sweep

perhaps it is common to look at animal and human as 'them and us', including the differences between 'them and us' If we include humans in the category of animal we can find important distinctions. For one, we use fire; we have tools and a body of knowledge. We have a large neo-cortex capable of abstract thought, that allows us to manipulate the environment. Our emotions do control, I think, to a certain extent but they are tied to the rest of our brains.

To see animal and human as different is to state a false dichotomy.

If I use the term animal, and imply that animals are lesser, tying human emotions with 'lesser & animal', then it seems to demean myself as a thinking being. Since we are higher than the rest of the animal kingdom, by way of our more sophisticated constitution, it does not also mean that sharing a common grounds, ie our emotions, with other species makes us more like them. In other words, while we share aspects of our nature with other species, there are important differences:

this is exactly what makes us different than 'the other' animals. I am as close as I think to animals but different for the reasons above. I am an animal, but different to the other animals. Research into the physical differences in brains of all species will confirm the relatively vast gulf in terms of organisation.

"The human brain, as compared to brains of nonhuman primates, has larger motor and sensory cortical areas devoted to the hands, larger cortical regions devoted to the production and perception of speech, a larger proportion of the brain devoted to varied and elaborate processing of information, and striking hemispheric specializations of function."

Seraphim

No way. I'm not saying that at all. Intelligence and reason are great survival adaptations. But we often refer to our humanity as an emotional concept. We usually refer to someone as humane if they have compassion or love, inhumane if they lack empathy or sympathy for another being. I was trying to credit animals, not discredit humans, who are still animals.

My reply : OK. Acceptable.

Just remember what makes Humans humane. Humans maybe very different from animals due to the facts that humans have two facilities (not one like animals) to govern their thoughts and action.

In my opinion, throwing away Intelligence and reason and holding onto Emotions alone, may accomplish the animal traits but in that way, we maybe sacrificing the human characteristics which made Humans what they are.

sweep

...

Vorhis the Wolf

We are not as close as we should be, that is for sure. Humanity is stuck in analyitical mode to the point where we are blinded by the world around us. We are so busy carrying around that big brain of ours that we forget to look around once in a while. Animals on the other hand have the right idea. Look at a dog or a cat. They spend their day sleeping and playing. Look at humans. We spend our day working and worrying. If people got back in touch with their animal side they would worry less and feel more. If we emulated animals more often we would be at peace with all the parts of ourself because the thinking and the feeling would be intergrated. If every part of us became as one there would be no limit to what an individual could accomplish.

TACurtis

The only difference between us and "the animals" is spin. Humans have a built-in tendency to see patterns and causes, and sometimes that leads to some wacky rationalizations ("God did it") and motives where none exist.

It's all spin, baby!

Seraphim

If we emulated animals more often we would be at peace with all the parts of ourself because the thinking and the feeling would be intergrated. If every part of us became as one there would be no limit to what an individual could accomplish.

My reply : Acceptable ... don't see what's wrong about living with nature. It is about time we learn to do it as well.

long winded fool

If humans were to throw away logic and reason, they'd be throwing away the most vital survival adaptation any species has ever evolved. Humans are animals, but if humans abandoned intellect and only followed instinct like the content and playful dog or cat, the entire species would suffer and eventually die. With no natural predators and no moral standards to stifle our basic instincts of fear and lust, we'd overpopulate our habitat and strip it of the very resources we need for survival. Predators prevent this in non-reasoning animals. When they fail, these animals are considered a plague and eventually starve themselves to death quite often taking a few other species with them. Only intellect can prevent this in a species with no natural predators. It is irrational to have sex in an area where there is not even enough food to support the current population, yet this occurs when humans reject rationality and embrace their "animal" instincts. Once the food is gone, the irrational, intsinctual humans and their thriteen squaling children follow. Getting more in touch with our instincts and animal natures is suicide. If the goal is species survival, we ought to forget about our obsolete instincts and totally embrace logic and reason. They may have gotten us this far, but going much farther is detrimental to the species, therefore instincts are no longer needed and ought to be replaced by logic and reason.

Vorhis the Wolf

There are all sorts of things that would LOVE to make people into lunch. In North America there are bears,cougars, and wolves. A 200 pound man would make a tasty lunch for a 600 pound cougar. The only reason that there is a lack of predators is because people have hunted them almost to extinction.

I do agree with you about logic and reasoning being what realy separates "us' from "them"