What Separates Humans From Animals?

[Blank]

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.

I think you're close, but I would refine your thoughts into saying that that which separates us is our ability to exert our will over others.

The statement humans are "worse" than animals is kind of pointless on its own, don't you think? Worse at what? Being content with being bored? Eating? Sleeping? Playing tennis?

 

[redacted]

Wow...

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

Yeah I really have no idea how to imagine it. I even had a hard time with it in preschool. It just doesn't seem like a coherent concept unless it's pinned to another concept, but then it's descriptively useless.

How would you define God?

(To relate this back to the topic, I guess one could argue that this conversation itself is an example of what separates humans from non-human animals... although that's not too satisfying to me since all animals are separated from others based on their niche...)

 

[Zarathustra]

How would you define God?

The primary characteristic, for me, is an omniscient, omnipresent consciousness.

 

[redacted]

The primary characteristic, for me, is an omniscient, omnipresent consciousness.

Doesn't omniscience imply knowledge of everything everywhere? (Sorry 'bout nitpicking.)

Anyway, it seems like you're just defining God as "the truth", but then throwing the word consciousness in there. I don't see how consciousness could be related or why it would even be necessary. Consciousness is just an emergent property of our specific physical makeup with no causal relationship to reality -- it's irrelevant except as a descriptor. And even as a descriptor, why would it apply to God? The concept was defined by humans to describe ourselves -- it seems kinda silly to imagine it would apply directly to entities with completely different physical properties without redefining the term after the fact.

Also, if God is omniscient, where is the knowledge stored? God would have to know the precise state of the universe at EVERY given moment at the same time -- that's actually more data than the universe itself stores since it doesn't need memory of past or knowledge of future.

(I guess I could say IMO, but that's implied.)

 

[Zarathustra]

Doesn't omniscience imply knowledge of everything everywhere? (Sorry 'bout nitpicking.)

I used omnipresent for a specific reason.

The consciousness is not simply all-knowing.

It's also always present -- watching.

Anyway, it seems like you're just defining God as "the truth"...

Yes, Truth and Being could also work.

There is something a little more, though, I think, that is necessarily implied when you use "God" in this way.

...but then throwing the word consciousness in there. I don't see how consciousness could be related or why it would even be necessary. Consciousness is just an emergent property of our specific physical makeup with no causal relationship to reality -- it's irrelevant except as a descriptor. And even as a descriptor, why would it apply to God? The concept was defined by humans to describe ourselves -- it seems kinda silly to imagine it would apply directly to entities with completely different physical properties without redefining the term after the fact.

Not trying to be disrespectful.

That's just what I hear.

Also, if God is omniscient, where is the knowledge stored? God would have to know the precise state of the universe at EVERY given moment at the same time -- that's actually more data than the universe itself stores since it doesn't need memory of past or knowledge of future.

This is largely a useless question in my opinion.

I would genuinely answer: I have no idea; I do not how this God's consciousness functions.

For Christ's sake, I don't really know how my own consciousness functions; I don't know how I'd ever know how this God's would.

I could probably add something about this God not necessarily being confined to space and time as well, but I don't think that's necessary.

(I guess I could say IMO, but that's implied.)

Granted.

 

[redacted]

[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION]: I think the problem here is that I don't believe in anything non-physical -- all phenomena are physical including our thoughts and feelings. I studied consciousness in school, which further confirmed my opinion that the mind is just a program on the biological computer we call the brain.

Anything outside this framework just registers as nonsense to me. Maybe we're at an impasse?

 

[Zarathustra]

Yes, materialism and God are not really compatible.

If you are not willing to forego the assumption that all things are physical, it's rather tough to believe in the spiritual.

There is a synthesis that could take place, that could account for everything we know, and still allow for the non-physical.

But, from the get-go, it requires one to drop the assumption of pure materialism, so you can't get there without dropping it.

 

[redacted]

Yes, materialism and God are not really compatible.

