Real World Event Discussions

Are we animals, or something else?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:47
VIEWED: 10439
PAGE 1 of 2

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:01 PM (P)

Just wanted to test the waters here. Some think we are above animals- that we are unique due to our superiour intelligence, opposable thumbs, souls or whatnot.
Others (like myself) feel that we are merely well-groomed talking chimps, with no exclusive franchise on "souls" or varieties of intellect.

"We are all animals, my Lady."

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

RUE

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:12 PM (P)

Animals.

The one difference is that we create alternate realities for ourselves through words. And to which our brains then respond AS IF they were real.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:16 PM (P)

Are you saying that groups of apes or schools of dolphins are incapable of bullsh*ting each other?

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:17 PM (P)

Biologically, I think, we are animals.

I do, however, feel that there is no contradiction in aknowledging that our mental, emotional and spiritual capacities make us fairly special. We do surpass all other species in this regard.

What does "above animals" mean, in your eyes? Eating them? Exploiting them for fur, pets, eggs, labor? Planning for human needs first, animal needs second?

Is there somewhere in particular you are going with this? It sounds like the set-up for a follow-up question.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:18 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Are you saying that groups of apes or schools of dolphins are incapable of bullsh*ting each other?

Bullshitting how? Practical jokes? Or entirely verbal, abstract constructs?

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:19 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

What does "above animals" mean, in your eyes?

Like, we are to animals like God is to us.
Or some such silliness.

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:20 PM (P)

All creatures are 'animals', Chris--you know that. Biologically. We are one species among many...I'm one of those who has argued on the side of us being "more intelligent", but I don't think that makes us the "supreme species" by any means.

I imagine you won't find many here (among the "thinking" people) who will argue that we aren't animals...there's a pretty strong "anti-human" mentality here. Not that I disagree with it, I just believe that (for good or ill), we are the dominant species and our form of "intelligence" is different from that of other species.

On the path we both tread, all sentient beings have Buddha Nature/ Essence. "Broadly speaking, it denotes beings with consciousness or sentience or, in some contexts, life itself". Neither consciousness nor sentience are restricted to the human speciestho' "sentient" is still not completely decided.

I'm glad you added "somesuch silliness", Chris, as you know how many there are out there who believe we ARE to animals as "God" is to us.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

ECGORDON

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:21 PM (P)

I'm not a vegetable or a mineral, so that leaves animal.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:28 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Bullshitting how? Practical jokes? Or entirely verbal, abstract constructs?

Like dolphin "C" says to dolphin "B" that dolphin "S" has Sonar of Mass Dolphin Destruction & needs to be fed to the fishes.
That sort of bullsh*t.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:30 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

On the path we both tread, all sentient beings have Buddha Nature/ Essence. "Broadly speaking, it denotes beings with consciousness or sentience or, in some contexts, life itself". Neither consciousness nor sentience are restricted to the human speciestho' "sentient" is still not completely decided.

Other animals are as intelligent as they need to be. Dolphins have no need to create tools, hence they have no nuclear capability.
Yet.

AGENTROUKA

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:31 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Like, we are to animals like God is to us.
Or some such silliness.

I think our relationship with animals is more realistically defined by the fact that for millenia we shared a rivalry and predator-prey relationship with them - just like the animals we are.

We did and what we did because we could, because we gained the upper hand through technology and what-not. We didn't suddenly start disrespecting our mutual animalhood because God told us to.

Respect for animals won't come about through emphasizing that we are only animals. It is and will be a result of our elevation among them, Because it is as artificial as our own achievements.

ETA: "Artificial" is not meant to mean bad or unnecessary. And our achievements are.. tools, highly complex social constructs, philosophy, etc.

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:32 PM (P)

I agree. The concept of "human dominion" has been perverted into "humans have dominion over "lesser" species" and that the earth was created just for our use, but that's not at all what the Christian or Jewish religion are about--they actually testify in many places in the Bible and Torah that humans should show compassion toward other animals.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:33 PM (P)

Me too.

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

RUE

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:34 PM (P)

"Are you saying that groups of apes or schools of dolphins are incapable of bullsh*ting each other?"

There is some indication that chimpanzees do lie to each other by producing sounds associated with an event when that event isn't occurring.

I don't think they 'believe' it themselves, however. For that conclusion I refer to the opaque and transparent box scenario of chimps and children that SignyM posted a while ago.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:40 PM (P)

If it can commit heresy, far as I am concerned it's human.

If it can display detectable emotion, it's people.

That said, imho - not all homo sapiens meet either or both of those criteria, and many other species do.

-F

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 5:54 PM (P)

Quote:
If it can display detectable emotion, it's people

Are you saying only humans can display detectable emotion? Or that "people" is how you view all animals and different from "human"? If the former, I must have gotten that wrong, from all you've said previously...?

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 6:00 PM (P)

My cats are people. Not all humans are.

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NIKI2

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 6:01 PM (P)

That's what I hoped Frem is saying. In which case, I agree.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

KWICKO

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 6:06 PM (P)

Haven't read anything but your initial premise, Chris, but yes, we're animals and nothing more. We THINK we have a "soul", with no real definition of what the hell that is, and we THINK we communicate effectively where other species can't, and that they DON'T have "souls", but we have no actual way of knowing that. For all we know, kittens are laughing their friggin' asses off at us, all day every day, for being SO gawddammed stupid that we'll slave away all day just to buy them food and toys.

So who's the smarter animal now, exactly? When did a cat ever devise a weapon to destroy his entire species' ability to go on living? When was the last time you saw a dog so pollute its planet that the rivers and lakes would literally catch fire? And where exactly is our "soul" in all of that math?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

EVILDINOSAUR

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 6:22 PM (P)

We're no different from any other animal. If there is such a thing as a soul, all other animals have it too. Animals are plenty intelligent and clearly have emotions and the ability to communicate with each other. Does that mean we can't eat them? Not at all, we have just as much right to eat another animal as any predator does.

"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 6:27 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by EvilDinosaur:
we have just as much right to eat another animal as any predator does.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 6:58 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And where exactly is our "soul" in all of that math?

Everywhere.

TRAVELER

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 7:40 PM (P)

Does having a higher intellegence make us superior to other animals? That spark that allowed us to think in the abstract so we could invent the wheel and paint pictures on the walls of caves may be ready to strike another creature at any moment.

Some animals show a very high sense of spirituality. There are animals that mate for life. That makes me believe there is a spirtual sense involved. Elephants will stop when the come across some bones of a long ago member of their tribe and lift the bones up and toss them as if in some ritual. They also share in they duties of taking care of the young.

I know we have tests to measure I.Q., but I have not heard of a test or any tool to measure a creature's spirtuality.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:52 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
That's what I hoped Frem is saying. In which case, I agree.

Ayep, that's how I meant it - but I hadda put in that bit about heresy cause in essence, that is what brought us to technological civilization.

-F

PIZMOBEACH

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:25 PM (P)

so if we are just animals... it's okay to have people as pets...

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

KIRKULES

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:40 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Others (like myself) feel that we are merely well-groomed talking chimps, with no exclusive franchise on "souls" or varieties of intellect.

