|
|
Post by Overread on May 26, 2011 18:18:24 GMT
Thoughts are believed to occur in the brain. As of late, the part of the brain in quite a few animals that we believe would register self awareness is... well no there. I'd still treat this as very, suspect, in some ways as its open to so many differing problems as a theory; not least the fact that brain study itself is always under big revelations. I'd also argue that such studies might differ between dog breeds or even within the same breed. We've also got to consider upbringing as well which might well lead to differences in the animals awareness (or how the brain records/responds). It's certainly an interesting area, but also one that I treat sceptically. I'm also sure huskies know of self - or at least selfishness (mine! Esp if its pizza/dead rabbit  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Hellbreaker on May 26, 2011 18:26:01 GMT
(otherwise, how could we have spread so far so quickly?). I believe that language would have a key role in this. Thumbs are another key. Our minds are made to solve problems is another. Monkeys have thumbs and problem solving minds, but no language. Pigs have problem solving minds, no thumbs or communications abilities. Animals do communicate with each other. But they don't go about saying 'yo dawg how ya doin', bro?'. Animals use body language as well as different cries, the cries being similar to language (but different still.) Some animals even use pheromones. Communication is not something animals lack, it may not be words that you can understand but that doesn't mean anything more than you not having sufficient knowledge in it. :] |
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on May 26, 2011 20:54:24 GMT
I believe that language would have a key role in this. Thumbs are another key. Our minds are made to solve problems is another. Monkeys have thumbs and problem solving minds, but no language. Pigs have problem solving minds, no thumbs or communications abilities. Animals do communicate with each other. But they don't go about saying 'yo dawg how ya doin', bro?'. Animals use body language as well as different cries, the cries being similar to language (but different still.) Some animals even use pheromones. Communication is not something animals lack, it may not be words that you can understand but that doesn't mean anything more than you not having sufficient knowledge in it. :] In that sense, we all communicate. But in that sense, we can communicate with trees, because we can see the way the tree is behaving to its environment. I said language twice and communication once, which was a slip up, but did not make my argument invalid. No, they do not talk to each other, which is a key role because unlike body language, you can't convey specific details to others. I can not argue this point at all if it were not for language, because body language would let you know only that i think you are wrong, my language skills tell you why. Monuments, building of such sophistication, tools like... the bowl! would not have been made and continue to be made, if we didn't have language. Language is unique to humans and humans alone, which is a major factor in why we expanded so far so fast, and why we still dominate the world today. |
|
|
|
Post by Overread on May 26, 2011 21:54:56 GMT
Um, but animals do talk to each other - varying degrees with both sound and visual components (heck even our own language is built on both verbal and visual parts - just look at how when you strip it down online how many subtle effects of hand signals of appearance are totally lost when its reduced to just words).
Tool use is also not exclusive to humans either - many animals have made use of simplistic tools over the years in order to live in their environments. I can't find it now, but there were monkies found to be using hard rocks to beat out certain types of nut to get at the food inside (these had been used for generations and originally the holds and pits in the rocks were thought to be effects caused by glacial or water based events). There are also many examples of octopuss's using tools - even down to using coconut shells and other human debris (the shells from human activities).
As for what separated us - I won't put it down to one thing alone, nor do I think we were a singular species in our development (remember there were many other branches of the human species which, for reasons we mostly don't know, become extinct one by one till only we remained). Rather I think we are both the result of difference and a degree of luck in that certain parts combined to give us the starting edge.
Language is not the only part - nor is our memory retention and access - nor is it our opposable thumbs - nor is it out herd base as a culture - nor is it our written communication. Rather its the combination of these and more.
|
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on May 26, 2011 22:22:14 GMT
Um, but animals do talk to each other - varying degrees with both sound and visual components (heck even our own language is built on both verbal and visual parts - just look at how when you strip it down online how many subtle effects of hand signals of appearance are totally lost when its reduced to just words). Source? I never said that tools were exclusive to humans, but I did say that the types of tools we use could not have been made if it weren't for language. I do not recall making a statement that language was the only thing that made humans advance farther than any other animal has. Which applies to the next statement you make as well. "....in minor ways we differ, in major, we are the same." Maya Angelue. I have yet to even suggest that humans are superior to other animals in any way mind you. I only stated what made us expand more than any other. |
|
|
|
Post by Trygon on May 26, 2011 23:04:24 GMT
I actually find it very easy to say that humans are superior to many animals. We easily have most large animals by the balls and have out evolved them to the point that if we did not hold back and conformed to nature's laws we could easily annihilate them. However, I do think that there are animals that are equal to us and even perhaps greater. Coincidently these animals are often seen as pests, parasites, insignificants or worse by the most of us. I do admire some of them, as well as species that are willing to take advantage of our own success.
