What Separates Humans From Animals?

[redacted]

We are not better than non-human animals by any outside perspective, but we're programmed to value humans more than non-human animals. It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.

All animals have their niches. People that think humans are the best are just defining the comparison in such a way that humans can't lose. It would be like me saying "I'll race you to the seat I'm sitting in.... I win!".

Edit: Whoa, I'm reading through this thread and everyone keeps talking about being able to think more or better or whatever. I don't get why the ability to think complex thoughts gets automatic value. It's just our particular specialty as a species.

 

[Zarathustra]

We are not better than non-human animals by any outside perspective...

So you have access to all outside perspectives?

...but we're programmed to value humans more than non-human animals. It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.

All animals have their niches. People that think humans are the best are just defining the comparison in such a way that humans can't lose. It would be like me saying "I'll race you to the seat I'm sitting in.... I win!".

Edit: Whoa, I'm reading through this thread and everyone keeps talking about being able to think more or better or whatever. I don't get why the ability to think complex thoughts gets automatic value. It's just our particular specialty as a species.

Flabby relativism.

 

[redacted]

So you have access to all outside perspectives?

Come on, man, I know you can do better than strawman-ing me.

Flabby relativism.

Flabby how?

I'm just questioning the assumption that what makes us different automatically makes us better. "Better" is a metric-dependent term; it's easy to define a metric with anything on the top.

I'm not saying I flat-out disagree that humans are better -- I can't help but agree by instinct. But the fact that I agree by instinct makes me want to question the premise even more, at least from a philosophical perspective.

 

[Zarathustra]

Come on, man, I know you can do better than strawman-ing me.

That's no strawman.

That's a perfectly acceptable critique of what you said.

Let's say there is a God, and that God does look at us as superior to other creatures: then your claim is false.

Hell, let's take religion out of it: let's say there are highly intelligent aliens, and they also look at us as the most significant animal on Earth.

You just can't go and make an unqualified, indefensible claim like that, as if it is truth.

Flabby how?

It's just boring.

It's what I would call "the rote scientific establishment perspective".

All it does is engage in an uncritical relativism to show "why humans are no different than every other animal".

Trust me, I understand the perspective. It is by no means out of my purview. Fuck, we're taught that shit all our lives.

It's just... when I look at that truth claim anymore, I can't honestly judge it without thinking that it's very weak, dull, not sharp.

I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong; I'm just saying that it sure as shit ain't necessarily right. It's just... flabbily relativistic.

I'm just questioning the assumption that what makes us different automatically makes us better.

And I'm just questioning the assumption that, just because we're different, we can't possibly be better.

"Better" is a metric-dependent term; it's easy to define a metric with anything on the top.

Well, yea, obviously.

I assure you, I understand this.

The point is that maybe there's something to our brains and our ability to use reason and think critically that does make us inherently superior.

Maybe these qualities are actually qualities worthy of being used to determine the inferiority/superiority of an individual or a species.

I'm not saying I flat-out disagree that humans are better -- I can't help but agree by instinct. But the fact that I agree by instinct makes me want to question the premise even more, at least from a philosophical perspective.

I think I've just already gone that route.

Eventually, I found it boring and unsatisfying.

There are other approaches that ring of more truth.

 

[redacted]

That's no strawman.

That's a perfectly acceptable critique of what you said.

Let's say there is a God, and that God does look at us as superior to other creatures: then your claim is false.

Hell, let's take religion out of it: let's say there are highly intelligent aliens, and they also look at us as the most significant animal on Earth.

You just can't go and make an unqualified, indefensible claim like that, as if it is truth.

Here's what I meant. Obviously we can't escape our own subjectivity...but since "better" is a relative term, it has no meaning without context. Outside perspective just meant context-free perspective. I personally can't get context-free and neither can anyone, but I can conclude that a context-free perspective can't ground a context-dependent term.

Also, the hypothetical God or alien perspective is irrelevant since it's subjective in the same way.

It's just boring.

It's what I would call "the rote scientific establishment perspective".

All it does is engage in an uncritical relativism to show "why humans are no different than every other animal".

Trust me, I understand the perspective. It is by no means out of my purview. Fuck, we're taught that shit all our lives.

It's just... when I look at that truth claim anymore, I can't honestly judge it without thinking that it's very weak, dull, not sharp.

I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong; I'm just saying that it sure as shit ain't necessarily right. It's just... flabbily relativistic.

K.

And I'm just questioning the assumption that, just because we're different, we can't possibly be better.

Since anyone can define better any way they want, that doesn't mean anything. Sure, we can be better. As long as we define it correctly.

Well, yea, obviously.

I assure you, I understand this.

The point is that maybe there's something to our brains and our ability to use reason and think critically that does make us inherently superior.

The term "inherently superior" is my main problem with your stance. It is literally meaningless. Or tautological, depending how you look at it.

Maybe these qualities are actually qualities worthy of being used to determine the inferiority/superiority of an individual or a species.

I agree with this. Once we're at the stage of creating metrics for judgment, we shouldn't throw out this particular means.