We are animals because we have established the knowledge base to be able to properly define our place among other living things. We are not however just “well groomed chimps”. Recent discoveries in anthropology may show that we are not great apes at all as has been to most logical assumption in the past. Though we almost certainly share a common ancestor the great apes, apes probably evolved long after the split with upright walking hominids that we are directly descended from. We are defiantly superior in a survival of the fittest sense to other animals that have become extinct, but equal to those that have survived.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:47 PM (P)

[Badger voice]
So, you think you're above the animals; better then."
[/Badger voice]

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

KPO

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 11:26 PM (P)

Quote:
When did a cat ever devise a weapon to destroy his entire species' ability to go on living?

Who says that's a bad thing? Perhaps one day we'll meet a group of warlike aliens, more intelligent than us, who see this as humanity's crowning achievement.

The human soul has its own character, and sense of moral beauty, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If cats were as intelligent as us and could build civilisations what would their morality be like? Perhaps they'd wipe out all other species of predator, then survey their world 'and see that it was good'.

Quote:
And where exactly is our "soul" in all of that math?

In the fact that you ask that question.

Heads should roll

AURAPTOR

Wednesday, March 17, 2010 11:30 PM (P)

Animals.

But we might have to rethink what it means to be an 'animal' instead of trying impress ourselves with how different we are from them.

We are them and they are us.

So, what's THAT mean ?

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:13 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

We are them and they are us.

So, what's THAT mean ?

Ummm... that you're a closet Buddhist?

RUE

Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:53 AM (P)

"Recent discoveries in anthropology may show that we are not great apes at all as has been to most logical assumption in the past."

Now THAT'S an interesting (but false) idea !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:17 AM (P)

Quote:
We are defiantly superior in a survival of the fittest sense to other animals that have become extinct, but equal to those that have survived.

Defiantly? Definitely?
In any case, survival is always a temporary thing. No individual lives forever, and no species remains unchanged. And if we don't get our sh*t together, we'll wind up like the trilobites... everywhere and anywhere all over the world and then... poof!

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
survival is always a temporary thing

In a corporeal sense, yes. But we live, all the time, in ourselves & everything around us. One with the Universe, if not always with each other.

RUE

Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:09 AM (P)

I have a slightly different take on it.

Everything alive today is a direct descendant of the very first cell that survived and reproduced. And though you and I may die, we are just small parts of a larger life which encompasses all life on earth.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:39 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
so if we are just animals... it's okay to have people as pets...

(/bitter snark ON)
Oh yes, we call them children.
(/bitter snark OFF)

I always thought we might be closer to lemurs, but really I dunno jack damn all about the science involved so that's just puffin smoke in the wind.

So far as such things go, out in the backwaters of West Virgina, Kentucky or Georgia, I'd say you're pretty likely to run into a coupla folk who might conceivably be homo erectus...
(is it bad that seeing an actual listing of conservation status on wiki for humans, and noting it as "least concern" sent me into giggles ?)

Really I am amused by the whole discussion, in part cause Wendy gave me an "early B-day present" today in the form of a large, plastic caveman club as a snark on my "barbaric" tendancies.

-F

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 18, 2010 2:47 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

We are them and they are us.

So, what's THAT mean ?

Ummm... that you're a closet Buddhist?

The laughing Chrisisall

Or maybe, the Buddhist are closet Raptors?

Also, Dinosaurs ruled the planet for over 160 MILLION years.

Homo Sapiens have been around for what.... a few hundred thousand years ?

A sense of perspective is due. We would do well to remember our place.

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

KWICKO

Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:00 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
[Badger voice]
So, you think you're above the animals; better then."
[/Badger voice]

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

Only the ones I'm better than. :)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KWICKO

Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:03 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Quote:
When did a cat ever devise a weapon to destroy his entire species' ability to go on living?

Who says that's a bad thing? Perhaps one day we'll meet a group of warlike aliens, more intelligent than us, who see this as humanity's crowning achievement.

The human soul has its own character, and sense of moral beauty, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If cats were as intelligent as us and could build civilisations what would their morality be like? Perhaps they'd wipe out all other species of predator, then survey their world 'and see that it was good'.

Quote:
And where exactly is our "soul" in all of that math?

In the fact that you ask that question.

Heads should roll

But what evidence do you have that animals don't have that soul? Where's your proof that they don't share a sense of "moral beauty", or that they don't have an appreciation for beauty?

You're measuring "intelligence" in HUMAN constructs, in HUMAN terms. How long can YOU live in the desert? A sidewinder can get along pretty darned well with no artificial means of support. Are you smarter because you have a car, or is the snake smarter for not needing one?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

KWICKO

Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:07 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Or maybe, the Buddhist are closet Raptors?

Really? Which one?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:15 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Or maybe, the Buddhist are closet Raptors?

Really? Which one?

It's really become too easy.

Ring the bell, here comes Kwickie.

*le sigh*

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

KPO

Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:48 AM (P)

Quote:
But what evidence do you have that animals don't have that soul?

I think they do have a 'soul', it's just not as complex as ours - mainly because their brain power is less. I suspect they only process very basic thoughts, by our standards.

When we learn to read animals' minds we will find out for sure. I imagine their thoughts will be simple, slow and inane. But each animal's soul will have a different character.

Interestingly Neanderthals are thought to have had just as much brain power as us - but I reckon our souls have always been more complex, because we're social creatures. Neanderthal tools have survived and been found, but no Neanderthal art, as I understand it. Would a Neanderthal feel as warmly towards animals as we (homosapiens) do? That's an interesting question.

I suspect it wouldn't feel the same sense of moral admiration and kinship towards dolphins and dogs as we do, to our fellow social creatures. But would it (did it) keep other pets? I rather think human beings are peculiar in this respect (it seems like strange psychology for a carnivore to evolve) but I could be wrong.

Heads should roll

PIZMOBEACH

Thursday, March 18, 2010 1:16 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
so if we are just animals... it's okay to have people as pets...

(/bitter snark ON)
Oh yes, we call them children.
(/bitter snark OFF)

-F

it hurts 'cuz it's true...

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NIKI2

Thursday, March 18, 2010 4:33 PM (P)

Quote:
We are defiantly superior in a survival of the fittest sense to other animals that have become extinct, but equal to those that have survived

I disagree. Other species fit IN with their world, instinctively or genetically; we change the world to fit our SHORT-TERM convenience, and along the way have made millions of other species extinct or removed them from competition with us or introduced species for our convenience which have caused others to go extinct, and in doing so screwed up the entire natural balance. Few other species have done that.

“We”, as a species, are not even winners in “survival of the fittest”, given that on our own individually we would be slaughtered by many other predator species. As in:

Quote:
You're measuring "intelligence" in HUMAN constructs, in HUMAN terms. How long can YOU live in the desert? A sidewinder can get along pretty darned well with no artificial means of support. Are you smarter because you have a car, or is the snake smarter for not needing one?

As to the right to eat others; if we’re in any way superior, we should have changed our ways once we realized we’re omnivores and don’t need to eat other species, which would have removed a lot of the damage we are doing in eating a mostly-meat diet.

Quote:
Everything alive today is a direct descendant of the very first cell that survived and reproduced. And though you and I may die, we are just small parts of a larger life which encompasses all life on earth.

I agree; but the Texas school board would have serious disagreement with your concept!

