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

[Mr. Tea]

Cats secretly rule the world. You know the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion? Every word of it's true except it says 'Jews' instead of 'cats'.

 

[nomadologist]

That's not the entirety of 'science' though is it? That's biology / genetics / zoology. Other branches of science (linguistics, neurology, ontology etc.) would have other things to say I think.

x-post

neurology makes a distinction between humans and other animals? and i wouldn't call ontology a science. linguistics is a social science.

 

[nomadologist]

i hate cats. honestly. the smell of them makes me nauseous. i don't like their fur all over the place making me itch and sneeze.

 

[noel emits]

neurology makes a distinction between humans and other animals?

I should certainly hope so!

and i wouldn't call ontology a science. linguistics is a social science.

I think they are still parts of 'science' - the study of things. OK - maybe I have the wrong terms - what would you call the study of consciousness / perception? Because if the question is whether science makes a qualitative distinction between 'umans and all other species then I think the answer must be that some branches of science do - in fact many only exist in relation to the study of human existence.

 

[noel emits]

i hate cats. honestly. the smell of them makes me nauseous. i don't like their fur all over the place making me itch and sneeze.

Cats don't smell that much do they? Only if you get up real close. As for wet dogs...

 

[noel emits]

There are only two types of species: those that think they are different from all the rest, and those that don't think.

 

[sufi]

(hmmm that type of thread is this?
i'm just not quite sure of what is the point of posting up a question that is totally scientifical for the sake of idle speculation on a board that is not frequented by evolutionary biologists or anyone likely to be able to offer genuine insight or real knowledge...

...but then i quess why the fuck not? although these scientificalists claim to know it all objectively actually there's probably no reason why a load of numpties like ourselves can't provide a convincing answer & informed discussion on this enoormously subjective question better than what they can...
ignorance is power)

as you were then

 

[nomadologist]

I should certainly hope so!



I think they are still parts of 'science' - the study of things. OK - maybe I have the wrong terms - what would you call the study of consciousness / perception? Because if the question is whether science makes a qualitative distinction between 'umans and all other species then I think the answer must be that some branches of science do - in fact many only exist in relation to the study of human existence.

This is a whole can of worms. I had about 15 seminars on this stuff as a philosophy major. There are dozens of ways I can think of to approach these questions.

From a purely "scientific" point of view, however, humans are animals. Perhaps they are animals that have interesting capabilities or whose evolutionary process has resulted in markedly unique characteristics, but they're still animals.

 

[nomadologist]

(hmmm that type of thread is this?
i'm just not quite sure of what is the point of posting up a question that is totally scientifical for the sake of idle speculation on a board that is not frequented by evolutionary biologists or anyone likely to be able to offer genuine insight or real knowledge...

...but then i quess why the fuck not? although these scientificalists claim to know it all objectively actually there's probably no reason why a load of numpties like ourselves can't provide a convincing answer & informed discussion on this enoormously subjective question better than what they can...
ignorance is power)

as you were then

Sufi, scientists would probably forego an opportunity to speculate on the question of what consciousness "is" outside of a scientific context.

It's mostly laypeople who are interested in this sort of thing, or social scientists.

 

[noel emits]

This is a whole can of worms. I had about 15 seminars on this stuff as a philosophy major. There are dozens of ways I can think of to approach these questions.

I don't need to attend philosophy seminars to know that science isn't just zoology.

Science makes no distinction between the human animal and other animals that it doesn't make between any other species.

That's just not true, science on the whole makes many distinctions, perhaps zoology doesn't

From a purely "scientific" point of view, however, humans are animals. Perhaps they are animals that have interesting capabilities or whose evolutionary process has resulted in markedly unique characteristics, but they're still animals.

Again, science isn't a monolith so I doubt all scientists or branches of 'science' would agree on this at all.

Not sure why we're arguing about the definition of science though. :slanted:

Funny thing is I kind of agree with sufi's quip about ignorance being power (or maybe that was dead serious?) - many so called scientists can be phenomenally blinkered and closed minded when it comes to areas outside the accepted canon.

I suppose I'm talking about materialist fundamentalists.

 

[nomadologist]

That's just not true, science on the whole makes many distinctions, perhaps zoology doesn't

Care to name a few? You haven't yet. I'm speaking, of course, about "neurological distinctions" scientists make that relate to higher orders of consciousness as Mr. Tea suggests humans manifest.