I think I've just already gone that route.

Eventually, I found it boring and unsatisfying.

There are other approaches that ring of more truth.

Like?

The only other route is to pick an assumption and ground yourself in it. Like, if we use complexity as a metric or something. I have no problem with that; I just acknowledge that I have no way of defending that particular step without hitting infinite regress.

 

[Zarathustra]

Here's what I meant. Obviously we can't escape our own subjectivity...but since "better" is a relative term, it has no meaning without context. Outside perspective just meant context-free perspective. I personally can't get context-free and neither can anyone, but I can conclude that a context-free perspective can't ground a context-dependent term.

Yeah, I know.

I get this.

Also, the hypothetical God or alien perspective is irrelevant since it's subjective in the same way.

Well, first off, it's questionable as to whether it's proper to say that God's perspective would be subjective.

But, more importantly, I used those examples not to eradicate all possibility of subjectivity, but to offer realistic hypothetical examples that would contradict your original statement that "We are not better than non-human animals by any outside perspective".

Since anyone can define better any way they want, that doesn't mean anything. Sure, we can be better. As long as we define it correctly.

The important part is bolded.

The term "inherently superior" is my main problem with your stance. It is literally meaningless. Or tautological, depending how you look at it.

It's not meaningless at all.

You are much more correct about it being tautological.

Have you ever heard the statement that all truth is essentially tautological?

I agree with this. Once we're at the stage of creating metrics for judgment, we shouldn't throw out this particular means.

Well, that's all I'm really saying.

If you can agree with me on that, then we have found common ground.

Like?

The one I'm arguing for now.

The only other route is to pick an assumption and ground yourself in it.

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying.

Like, if we use complexity as a metric or something. I have no problem with that; I just acknowledge that I have no way of defending that particular step without hitting infinite regress.

This is true, but that doesn't mean it's not right.

You must keep in mind the two things that I said above:

• We're fine, as long as we define it correctly. (I actually just bolded your writing)
  
  
• Even if we do define it correctly, it will inherently be tautological.

Actually, there's another key element to keep in mind:

• Even if we define it correctly, and it is thus tautological AND correct: there will still always be uncertainty.

I just keep those in mind, and then consider different possibilities for that tautological truth.

Otherwise, you just spin your mental tires and run into issues ever acknowledging something as true.

Then you start running into flabby relativism, cuz you start avoiding ever throwing down your truth stake at all.

 

[Ginkgo]

I think it's ironic that perhaps other species feel themselves distinct among their surroundings, but since humans are gregarious, they don't always dehumanize others of their species.

But yeah, rational faculties seems to be the answer, and one consequence of rational faculties is man's desire to organize civilizations.

 

[redacted]

[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION]: I'm pretty sure we agree completely. That's why I was saying you were using a strawman against me... my point wasn't to reject "throwing down the truth stake", just to acknowledge that's what we're doing (which I correctly assumed you understood).

I just have little patience for "better" wars.

Regarding the God thing -- the argument about context-free perspectives not being able to ground context-dependent concepts still applies. (It's more obvious with aliens, but you get my point.)

 

[Zarathustra]

Zarathustra: I'm pretty sure we agree completely.

Yeah, I think we're just emphasizing different aspects of a mutual understanding, though.

Because...

I just have little patience for "better" wars.

I, likewise, have little patience for flabby relativism.

That's why I was saying you were using a strawman against me...

Ok, well, I'm still don't think that was the proper term.

I still think they were proper counterexamples to your claim.

...my point wasn't to reject "throwing down the truth stake", just to acknowledge that's what we're doing (which I correctly assumed you understood).

Ok, I completely agree with you on this.

We absolutely must acknowledge what we're doing.

It had just seemed to me like you were against doing it at all.

Or, perhaps better said, considering what we're doing as potentially "correct".

Regarding the God thing -- the argument about context-free perspectives not being able to ground context-dependent concepts still applies. (It's more obvious with aliens, but you get my point.)

Well, yeah, I'm with you about context-free perspectives/context-dependent concepts.

I'm just saying that perhaps, if there is a God, she/he/it has the right rubric.

 

[redacted]

Yeah, I think we're just emphasizing different aspects of a mutual understanding, though.

Because...



I, likewise, have little patience for flabby relativism.

Indeed.

Ok, well, I'm still don't think that was the proper term.

I still think they were proper counterexamples to your claim.

What I meant was, I thought it was obvious I meant context-free perspective, and you argued as if I meant non-human perspective.

Ok, I completely agree with you on this.

We absolutely must acknowledge what we're doing.

It had just seemed to me like you were against doing it at all.

Or, perhaps better said, considering what we're doing as potentially "correct".

I hear ya.

Well, yeah, I'm with you about context-free perspectives/context-dependent concepts.

I'm just saying that perhaps, if there is a God, she/he/it has the right rubric.

Perhaps. I must be honest, though -- I can't even hold the premise (that there is a God) in my head long enough to comment on the matter.

