The animal kingdom: Man vs Animal

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Confused
Site Supporter
Posts: 7308
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Alaska

The animal kingdom: Man vs Animal

Post #1

Post by Confused »

In the thread "Your beliefs", the author posed the following:

The thing that sets human beings apart from animals is control.
I don't know that I would agree with that. Since man is known to lose control under certain cirumstances and resort back to "animalistic instincts" to protect themselves, their home, their family etc.... I can't really agree with it. So the issue for debate:

Besides the obvious physical characteristics and abilities:

What separates man from animal? What makes the actions humans do so different from those of an animal? I guess what I am searching for is what distinctive traits do humans possess than animals don't?
What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.

-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.

-Harvey Fierstein

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Brains

Post #21

Post by Goat »

Bugmaster wrote:
QED wrote:You seem to me to be rigging your conclusion by ignoring all the incredibly stupid stuff that's unique to humans.
Well, that's what happens when you start making vague value judgements about what "best" is. I stand by my original statement: from the evolutionary perspective, we are currently "best" on this planet (I can't speculate about aliens until I've seen one).

Yes, dolphins can swim better than us, and tigers have bigger claws, and birds can fly; but, as a species, we can outperform them as far as passing down our genes is concerned. We have our technology to thank for that. Giant squids can eat an individual human, but, as a species, we consider them sushi.

In fact, ultimately, we can also build submarines, swords, airplanes, and even things with no natural analogue, such as the Internet. Dolphins can't fly, and there's no reason to suppose that they ever would.

Note that I'm not making some sort of a moral or cultural judgement here; I'm merely trying to define "best" in some sort of objective terms. Otherwise, you get dragged down into debates about whose "best" is the best "best", and eventually the whole conversation devolves into pin-head-angel-counting.
If passing on the genes is the best, then bacteria pass down genes much better.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #22

Post by Cathar1950 »

I like Whitehead and Hartshorne's idea that things are of the same character but different in degree and complexity. They were speaking of even atoms and subatomic particles.
It become more obvious when you look at the similarities and differences between us and the rest of life forms..
I was sure I posted this article. It is about showing chimps using homemade spears to kill bush babies for food.
Maybe a good way of comparing us to animals is that we are better at making stuff up?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070222/sc_ ... HOcLIiANEA


Hunting chimps may change view of human evolution
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science EditorThu Feb 22, 12:50 PM ET
Chimpanzees have been seen using spears to hunt bush babies, U.S. researchers said on Thursday in a study that demonstrates a whole new level of tool use and planning by our closest living relatives.
Perhaps even more intriguing, it was only the females who fashioned and used the wooden spears, Jill Pruetz and Paco Bertolani of Iowa State University reported.
Bertolani saw an adolescent female chimp use a spear to stab a bush baby as it slept in a tree hollow, pull it out and eat it.
Pruetz and Bertolani, now at Cambridge University in Britain, had been watching the Fongoli community of savanna-dwelling chimpanzees in southeastern Senegal.
The chimps apparently had to invent new ways to gather food because they live in an unusual area for their species, the researchers report in the journal Current Biology.
"This is just an innovative way of having to make up for a pretty harsh environment," Pruetz said in a telephone interview. The chimps must come down from trees to gather food and rest in dry caves during the hot season.
"It is similar to what we say about early hominids that lived maybe 6 million years ago and were basically the precursors to humans."
Chimpanzees are genetically the closest living relatives to human beings, sharing more than 98 percent of our DNA. Scientists believe the precursors to chimps and humans split off from a common ancestor about 7 million years ago.
Chimps are known to use tools to crack open nuts and fish for termites. Some birds use tools, as do other animals such as gorillas, orangutans and even naked mole rats.
But the sophisticated use of a tool to hunt with had never been seen.
Pruetz thought it was a fluke when Bertolani saw the adolescent female hunt and kill the bush baby, a tiny nocturnal primate.
But then she saw almost the same thing. "I saw the behavior over the course of 19 days almost daily," she said.
PLANNING AND FORESIGHT
The chimps choose a branch, strip it of leaves and twigs, trim it down to a stable size and then chew the ends to a point. Then they use it to stab into holes where bush babies might be sleeping.
It is not a highly successful method of hunting. They only ever saw one chimpanzee succeed in getting a bush baby once. The apes mostly eat fruit, bark and legumes.
Part of the problem is this group of chimps is shy of humans, and the females, who seem to do most of this type of hunting, are especially wary. "I am willing to bet the females do it even more than we have seen," she said.
Pruetz noted that male chimps never used the spears. She believes the males use their greater strength and size to grab food and kill prey more easily, so the females must come up with other methods.
"That to me was just as intriguing if not even more so," Pruetz said.
The spear-hunting occurred when the group was foraging together, again unchimplike behavior that might produce more competition between males and females, she said.
Maybe females invented weapons for hunting, Pruetz said.
"The observation that individuals hunting with tools include females and immature chimpanzees suggests that we should rethink traditional explanations for the evolution of such behavior in our own lineage," she concluded in her paper.
"The multiple steps taken by Fongoli chimpanzees in making tools to dispatch mammalian prey involve the kind of foresight and intellectual complexity that most likely typified early human relatives."

