What Separates Humans From Animals?

[redacted]

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?

I see your point, but it doesn't seem relevant to the above confusion...

"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.

Well yeah it's subjective...but if I recall correctly, you were the one who introduced the term -- I'm trying to work within the assumption set you started. "Worse" implies the existence of a spectrum of bad to good; if you are comparing two points on this spectrum, the one closer to the bad side is "worse" by definition. So if you imagine non-human animals represented by a point on the spectrum and humans represented by another point, the statement "humans are worse than animals" means that the human point is closer to the bad side than the non-human animal point.

I interpret your use of "in general" as a representation of humans that is not just one point on the spectrum, but a point for each human (so around 7 billion points). Maybe some of these points are closer to the bad side than non-human animals and some are closer to the good side. But it still seems like your statement means that when you generalize the scatter plot with a best-fit point, that point is closer to the bad side than the non-human animal point.

How else would you define a group being worse than another group? We're already pinned to a subjective framework when we start using the word "worse". It doesn't make the framework any more subjective to use the word "better" or even the term "total goodness". Thing x is worse than thing y when thing x's total goodness minus its total badness is less than thing y's total goodness minus its total badness.

 

[ColonelGadaafi]

geez i don't know... because we have a conciousness, and an ability to create abstractions, and an ability to derive meaningfull relationships in our enviroment.

 

[Eric B]

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:



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!)



Yeah, and Fe-doms as well, apparently.

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

I don't think she would say that now. (She has changed some ideas since writing the book).

Animals are guided by instinct rather than rational judgment, or even what we know as "perception".

As I explain here: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51572&p=1715240&viewfull=1#post1715240 (based on things she explained to me)

"It is the cognitive area animals do not have. The functions are basically interpretations of data. Animals experience things, but do not cognitively interpret them. They just react according to the limbic system of instinct and emotion.
We experience things and also react from the limbic system, but in addition use the frontal cortex to interpret the limbic system's images freighted with emotion. The functions translate this limbic motivation into cognitive data, allowing us to redirect the instinctual 'energies' the limbic system mobilizes."

 

[entropie]

Male humans wear the tail at the front !

ok no I have to come up with something for female humans hm hm

 

[Nicodemus]

Male humans wear the tail at the front !

ok no I have to come up with something for female humans hm hm

Females do as well. But, I have been told, their tails are somewhat hidden and rather small compared to the male ones.

 

[entropie]

Females do as well. But, I have been told, their tails are somewhat hidden and rather small compared to the male ones.

Hmm that sounds intresting. We should elaborate on that after our chess round tonight !

 

[Blank]

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.

You still haven't told me how the distinction is significant, which is what I've been asking this entire time (minus my initial post where I said being worse "in general" was vague and I wanted you to expand upon it.)

 

[5231311252]

You still haven't told me how the distinction is significant, which is what I've been asking this entire time (minus my initial post where I said being worse "in general" was vague and I wanted you to expand upon it.)

Lmao, I might as well cosplay as a broken record. You yourself said you do not see the same nuance as I do; so clearly it is significant to me. It might not be to your liking, but that's not my problem.

I see your point, but it doesn't seem relevant to the above confusion…

'Humans are worse than animals' would be a false statement coming from me, because it's possible for me to find that there are humans not worse than animals.

Well yeah it's subjective...but if I recall correctly, you were the one who introduced the term -- I'm trying to work within the assumption set you started. "Worse" implies the existence of a spectrum of bad to good;

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?

She asked a subjective question and I gave a subjective answer.

the statement "humans are worse than animals" means that the human point is closer to the bad side than the non-human animal point.

Who made that statement and what has it to do with me? I for one do not believe animals to be bad or good; these are traits to be applied to humans. For example, 'good dog' and 'bad dog' aren't indicators of the dog's actual 'goodness' or badness', but what the individual perceives.

I interpret your use of "in general" as a representation of humans that is not just one point on the spectrum, but a point for each human (so around 7 billion points). Maybe some of these points are closer to the bad side than non-human animals and some are closer to the good side. But it still seems like your statement means that when you generalize the scatter plot with a best-fit point, that point is closer to the bad side than the non-human animal point.

You did not ask me what you interpreted, you asked me a question of my meaning and I illustrated what I meant.

Thing x is worse than thing y when thing x's total goodness minus its total badness is less than thing y's total goodness minus its total badness.

