Is there a major objective difference between our species and every other animal?

Is there a major objective difference between our species and every other animal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 59.1%

  • No

    Votes: 9 40.9%
  • Total voters
    22
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
Alot of the discussions on this thread centre around speciesism, which was big in the 70s and among the fore of early animal rights literature, some of which can be deemed utterly utterly mad and some of which is wicked, but I like all that utopian 70s literature. Wikipedia is a good entrance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism

In my view the ontological premis of the question is flawed cos, y'know, objective? But if you must, it seems to be that tense ( ie past, present, future ) seems to be a sticking point, and argujing point for human difference, which is based on all them rainforest and Papua tribes who have an utterly, utterly different idea of the future ( i.e it is in what we would call our past ) from the present view, and have difficulties imagining anything else, thus this is placed onto animals, with regard some idea of evolution.

Me? I think it's blatantly obvious that there's very little difference between mankind and everything else and that's been the major problem, some sort of 'we can eat them, therefore we're superior' type of thing, instead of the 'eat it cos I can catch it or it's there' attitude seemingly displayed by other animals. As far as I can tell though it's still really very much just about differing opinions, as we're not nearly smart enough to understand any other species. All our problems started when we stopped doing hallucinogens every week.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
mistersloane said:
In my view the ontological premis of the question is flawed cos, y'know, objective?
Click to expand...
Well I'd call it a pretty objective fact that humans build houses and live in villagaes, towns and cities (and are the only species to do so). Yes, blackbirds build nests and termites build mounds, but they're just acting on blind instinct: those structures are not designed by architects but by evolutionary pressures.
mistersloane said:
Me? I think it's blatantly obvious that there's very little difference between mankind and everything else and that's been the major problem, some sort of 'we can eat them, therefore we're superior' type of thing, instead of the 'eat it cos I can catch it or it's there' attitude seemingly displayed by other animals. As far as I can tell though it's still really very much just about differing opinions, as we're not nearly smart enough to understand any other species.
Click to expand...
I deliberately left out any kind of discussion of ethical/moral implications of this argument, because (for the time being) I'm not really interested in them. Though of course you have every right to bring them up yourself!
I think what you're saying here just adds more weight to my argument, in that I think it's probably a safe bet that humans are the only animals that have a sense of 'right and wrong'* (as opposed to merely pleasurable/painful, hazardous/safe or whatever emotional binaries animals feel). I mean, do dolphins really give a toss about the welfare of tuna? Do you see groups of lions trying to pseruade other lions it's "unethical" to eat gazelles?

Your point about the conceptual chain of "we're different from animals"->"we have power over them"->"we can do with them what we like" has a flipside, which is "we're different from animals"->"we have power over them"->"we have a moral duty towards their welfare". I mean, people keep animals for meat and milk, and to use as beasts of burden, but we're also the only species that keeps pets. And we're the only species that has cat shelters, dogs' homes, vetinary surgeons, PETA...you see what I'm getting at?

*edit: then again, ideas of right and wrong vary drastically between human cultures, but I'm pretty sure most if not all cultures have some written or unwritten code of conduct based on ethics, or at least duty.

mistersloane said:
All our problems started when we stopped doing hallucinogens every week.
Click to expand...
I think we're had problems since long before 1972... ;)
 
