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

[noel emits]

Tea.

I think comparing how a society changes with how species evolves genetically is not comparing like with like. Our society can only develop (or as you would have it "evolve") in the way it does because we have already crossed a (genetic) evolutionary threshold that allows us great communication and imagination skills.

But seriously, there's the link. It's not 'us' that's crossed the threshold - it's the information, (self-replicating) patterns that have broken free of the genetic boundary into imaginal space.

 

[Edward]

Yes, indeed, except I don't think there's any need to make a distinction between verbal language and other kinds necessarily.

quite right. mr. tea, sorry to patronise but your thinking seems a bit fuzzy today!

that's like saying a mute person who can read and write doesn't have language.

I think it might be that meme's evolve humanically.

what on earth does that mean?

We are just a step on the way to purely information based lifeforms.

it's possible. genes are just information stores in the form of chemicals.

In terms of culture we don't exactly seem to be progressing in pragmatic terms at all

Evolution does not imply "progress" in the way you seem to be thinking. Evolution just means adapting to environmental pressures in order to survive. It is a mistake to think that humans are "above" amoebas, they are just different and occupy a different ecological niche. They are also more complex. There is no "aim" to evolution or direction.
Progress is something for humans to aim for through actions, their society, politics, art etc etc. Nothing to do with evolution.

It is very unhelpful (although common) to apply the word evolution to things like cultures when you are talking about genetic evolution in the same conversation, it makes things confusing!

 

[Edward]

But seriously, there's the link. It's not 'us' that's crossed the threshold - it's the information, (self-replicating) patterns that have broken free of the genetic boundary into imaginal space.

But "we" are the embodiment of the information encoded in our genes so it's quite valid to talk about "us".

 

[Mr. Tea]

Just to clear one thing up: by 'verbal' I don't mean 'vocal', I mean 'using words': words that can stand for concepts and counterfactuals as well as simple feelings or tangible objects/processes. So obviously I'm including spoken language, sign language, writing, semaphore, Morse code, whatever.

 

[noel emits]

what on earth does that mean?

It was just a quip, but for me there might be some truth in it. That we are in a sense being used by information in the same way it can be said that we and other lifeforms are used by their DNA.

Evolution does not imply "progress" in the way you seem to be thinking. Evolution just means adapting to environmental pressures in order to survive. It is a mistake to think that humans are "above" amoebas, they are just different and occupy a different ecological niche. They are also more complex. There is no "aim" to evolution or direction.
Progress is something for humans to aim for through actions, their society, politics, art etc etc. Nothing to do with evolution.

It is very unhelpful (although common) to apply the word evolution to things like cultures when you are talking about genetic evolution in the same conversation, it makes things confusing!

OK. But in way that's exactly what is being suggested here - that the process of evolution in humans has moved into the cultural realm. The fact that many of our cultural activities would seem to be counter to the survival of the species would indicate that maybe the imperative actually lies elsewhere? So, the DNA doesn't really care about us, and neither does the info-sphere. Just a thought really.

Is culture really such a different process to evolution?

But "we" are the embodiment of the information encoded in our genes so it's quite valid to talk about "us".

I was being slightly (ok a lot) hyperbolic but that is the point I am playing around with - that we may be the embodiment of our genes but the linking factor between genes and culture is information and we do not embody the information - it kind of uses us.

I don't know - but I do think it's interesting and useful to look at the condition of our world in those terms. What the fuck are we doing and why? CUI BONO?

 

[IdleRich]

"I see what you're saying Rich, in that we're 'further along the curve' than any other animal, but I don't think that invalidates my point....etc"

OK, I agree with you about the history thing, I think that links with what Edward was saying about critical mass, once you reach the point of having language and recorded language then you can learn faster and in fact exponentially faster.
I guess the thing I disagree with you and Edward on is what counts as a major difference. I suppose that one thing I was looking for was, at least in some sense, a moral difference (although I think you may have said that that is not what you're looking for). I'm not a vegetarian but why is it that I feel that it's ok to eat meat (other than habbit)? The differences that you and Edward have identified do not answer that question and perhaps that's why they are not satisfying me.
Maybe though, I've got it exactly the wrong way round, the fact that people ask questions such as "can we eat meat?" is what makes them different from animals. Perhaps the way that we do eat meat pretty much because we can is an animalistic trait.

 

[Edward]

OK.
Do we know how the bees' dancing relates the position of flowers etc.?
Is it verbal or not?

 

[noel emits]

I wonder if emergent properties in the universe are a bit like uncovering new levels in video games? What's next?

 

[Edward]

Maybe though, I've got it exactly the wrong way round, the fact that people ask questions such as "can we eat meat?" is what makes them different from animals. Perhaps the way that we do eat meat pretty much because we can is an animalistic trait.

Yeah I think that's on the money.
And what you said above about looking for a "moral" difference - this is something I can't argue about with you, I don't think there is one. I was trying to demonstrate a qualitative difference in behaviour, interpreting the question in a literal way.

 

[noel emits]

OK.
Do we know how the bees' dancing relates the position of flowers etc.?
Is it verbal or not?