User avatar
Greatest I Am
Banned
Banned
Posts: 3043
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:04 am

Animal intelegence

Post #23

Post by Greatest I Am »

There is no question as to the intelligence of animals.
The question is of degree of intelligence.
Aberrant conditioning is well known. This method is used to determine just how intelligent an animal is.
All animals have intelligence and have the ability to learn. We can know that animals have no ethics and morals by the fact that we can train them to place their necks in a chopping position after seeing their brethren in the same position and getting their heads chopped off. There are also cases of mass suicide where birds in the high arctic jump off cliffs to their death by following the crowd.

Man has no competition for the best animal on earth. We have dominion over all the lesser beasts.
How we administer this dominion is what is to be judged.
The king of lions is a lion. The king of bees is a bee. Man is the only animal willing to follow a king that is not of our own species. God.
This one characteristic is the only definitive aspect of man that places him above the animals.

Regards
DL

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Re: Animal intelegence

Post #24

Post by Goat »

Greatest I Am wrote:There is no question as to the intelligence of animals.
The question is of degree of intelligence.
Aberrant conditioning is well known. This method is used to determine just how intelligent an animal is.
All animals have intelligence and have the ability to learn. We can know that animals have no ethics and morals by the fact that we can train them to place their necks in a chopping position after seeing their brethren in the same position and getting their heads chopped off. There are also cases of mass suicide where birds in the high arctic jump off cliffs to their death by following the crowd.

Man has no competition for the best animal on earth. We have dominion over all the lesser beasts.
How we administer this dominion is what is to be judged.
The king of lions is a lion. The king of bees is a bee. Man is the only animal willing to follow a king that is not of our own species. God.
This one characteristic is the only definitive aspect of man that places him above the animals.

Regards
DL
You are thinking of not birds, but lemmings, and it is not true, but a myth that was
promoted by bad science in a disney nature film in the 1950's.

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Re: Animal intelegence

Post #25

Post by QED »

I couldn't possibly comment on the lemmings but,
Greatest I Am wrote:The king of lions is a lion. The king of bees is a bee. Man is the only animal willing to follow a king that is not of our own species. God.
This one characteristic is the only definitive aspect of man that places him above the animals.
As for being the only definitive aspect of man I would say that this could turn out to be quite ironic. The wonderful brain that man has evolved is one that seems to have a limitless capacity for imagination. I tend to think this is the key difference between us and other animals. Our ability to extrapolate things from the world and "build" imaginary models in ours minds - where we can run simulations and see how things pan out, before we go to the trouble of putting them into practice, would give us a great advantage over minds that can only ever see "things as they are". This is how I think most animals perceive the world.

