Are humans unique?

[Sriram]

So still not something that's 'well established'.

We don tend to go in circles, yes - from phenomenon to hypothesis to evidence to refutation and back to hypothesis.  Occasionally, though, we break out from evidence to theory.  By contrast, with faith-based positions on ideas like 'spirit' we've spent several thousand years going precisely nowhere.  In what way is traditional belief 'valid'? How can you establish that we are capable of 'divine' levels of anything when you can't come up with a definition of 'divine' that actually means anything - 'levels of consciousness that are universal'... what do you offer by way of any sort of demonstration that such a thing exists?

Which 'we' is this?  I don't look at the Pope, or Archbishop Welby, or the Coptic Princep (or whatever his title is) as being particularly 'better' or 'more civilized' and I certainly wouldn't apportion those sorts of descriptions to the likes of the Iranian Mullahs or the Westboro' Baptists or any other number of extremist nutbags.


O.

It is well established as an experience and billions of people regard it as 'fact'. Scientifically unproven is neither here  nor there. Now...I know you will tell me this is an ad populum fallacy!  Go ahead, tie yourself in knots.

I have already explained what I mean by 'divine'. You can call it 'civilized' or 'enlightened'....if you want. 

You again make the mistake of connecting this to religions, religious heads and extremists. These have nothing to do with what I am saying.

There is no denying that some people are more civilized and self disciplined than others....and we as a global society are more civilized and universal than people were centuries ago. 

[Outrider]

It is well established as an experience and billions of people regard it as 'fact'.

And contradictory 'spiritual' explanations are equally well-established and equally regarded as 'fact' - and they can't all be right.

Scientifically unproven is neither here  nor there.

Well it is, but only in the absence of any other equally reliable method of ascertaining likely facts.  If there were a reliable non-scientific derivation - pure logic, for instance - that would suffice.  Currently there isn't.

Now...I know you will tell me this is an ad populum fallacy!  Go ahead, tie yourself in knots.

It's not an ad populum fallacy, you aren't suggesting that it's actually true just because people believe it; however, you're suggesting that because people believe it we shouldn't be worried whether it's true or not? I'm not sure exactly what your point is, I think that's it, but please correct that if I'm wrong.

I have already explained what I mean by 'divine'. You can call it 'civilized' or 'enlightened'....if you want.

But it's just making reference to other unestablished concepts.  If I define 'divine' in terms of souls, and souls in terms of nature spirits, and nature spirits in terms of unexplained phenomena, then the whole thing has no basis - it doesn't matter how convoluted or long-standing or intricate the web of inter-supporting logical references is, so long as it's based on nothing it means nothing.

You again make the mistake of connecting this to religions, religious heads and extremists. These have nothing to do with what I am saying.

They are the social and cultural equivalent that I'm used to - different names for the same nothing.

There is no denying that some people are more civilized and self disciplined than others....and we as a global society are more civilized and universal than people were centuries ago.

In my experience 'civilised' tends to mean 'most like my cultural definition of appropriate' - I'm not sure there's an objective definition of 'civilised' any more than there's an objectively better 'culture'.  As to self-discipline, yes you can be more or less self-disciplined, but I fail to see how that's relevant.

O.

[Robbie]

Oh really?!! And yet, when I say 'traditional'...you assume a Christian tradition, knowing very well that I am a Hindu...!!  Why?!

Most of us wouldn't assume a Christian tradition; they're aren't so many Christians anyway so why would they? Here in the UK we're well aware of diverse traditions, people go to school, to work and generally mix with others from completely different cultures and traditions. Anyone particularly interested in religion and ethics will study them in order to understand. I know you are a Hindu and am not at all surprised by what you say, I'd expect it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

It is well established as an experience and billions of people regard it as 'fact'.

Just as the earth being flat, blood in veins being blue and our fingers actually touching the keyboard are “experiences of billions of people” you mean?

Scientifically unproven…

How many effing times does it have to be explained to you that science doesn’t involve proofs?

…is neither here  nor there.

No, it’s everything if you want to have a method to distinguish just guessing from the verifiably true. If not for the methods and tools of science, what other method would you propose to do the job?

Now...I know you will tell me this is an ad populum fallacy!  Go ahead, tie yourself in knots.

Why when you’ve just committed an ad pop fallacy would you then dismiss that fact that you’ve done it?

I have already explained what I mean by 'divine'. You can call it 'civilized' or 'enlightened'....if you want.

I don’t want. “Divine” means to do with gods. “Civilised” and “enlightened” on the other hand are entirely possible with no “divine” assertions at all. Indeed, some would say that “divine” and “enlightened” are pretty much opposites.
   

You again make the mistake of connecting this to religions, religious heads and extremists. These have nothing to do with what I am saying.

No he didn’t. Believing in gods does not necessarily involve religions.

There is no denying that some people are more civilized and self disciplined than others....and we as a global society are more civilized and universal than people were centuries ago.