If you are not willing to forego the assumption that all things are physical, it's rather tough to believe in the spiritual.

There is a synthesis that could take place, that could account for everything we know, and still allow for the non-physical.

But, from the get-go, it requires one to drop the assumption of pure materialism, so you can't get there without dropping it.

Well I think we've figured out the problem then

Fun convo!

 

[Zarathustra]

 

[5231311252]

The statement humans are "worse" than animals is kind of pointless on its own, don't you think? Worse at what? Being content with being bored? Eating? Sleeping? Playing tennis?

If you're referring to my statement in the post you quoted, I never said humans were worse than animals, but that "humans in general are worse than animals".

 

[Blank]

If you're referring to my statement in the post you quoted, I never said humans were worse than animals, but that "humans in general are worse than animals".

I fail to see the distinction. Would you care to elaborate? I believe I'm much better than animals at doing a myriad of things, like playing tennis or baseball or things of a general nature.

 

[5231311252]

I fail to see the distinction. Would you care to elaborate?

What is there to "fail to see" ? There's a clear distinction between the statement you presented and the one I posted.

 

[Blank]

[MENTION=10512]5231311252[/MENTION]
I don't perceive the same nuance in meaning as you.

EDIT: Actually,

If you're referring to my statement in the post you quoted, I never said humans were worse than animals, but that "humans in general are worse than animals".

"humans in general are worse than animals".

So unless in general has some specific meaning to you, you kind of did say what I quoted since "in general" can be seen as filler.

 

[5231311252]

[MENTION=10512]5231311252[/MENTION]
I don't perceive the same nuance in meaning as you.

EDIT: Actually,

If you're referring to my statement in the post you quoted, I never said humans were worse than animals, but that "humans in general are worse than animals".

"humans in general are worse than animals".

So unless in general has some specific meaning to you, you kind of did say what I quoted since "in general" can be seen as filler.

I didn't "kind of" say what you quoted, you said that. Maybe you're playing devil's advocate and yet projecting at the same time? And in the case that you have some more issues perceiving, I included some definitions for you.

 

[Blank]

I didn't "kind of" say what you quoted, you said that. Maybe you're playing devil's advocate and yet projecting at the same time? And in the case that you have some more issues perceiving, I included some definitions for you.

"Kind of" is used as a filler term, to soften my directness. Perhaps I'll be more blunt. You did say what was quoted...I quoted it from you. Barring the nonessential words, your message is the same as mine, or so I think. I asked you to elaborate on your original message. You did not. Instead, you said that

There's a clear distinction between the statement you presented and the one I posted.

I disagreed, and believe saying "humans in general are worse than animals" is almost semantically identical to "humans are worse than animals" given the context of the original. If there is a difference, I do not see it being clear and distinct. I seek further elaboration, not condescension.

EDIT: Given, if

There's a clear distinction between the statement you presented and the one I posted.

is true, then what is the distinction? How is it significant?

 

[5231311252]

"Kind of" is used as a filler term, to soften my directness. Perhaps I'll be more blunt. You did say what was quoted...I quoted it from you. Barring the nonessential words, your message is the same as mine, or so I think.

You believe it is nonessential, just like you believe ' you're much better than animals at doing a myriad of things, like playing tennis or baseball or things of a general nature' and :

"humans in general are worse than animals" is almost semantically identical to "humans are worse than animals" given the context of the original.

Notice you did not say 'it is identical' to, but that it is "almost semantically identical to". Is this you indirectly admitting that the statement you claimed I made, was in fact not made my me?

I asked you to elaborate on your original message. You did not. Instead, you said that

Not only did I again point out that the statement you claimed I'd stated was incorrect, I asked what you'd failed to see.

If there is a difference, I do not see it being clear and distinct. I seek further elaboration, not condescension.

Elaborate about what? And what "condescension" are you speaking about? Again, perhaps you are projecting.

 

[Blank]

Notice you did not say 'it is identical' to, but that it is "almost semantically identical to". Is this you indirectly admitting that the statement you claimed I made, was in fact not made my me?