All may seem to be well and good for us, but there's no limit to the extent of this imagination and no end of self-consistent philosophical modelling as a consequence. The model of a God-king who reigns supreme over the universe is perfectly consistent with much of what we see - but so are a good number of alternative cosmologies having equal explanatory power *for our local conditions*. To draw on one particular strand of imagination and weave it so thoroughly into our culture is, to me, an extraordinarily risky thing to do. Risky in the sense that "I hope no one is watching us" - which, of course, is what I suspect is the case. :lol:

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Animal intelegence

Post #26

Post by Cathar1950 »

QED wrote:I couldn't possibly comment on the lemmings but,
Greatest I Am wrote:The king of lions is a lion. The king of bees is a bee. Man is the only animal willing to follow a king that is not of our own species. God.
This one characteristic is the only definitive aspect of man that places him above the animals.
As for being the only definitive aspect of man I would say that this could turn out to be quite ironic. The wonderful brain that man has evolved is one that seems to have a limitless capacity for imagination. I tend to think this is the key difference between us and other animals. Our ability to extrapolate things from the world and "build" imaginary models in ours minds - where we can run simulations and see how things pan out, before we go to the trouble of putting them into practice, would give us a great advantage over minds that can only ever see "things as they are". This is how I think most animals perceive the world.

All may seem to be well and good for us, but there's no limit to the extent of this imagination and no end of self-consistent philosophical modelling as a consequence. The model of a God-king who reigns supreme over the universe is perfectly consistent with much of what we see - but so are a good number of alternative cosmologies having equal explanatory power *for our local conditions*. To draw on one particular strand of imagination and weave it so thoroughly into our culture is, to me, an extraordinarily risky thing to do. Risky in the sense that "I hope no one is watching us" - which, of course, is what I suspect is the case. :lol:
I don't think Lions have a king but they are called king of the jungle.
Bees have a queen not a king.

User avatar
Bugmaster
Site Supporter
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:52 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Animal intelegence

Post #27

Post by Bugmaster »

QED wrote:Our ability to extrapolate things from the world and "build" imaginary models in ours minds - where we can run simulations and see how things pan out, before we go to the trouble of putting them into practice, would give us a great advantage over minds that can only ever see "things as they are".
Actually, I recall reading an article somewhere which said that cats have a quite well-developed mental model of their prey (i.e., rats, mice, birds, things like that) in their cat-minds. They actually do run a simulation of the target in their head to predict what it would do -- just as humans do when they're trying to figure out what another human is thinking. It's been a while, though, so I could be wrong.

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Re: Animal intelegence

Post #28

Post by QED »

Bugmaster wrote:Actually, I recall reading an article somewhere which said that cats have a quite well-developed mental model of their prey (i.e., rats, mice, birds, things like that) in their cat-minds. They actually do run a simulation of the target in their head to predict what it would do -- just as humans do when they're trying to figure out what another human is thinking. It's been a while, though, so I could be wrong.
I wouldn't be at all surprised. These things are usually only a matter of degree. The real significance is in how this changes things when we overlay a powerful element of culture-building through verbal communication. Then our imagination takes on a real form in our culture.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10503
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Animal intelegence

Post #29

Post by Cathar1950 »

QED wrote:
Bugmaster wrote:Actually, I recall reading an article somewhere which said that cats have a quite well-developed mental model of their prey (i.e., rats, mice, birds, things like that) in their cat-minds. They actually do run a simulation of the target in their head to predict what it would do -- just as humans do when they're trying to figure out what another human is thinking. It's been a while, though, so I could be wrong.
I wouldn't be at all surprised. These things are usually only a matter of degree. The real significance is in how this changes things when we overlay a powerful element of culture-building through verbal communication. Then our imagination takes on a real form in our culture.
Misplaced concrescence?

Any anthropologist would say that what a culture believes for them it is true.
I remember reading about one group of people where the men and women went into separate birthing huts and the man went thru labor while the women felt no pain. They even did test to see if they were making it up.
Yet some medical people were trying to explain to them they had it all wrong.
But it worked for them.

jdeuel3868
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:37 pm
Location: Texas

Somewhat in the same topic of things...

Post #30

Post by jdeuel3868 »

Well nature is odd as it is, it seems to know whats happening next no matter what. Ex. the oxygen revolution, as oxygen filled the air animals moved onto land and grew larger. Meteor hits the earth and life still went on. So why think of humans as out of the animal system. We do manipulate the rules though and this is what makes us Mankind. I think that if we want to define man as something other than just an animal the traits would be religion/philosophy, science, and writing. Anyways enough of the little comments here is the main point I wanted to bring up.

Life exsists without cognition. How does anything operate without thought? Like to us or any mammal at that mating involves some form of ritual and choices (thus thoughts), but to something like a jellyfish what is telling it to mate?

Post Reply