“Civilised” and self-disciplined are relative terms. The 9/11 hijackers presumably considered themselves to be exemplars of both. Would you?

Oh, and if you think there’s a “global society” that’s more civilised than it was centuries ago that’s largely true I’d say of secular countries, but pretty much the opposite for theocracies.

[Sriram]

Most of us wouldn't assume a Christian tradition; they're aren't so many Christians anyway so why would they? Here in the UK we're well aware of diverse traditions, people go to school, to work and generally mix with others from completely different cultures and traditions. Anyone particularly interested in religion and ethics will study them in order to understand. I know you are a Hindu and am not at all surprised by what you say, I'd expect it.

That's nice Robbie. Everyone should know at least the rudiments of other cultures...and respect them. I wrote with specific reference to Outrider's comment at post 36.

Thanks.   

[Sriram]

Coming back to the subject. I think my comment at post 34 stands.

Thanks.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Coming back to the subject. I think my comment at post 34 stands.

Thanks.

You attempted a series of arguments to justify your faith position set out at Reply 34, and you've had those arguments falsified. You now tell us that you retain your faith position nonetheless, which you are of course perfectly entitled to do but that comes at the price of giving no-one else any good reason to think you're right.   

[Alan Burns]

I do not see any evidence of animals being able to contemplate their own uniqueness.
Nor do they show evidence for studying the behaviour and attributes of themselves or other species.
And other species do not show any capacity for discovering how things work.
Nor do they show any wish to explore the world we live in, or seek to know the secrets of the universe.
And they do not put themselves in danger just for the thrill of it, as in mountain climbing or white knuckle rides.
(and I have not even mentioned free will yet!)

[Outrider]

I do not see any evidence of animals being able to contemplate their own uniqueness.

Do you speak Dolphin?

Nor do they show evidence for studying the behaviour and attributes of themselves or other species.

Any number of hunting animals study the behaviour and attributes of prey, and any number of prey animals study the behaviour of predators, it's part of the arms war of nature red in tooth and claw.

And other species do not show any capacity for discovering how things work.

Pigs have recently been added to the growing list of animals that deploy tools in the pursuit of food and play.  Ravens (in particular) are capable of solving simple puzzles.  Dogs are adept at training humans to give them treats for performing simple tricks.

Nor do they show any wish to explore the world we live in, or seek to know the secrets of the universe.

Do you speak 'Whale'?  What do whales think about when they come to the surface, do they contemplate how the environment differs from the deep?  Do they have favourite colours of coral, favourites smells of marine diesel?  I'd agree if they are thinking about it then it's likely their understanding of the scope of the universe is limited by their ability to leave the ocean and the evolutionary limitations and capabilities of the senses they have evolved, but who knows if they are contemplating facets of underwater life that we have no concept of as it's outside of our sensory experience.  How do whales feel about changes in water pressure, about hydrothermoclines, about rivers of different salinity within the seas?

And they do not put themselves in danger just for the thrill of it, as in mountain climbing or white knuckle rides.

Have you ever watched a house cat tease a dog?  It's, again, a different extent, but isn't put its life on the line for no obvious tangible benefit?

and I have not even mentioned free will yet!)

Well, let's stick with things that might actually exist for now... 

O.

[Steve H]

I do not see any evidence of animals being able to contemplate their own uniqueness.
Nor do they show evidence for studying the behaviour and attributes of themselves or other species.
And other species do not show any capacity for discovering how things work.
Nor do they show any wish to explore the world we live in, or seek to know the secrets of the universe.
And they do not put themselves in danger just for the thrill of it, as in mountain climbing or white knuckle rides.
(and I have not even mentioned free will yet!)

The latter point is questionable, but in general I agree. In short, humans have acquired self-awareness, which is what the Adam and Eve myth can be interpreted as being about.

[Steve H]

Any number of hunting animals study the behaviour and attributes of prey, and any number of prey animals study the behaviour of predators, it's part of the arms war of nature red in tooth and claw.

they don't study them; they know them instinctively.

Pigs have recently been added to the growing list of animals that deploy tools in the pursuit of food and play.  Ravens (in particular) are capable of solving simple puzzles.  Dogs are adept at training humans to give them treats for performing simple tricks.

As I've already pointed out, there's a big difference between using a stick as a poker or a rock as a hammer, and designing and putting together a complex tool. Not even gorillas or chimpanzees, our closest relatives, who have the requisite hands with opposable thumbs, have yet independently come up with so much as a flint axe.

[Roses]

they don't study them; they know them instinctively.As I've already pointed out, there's a big difference between using a stick as a poker or a rock as a ammer, and designing and putting together a complex tool. Not even gorillas or chimpanzees, our closest relatives, who have the requisite hands with opposable thumbs, have yet independently come up with so much as a flint axe.

Give them time, humans were probably no more capable than chimps at the start of their evolutionary process.

[Outrider]

they don't study them; they know them instinctively.