As for

Quote:
When we learn to read animals' minds we will find out for sure. I imagine their thoughts will be simple, slow and inane

Really? How much “mentality” do you think it takes to know how to measure complex water currents? Maybe about as much mentality as it takes to drive a car—subconscious recognition of what is and how to deal with it. I can think of quite a few humans whose thoughts are “simple, slow and inane” compared to other species. We went through all of this with DT (where IS DT these days? I miss him), and the question is both unanswerable and moot. Animals do so many things which call for complex mentality, we will never be able to judge them and compare them to us.

I’ve heard the joke about dogs welcome, kids much be on leash...I fully approve! I’ve known FAR more disruptive, downright dangerous kids than I have dogs...sorry Frem, not making a statement about what MADE them that way or that all are, but I’ve thought of that numerous times. My dogs are better behaved than most kids (or adults) I’ve met!

And there is NO doubt whatsoever that animals are far more "pets" than children. Their protections might not be good, but there is little, if any, protection for pets, and far more are treated as "objects to possess" than there are kids. Nonetheless, neither one deserves the status they are forced into.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

KWICKO

Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:30 PM (P)

Quote:

When we learn to read animals' minds we will find out for sure. I imagine their thoughts will be simple, slow and inane.

Sounds like you think of animals as Republicans. :)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 18, 2010 5:45 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

I think they do have a 'soul', it's just not as complex as ours - mainly because their brain power is less.

Oh, THAT is a low blow to Sarah Palin's youngest child!! So, his "soul" is not as "complex" as any other child? Brainpower is the measure of a SOUL now??? Were Hitler & Einstein's souls more "complex" than YOURS????
Elitist Humancentric balderdash!

WHODIED

Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:38 PM (P)

While I acknowledge that Agnosticism is the only rational conclusion, I can't help but view my shadow as a two dimensional representation of my three dimensional self, and I wonder: is there a four dimensional version defining me as it's shadow?

Also, I'm reminded of the best graffiti ever, which is, unsurprisingly, in Latin: Ignotus Per Ignotium.

Are we animals? Physiologically, I have to say yes, but is that the extent of it? No. The evidence is MORE than sufficient, in my opinion. As to what the evidence indicates we ACTUALLY are?

Well, I'm just collating data, as they say...

--WhoDied

_______________________

Yeah, we're mostly just giving each other significant glances and laughing incessantly.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:57 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by WhoDied:

Are we animals? Physiologically, I have to say yes, but is that the extent of it? No.

Again, I have to say that acting like we are "beyond" animals is an egocentric idea IMO.
Cannot animals do things we cannot?
Cannot animals sense things we cannot?
Be happy to be an animal. Don't compartmentalize.
Revel in you uniqueness, but don't proclaim absolute superiourity because of it.
As we are the race of mankind, also are we the lifeforms of Earth.

You eat a fish, one day a shark might eat you; it's all good.

WHODIED

Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:47 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by WhoDied:

Are we animals? Physiologically, I have to say yes, but is that the extent of it? No.

Again, I have to say that acting like we are "beyond" animals is an egocentric idea IMO.
Cannot animals do things we cannot?
Cannot animals sense things we cannot?
Be happy to be an animal. Don't compartmentalize.
Revel in you uniqueness, but don't proclaim absolute superiourity because of it.
As we are the race of mankind, also are we the lifeforms of Earth.

You eat a fish, one day a shark might eat you; it's all good.

I don't believe that we are beyond animals in the sense your quote marks seem to imply. (And here I hear a Badger saying, "I'm above you. Better than.") But I do believe that we are like the cortex of the Earth Mind (if you will,) and as such, have dominion over, while still answering to, the reptilian brain and others. Much as (not my book) the bible suggests that we have been given the husbandry of the earth.

Is it significant that most of the really important numbers we've discovered are irrational? 1.618; 2.718; 3.141; et al; Or is it only indicative of our arbitrary system of account? I don't know, but there's no evidence I've seen that suggests Ms. Kitty Fantastico contemplates such things.

As far as I know, maybe she's the fortunate one, for that.

Ultimately, be there no heaven, no bardo, no braman, still the words of Ben Parker ring in my ear, and what greater power (barring geophysical and extraterrestrial FORCES,) is there than sapience?

I say were ARE more, I do NOT say we're better.

--WhoDied

_______________________

Yeah, we're mostly just giving each other significant glances and laughing incessantly.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, March 18, 2010 7:59 PM (P)

Well, the leash thing, I think there's good and bad in that - didn't used to, I thought it was a horrific thing, initially...
And it CAN be, oh indeed, having seen kids practically dragged that way gives me the shudders.

But I was at Kings Dominion once, and there was this lady with a small girl, and they had some kinda retracting tether which seemed less likely to catch on stuff or trip someone up - and given the crowd density and general chaos, it was all to easy to see how a small child could be swept away in an eyeblink, since despite the tether (which seemed a backup measure) the mother was holding the girls hand for the most part - and when she needed both hands to do something, like get cotton candy, I was watching the childs reaction...

Who would, ever so many seconds, reach back and grab the tether to make sure it was still attached, and that mommy was in range.

The kid did NOT see it as a leash, the kid saw it as a safety line, a life line - and in that moment I realized those things were not wholly evil, it was just the purpose and method of their use often was.

I still taunt my ex about getting one, even when we were together, cause she has a BAD case of "Attention Defici-OOOh shiny!" goin on, and a fetish for gadgets of all kind (I swear she's a Ronco dream customer) which she uses maybe twice and then pitches in a closet somewhere...

So, all it takes is to look away for ONE FRIGGIN SECOND, and ya look back, and she's GONE, which involves me quartering and patrolling the store to find her, or letting our a frustrated (and impressively accurate) Meow so she knows where *I* am and to come find me.

We still do our shopping together, since we're still friends and we're really the only ones who'll ever put up with each other for very long.

-F

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:05 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by WhoDied:

As far as I know, maybe she's the fortunate one, for that.

Imagine another more advanced species than us constantly and compulsively calculating Pi in their heads as they head from wormhole to wormhole in astral form searching for new ways of math to make them happy.

'More" than us? Or just so very different that it's hard to contemplate?

Is the simpler being the more fortunate?

Do chimps laugh at our complexity? Do dogs disregard our complexity?

Do we take it too seriously sometimes?

Do cheetahs marvel at their bursts of speed? Or do they just do what they do, with gusto?

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:07 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I swear she's a Ronco dream customer

The bass-O-matic Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

BYTEMITE

Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:25 PM (P)

Quote:
Neanderthal tools have survived and been found, but no Neanderthal art, as I understand it.

This actually isn't true anymore. Apparently Neanderthals painted seashells.

BYTEMITE

Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:31 PM (P)

Niki: DT thought people were jumping on him and thinks Frem is mad at him for some reason, so he stopped coming around...

I still talk to him over emails, but yeah, I miss the insights he always brought. I try to pick and choose the topics I link him because he's busy, restricting it to things I know he's been looking into, but his information on other topics was always good stuff. Guy researched a lot.

