Toribash
Original Post
"Us" and "those other animals".
This will be a somewhat poorly structured thread - but whatever. This is sort of a split from puppy-throwing marine thread.

I want you guys and girls to provide me some qualities which you think make us fundamentally different from dogs, monkeys, dolphins and the like. You can spare me the obvious answers like "more brain power".

I also want you to account for why humans allegedly have "morality" while animals such as monkeys just have "social or anti-social behavior".
Reasoning doesn't necessarily mean pondering complex philosophical questions and constructing syllogisms.

Animals (smarter ones) use basic reasoning all the time. When they hunt, when they choose a place to build their nest, when they solve puzzles. Basically, they use reason in the same way an average human uses reason when he goes about his day.

reasoning

PS: Haven't read all of it modius, but i will tomorrow.
Last edited by Odlov; Mar 14, 2010 at 02:51 AM.
Originally Posted by Galt View Post
We have an enlightened sense of reason.
Other animals basic survival instinct is to either run or flee; fight or flight. They do either, regardless of reason. Mans basic survival instinct is to reason. Make of that what you will.
Man has the ability to control it's fear. Meaning he can do things other animals can't, i.e; create a fire.
Another major factor is that we are the only known self aware animal. We are aware of ourselves. This boils down to one of the three basic axioms, the objective axiom of consciousness of course.

Also, for you religious dumbarses, we were made in god's image. Animals weren't.

Cool story bro. Feel free to make more up while you're at it.
Man's basic instincts are to eat, fuck, strive for comfort, and nurture. Ergo, identical to most other mammals in the book.

Tell me: when an animal constructs a tool and uses it to extract something it needs, doesn't it use reason? (eg, it figures it needs something long and sharp, or hard and heavy, etc) Because even crows do that. Is building airplanes an instinct?

Another example of animal tool design.

As for self-awareness...



http://www.livescience.com/animals/0...nt_mirror.html

As for controlling fear...

Selflessness? No wai.

Creating fire requires the kind of motor skills and strength which no animals except humans and possibly some apes possess. Ever tried actually creating fire? With sticks? Not fun. Humans also didn't know how to create fire for a loooong time, nor did they know/see benefit of cooking food.
Last edited by Odlov; Mar 14, 2010 at 03:23 AM.
Originally Posted by Murmayder View Post
Hitlers eradication of the Jews was not based on genetic mutations.

well that's totally irrelevant, since Jews were by no means the only target. Hitler was trying to 'purify' germany by eliminating anyone who had something wrong with them, such as disability etc. He was basically trying to artificially 'cleanse' the gene pool, not just kill people for lulz.
l2holocaust
Originally Posted by Odlov View Post
This will be a somewhat poorly structured thread - but whatever. This is sort of a split from puppy-throwing marine thread.

I want you guys and girls to provide me some qualities which you think make us fundamentally different from dogs, monkeys, dolphins and the like. You can spare me the obvious answers like "more brain power".

I also want you to account for why humans allegedly have "morality" while animals such as monkeys just have "social or anti-social behavior".

For the second part:

I think "morality" is just a more extensive version of "social behavior".

"Morality" to me is a set of guidelines or social codes that people follow so that people act for the benefit of the whole group instead of just acting for the benefit of the individual, so that more of us can survive (or just so that the majority of peeps can be happy... I guess).

As for why we say morality instead of social behavior... Euphemism? We like to think we are superior to other creatures because we have more brain power? Ego etc... My brain hurts thinking about these things (x_x)
Last edited by scheczudio; Mar 18, 2010 at 11:07 AM.
[A L P H A]
Originally Posted by Galt View Post
Morality (as I understand it) is not a set of social guidelines used to regulate human behaviour. Those are called laws. Morality is your view of the dichotomy of right and wrong. Morality is both relative and subjective. There is no such (valid) concept called objective morality. Morality is completely independant of the world and of others consciousnesses. Meaning, morals are completely subjective.

I guess my wording was pretty shit. My bad. I mean pretty much what Warhero said.
Regulate is not what I meant, I mean it's a kind of unwritten rule within our survival instincts which affect our view on what is 'right' and 'wrong'. Most things that the majority of us thinks as "morally wrong" leads to negative effects on our survivability (or perhaps our potential) as a society/group/pack etc. I haven't studied ethics either, this is just how I make sense of what "morality" is.
Last edited by scheczudio; Mar 19, 2010 at 07:07 AM.
[A L P H A]
'These results, the researchers say, suggest that episodic-like memory in rats is qualitatively different from human episodic memory, which involves retention of the point in past time when an event occurred.'

Derp. Still shows that humans are different to other animals with respect to time. After all, isn't that the basis of this thread? To discuss what the differences between 'us' and 'other animals' are?
Last edited by Ele; Mar 20, 2010 at 07:52 AM.
Originally Posted by jaredvcxz View Post
I've got some news.

1) Anyone can make a blog. Period. As such, it should be regarded as an untrustworthy source, since for all we know it could be Galt trying to sound smart by making up his own research.

Even though it was SmileyJones who posted that link..
Originally Posted by jaredvcxz View Post
2) Wikipedia articles are untrustworthy. Yes, I know that these articles are checked by college professors and such, but Wikipedia has a reputation that will stop most people from paying attention to you when you link to there.
However, wikipedia is good for small-scale arguments that don't tie into serious stuff like science.

Forgive me if I missed it, but where is anyone linking to wikipedia in this thread?
Originally Posted by jaredvcxz View Post
3) Don't link to a scientist that nobody has heard of. If they were all that, don't you think we would have heard of them?

Everybody started from someone. Some very major scientists weren't known at all in their time, it's only until after their death they received some recognition. Saying that a source is unvalid because the writer isn't populer is just capricious.
Originally Posted by jaredvcxz View Post
4) If you want to back up your statements, use a government scientific agency that agrees with you. You could also use a world-renowned book such as Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Because governments don't ever lie/take information out of context?
EB would be a decent source though.

Originally Posted by jaredvcxz View Post
Now to be on topic:
@Darkdoom1; That is what I was trying to get at earlier. I know some people are going to say "Lulz they look 2 c if it r dark", and I'll reply with "The rising and setting of the sun is how we still determine time. So, if they look to see if its dark, they are checking the time".

Random argument that hasn't happened yet? Me no understand psychics. Me no can see into future. I guess I'm not that smart.

Anywho, theres no such thing as Circathian Rhythms. It's called Circadian Rhythms. Anywho, the Circadian Rhythms directly affect an animals sleep cycle. Which means they do not have to 'look 2 c if it r dark'. They biologically know whether or not it is dark.
But w/e, my brain hurts.
Originally Posted by jaredvcxz View Post
@Darkdoom1; That is what I was trying to get at earlier. I know some people are going to say "Lulz they look 2 c if it r dark", and I'll reply with "The rising and setting of the sun is how we still determine time. So, if they look to see if its dark, they are checking the time".

I, of course, specifically meant that argument.