Which "thing" are you referring to? As I've already stated, if we're referring to animals vs humans, I don't believe animals to be good or bad. I don't believe in such a thing as "total goodness" or "total badness"; it's entirely subjective. These are coming from you, not moi.

 

[redacted]

Lmao, I might as well cosplay as a broken record. You yourself said you do not see the same nuance as I do; so clearly it is significant to me. It might not be to your liking, but that's not my problem.



She asked a subjective question and I gave a subjective answer.


Who made that statement and what has it to do with me? I for one do not believe animals to be bad or good; these are traits to be applied to humans. For example, 'good dog' and 'bad dog' aren't indicators of the dog's actual 'goodness' or badness', but what the individual perceives.


You did not ask me what you interpreted, you asked me and I illustrated what I meant.


Which "thing" are you referring to? As I've already stated, if we're referring to animals vs humans, I don't believe animals to be good or bad. I don't believe in such a thing as "total goodness" or "total badness"; it's entirely subjective. These are coming from you, not moi.

Yes, my interpretations are coming from me... I'm trying to guess what you mean because you keep not explaining it.

Seriously, what is the semantic relevance of "in general" in your statement? That has been the question for a while now.

Also, if animals can't be good or bad, how can humans be (in general) worse? To call x worse than y means that x and y are things that exist on a spectrum from good to bad.


EDIT re your edit:

'Humans are worse than animals' would be a false statement coming from me, because it's possible for me to find that there are humans not worse than animals.

"Humans are worse than animals" doesn't imply that all humans are worse than all animals. It implies that the general human is worse than the general animal. At least, that's how everyone else seems to interpret it.

 

[Blank]

Oh my god, what's the point of having a conversation with you if you don't clarify what you say? Do you have communication problems IRL with people who can't magically read your mind?

 

[5231311252]

Oh my god, what's the point of having a conversation with you if you don't clarify what you say?

Ask yourself that.

Do you have communication problems IRL with people who can't magically read your mind?

People can't magically read my mind?

"Humans are worse than animals" doesn't imply that all humans are worse than all animals. It implies that the general human is worse than the general animal. At least, that's how everyone else seems to interpret it.

'Humans are worse than animals' is a statement that implies all humans are worse than animals and does not include exceptions. "Humans are worse than animals in general" makes room for exceptions. Also, who is "everyone else" referring to? Because I doubt you know "everyone".

Also, if animals can't be good or bad, how can humans be (in general) worse? To call x worse than y means that x and y are things that exist on a spectrum from good to bad.

To me (and often for others) between bad and good there is neutral or neither bad nor good. At best I could call them "neutral" and for me, worse than "neutral" is "bad". Which is why I say in general (usually/commonly; obviously coming from my own experience) humans are worse and not 'humans are worse', because it's possible there will be humans I'll define as "neutral". Therefore making them neither "bad" nor "good" and putting them on the same level as animals. If they are on the same level as animals, how can they be worse? And at the chance I define a human as "good", I could actually say that they are better.

 

[redacted]

'Humans are worse than animals' is a statement that implies all humans are worse than animals and does not include exceptions. "Humans are worse than animals in general" makes room for exceptions.

Really? I'm pretty sure other people don't view it that way.

For example, if someone were to say "I like bagels", I don't think they mean they like every single bagel in existence. I doubt they like bagels out of the garbage can. It's not like people have to add the words "in general" to every sentence like this for other people to know what they mean. In this case, "I like bagels" and "I like bagels in general" have the same semantic content. If you want to make a stronger point, like "I like every single bagel", that's when the extra words are necessary. They're not necessary for the weak point.

To me (and often for others) between bad and good there is neutral or neither bad nor good. At best I could call them "neutral" and for me, worse than "neutral" is "bad". Which is why I say in general (usually/commonly; obviously coming from my own experience) humans are worse and not 'humans are worse', because it's possible there will be humans I'll define as "neutral". Therefore making them neither "bad" nor "good" and putting them on the same level as animals. If they are on the same level as animals, how can they be worse? And at the chance I define a human as "good", I could actually say that they are better.

If on your spectrum of good to bad, there is a neutral point, that is a different usage of neutral. Not being able to be good or bad is different than being in the middle of the good/bad spectrum. Things that are not able to be good or bad have no place on a good to bad spectrum.