AURAPTOR

Thursday, March 18, 2010 9:56 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:

I think they do have a 'soul', it's just not as complex as ours - mainly because their brain power is less.
Oh, THAT is a low blow to Sarah Palin's youngest child!! So, his "soul" is not as "complex" as any other child? Brainpower is the measure of a SOUL now??? Were Hitler & Einstein's souls more "complex" than YOURS????
Elitist Humancentric balderdash!

The laughing Chrisisall

Reminds me of the duel between Edward Drinker Cope and O.C. Marsh. The scientists, former friends turned rivals, were the central figures of the Great Dinosaur Bone wars of the 19th century. So hard up to one up each other, their bickering lasted beyond their graves.

One of Cope's last requests was that scientists dissect his head after his death to determine the size of his brain, which he was certain would be bigger than Marsh's. Wisely, perhaps, Marsh declined the challenge, and to this day, Cope's head rests in storage at the University of Pennsylvania.

Summer Glau can simply walk into Mordor

Bones: "Don't 'rawr' her!"
Booth: "What? she'rawred' me first."

NIKI2

Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:00 PM (P)

Too bad, DT was interesting. I don't think, however that his information was always "good", from our exchanges. He went off a bit half-cocked for my taste. I'd have liked to debate him, but it was pretty obviously impossible eventually.

Too bad, tho'; different voices always enhance things.

Okay, off to physical therapy, but with one last reminder that "we" may not be all that superior to others after all, and the concept that chimps might be laughing at us:

So long, and thanx for all the fish!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

KIRKULES

Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:05 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Recent discoveries in anthropology may show that we are not great apes at all as has been to most logical assumption in the past."

Now THAT'S an interesting (but false) idea !

“Man’s greatest asset is the unsettled mind.”
- Isaac Asimov

BYTEMITE

Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:33 PM (P)

Huh. Whenever I doubled checked what DT said, I always found confirmation sources right away. I do that though. Someone says something, and I go double check. It's a good way to make me waste a few hours on wikipedia... Shouldn't have said that.

Good luck with the physical therapy. What for? Did you hurt yourself somehow?

KIRKULES

Thursday, March 18, 2010 10:33 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
We are definatly superior in a survival of the fittest sense to other animals that have become extinct, but equal to those that have survived
I disagree. Other species fit IN with their world, instinctively or genetically; we change the world to fit our SHORT-TERM convenience, and along the way have made millions of other species extinct or removed them from competition with us or introduced species for our convenience which have caused others to go extinct, and in doing so screwed up the entire natural balance. Few other species have done that.

“We”, as a species, are not even winners in “survival of the fittest”, given that on our own individually we would be slaughtered by many other predator species. As in

I'm sure we won't be the first species to breed themselves into extinction. As far as being slaughtered by other predator species, there aren’t many that could take on a human with a wooden spear. A big cat uses it's brain to stealthily attack from behind, if you also denied them the use of their brain they would be easy prey. Wolfs hunt in a pack, alone they would starve and become extinct. Intelligence and in some cases cooperation are what put predators at the top of the food chain, to say we are no match for predators in their environment means surrendering our greatest assets while letting them retain theirs.

“In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.”
Charles Darwin

OUT2THEBLACK

Friday, March 19, 2010 7:17 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
Neanderthal tools have survived and been found, but no Neanderthal art, as I understand it.

...Apparently Neanderthals painted seashells.

Yes , this is true !

I see them in the touristy shops down at the beach , all the time...

SIGNYM

Friday, March 19, 2010 7:34 PM (P)

Newly discovered painted scallops and cockleshells in Spain are the first hard evidence that Neandertals made jewelry. These findings suggest humanity's closest extinct relatives might have been capable of symbolism, after all.

Body ornaments made of painted and pierced seashells dating back 70,000 to 120,000 years have been found in Africa and the Near East for years, and serve as evidence of symbolic thought among the earliest modern humans (Homo sapiens). The absence of similar finds in Europe at that time, when it was Neandertal territory, has supported the notion that they lacked symbolism, a potential sign of mental inferiority that might help explain why modern humans eventually replaced them.

Although hints of Neandertal art and jewelry have cropped up in recent years, such as pierced and grooved animal-tooth pendants or a decorated limestone slab on the grave of a child, these have often been shrugged off as artifacts mixed in from modern humans, imitation without understanding, or ambiguous in nature. Now archaeologist João Zilhão at the University of Bristol in England and his colleagues have found 50,000-year-old jewelry at two caves in southeastern Spain, art dating back 10,000 years before the fossil record reveals evidence of modern humans entering Europe.

At the Cueva (Cave) Antón, the scientists unearthed a pierced king scallop shell (Pecten maximus) painted with orange pigment made of yellow goethite and red hematite collected some five kilometers from that site. In material collected from the Cueva de los Aviones, alongside quartz and flint artifacts were bones from horses, deer, ibex, rabbits and tortoises as well as seashells from edible cockles (Glycymeris insubrica), mussels, limpets and snails; the researchers also discovered two pierced dog-cockleshells painted with traces of red hematite pigment. No dyes were found on the food shells or stone tools, suggesting the jewelry was not just painted at random.

www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=neandertal-art-human

NIKI2

Friday, March 19, 2010 8:01 PM (P)

Thanx Byte: (threadjack) I've got "achilles tendonitis"...tendons take forever! It's just one of the physical "challenges" that seem to have all come down on my head just the past three years or so--before which, I'd never had surgery nor any serious injuries/illnesses.

I consider myself extremely lucky, however; my first PT helped, but not all that much. She went back to school; the one I have now is a miracle worker, and our first meeting, was the only person to ever tell me I walk pronated, which affects a LOT of things. I'm making real progress under her...but if a doctor ever tells you tendons take a long time to heal and to imobilize it before anything else, take it from me: LISTEN TO THEM! I had mine looked at after only a couple of months; Jim waited so long now it's a torn tendon requiring surgery and a looong recuperation.

Getting old sux...seems like we go along for decades just fine, then everything starts falling apart at once!

Husband just had hernia surgery Tuesday (idjit tried to go to work the very next day, now he's been crippled and agreed to stay in bed until Monday). This morning he got the result of his MRI (which he put off as well) and found out his is a TORN tendon, so more surgery, as I said. He put off having an MRI because of the cost...again, idjit, so now he's paying the price in even more lost time and a longer recovery.

Jim puts a lot of things off because of money; our health insurance provided by his employer has a fairly hefty out-of-pocket; I'm on disability so get Medicare as my "secondary provider", thus in my case, they take care of the co-pays, etc., and I end up with a teeeeny little bill. He gets stuck with the full co-pay, etc., because he's not "retired", tho' his share of the premiums has been going up steadily. He'd actually have less out-of-pocket on Medicare, but he's trying to amass as much money as possible to get us through the remaining years.

He's in FAR better shape than I (still runs every morning, bicycles, exercises), tho' ten years older, so it took longer for him to start falling apart I guess. Anyone thinks we don't need an overhaul of the for-profit health system, they should just check into the facts, where it's been going the past decade or more, and where that indicates it WILL continue to go without reform! (/threadjack)

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

RUE

Friday, March 19, 2010 8:06 PM (P)

kirkules :"Recent discoveries in anthropology may show that we are not great apes at all as has been to most logical assumption in the past."