|
|
|
|
Post by Overread on May 27, 2011 0:45:50 GMT
Um, but animals do talk to each other - varying degrees with both sound and visual components (heck even our own language is built on both verbal and visual parts - just look at how when you strip it down online how many subtle effects of hand signals of appearance are totally lost when its reduced to just words). Source? Open the window and listen - chances are you'll hear birdsong at this time of year (in the daytime of course). There you have right there a form of audio communication which can be used to establish territories and attract potential mates (as well as other uses such as raising alarm or distraction). Heck many airfields will use bird warning calls on audio tapes to scare birds away from the airfield. Other notable languages would be whale and dolphin song - generally a bit more complex than many, and again a method of communicating between groups. They don't have to be advanced, and we must further remember that many times we see something we don't understand as something simplistic - when in actuality it can have many undertones and complexities that we miss (not just because we miss catching them, but sometimes because they fall outside our range of normal perception). We've evolved our technology to a point where we can twist things to our advantage in the short term over natures regular pattern. However evolution of our bodies we've not gone that far and many would argue that we've stagnated and even on backward overall. Strip away our technology and we are very limited in survival (heck we only have our high meat component of our diets because of our tool use). We even suffer for our advances - increased cranium sizes in new borns coupled with a lack of expansion in the female pelvic bone means even more cases of complex and dangerous births. As for with our technology - if we push things and break the natural order we can gain the advantage, but only short term. You can slash, burn and farm an area of forested land and do well - but over time unless you move away to a new area or use crop rotation or fertilizers you'll end up farming on ever poorer and poorer soils (a good extreme example of this is tropical soils where intensive "western" farming methods fail very fast because of poor soil nutrient cycling. |
|
|
|
Post by sycopat on May 27, 2011 0:47:58 GMT
Oh the eternal question, what seperates us from animals.
Honest truth: Absolutely nothing.
We have the tools and the minds and the history and the language (And wisdomeyes1 is in a sense right, we have incredibly complex language, and the ability to communicate as effectively as we do is certainly one of the things that put us where we are. As did the thumb and our ability to maintain steady pace over long distances, amongst others) but there are exactly 3 genes known to be unique to humans, which isn't a lot and we have very little idea what they do. (This is not to say that the genes we have are the same as those in animals though, rather our genes have shared ancestry with those in other living things and have the same/similar function. Nor that more unique genes won't be found. Hypotheses predict I think around 5-10 human unique genes) And if you want to feel that humans are superior you can, and if you want to feel that humans are inferior, well you can do that too.
But the truth is we're not that different, and depending on how you define success, we're not even most successful.
On topic, well one of the things about natural selection is it's not just "survival of the fittest" it's also "Survival of the sexiest" and "Survival by dumb luck" and a million other contributing factors rolled into one term, and one of those factors is mate selection: Whereby males select females based on preferred attributes and vice versa. So part of the reason women tend to be meeker is because men chose to breed with meeker women, and part of the reason men tend to be more dominant and forceful is because women chose to breed with dominant and forceful men. Why? Who knows. Maybe for stability. A meek womans eyes might wander but her heart might not. A dominant man's dick might wander, but he'll provide for her and the kids. Who honestly is aware of thinking with their genetics when they decide to screw somebody?
Moreover such concerns have largely been outdated since we started growing our own food. It's probably since then that we've gotten pickier about who we have children with, because I for one know that although I could get my rocks off with pretty much any one willing, the idea of actually having kids with someone I don't think of as an intellectual equal is... not appealing. I'd actually rate it more important than looks.