For example, if you were talking about hotness vs. coldness, it would make no sense to talk about an idea. You wouldn't say, "an idea is on the hot to cold spectrum, it's just right in the middle". It's totally nonsensical to compare an idea's hotness/coldness to a fire's hotness/coldness. You wouldn't say "a fire is generally hotter than an idea", and then later say an idea is neither hot nor cold, but still on the hot/cold spectrum.

 

[reason]

Toilets, mostly. That's the difference.

 

[Santosha]

Since good/bad is just flabby ole relativism, not going to touch on that.

However, I have considered the possibility that animals are more spiritually evolved than humans.

I mean, what if consciousness existed outside of the brain (like Parnia and the Aware Study are now researching) and what if all these things that we think make us "better" like the ability to reason, abstract knowledge and complex emotions ... all these things we attribute to our own brainy elite, are actually signs of a very limited awareness (in the sense that we must individuate and seperate ourselves from a greater cosmic connectivity?) What if there is a method to the madness and our spiritual selves are intentionally born to compatible minds (for the sake of optimal growth and continuing awareness) thats basic structure is an ego construct?

Animals dont seem to have that, do they? Ego's? They seem to be instinct driven and one with the natural environment. I could be wrong, but I dont think my dog cares too much about getting chubby, having name-brand chew toys or humping the hottest bitch in heat. Infact, his preferences are extremely simple. Isn't some of that the foundation of buddhism and hinduism? Eliminating the ego? "The perfect way is without difficulty, for it avoids picking and choosing. Only when you stop liking and disliking will all be clearly understood. Be not concerned with right or wrong, for the conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind"

But he does love me. I'm pretty sure of this. I know he always wants to be around me.. even if I'm not funny or smart or giving him treats. Even when I have forgotten to walk him, or been broke and had to feed him stale cat food.. he seems like he is the most happy when I let him cuddle up with me. And there are alot of humans that I can't say that about. There may be some conditions to his love, but still far less than humans in general. What does that say about us? What does that say about him?

Just some thoughts I've had.

 

[Sniffles]

So animals are superior because they lack an intellect?

 

[Santosha]

So animals are superior because they lack an intellect?

I didn't say are/is anything. What I was getting at is that I've considered the possibility that ego construct gets in the way of spiritual evolution. Since animals do not have (any or as much) of an ego construct, perhaps they are spiritually evolved or their spiritual entity (vibration) is that of something that has surpassed the ego experience. Again, I realize this is totally unsubstantiated.. just a thought Peguy. I was really throwing it out there to see if anyone else has considered it.

 

[Sniffles]

I didn't say are/is anything. What I was getting at is that I've considered the possibility that ego construct gets in the way of spiritual evolution. Since animals do not have (any or as much) of an ego construct, perhaps they are spiritually evolved or their spiritual entity (vibration) is that of something that has surpassed the ego experience. Again, I realize this is totally unsubstantiated.. just a thought Peguy. I was really throwing it out there to see if anyone else has considered it.

There's a few problems with this hypothesis. Ego constructs getting in the way of spiritual truth? Ok that makes sense, but you seem to neglect the human faculty of the Intellect or Nous, which would be higher than the ego and from which we grasp ultimate truths - including that of a spiritual nature. Animals do not have Nous, they operate only on instinct and sensation.

 

[Sniffles]

There is a difference between transcending one's ego to reach a higher truth(grasped through the intellect) and relying purely on instinct and sensation. In Freudian terms, you could say to transcend one's ego towards the super-ego as opposed to going towards one's Id.

 

[Mole]

Babe and Me

As an adolescent I put a huge picture of a pig in my bedroom. I think I was discovering my animal nature, always a problem for a budding intellectual.

But thank heavens the hormones beat the intellect - but not without a struggle.

Yes, this was mein kampf, my struggle, which I celebrate today with a large picture on my front door of Babe, the pig, just to remind me of who I am.

For merry chrismas from Babe, just click on -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtA-FpTZOQw

 

[Santosha]

There's a few problems with this hypothesis. Ego constructs getting in the way of spiritual truth? Ok that makes sense, but you seem to neglect the human faculty of the Intellect or Nous, which would be higher than the ego and from which we grasp ultimate truths - including that of a spiritual nature. Animals do not have Nous, they operate only on instinct and sensation.

Oh I'm sure there are and readily admit that not all my considerations consult logic. (To be honest with ya, I feel sorry for those who do )