Rue: FWIW - humans are great apes. We share blood types, major histocompatibility sites, and humans share roughly 98% genes with chimpanzees. Humans have one pair of chromosomes fewer than chimpanzees and gorillas. However, human gene # 2 can be shown to be a fusion of two chimpanzee genes - from banding pattern, size, genetic content and the presence of a vestigial extra centromere in the human gene.

from various texts not available on-line -
however, you can check these fact by doing a quick google search

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BYTEMITE

Friday, March 19, 2010 8:30 PM (P)

Sig: Yeah, that's the one. I actually read it in Discover. Thanks for the cite though. I know I get lazy about that... ^_^'

RUE

Friday, March 19, 2010 8:31 PM (P)

Anyway, to go on to some speculation about this: it's been proposed that the different number of genes is what put humans into genetic isolation from chimpanzees and gorillas. And that makes me wonder about Neanderthals and humans.

Consider that horses have 64 genes and donkeys have 62, when they mate they produce infertile offspring. If Neanderthal had a different number of genes from humans, it might mean that any pairing would have resulted infertile offspring.

Also, I came across an interesting fact in Wikibooks - different kinds of Equus (horse genus) have widely differing numbers of genes.

Przewalski's horse 66

Horse 64

Donkey 62

Asiatic wild ass 56

Transcaspain wild ass 54

Tibetan wild ass 52

Grevy's zebra 46

Grant's zebra 44

Hartmann's mountain zebra 32

or less than half the genes of Przewalski's horse.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

BYTEMITE

Friday, March 19, 2010 8:35 PM (P)

Ouchie. Well, good luck to you and your poor husband. Hernias? Torn tendons? Eek!

KPO

Friday, March 19, 2010 9:45 PM (P)

Quote:
How much “mentality” do you think it takes to know how to measure complex water currents?

Animals being able to judge water currents and stuff is cool, but so is a computer being able to fly a fighter aircraft better than a human - it's not evidence of 'soul', or even intelligence strictly speaking. So let's not muddle concepts... if we're talking about souls I think we have to limit ourselves to talking about the mental processes of thoughts and emotions. And in this respect humans are the most complex, and advanced.

Animals (typically predators) are very cool because they have a kind of 'purity of spirit'. Anyone who has seen a cat strut around on its own turf might know what I'm talking about - they are pure instinct, and know exactly what they are about. But to my mind this purity of soul comes from their minds not being clouded by rational thought. My cats kill and torture for fun without a second thought, and the female cat will go on heat and despicably pester and annoy the two (neutered) male cats, but then when she comes off she'll go straight back to strutting around like she owns the place - like nothing has happened. Her mind is free from any kind of 'why am I acting this way' questions, she does whatever her instinct dictates at any particular time - hence purity, and in essence, lack of complexity.

This shows pretty well what I mean by the 'purity of spirit' of a predator: http://www.poemhunter.com/best-poems/ted-hughes/hawk-roosting/

On Neanderthals, good point about the shells Byte. I think the general concensus is that Neanderthal culture and symbolism was much more basic than ours though, from Wiki:

Quote:
Due to the paucity of symbolism that Neanderthal artifacts show, Neanderthal language probably did not deal much with a verbal future tense, again restricting Neanderthal exploitation of resources. Cro-Magnon people had a much better standard of living than the hardscrabble existence available to Neanderthals. With better language skills and bigger social groups, a better psychological repertoire, and better planning, Cro-Magnon people, living alongside the Neanderthals on the same land, outclassed them in terms of life span, population, available spare time (as shown by Cro-Magnon art), physical health and lower rate of injury, infant mortality, comfort, quality of life, and food procurement.

Heads should roll

RUE

Friday, March 19, 2010 10:14 PM (P)

I have to disagree that the 'soul' depends on mentation, that only people have it, or that it even exists. In the first case then those people without mentation - and any severely brain-damaged person fits that description - can be said to have lost their 'soul'. And we have no idea what kind of mentation animals have, though we do know some species have a concept of self. Further, we have no way to judge certain kinds of intelligence - the octopus contains a vast amount of non-cerebral nervous system. For all we know, they are body-wide thinking machines. One thing we do know, is that despite their extremely short life-spans (long life-span has been posited as necessary for intelligence) they are immensely curious, inventive and clever.

Linking 'soul' to mentation falls short in too many instances.

And then of course, how do you prove that it even exists.

However, for legal purposes, loss of brain activity in someone who once had it has been taken to mean they are no longer 'alive' in a meaningful sense.

BTW I have had my cat look me straight in the eye - something not instinctual to cats - and try to talk to me with plaintive, soft, highly modulated meows.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 19, 2010 10:18 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Getting old sux...seems like we go along for decades just fine, then everything starts falling apart at once!

Gotta cruse 'till the tires fall off!

I am a mass of pain. Back, knees, left wrist, neck... the list goes on. But having a lot of this pain since my 20's makes me think, it's not how it hurts, it's how you do whatever the Hell you want to because it's gonna hurt anyway.

NIKI2

Friday, March 19, 2010 10:21 PM (P)

I think Rue has answered the question for me, and far better than I ever could have.

Yup, Chris, that's what I've learned too. Sweeping and mopping hurt the damned torn-ligament wrist (it will never be right); hiking hurts either the back (DDD and herniated disc) or--until today (yayy!!)--the tendon (walked the dogs for an hour this morning, been bicycling 'cuz of tendon, first time walking in a couple of weeks--35 minutes in, bit of pain then it went away, 10 minutes later, same, but it don't hurt now and that's a VICTORY!); riding my motorcycle, bicycle, or myriad other things, hurts the damned wrist AND the other wrist (which has a gangleon cyst and carpal tunnel); cooking hurts my back. But I do 'em anyway; some 'cuz I have to, some 'cuz I refuse to give into it. Coupla aleve and my recliner, and I'm fine a few hours later--or the next day. Screw it!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

CHRISISALL

Friday, March 19, 2010 10:40 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Screw it!

That's the spirit!
Pain wants you to go fetal in a calcified way.
Eff pain.
Life IS pain. Then joy & everything else!

NIKI2

Friday, March 19, 2010 10:47 PM (P)

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

KPO

Friday, March 19, 2010 10:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Linking 'soul' to mentation falls short in too many instances.

And then of course, how do you prove that it even exists.

I'm talking about the 'soul' as the seat of thoughts and emotions. It exists to the extent that humans and animals have thoughts and emotions, and if not in the brain then where...?

Quote:
In the first case then those people without mentation - and any severely brain-damaged person fits that description - can be said to have lost their 'soul'.

I have to tread carefully hear as don't want to upset people, but with dementia for example, I have heard relatives talk about having 'lost' their loved one long before actual death.

Quote:
BTW I have had my cat look me straight in the eye - something not instinctual to cats - and try to talk to me with plaintive, soft, highly modulated meows.

I like animals, and I don't want to burst bubbles, but I think humans project human psychology onto pets and animals allllllll the time.

Heads should roll

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, March 19, 2010 11:20 PM (P)

Quote:
Asiatic wild ass 56

Is it bad that I was expecting a picture of Kim "the pufferfish" Jong-il under that one ?

-F

KIRKULES

Friday, March 19, 2010 11:40 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
kirkules :"Recent discoveries in anthropology may show that we are not great apes at all as has been to most logical assumption in the past."

