reactions. It's void of ethics, morality, love and compssion, yet it's pure and ellegant. I guess it's based on simple pragmatism and instincts. As long as alive things adhere to its "rules", there's natural status quo mantained.
We, people, change this status quo, we try to grasp as much as we can, without giving anything in exchange. We try to prolong our life, we try to separate us from nature, enclose in boxes of glass and plastic, therefore we can't be considered part of "flow of life" (and by extension - animal kingdom) anymore.

As for animals and "values". Pragmatism. Cat may be happy with easy food and warmth, but won't evolve into some intelligent Kilrathi because of that. We did - instead of sitting happily in our caves we invented universities, concepts of salary, taxes and licence agreements. Joke is on us i guess. :|

 

[DSK-]

Intelligence. Our only natural weapon is our brain. We don't have claws, sharp pointy teeth, venom, exoskeletons, armour and nor are we amphibious.

It's thanks to our brains that we have come as far as we have, in my opinion.

That is the ONLY thing that differentiates us with animals. We still haven't shed our animalistic instincts despite all our wisdom and knowledge.

 

[Subbies]

sorry double post

 

[Lieju]

intelegence, and emotion, animals dont have emotions, they have instincts

You are seriously claiming animals don't feel lonely, hungry, attached to their offspring, happy, content, angry, scared, horny?

True, something like a spider is not going to have much of emotions (and even still I'd argue they can feel scared or hungry, realise that to some extent and act on it), but more social animals we are talking, more they are like us.

Something like a parent's attachment to their child, or a person's love for their partner are very biological things, and certainly present in species that take care of their young or form partnerships.

 

[Subbies]

intelegence, and emotion, animals dont have emotions, they have instincts

Elephants mourn their dead. Animals can be afaid (don't forget that fear is also an emotion)

I've seen a lot of people claim that humans are just as intelligent as animals.
exactly what IS intelligence and how do we measure it?

I haven't seen anyone say that animals are as intelligent as humans. What has been said is that intelligence is a caracterisic that both humans and animals have. It's just that humans have more of it.

 

[smeghead00]

usually a fence