 

[5231311252]

It's commonly accepted that humans are different from/more valuable than other animals. But why is that? What is it about humanity that makes us any better or of any greater worth? Why do animals not have the same rights as people? I have my own ideas about this and my own reasons, but I want to know what you all think first. Are we better than animals, and if so, why?

The biggest thing that separates humans from animals is power and I'd have to say that humans in general are worse than animals. I recently viewed some of the sickest shit I never thought, never even had an inkling of something like it ever existing and it involved a human exerting it's power over an animal.

 

[Salomé]

According to Lenore Thomson (author of Personality Type: An Owner's Manual), Introverted Feeling is what separates us from other animals.

I swear I'm not making it up!

I will find the quote when I get home.

LOL. That's awesome. Does that mean Te-doms are sub-human?
No argument from me.

Also, that must mean that grey whales are more human than humans, since they have 3 times more "empathy cells" than we do.

 

[Spamtar]

Some humans can ride unicycles

 

[Zarathustra]

What I meant was, I thought it was obvious I meant context-free perspective, and you argued as if I meant non-human perspective.

Ohhhhhh, I gotcha.

Ok, I missed that the first time I went back and read what you wrote.

The second time, I saw the ambiguity of that word (i.e., outside), and thought it might be the problem.

I really was just arguing against the "outside" terminology: I mean, in the end, there's no such thing as a context-free perspective.

(There is, however, the possibility that one may have the right context so that one may "objectively" evaluate a particular situation.)

Perhaps. I must be honest, though -- I can't even hold the premise (that there is a God) in my head long enough to comment on the matter.

Interesting...

Not to imply that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but, why do you think that is?

 

[redacted]

(There is, however, the possibility that one may have the right context so that one may "objectively" evaluate a particular situation.)

I agree. Saying true things is totally possible, we just can't "objectively" confirm their truth.

Interesting...

Not to imply that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but, why do you think that is?

I just can't picture a perspective that isn't biased, because perspective seems biased by definition. I guess maybe that's irrelevant in this case, though. We could define God's perspective as the perspective in which the bias points exactly at the truth. But then that seems trivial... iono. I didn't really think it through.

 

[Zarathustra]

I agree. Saying true things is totally possible, we just can't "objectively" confirm their truth.

Yup.

I think that was #3 of my things to keep in mind: inevitable uncertainty.

I just can't picture a perspective that isn't biased, because perspective seems biased by definition. I guess maybe that's irrelevant in this case, though. We could define God's perspective as the perspective in which the bias points exactly at the truth. But then that seems trivial... iono. I didn't really think it through.

Oh, I was talking about the existence of God...

I thought you said you couldn't hold the premise that God might exist in your head for a very long time...

 

[redacted]

I thought you said you couldn't hold the premise that God might exist in your head for a very long time...

Well I can't, but I think that has more to do with the fact that I never know how people are defining God. It just seems like a nonsense term to me. The only way I can make sense of it is to define it as equivalent to something I actually understand. Like if someone were to say God is the laws of physics, that would make perfect sense to me. Or if they said God is the perspective that is true, I guess that's fine. I just don't generally understand how the concept is useful or descriptive at all.

 

[Spurgeon]

Ok, after reading it again, it seems that I slightly misrepresented what Lenore Thomson said about this.

Here is the quote.

From Personality Type: An Owner's Manual:

This is precisely what Introverted Feeling does: it bypasses structural considerations and puts human value first. Such discrimination is unquestionably illogical, but it's in no way irrational. Indeed, to place human value above statistical risk isn't possible without the ability to reason.
One might even suggest that it's the rational character of Introverted Judgement that separates us from the species who share most of our DNA. Our closest primate relatives can be observed to use Extraverted Judging skills. they recognize a hierarchy of relationships, react to social cues, sacrifice their options for a wounded mate or an infant. They can be taught to perform calculations, to manipulate signs, to abstract general concepts. but they can't be taught to defy statistical odds purely for the sake of human value.

So, if I'm understanding her correctly, she's suggesting that Introverted Judgement (Fi or Ti) may be what separates us from our closest primate relatives.

If that's true, the implications are interesting, if not hilarious (on so many levels!)

LOL. That's awesome. Does that mean Te-doms are sub-human?
No argument from me.

Yeah, and Fe-doms as well, apparently.

I don't really believe that, of course, but it sure is a funny thought!

 

[Zarathustra]

Well I can't, but I think that has more to do with the fact that I never know how people are defining God. It just seems like a nonsense term to me. The only way I can make sense of it is to define it as equivalent to something I actually understand. Like if someone were to say God is the laws of physics, that would make perfect sense to me. Or if they said God is the perspective that is true, I guess that's fine. I just don't generally understand how the concept is useful or descriptive at all.

Wow...

So you have a hard time actually imagining what a God would be like?

 

[Zarathustra]

<wink at Zara>

Yeah, I'd considered what you'd said for the last week or so, and I never really could agree with it.

You'll see in this post (LINK) that I spend a lot of time with a dog who I would swear is an Fi-dom, so...

I think the more likely truth is that animals tend to be Ss and Fs, and that we developed iNtuition and Thinking as we evolved.