Everyone knows that 1.0001 is NOT the same as the number 1, but it's often easier to round 1.0001 into 1, despite the fact that they're not identical. I am saying 1; you are saying 1.0001. Did you literally make that statement? I would be a fool to say so. But how different are 1 and 1.0001 really? Can't they both be used to express the same thing?

Not only did I again point out that the statement you claimed I'd stated was incorrect, I asked what you'd failed to see.

If I could tell you what I failed to see, then I wouldn't have failed to have seen it.

Elaborate about what?

If

There's a clear distinction between the statement you presented and the one I posted.

is true, then what is the distinction? How is it significant?

You may have replied and not seen the edit as a result. But if this is not the case,

And what "condescension" are you speaking about? Again, perhaps you are projecting

Well, you've ignored my requests for you to elaborate on my meaning ...four times now? You've implied that I have a perception problem, a projection problem, and that I'm playing the Devil's Advocate...when all I've done is just try to understand the core meaning of what you've said. I consider that to be condescending. Perhaps you're the one who has a problem of projecting projection onto others; have you never thought of that? It is obvious now you do not wish to have a discussion, nor will you provide any additional meaning for anything you've said. Have a nice day.

 

[5231311252]

Everyone knows that 1.0001 is NOT the same as the number 1, but it's often easier to round 1.0001 into 1, despite the fact that they're not identical. I am saying 1; you are saying 1.0001. Did you literally make that statement? I would be a fool to say so. But how different are 1 and 1.0001 really? Can't they both be used to express the same thing?

There are often errors with rounding as it might be the approximated value, but it is not the exact value.

If I could tell you what I failed to see, then I wouldn't have failed to have seen it.

Now that is an error on my part, as I assumed you could clearly see the difference between the two sentences and thus was pulling a stunt.

You may have replied and not seen the edit as a result. But if this is not the case,

I did miss the edit and to pinpoint it for you, the distinction is the absence of "in general". I don't care if you agree with my statements or not (though this is not to say that I'm not open to discussion), but if you're going to question them they should be the statements I actually made and not ones you altered or et cetera.

Well, you've ignored my requests for you to elaborate on my meaning ...four times now? You've implied that I have a perception problem, a projection problem, and that I'm playing the Devil's Advocate...when all I've done is just try to understand the core meaning of what you've said. I consider that to be condescending. Perhaps you're the one who has a problem of projecting projection onto others; have you never thought of that? It is obvious now you do not wish to have a discussion, nor will you provide any additional meaning for anything you've said. Have a nice day.

Those were questions of intent. Sure it's possible I am "projecting projection onto others", the same way it's possible that you are in fact projecting onto me. Either way I had no intent on being condescending, but perhaps this is moot since I'm possibly condescending by nature.

 

[redacted]

[MENTION=10512]5231311252[/MENTION] -- So... what is the difference between humans being in general worse than animals and humans being worse than animals? I interpret "in general" to basically mean "on average"... and if that is true, then humans are worse, since the metric for a group being worse is whether the total goodness divided by the number of individuals is lower.

Does "in general" mean something other than "on average"?

BTW, this thread has been awesome so far.

 

[5231311252]

[MENTION=10512]5231311252[/MENTION] -- So... what is the difference between humans being in general worse than animals and humans being worse than animals?

Does "in general" mean something other than "on average"?

Idiom
12.in general,
a.with respect to the whole class referred to; as a whole: He likes people in general.
b.as a rule; usually: In general, the bus is here by 9 a.m.

Take away "in general" and you get "the bus is here by 9 a.m". I don't think that grammatically makes sense anyway, but without "in general" you are making a false statement, since what if the bus isn't here by 9 am?

since the metric for a group being worse is whether the total goodness divided by the number of individuals is lower.

"Worse" is a subjective term, so what's worse to you might be better to me. Same with "goodness". How can there be a "total goodness" anyway? This does not compute.