I never thought of that before! Weird.
|
|
|
|
Post by Overread on May 27, 2011 0:54:19 GMT
On topic, well one of the things about natural selection is it's not just "survival of the fittest" it's also "Survival of the sexiest" and "Survival by dumb luck" and a million other contributing factors rolled into one term, and one of those factors is mate selection: One of the theories for how the giant deer from Ireland became extinct is based on the idea that the females selected males (or that the males selected from themselves - ie competed) based on the size of the antlers. The larger the antlers you had the more chance you had to breed. This worked fine till the environment changed and shifted from plains to more wooded - then the giant (they could be several meters wide!) antlers quickly got trapped within the woods - unable to move fast not swing their heads around wolves and other predators had quick and easy food. They only had to drive down the population until the number of newborns was less than the number of dead each yet (not just kills; accidental death, old age etc.. factor in as well) and extinction comes in the end (for any species once your death rate is higher than your birth rate you're going to die out unless you can change the rates around). |
|
|
|
Post by Trygon on May 27, 2011 2:15:33 GMT
Strip away our technology... This is the part where your argument becomes irrelevant. If you think that taking away technology from humans makes for a fair argument then you clearly do not understand what makes humans unique in the first place. We aren't supposed to be world conquering because of our bodies and to think that our meat bags were ever designed to make us so is foolish. Nature's gift to humanity is technology itself. And with it we can overcome and adapt to almost any situation, as we have been doing so already for the entire duration of our existence. However, we are still in early stages even now. We haven't been around long enough for the future to be anything near certain. For all we know, in the future we will eat space age mush and everyone will be born in tubes. |
|
|
|
Post by Overread on May 27, 2011 2:19:37 GMT
Ahh but humanity has been around for a long time, yet its only in the last few thousand years that technology has become one of our main factors in survival. At least technology past the level of using a rock to hit something with (which most things with grip in their fingers manage to master, with varying degrees of competency).
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrantor on May 27, 2011 2:26:44 GMT
Strip away our technology... This is the part where your argument becomes irrelevant. If you think that taking away technology from humans makes for a fair argument then you clearly do not understand what makes humans unique in the first place. We aren't supposed to be world conquering because of our bodies and to think that our meat bags were ever designed to make us so is foolish. Nature's gift to humanity is technology itself. And with it we can overcome and adapt to almost any situation, as we have been doing so already for the entire duration of our existence. However, we are still in early stages even now. We haven't been around long enough for the future to be anything near certain. For all we know, in the future we will eat space age mush and everyone will be born in tubes. I'm of the notion that humanity will end itself. We've been trying to kill each other for thousands of years, and now we finally have the technology to do it once and for all. |
|
|
|
Post by killercroc on May 27, 2011 4:08:37 GMT
I have one thing to ad...
It's not rape if you yell SURPRISE!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by wisdomseyes1 on May 27, 2011 4:42:47 GMT
This is the part where your argument becomes irrelevant. If you think that taking away technology from humans makes for a fair argument then you clearly do not understand what makes humans unique in the first place. We aren't supposed to be world conquering because of our bodies and to think that our meat bags were ever designed to make us so is foolish. Nature's gift to humanity is technology itself. And with it we can overcome and adapt to almost any situation, as we have been doing so already for the entire duration of our existence. However, we are still in early stages even now. We haven't been around long enough for the future to be anything near certain. For all we know, in the future we will eat space age mush and everyone will be born in tubes. I'm of the notion that humanity will end itself. We've been trying to kill each other for thousands of years, and now we finally have the technology to do it once and for all. True I have one thing to ad... It's not rape if you yell SURPRISE!!! More true Ahh but humanity has been around for a long time, yet its only in the last few thousand years that technology has become one of our main factors in survival. At least technology past the level of using a rock to hit something with (which most things with grip in their fingers manage to master, with varying degrees of competency). Humans survived, but by no means did we thrive. And, in most cases, humans from the time periods you are thinking of have huge genetic and physical characteristics from the humans of today. |
|
|
|
Post by carnogaunt on May 27, 2011 5:18:04 GMT
Strip away our technology... This is the part where your argument becomes irrelevant. If you think that taking away technology from humans makes for a fair argument then you clearly do not understand what makes humans unique in the first place. We aren't supposed to be world conquering because of our bodies and to think that our meat bags were ever designed to make us so is foolish. Nature's gift to humanity is technology itself. And with it we can overcome and adapt to almost any situation, as we have been doing so already for the entire duration of our existence. However, we are still in early stages even now. We haven't been around long enough for the future to be anything near certain. For all we know, in the future we will eat space age mush and everyone will be born in tubes. I believe this picture is relevant: |
|
) 