Rue: FWIW - humans are great apes. We share blood s types, major histocompatibility sites, and humans share roughly 98% genes with chimpanzees. Humans have one pair of chromosomes fewer than chimpanzees and gorillas. However, human gene # 2 can be shown to be a fusion of two chimpanzee genes - from banding pattern, size, genetic content and the presence of a vestigial extra centromere in the human gene.

from various texts not available on-line -
however, you can check these fact by doing a quick google search

There is no doubt in my mind that we are closely related to the chimpanzee, but the question is which came first the chimp or the upright walking hominid. The jury is still out on whether the hominid from the link below is a chimp ancestor, human ancestor or neither. It does however introduce the possibility the our earliest ancestor predated the great apes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahelanthropus_tchadensis

"Sahelanthropus may represent a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees; no consensus has been reached yet by the scientific community. The original placement of this species as a human ancestor but not a chimpanzee ancestor would complicate the picture of human phylogeny. In particular, if Toumaï is a direct human ancestor, then its facial features bring the status of Australopithecus into doubt because its thickened brow ridges were reported to be similar to those of some later fossil hominids (notably Homo erectus), whereas this morphology differs from that observed in all australopithecines, most fossil hominids and extant humans."

Another possibility is that Toumaï is related to both humans and chimpanzees, but is the ancestor of neither.

RUE

Saturday, March 20, 2010 12:17 AM (P)

"I'm talking about the 'soul' as the seat of thoughts and emotions."

But when you claim only humans have 'souls' you are doing so without any understanding of the thoughts and emotions experienced by other species. If you don't know that, how can you claim they have no souls ?

"I think humans project human psychology onto pets and animals allllllll the time."

And human interpretation of animals happens to be generally true for good reason. Higher animals must be able to read other animals. It's necessary within the species and between species. Friend or foe ? Predator or harmless visitor ? Anyone who has watched a cat stalk a bird AND THE BIRD WATCH THE CAT knows this is true (or, for a more exotic example, a zebra watch a lion). There is mutual observation and interpretaton going on.

I just finished watching a special on Temple Grandin, the autistic veterinarian who could keenly 'read' animals (though interestingly, not humans.) I have also seen studies done on other animals and the signals they give off though their eyes, ears, mouths, nostrils, stance, attention, agitation and other visual non-verbal communication. Those signals are clearly interpretable though with some species you must watch closely.

I’ve also been told by several veterinarians that they must depend on the pet owner to describe what the problem is, b/c the pet – if well cared for – will display signs of weakness that s/he won’t display when feeling defensive; and b/c the owner - if s/he is attentive – will know when the pet is acting out of his/her normal range of behavior and will be able to at least assign a general description (listless, weak, hostile).

There is far more real communication going on than you give credit for.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Saturday, March 20, 2010 1:08 AM (P)

There was a book (Plague Dogs) and somewhere near the beginning- maybe even in the preface- there was a poetic discussion about how animals feel. I can't possibly do it justice, but what it said was something like: It's HUMANS who don't feel. We have a long-remembered past, we envision a future, we have rationalizations by which we explain our feelings, comfort ourselves, put it in context.

But animals feel everything as if there was no past and no future, no choices and no context. They feel a lifetime in a moment. We should never think that animals can't feel, because sometimes that is all they do. And because of that, we should be more careful of their feelings than our own.

I would add... very similar to children.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, March 20, 2010 1:28 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

I would add... very similar to children.

Exactly similar.
All my adult pain can be traced back to careless smacks I received as a kid. And the careless smacks I witnessed perpetrated upon my Mother.
Lack of empathy might have made me another Cheney.
I escaped that course.
Mostly.

God help another mugger targeting me, though. In my teens I was much more lenient. Now I might seek more permanent damage in my rage.
But maybe not...

*catharsis over*

CHRISISALL

Saturday, March 20, 2010 1:42 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

There is far more real communication going on than you give credit for.

Less communication of any worth goes on between most humans IMO.
Except hostility.
My cats bite me when I play too rough, but then lick me in the same minute when they remember they love me.

Lucky I'm not an Incredible Shrinking Man, eh?

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, March 20, 2010 1:48 AM (P)

Temple knows his stuff, oh yes.

I couldn't even come as close to describing it as you two did, but yes, animals are psychologically, very, very different from us.

That doesn't mean they can NOT be understood, or that they are unwilling to make themselves understood by us - most feline vocalisations are in fact an effort to communicate with us, since we're as a rule (according to the cat) half blind and dumber than dirt about reading inter-cat communication like scent and body language.

And even IF you can make the connection, your ability to communicate back is very limited cause you have a different physical form, the body language doesn't work so well, you lack the right scents or even detection of em, etc etc.
Not to mention you really can't apply most human concepts since the whole "mind" you are trying to tune into is so very different from our own.

That said, communication IS possible, IF they wanna communicate with you - which often as not, they don't - seen from an animal perspective we're friggin obnoxious.

-F

CHRISISALL

Saturday, March 20, 2010 1:50 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
seen from an animal perspective we're friggin obnoxious.

BUT, we do feed 'em!

KPO

Saturday, March 20, 2010 2:07 AM (P)

Quote:
But when you claim only humans have 'souls'...

I never said that, Lord help me, I said the human 'soul' is more *complex* than animal 'souls'. Simply, our thoughts and emotions are more complex and advanced.

Quote:
you are doing so without any understanding of the thoughts and emotions experienced by other species.

Except from that 'higher species' perception you went on to talk about... Seriously though, if an animal had thoughts and emotions that were incomprehensible to me, it would evidence them in actions that were incomprehensible to me. Just like my cats are mystified (or would be if they had any intellectual curiosity) by my use of language to communicate with other humans, my enjoyment of watching firefly, my wearing of different clothes, my general use of tools and machinery etc. The cats will never understand me, but I understand the cats - their behaviour holds no incomprehensible mystery for me.

Heads should roll

CANTTAKESKY

Saturday, March 20, 2010 2:09 AM (P)

Quote:
Some think we are above animals- that we are unique due to our superiour intelligence, opposable thumbs, souls or whatnot.

Homo sapiens are animals who think they are not.

But their collective memories are filled with examples demonstrating many of them are actually worse.

CHRISISALL

Saturday, March 20, 2010 2:21 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
their behaviour holds no great mystery for me.

So now it's "mystery" that defines the soul...
Complexity, mystery, how about levity?

KPO

Saturday, March 20, 2010 2:44 AM (P)

Somebody earlier referenced the quite 'mysterious' action of dolphins carrying their dead family members bodies on their backs...

This suggests some emotional depth to me. It is a strange action, but I believe I can comprehend the thought process, as we humans care about our families members as well. I'm saying if some animals are above us in any thoughts/emotions then they must exhibit this in strange actions - like all the human actions I talked about earlier that would be mysterious to the mind of a cat.

Heads should roll

RUE

Saturday, March 20, 2010 3:00 AM (P)

k-ules

This is what you posted: ""Recent discoveries in anthropology may show that we are not great apes at all as has been to most logical assumption in the past."