Again, science isn't a monolith so I doubt all scientists or branches of 'science' would agree on this at all.

Of course not, but in general, the scientists I know tend to use science in reference to the material realm. And I know a shitload of scientists. Sure there are some scientists who also have philosophical views on the nature of consciousness, but I can't think of any who don't make a distinction between the difficulties of expressing "consciousness" in scientific versus philosophical terms.

Funny thing is I kind of agree with sufi's quip about ignorance being power (or maybe that was dead serious?) - many so called scientists can be phenomenally blinkered and closed minded when it comes to areas outside the accepted canon.

I suppose I'm talking about materialist fundamentalists.

Just as science isn't a monolith, the personal opinions of scientists are not monolithic.

 

[nomadologist]

I don't need to attend philosophy seminars to know that science isn't just zoology.

I was talking about the different philosophical approaches to "consciousness" there, not the scientific ones.

 

[noel emits]

Care to name a few? You haven't yet. I'm speaking, of course, about "neurological distinctions" scientists make that relate to higher orders of consciousness as Mr. Tea suggests humans manifest.

I don't think Mr. Tea was so specific (deliberately) in suggesting where the area of difference might be. Really examples of distinctions made between humans and all other species are innumerable with many of them residing simply in the existence of areas of study for humans that just do not apply elsewhere. I think when you say that linguistics is a 'social science' that's quite a big clue isn't it?

I only mention the material-fundamentalist mindset because it can make looking at qulitittitititave (fuck I hate typing that) differences in the consciousness of species rather difficult if you don't accept it as a valid area of study in the first place.

 

[nomadologist]

Of course there are differences in general--I was asking for specific neurological differences that prove Mr. Tea's thesis, because you seemed to think they obviously existed.

 

[noel emits]

Well I don't just refer to 'neurological' differences, but in those terms (or more precisely neuroanatomy) we have aspects of brain organisation that have not been found to exist in any other species, although I suspect the 'order of difference' if it exists comes from something more like an emergent quality of such a complex system.

Unscientifically I would certainly have a hard time saying that I didn't intuitively feel that there was a big difference between us and them. How about you?

 

[nomadologist]

I think there's no difference at all, and that in fact if anything is different about our brains, it's maladaptive and has lead to us living in an unsustainable way that will eventually do us in.

(Edit: Of course, the narrative "cogito" illusion exists in my head, and I don't *feel* like I can explain what it feels like to exist, but how do I know other animals have no "cogito" at all?)

 

[noel emits]

Cogito - sure, but not even that, just stuff like art for instance.

My feeling is that what might appear maladaptive right now, when allied back to an original sense of our unity with cosmos could allow us to do really amazing godlike stuff. It's all a learning process but we still do represent the vanguard.

My corollory to descartes would be that 'i exist therefore my experience of existence is a good basis for an investigation of being'.

 

[turtles]

yes!

animals don't use internet message boards.

 

[turtles]

Anyway, I think cognitive science would be the field you people are looking for, they are definitely concerned about scientific research into the nature of consciousness, perception, awareness, all that good stuff.

Despite what I just said above I do actually agree with nomad (at least, I think I do) that the biological/neurological differences between us and other animals are just differences in degree not in kind. Basically just a bigger and more complex brain. But if we're allowed to throw in behavioural differences, then yes, I think there are some pretty distinct differences.

 

[Edward]

From a purely "scientific" point of view, however, humans are animals. Perhaps they are animals that have interesting capabilities or whose evolutionary process has resulted in markedly unique characteristics, but they're still animals.

Nobody's suggesting they're not, the question was, are they different in some fundamental way from other animals.

I think the things that mark out humans as being conscious are along the lines of:

we are able to imagine counterfactual events - eg. if I hadn't spilt his pint, he wouldn't have punched me in the face, or, if my grandfather emigrated to gondwanaland, what would my life be like? this helps us to make decisions based on imagined outcomes of actions.

we have a mental symbol for our self - we are aware of ourselves as individuals

there are probably other aspects of consciousness that I haven't thought of.


the interesting question is whether or not other species have these aspects to their thought.

clearly many other animals have very little in the way of thought, many which exhibit quite complex behaviour such as nest building etc. can be shown to be purely acting purely on instinct in that they are unable to adapt their behaviour in any respect if circumstances change.

some of them clearly are thinking.
but are they able to imagine things other than as they actually are?
are they able to perceive of themselves as being animals like others, as not the centre of the universe?

i don't know the answer.