Last edited:
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
Well I'd call it a pretty objective fact that humans build houses and live in villagaes, towns and cities (and are the only species to do so).
Click to expand...
The emphasis is surely on the "major" in the thread title rather than the "objective" bit though isn't it? I'm assuming (and I think you said) that by major you mean a difference of kind rather than degree.
As far as I can see the main thing is that humans are more intelligent than other animals (a difference in degree of course) and with that intelligence they have invented (or discovered) abstract thought, language, (awareness of) ethics etc
Don't you think that, even if beavers do build dams by instinct, if they became more intelligent they might devise a new type of dam and a way to talk about it with other beavers and so on and so forth?
What differences are there between humans and other animals that couldn't be explained by a difference in intelligence levels?
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
IdleRich said:
The emphasis is surely on the "major" in the thread title rather than the "objective" bit though isn't it? I'm assuming (and I think you said) that by major you mean a difference of kind rather than degree.
As far as I can see the main thing is that humans are more intelligent than other animals (a difference in degree of course) and with that intelligence they have invented (or discovered) abstract thought, language, (awareness of) ethics etc
Don't you think that, even if beavers do build dams by instinct, if they became more intelligent they might devise a new type of dam and a way to talk about it with other beavers and so on and so forth?
What differences are there between humans and other animals that couldn't be explained by a difference in intelligence levels?
Click to expand...

Well in that case I would welcome beavers to the club of sentient, talking animals. (Current membership: us.)
Yes, I think the disparity in intelligence between humans and (even the most intelligent) animals is one of degree, but that it is also a difference of order, since it allows conceptual language. A very important threshold has been crossed there, I think. (Just as the difference in age between a 10-year-old and a 20-year-old is one of degree, but there is also a difference in order, since the former is a child and the latter an adult.)
 
N

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
Mr. Tea said:
I mean, do dolphins really give a toss about the welfare of tuna? Do you see groups of lions trying to pseruade other lions it's "unethical" to eat gazelles?
Click to expand...

I get your point here but these are really bad examples. For instance dolphins have been known to defend people from sharks and lions can be ostracised from prides for behaving in ways that are disapproved of. OK - disapproval is probably an anthropomorphism but it could be argued that it's the same thing really. Same with other primates - chimps have tribal codes of behavior.

You know this is interesting because although I'd still go with 'Yes' I really can't see much rational justification for that position. I think Edward's points about images of self and considering alternative scenarios were good but still come under the category of slightly more advanced thinking.
 
Last edited:
N

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
Mr. Tea said:
Well in that case I would welcome beavers to the club of sentient, talking animals. (Current membership: us.)
Yes, I think the disparity in intelligence between humans and (even the most intelligent) animals is one of degree, but that it is also a difference of order, since it allows conceptual language. A very important threshold has been crossed there, I think. (Just as the difference in age between a 10-year-old and a 20-year-old is one of degree, but there is also a difference in order, since the former is a child and the latter an adult.)
Click to expand...

Don't know about there being such a huge difference between child / adult but I can agree with the first part of this. Would be interesting to understand that threshold better. Do you know about Terrence McKenna's ideas about how and why evolution may have come up with these types of behavior / consciousness in humans as catalysed by er, mushrooms? It's not as wacky as it sounds I don't think.
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
noel emits said:
Do you know about Terrence McKenna's ideas about how and why evolution may have come up with these types of behavior / consciousness in humans as catalysed by er, mushrooms? It's not as wacky as it sounds I don't think.
Click to expand...

Certainly have, and I think it's a fascinating idea.
Gotta run now, back later this afternoon.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Well in that case I would welcome beavers to the club of sentient, talking animals. (Current membership: us.)
Yes, I think the disparity in intelligence between humans and (even the most intelligent) animals is one of degree, but that it is also a difference of order, since it allows conceptual language"
Click to expand...
But I think that that line of sentience isn't a discrete boundary but rather a curve - dolphins are closer to us than fleas, but if you just draw a line arbitrarily somewhere on that curve and say we're the only ones above it then I think that's a difference in degree.
Put it this way, I imagine that you believe that humans evolved from monkeys - doesn't that imply that we are not somehow a special case - just animals further along the line?
 
E

Edward

+
Don't you think that, even if beavers do build dams by instinct, if they became more intelligent they might devise a new type of dam and a way to talk about it with other beavers and so on and so forth?
Click to expand...

yes but they haven't become that intelligent.
no animal seems to be able to have thoughts of the kind that you have just articulated: "IF [something counterfactual] happened then [something else] would happen."