Genetically and biochemically humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than humans are to gorillas, or chimpanzees are to gorillas. The orangutan is even further removed from the grouping humans/ chimps/ / / gorillas. If humans are not great apes, then neither are chimps, and probably gorillas as well - to say nothing of the orangutans - in which case the definition becomes moot.

Current genetic and biochemical similarities are often a good guide to evolutionary history. When incomplete bone fragments were the only source of information many false comparisons and conclusions were drawn. Genetic research has caused much reclassifying throughout all the plant, animal, protista, fungal, archaebacterial, and eubacterial kingdoms. And that in turn has caused a reevaluation of evolutionary theories. Since there is no reason to doubt the genetic data over bone data, I suspect those bones will be found to belong to a long extinct branch in the evolutionary tree. And speaking of which, there were many proto-apes over the course of evolution whose lines died out and have no current representation – Neanderthals come to mind.

There is also good reason to think humans evolved on the horn of Africa, which was detached from and attached to the main continent many times by rising and falling ocean levels. It has been suggested that b/c of that, there is scant direct fossil records of human evolution on the main body of the continent.

Anyway, I have to go. Ponder this and consider you may be wrong.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Saturday, March 20, 2010 3:35 AM (P)

"... if an animal had thoughts and emotions that were incomprehensible to me ..."

Then you claim to understand everything every animal does ? They never do anything outside of your comprehension ?

So, just briefly getting around to 'thoughts' and 'emotions' (b/c I really have to get going) ...

Animals can and do have abstract representations of things in their heads. How do I know this ? B/c a cat recognizes water whether it's in a puddle, a blue ceramic bowl that it's been drinking out of for years or a new stainless steel one, a pool, pouring out of a tap, or sloshing in a bathtub. These abstract representations I would consider 'thoughts' and they are every bit as complex as ours. After all, they have to eat, drink, shelter, mate, care for their young, and hunt or avoid being hunted in a complex environment, and often, they form societies.

They have dreams, so they have memory and imagination.

And they plainly have emotions.

Many animals recognize individuals either of their own or other species. SignyM's orphaned sparrow who is the epitome of a bird brain recognizes each of us separately.

Some even have a sense of self, and, as far as we can tell, language. They understand the 'theory of mind'. They can lie by misdirection. And chimpanzees, gorillas and elephants have been seen to mourn their dead.

And then, as I mentioned before, there are animals who are complex but so alien we may never understand exactly what their intelligence is - parrots and octopuses come to mind.

Given all of this, I can't say that their souls are smaller than ours. They do all that we do and deal with all that we deal with.

But the debate about the actual existence of souls is another direction which I won't be able to address now.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KPO

Saturday, March 20, 2010 3:48 AM (P)

Quote:
"... if an animal had thoughts and emotions that were incomprehensible to me ..."

Then you claim to understand everything every animal does ?

'Incomprehensible' suggests that it is an action and a thought process that I could never possibly understand. The mysterious action and thought process has to be completely beyond human comprehension - science will never be able to answer it. Like my cats would *never* understand a lot of my human actions/thought processes.

To your other points, sure, animals have similar or more primitive versions of a lot of our thought processes. That doesn't surprise me - we're animals too.

Heads should roll

RUE

Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:04 AM (P)

So you claim that you COULD be omniscient in regards to animals if only you tried ? I have to say, that's quite a claim.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

KIRKULES

Saturday, March 20, 2010 1:55 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
k-ules

This is what you posted: ""Recent discoveries in anthropology may show that we are not great apes at all as has been to most logical assumption in the past."

Genetically and biochemically humans are more closely related to chimpanzees than humans are to gorillas, or chimpanzees are to gorillas. The orangutan is even further removed from the grouping humans/ chimps/ / / gorillas. If humans are not great apes, then neither are chimps, and probably gorillas as well - to say nothing of the orangutans - in which case the definition becomes moot.

Current genetic and biochemical similarities are often a good guide to evolutionary history. When incomplete bone fragments were the only source of information many false comparisons and conclusions were drawn. Genetic research has caused much reclassifying throughout all the plant, animal, protista, fungal, archaebacterial, and eubacterial kingdoms. And that in turn has caused a reevaluation of evolutionary theories. Since there is no reason to doubt the genetic data over bone data, I suspect those bones will be found to belong to a long extinct branch in the evolutionary tree. And speaking of which, there were many proto-apes over the course of evolution whose lines died out and have no current representation – Neanderthals come to mind.

There is also good reason to think humans evolved on the horn of Africa, which was detached from and attached to the main continent many times by rising and falling ocean levels. It has been suggested that b/c of that, there is scant direct fossil records of human evolution on the main body of the continent.

Anyway, I have to go. Ponder this and consider you may be wrong.

I agree that it’s irrelevant whether we choose to call ourselves great apes or otherwise because we are so genetically similar to apes. What I was suggesting is that we did not evolve from any of the great ape species still in existence and that the split might have happened up to 12 million years ago long before any species similar to those we recognize today existed.

Here’s a link to info about a study that might explain why we have not varied much genetically since our split from the chimp or a common ancestor. It might be that we have not evolved much genetically because of the traits that make us human. Our ancestors and dead ends like Neanderthal did not vary much genetically over time because they were bipedal hominids.

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2009/01/08-02.html?etoc

“Hublin and Premo propose that if human ancestors selected mates from similar backgrounds, there would have been a lot of inbreeding within different populations, restricting the flow of new mutations to other groups. "If these guys on the other side of the river spoke a different language and had different weapons, you would not try to mate with them or they might kill you," says Hublin. Over time, most populations went extinct, allowing the genes of only a few groups to proliferate, further erasing genetic diversity.”

CITIZEN

Saturday, March 20, 2010 4:27 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
I agree that it’s irrelevant whether we choose to call ourselves great apes or otherwise because we are so genetically similar to apes. What I was suggesting is that we did not evolve from any of the great ape species still in existence and that the split might have happened up to 12 million years ago long before any species similar to those we recognize today existed.

1) Humans are a member of the Great Apes.
2) I've never heard the suggestion that we're descended from a living species of Great Ape, outside of creationist strawmen.

Humans are a member of the Great Ape family because we share a close common ancestor.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

KPO

Saturday, March 20, 2010 7:47 PM (P)

Quote:
So you claim that you COULD be omniscient in regards to animals if only you tried ?

No, I don't feel I need to, because if animals *did* widely have these thoughts and emotions it would be *obvious*. Like it would be *obvious* to my cat (if it were in its nature to contemplate such things) that I have a range of thoughts and emotions outside of its comprehension.

One last example of this: I support a football team. If one of my cats was to study my life's actions in the way that we study animals, my cat would observe a strange but consistent pattern to my behaviour - on certain days, fairly evenly spaced apart, I get together with other humans and go to the pub, where everyone watches a screen showing other humans kicking a ball around, and gets excited by it. After extensive study my cat would be familiar with this clear pattern in my behaviour, as well as maybe other little details like the colour of clothes I choose to wear on such occasions...

My point is, the cat would not comprehend my mentality at all, but it would still be able to observe and identify the special pattern of behaviour, and so my mysterious mentality would be *obvious*, if not comprehended. THIS is the evidence that is missing in your 'Who knows what depth of emotion and philosohical thought animals' minds entertain?' theory.