It doesn't seem to be. Really just descriptive of positions relative to the sun. So it's more pictorial than verbal.

 

[noel emits]

OK - so would I be right in saying that not many people here would answer 'no' to the thread question, but that there are some differences of opinion on exactly what the 'major difference' is?

 

[Edward]

That we are in a sense being used by information in the same way it can be said that we and other lifeforms are used by their DNA.

Yep, that's part of what the Selfish Gene is about. If you have time, read it, it's interesting and nothing to do with the anti-religious stuff Dawkins is famous for now.

But in way that's exactly what is being suggested here - that the process of evolution in humans has moved into the cultural realm.

I would like to draw a distinction betwen genetic evolution and other developments in human society. I think a distinction between us a most (perhaps all) animals is that we can behave in ways that are not genetically determined (ie pure instinct) but can improvise more. I don't think we get mortgages and mobile phones because it's in our genes.
I'm just trying to make that distinction clear for the sake of a more productive discussion!

The fact that many of our cultural activities would seem to be counter to the survival of the species would indicate that maybe the imperative actually lies elsewhere? So, the DNA doesn't really care about us, and neither does the info-sphere. Just a thought really.

On the contrary, the DNA "wants" us to survive so that more DNA is reproduced. We are machines for copying genes. As we get more intelligent, we become more successful at surviving and reproducing more and more.
However we are now sufficiently complex that we can behave in ways which are counter to the reproduction of our genes.
What this will mean in the future is hard to say, perhaps the level of intelligence we have reached is counterproductive in terms of genetic reproduction and we will destroy ourselves, and another genetic type will become dominant. Or perhaps the high intelligence of humankind will allow it to find a solution to the problems is has created.

Is culture really such a different process to evolution?

There are parallels but for a meaningful conversation that involves both, it's important and useful to make the distinction.

the linking factor between genes and culture is information and we do not embody the information - it kind of uses us.

genes are stored information for making an organism (us) that is capable of reproducing those genes. the reproduced genes can then make more organisms etc etc.
genes do not "use us" or have any thoughts or desires, they are just a set of instructions.
importantly, these instructions do not make any sense outside of the organism, you can't just leave dna lying around and expect people to spring up. there is a "chicken and egg type of situation between creatures and their genes.

I don't know - but I do think it's interesting and useful to look at the condition of our world in those terms. What the fuck are we doing and why? CUI BONO?

i quite agree!

 

[noel emits]

Cheers Edward, good replies.

Re: the distinction between culture and evolution - I think the distinction is obvious and intuitive - it's the idea of absolute equivalence that is interesting because it's not generally assumed.

It could be possible draw a musical parallel with evolution and culture where evolution = composition (i.e. slow improvisation) and cultural adaptation = improvisation in something more like real time.

One aspect of emergence / complexity theory is that a kind of evolutionary drive towards greater complexity can be considered as almost the fundamental property of the universe.

 

[Edward]

One aspect of emergence / complexity theory is that a kind of evolutionary drive towards greater complexity can be considered as almost the fundamental property of the universe.

It's certainly very interesting that more and more complex types of order seem to arise in a universe that is supposedly "running down" according to the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[borderpolice]

It's certainly very interesting that more and more complex types of order seem to arise in a universe that is supposedly "running down" according to the laws of thermodynamics.

But there's no particularly strong reason to believe that the universe is a system of the kind that thermodynamics applies to.

 

[noel emits]

Life is: negative entropy.

 

[Mr. Tea]

But there's no particularly strong reason to believe that the universe is a system of the kind that thermodynamics applies to.

Eh? That's a new one on me. As far as I'm aware the Second Law applies to any "closed system", and surely the Universe is the ultimate closed system?

 

[Edward]

But there's no particularly strong reason to believe that the universe is a system of the kind that thermodynamics applies to.

Yeah that's a pretty big bombshell to drop without any argument or info!
What makes you say that?

What I was getting at was that it's interesting that you get these "pockets" where order builds up - ie. galaxies, organisms etc.
I still believe that in the long run, order decreases, entropy increases.

Oops... thread derailed. Still I think we'd got as far as we could with the differences between humans and other animals, with basically people agreeing they're obviously very different and just differing on whether or notto call that contrast "fundamental" or not... ?

 

[noel emits]

Eh? That's a new one on me. As far as I'm aware the Second Law applies to any "closed system", and surely the Universe is the ultimate closed system?

Not sure how it would affect the validity of the 2nd Law or not but surely whether the universe can be considered to be a 'closed system' or not is quite reasonably debatable, no?

Edit: this is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluctuation_theorem

 

[Edward]

Yeah that was interesting.

When applied to macroscopic systems, the Fluctuation Theorem is equivalent to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

so it's not really applicable to the whole universe!

Not sure how it would affect the validity of the 2nd Law or not but surely whether the universe can be considered to be a 'closed system' or not is quite reasonably debatable, no?

It has been debated a lot!
Physicists seem pretty clear on the laws of thermodynamics, I'm hoping borderpolice is gonna post some juicy arguments or links to back up his previous post.