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

[nomadologist]

*sigh*

A pushbike, a skateboard, a pair of skis and a car are all modes of transport, but the car is the only motorised one. So it's fundamentally different from the others, yet still a mode of transport, right? In the same way, there is no contradiction in my assertion that humans are animals, but that we nonetheless have unique characteristics of a fundamentally more unique nature than the unique characteristics of any other animal.

If you look back over my posts in this thread, you'll see I've made it pretty clear what I mean, and exactly what sort of 'special traits' I think humans have that other animals don't have.

So what are these 'better' unique traits? What *single* species can you name that is different from *all* other species in a more important way than having verbal langauge and conceptual reasoning?

You're asking if there's a major objective difference--I can't say that you've sufficiently proven there is.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Is "concept" what sets us apart???

I think this is probably the crux of it.
To a chimp, a coconut is a coconut, but I can say the word "coconut" and another human (who speaks English!) instantly knows what I mean, without there having to be a coconut, or even a picture of one, to hand.

Interestingly, I did once have an experience* when I lost the ability to think in conceptual terms - all my brain could cope with was emotions/sensations - and I remember thinking (afterwards, of course) that this must be what it's like to be an animal.


*OK, so a hefty dose of funny-looking mushrooms may have been involved...

 

[noel emits]

Wait.

Maybe only some humans are distinct from all other animals, and then only some of the time.

 

[you]

"this is what it must be like to be an animal"

I know you didnt mean it but I love the pre-supposition within this, Ha.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I know you didnt mean it but I love the pre-supposition within this, Ha.

Obviously there's a certain level of assumption here, but it seems reasonable to assume that a creature that cannot communicate verbally probably can't think conceptually. For one thing, what would be the point?

Edit: yes, alright, a non-human animal, to be pedantic.

 

[you]

I thought the pre-supposition within what you said implied that you were not an animal.

"this is what it must be like to be an animal"

meaning you dont consider yourself an animal at all.

You consider yourself to be a unique animal with traits not found in other animals, this is what I got from your post replying to nomadologist, right???

Its just the way it came out, it implyed you didnt consider yourself an animal.\

Its no biggie though, I just found it kinda funny...

Carry on about concepts.....

I think civilisation is more advanced the more conceptual it tends to be, religion, arts etc

 

[nomadologist]

To a chimp, a coconut is a coconut, but I can say the word "coconut" and another human (who speaks English!) instantly knows what I mean, without there having to be a coconut, or even a picture of one, to hand.

Now you sound like Saussure.

First of all, some animals do have "words" just like humans do for distinct objects and/or situations, processes, etc., that work much in the same way words do for us.

Second, what makes having concepts *better* than not having them, even if that is what is distinct to humans?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Second, what makes having concepts *better* than not having them, even if that is what is distinct to humans?

Fuck knows, you tell me!

 

[nomadologist]

nothing does, if you askme

 

[nomadologist]

Why does everyone keep assuming animals communicate non-verbally? Quite a few species have been proven to use sounds to communicate. That's just as "verbal" as our language.

Why is a dog barking different than a human talking? It's all just noise, except to those who understand it.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Why does everyone keep assuming animals communicate non-verbally? Quite a few species have been proven to use sounds to communicate. That's just as "verbal" as our language.

Why is a dog barking different than a human talking? It's all just noise, except to those who understand it.

No, you're confusing VOCAL with VERBAL.

Verbal means using words. If I drop something on my foot and go "AAARRRGGGHH!!!", that's vocal (but not verbal) communication.

 

[nomadologist]

Who says the vocal utterances of dogs are not in their own manner "words"?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Well if we're going to be rigorously empirical about this, there's obviously no way I can prove that for sure. But what possible *use* could dogs have for verbal communication? They can wag their tails when happy, snarl when aggressive, whimper when submissive, hump your leg when horny...sure, they might be able to recognise that a human saying "walkies" always precedes a walk, but that's no different from any other kind of Pavlovian conditioning.

 

[nomadologist]

There are plenty of ways they could use verbal communication. Especially when you consider domesticated dogs originally come from very "wild" animals that hunted in packs and relied on basically a "tribal" way of life.

 

[nomadologist]

Well if we're going to be rigorously empirical about this, there's obviously no way I can prove that for sure. But what possible *use* could dogs have for verbal communication? They can wag their tails when happy, snarl when aggressive, whimper when submissive, hump your leg when horny...sure, they might be able to recognise that a human saying "walkies" always precedes a walk, but that's no different from any other kind of Pavlovian conditioning.

But their own verbal communication does not in any way rely on their understanding of ours. We dont' understand theirs, after all, but we have our own fully functional "language" capacity.

 

[mistersloane]

Well if we're going to be rigorously empirical about this, there's obviously no way I can prove that for sure. But what possible *use* could dogs have for verbal communication? They can wag their tails when happy, snarl when aggressive, whimper when submissive, hump your leg when horny...sure, they might be able to recognise that a human saying "walkies" always precedes a walk, but that's no different from any other kind of Pavlovian conditioning.

oh for god's sake go and spend some quality time with some animals other than humans.

 

[Mr. Tea]

oh for god's sake go and spend some quality time with some animals other than humans.

I spend time with our cat every day. I just fed him, in fact.

Yet again, he's singularly failed to invent or discover anything at all, the useless twat.

 

[Eric]

Who says the vocal utterances of dogs are not in their own manner "words"?

lots of people (linguists).

a word is a pair: a sound and a meaning. this relation is `arbitrary'; there is no relation b/t sound and symbol. dog sounds do not seem to have this property as MrT pointed out.

still, though they don't *seem* to us to have any content like words do, but this may be that we don't get what they mean. I guess this is possible.

but my point above about compositionality still stands. if complex signals are formed from simple bits, which maintain their original meanings, then dog communication is *qualitatively* the same as human communication. otherwise not. i.e. if the symbol A retains the same, identifiable meaning in

A B C [John likes Mary]

and

C B A [Mary likes John]

but the two strings have distinct meanings then we can say that the symbol has its own meaning, and the system has the compositionality property. otherwise not really.

I seriously doubt that the string bark-whine-yelp and the string yelp-whine-bark have substantially distinct meanings, no more than the human equivalent scream-squeal-gag and gag-squeal-scream have distinct meanings other than just the sequence. maybe I am just not imaginative enough I hope you see what I mean.

Still I am not totally convinced that this special property of humans---for it does seem to be that---makes us different from other species in a way that is qualitatively different than the differences between other species and all others.

 

[Eric]

why are we other than animal just because we have distinct traits? all animals do

yes

 

[Eric]

Well if we're going to be rigorously empirical about this, there's obviously no way I can prove that for sure. But what possible *use* could dogs have for verbal communication? They can wag their tails when happy, snarl when aggressive, whimper when submissive, hump your leg when horny...sure, they might be able to recognise that a human saying "walkies" always precedes a walk, but that's no different from any other kind of Pavlovian conditioning.

now this is extraordinarily unempirical. who knows what dogs can think? or are you one of these people who thinks language is a prerequisite for thought?