Heads should roll

NIKI2

Sunday, March 21, 2010 9:28 PM (P)

Quote:
And human interpretation of animals happens to be generally true for good reason

Called anthroporphism. And I don't think it's as infallible as was suggested. MANY people mistake an animal's actions for something they can relate to, but which in actually has nothing to do with the animal's action or intent.

One only has to watch a few episodes of Dog Whisperer or It's Me or the Dog to see how stupidly people frequently interpret animals' actions. A lot of the time I sit there shaking my head, not sure whether to be amused by them or disgusted with them...or both.

I also don't believe we can interpret animals' actions; many are so foreign to us tht our mentality can't wrap its head around them well enough to interpret them. Not necessarily domesticated species, because we've both "molded" them to our way of being and have been intimately connected to them for so long. But other species...no, I don't think we can accurately interpret their actions or the reasons for them.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

PERFESSERGEE

Monday, March 22, 2010 7:42 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Others (like myself) feel that we are merely well-groomed talking chimps, with no exclusive franchise on "souls" or varieties of intellect.

We are animals because we have established the knowledge base to be able to properly define our place among other living things. We are not however just “well groomed chimps”. Recent discoveries in anthropology may show that we are not great apes at all as has been to most logical assumption in the past. Though we almost certainly share a common ancestor the great apes, apes probably evolved long after the split with upright walking hominids that we are directly descended from. We are defiantly superior in a survival of the fittest sense to other animals that have become extinct, but equal to those that have survived.

Kirkules, I believe you are mischaracterizing the recently published work on our distant ancestor (and that of the other great apes), Ardepithecus. That animal, now the earliest know fully bipedal hominid, was the subject of nearly an entire issue of the journal Science last October, and it caused some revisions of our thinking about the history of human evolution. One of those revisions was not that we aren't great apes. We most certainly are, on many, many grounds; biochemical, anatomical, genetic, dietary, the particulars of how we use tools (e.g., all the great apes have good overhand throwing abilities) etc. etc. One big surprise were that "Ardi" didn't live in a savannah habitat, as we've thought for many decades, but in a tropical rainforest. The open nature of savannah grasslands was thought to promote upright walking. Apparently not, as Ardi walked upright, based on hipbone and foot structure. The other major suprise comes from the fact that Ardi is more than 6 million years old - about 2 million years older than the split between chimps and us. And Ardi is more like us than a chimp. We had always thought that the common ancestor would be chimplike, and that we evolved from that state into the animal that we now are. In other words, we not only didn't evolve from chimps or the other animals currently called "great apes" they evolved from us!

I'd also question your assertion that making other species go extinct makes us superior, but I guess that depends on how you define "superior". A survivor most definitely - we've certainly survived all of our closest relatives (neandertals, Homo erectus, Homo floresensis), and all of our other close relatives (chimps, gorillas and orangutans) are highly endangered in the wild, mostly as a result of human activity. Not a record I'd point to with pride and assert our superiority.

I'd go with Chris's "well groomed talking chimps".

perfessergee

Edited to add: I see now the article you were referring to. The ones I'm citing make up almost all of the 2 October 2009 issue of Science.

BYTEMITE

Monday, March 22, 2010 8:01 PM (P)

A female human goes to a styling salon every Saturday. When she returns, you don't see any difference in the appearance or length of her hair, but she inexplicably expects you to notice this difference upon threat of punishment.

You are able to observe this behaviour, but not comprehend it.

Despite this, I don't argue that all males must be completely lacking in their ability to even recognize this obvious mysterious mentality. We would have to ask them all, and they all seem to be too interested in going to the pub and watching football to participate.

PERFESSERGEE

Monday, March 22, 2010 8:06 PM (P)

Rue, a quick correction: We have different numbers of chromosomes from chimps and gorillas, but about the same number of genes (or otherwise we wouldn't share 98+% of them). The genes are just arranged differently, like our fused chromosome #2. Or alternatively, if our type is ancestral (as may now be the case as I suggested above), chimps could have gotten the extra pair from having our #2 split into two. Genes get repackaged in a lot of funny ways over evolutionary time (including having viral DNA become a permanent part of our package). And it's likely that most of the differences between chimps and ourselves are minor changes in DNA sequence in genes that do the same thing for both species - though obviously there are some profound differences as well, since it's not hard to tell the 2 species apart!

perfessergee

Edited to correct spelling

CHRISISALL

Monday, March 22, 2010 8:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
In other words, we not only didn't evolve from chimps or the other animals currently called "great apes" they evolved from us!

OUT2THEBLACK

Monday, March 22, 2010 8:43 PM (P)

I am NOT AN ANIMAL !

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:
Genes get repackaged in a lot of funny ways over evolutionary time (including having viral DNA become a permanent part of our package).

There's NO 'viral DNA' in MY package !

I use 'protection' !

...And keep your stinking hands off me , all you damn , dirty APES !

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, March 22, 2010 9:19 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
A female human goes to a styling salon every Saturday. When she returns, you don't see any difference in the appearance or length of her hair, but she inexplicably expects you to notice this difference upon threat of punishment.

You are able to observe this behaviour, but not comprehend it.

Despite this, I don't argue that all males must be completely lacking in their ability to even recognize this obvious mysterious mentality. We would have to ask them all, and they all seem to be too interested in going to the pub and watching football to participate.

*rolls out of his chair laughing*

NIKI2

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:27 PM (P)

That one's easy. Women want to be attractive to their mates; the only way to do that is (what they THINK is) looking different, doing what society makes them think needs doing to look attractive...new clothes are the same thing, new shoes, etc. And if not noticed, they want to bring it to their mate's attention. If the mate's not appreciative, SOME women feel hurt, which translates to anger. That stuff's been happening probably since the first of our ancestors stuck a flower in her hair. Easily interpreted.

Jim doesn't notice changes in me unless they're drastic, and even then might not mention anything...but I did cut my hair last year, which I'd been growing for years. He mentioned THAT, because he was sad I had done it. I pull my hair back into a clip, and once he remarked that since I did so, why have long hair?...so I thought he'd like my wearing it down if it was short. Imagine my surprise when he said "yeah, but when I ran my hands through it, it was so lovely".

Can't win for losing...it's back in a clip and growing again. Easier for ME that way, since he doesn't give a damn. He DOES like me to wear makeup (which I rarely do anymore)--I don't do anything but eyeliner, but given I've got severe myopia (which seems to make many people say "You've got lovely eyes", weirdly!), my eyes do look naked without eye liner. I just don't bother very often at my age.

He still says I'm "beautiful", and sexy, which mystifies ME. Can one of you males tell me why a guy--given older guys seem to seek out younger, sexier women--would still think his 61-year-old wife is sexy?? THAT one eludes me!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

RUE

Tuesday, March 23, 2010 4:54 PM (P)

Yes, I should have posted chromosomes. I must have been in a daze.

What I found interesting is the different humber of chromosomes that equus has - things we recognize as horse-like enough that we put them in the same genus. And of those, the different number of chromosomes in things that look very similar - the horses, zebras and donkeys. (It does seem to me there should be another division between genus and species to take this into account. I digress ....)

It seems that given enough time chromosome fusion and/ or splitting is common and not a sufficicent event to exclude a species from a genus.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.