I think that is a big distinction because it allows you to plan for the future much more thoroughly by performing experiments in your mind instead of having to actually try things to see what happens.


What differences are there between humans and other animals that couldn't be explained by a difference in intelligence levels?
Click to expand...

If you change "intelligence levels" to "brain complexity" or something similar, I would say none.
The complexity of the brain is the deciding factor, you've nailed it.
But I theorise that when the brain gets beyond a certain complexity, mind or consciousness develops and that is a big difference. I'm saying that a quantitative difference can lead to a qualitative difference.

If you have three ants they just wander around aimlessly but if you have a colony of hundreds they act together in a purposeful way. With ants, more ants isn't just more of the same thing as a few ants... more is DIFFERENT.
It's the same with bees, or flocking birds or bats.
It may well also be the same with neurons, or connections between neurons. Once you reach a critical size, a qualitative change occurs.
 
N

noel emits

a wonderful wooden reason
Emergence theory. Some people are talking in these terms about computers / the internet / google's database now.
 
M

mistersloane

heavy heavy monster sound
Mr. Tea said:
I think what you're saying here just adds more weight to my argument, in that I think it's probably a safe bet that humans are the only animals that have a sense of 'right and wrong'*
Click to expand...

Dogs do. Dogs display guilt. And yeah, the emergence theory stuff is well interesting, and I'm not really interested in human-centric definitions of 'language'.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
But I theorise that when the brain gets beyond a certain complexity, mind or consciousness develops and that is a big difference. I'm saying that a quantitative difference can lead to a qualitative difference.
Click to expand...
I was just talking about this with my girlfriend at lunchtime and she said something pretty similar although her expression was: a superficial difference in kind caused by what is fundamentally a difference in degree.
At least, I think that means roughly the same thing although the wording seems to imply a leaning towards a different answer to the original question.
I see what you mean about a critical size or complexity anyway. If you are going to answer the question with "yes" then maybe that is what you have to say, humanity has reached this critical mass and no other animals have (I would still say however that although that boundary has not being crossed there is no reason why it could never be and I'm still not sure if this makes for the fundamental difference you're looking for).
 
Mr. Tea

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
mistersloane said:
Dogs do. Dogs display guilt. And yeah, the emergence theory stuff is well interesting, and I'm not really interested in human-centric definitions of 'language'.
Click to expand...

But what's wrong with a 'human-centric' definition of language when we're the only species that has language (that has developed beyond a simple system of noises to indicate danger, locate pack members etc.)?

Also I think Edward is dead right about qualitative differences leading to quantitative ones. After all, a fluent French speaker knows however many more French words than I do (difference of degree) but can have a conversation in the language whereas I can't (difference of order).
 
E

Edward

+
(I would still say however that although that boundary has not being crossed there is no reason why it could never be.
Click to expand...

of course you're right but the question seems to be about species that exist at the moment, not about conjecturing what other species could evolve in the future.
 
IdleRich

IdleRich

IdleRich
of course you're right but the question seems to be about species that exist at the moment, not about conjecturing what other species could evolve in the future.
Click to expand...
I suppose so, I guess I'm just wondering where the jump occurred if humans did indeed evolve continuously from apes. If there is such a discrete boundary does it mean that a child could be somehow fundamentally different from its parents?
 
E

Edward

+
After all, a fluent French speaker knows however many more French words than I do (difference of degree) but can have a conversation in the language whereas I can't (difference of order).
Click to expand...

I think this just confuses the issue really.
The difference between french words and neuron connections is that the neuron connections (or ants or bees) interact with one another and in sufficient quantities, behaviour emerges that is qualitively different to the behaviour of small groups.

Learning words is quite different. Imagine you know 50 words for diffeent colours in English but you only know 10 in French. There isn't a point where you learn more words and something qualitatively different happens, it's just a case of learning words that map on to the English words you already know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top