There are instinctive reactions, yes, but there are prey animals that not only instinctively keep watch but that learn the potential hiding spots in the area around their den, that learn the individual preferences of particular predators in their immediate vicinity.

As I've already pointed out, there's a big difference between using a stick as a poker or a rock as a ammer, and designing and putting together a complex tool. Not even gorillas or chimpanzees, our closest relatives, who have the requisite hands with opposable thumbs, have yet independently come up with so much as a flint axe.

Do you consider it to be a difference of scale or nature, though - are we doing something fundamentally different, or are we doing essentially the same thing only better?  To me, the fundamentals of machinery are simple (there are, after all, only seven basic machines), and whilst we might apply them in subtle or sophisticated ways, that's essentially a matter of scale not a change in the nature of what we're doing.

The combination of complex language and conceptualisation of complex tool design means the scale of our difference from the animals is immense, but I'm not sure at what point it becomes something qualitatively different.  As with so many other things in biological thinking, I'm not sure there is a hard and fast answer, it depends on the context in which it's phrased.

Ultimately, as I think that all traits are evolved, we're no more nor less 'unique' than any other creatures, we're a unique combination of evolved traits exactly as much as chimpanzees, gorillas, bananas and mealworms.

O.

O.

[Steve H]

Give them time, humans were probably no more capable than chimps at the start of their evolutionary process.

They have already had at least as long as us.

[Steve H]

There are instinctive reactions, yes, but there are prey animals that not only instinctively keep watch but that learn the potential hiding spots in the area around their den, that learn the individual preferences of particular predators in their immediate vicinity.

Do you consider it to be a difference of scale or nature, though - are we doing something fundamentally different, or are we doing essentially the same thing only better?  To me, the fundamentals of machinery are simple (there are, after all, only seven basic machines), and whilst we might apply them in subtle or sophisticated ways, that's essentially a matter of scale not a change in the nature of what we're doing.

The combination of complex language and conceptualisation of complex tool design means the scale of our difference from the animals is immense, but I'm not sure at what point it becomes something qualitatively different.  As with so many other things in biological thinking, I'm not sure there is a hard and fast answer, it depends on the context in which it's phrased.

Ultimately, as I think that all traits are evolved, we're no more nor less 'unique' than any other creatures, we're a unique combination of evolved traits exactly as much as chimpanzees, gorillas, bananas and mealworms.

O.

O.

It becomes qualitatively different when you shape a piece of flint into an axe-head, and attach it to a handle, as opposed to just picking up a conveniently-shaped piece of flint which already has a sharp edge.

[Roses]

They have already had at least as long as us.

We developed a bit faster than them.

[Outrider]

They have already had at least as long as us.

Given that evolutionary forces work on the natural selection of random variation, how does the length of time matter?  That we evolved the trait earlier than them (apparently) is random.

O.

[Outrider]

It becomes qualitatively different when you shape a piece of flint into an axe-head, and attach it to a handle, as opposed to just picking up a conveniently-shaped piece of flint which already has a sharp edge.

Is that qualitatively different?  Ravens - which don't have the opposable thumbs to do the construction, nor the language to convey the ideas to each other in order to cooperate at that level, are capable of working out how complex machinery works, which is the same cognitive skill required to develop them.

Those, then, are not unique skills in themselves, but perhaps a unique combination of them.

O.

[Sriram]

Given that evolutionary forces work on the natural selection of random variation, how does the length of time matter?  That we evolved the trait earlier than them (apparently) is random.

O.

There you go. It is random every time....! The 'We don't know' answer, if ever there was one.

It just sounds more 'scientific' than 'God did it'.....but really isn't much more than that. 

[Nearly Sane]

We developed a bit faster than them.

That isn't how evolution works.

[Outrider]

There you go. It is random every time....! The 'We don't know' answer, if ever there was one.

It just sounds more 'scientific' than 'God did it'.....but really isn't much more than that.

To be fair, everything sounds more scientific than 'God did it'.  At the submolecular level it probably isn't a random event, but functionally at the level of individual organisms it is.

'We don't know' is also and infinitely more scientific answer than 'God did it', which is just 'We don't know, but with added magic'.

O.

[Steve H]

We developed a bit faster than them.

They haven't developed at all, even with human achievements to copy.

[Steve H]

Given that evolutionary forces work on the natural selection of random variation, how does the length of time matter?  That we evolved the trait earlier than them (apparently) is random.

O.

What on earth has that got to do with the fact that we have developed complex tools, and apes haven't?

[Steve H]

Is that qualitatively different?  Ravens - which don't have the opposable thumbs to do the construction, nor the language to convey the ideas to each other in order to cooperate at that level, are capable of working out how complex machinery works, which is the same cognitive skill required to develop them.

I'd like a reference for that assertion, please.

[Roses]

They haven't developed at all, even with human achievements to copy.

That is an assumption with no evidence to back it up, unless you were there when they first emerged from the primeval swamp. I bet humans were very different then too and much more like apes are today.