Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Marduk · 09-04-2002, 03:46 PM

Why since we evolved from the apes, we are much more advanced while other species are so inferior?”

Inferior in what way? I agree this is an ‘aren’t we just special’ human value judgement, crocodiles, sharks, crabs, roaches whatever have been around for almost a half a billion years, why haven’t they evolved? Because they don’t have to, they are perfect surviving machines. Modern humans have been around a few short millennia and with no surprise to me will no doubt cause their own extinction relatively quickly, I hope, then things can get back to normal, the aberrant error of nature corrected.

"I remain unconvinced that animals can make any kind of comparison about anything."

Studies on Rhesus Monkeys (Sagan gave the reference in his book Broca’s Brain but I can’t remember where it was done) showed they displayed what we would call compassion; A monkey could get something to eat but the food lever when pulled would also shock another monkey, when the monkeys learned that they were causing there friends pain they stopped eating.

RufusAtticus · 09-04-2002, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
First, we have defined intelligence as the sole criteria of greatness. Humans lose in all other stakes. We are not faster, stronger, longer-lived or equipped with better senses.

We build bigger bombs. What other criteria is needed?

DireStraits · 09-04-2002, 04:07 PM

First, we have defined intelligence as the sole criteria of greatness.

DS: Yeah I've often wondered why it is that superiority is though to reside infallibly in intelligence. Because we have it in greater abundance than any other creature? If so, then then we are doing nothing more than having a beauty contest to see who is most like Man. Surprise! We come out on top!

Humans lose in all other stakes. We are not faster, stronger, longer-lived or equipped with better senses.

DS: Right. But our adaptability is superior to all other species. Humans can adapt to any environment on earth that any other species can - albeit with special equipment. We can even live outside of earth's atmosphere for short periods, and even on other celestial bodies. No other animal or plant species can match that.

Second, the differences in our intelligence are only of degree, not kind. So all we can really claim is that we are have developed intelligence to a larger degree than most.

DS: Yes.

Doubting Didymus · 09-04-2002, 04:22 PM

I would quickly like to address the various posts about our use of intelligence to overcome all of our shortcomings.

I am aware of this, but my point is that these are directly derived from our intelligence. Intelligence is still our sole strong point. If you took it away we would not be superior in any other feature. So it really is still true to say that we have defined superiority as either 'most intelligent' or more realistically, that superiority is measured by things that we rely on intelligence to do. No surprise that we come out on top, if we define the criteria.

DireStraits · 09-04-2002, 04:29 PM

I totally disagree. Human intelligence is of another kind altogether. Non-human animals have only perceptual intelligence. Humans are capable of conceptual intelligence.

DS: Well, most are. But you may be surprised to find out how badly so many rate in this respect. The other animals are always called upon the match the best of human intellectual achievements.

Animals are sentient to a degree but are they self aware? I don't think so.

DS: Why not? Have you ever owned a dog? Have you ever seen a shepherd handling four different sheepdogs at a time? How could the dogs possibly react correctly if they did not know that a certain sound referred to them specifically?

Be glad to see some proof if you have it.

DS: It's difficult to know what would constitute proof here. Can you prove to me that you are self-aware?

Maybe you can start by listing some conceptual thoughts expressed by chimps or dolphins or somthing.

DS: I don't have any refs for this since I read it years ago, but studies attempting to teach chimps sign language overturned the idea that they were dumb animals decades ago. One signing chimp was asked to sort photographs of other non-signing chimps and humans. She sorted all the other chimps away from the human pile but placed her own picture in the human pile. When a (human) friend left, she signed to herself - thinking she was alone - "Jane gone, me sad." I don't think that sort of emotion arose through sign language, I think it was already there, but now simply feeling it was not enough.

There is an excellent book called "Beast and Man" by Mary Midgley that I highly recommend.

Ought Naught · 09-04-2002, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DireStraits:
DS: Right. But our adaptability is superior to all other species.

I think that archaebacteria might have something to say about that...erm...well, maybe not "say", but...dammit, you know what I mean.

pz · 09-04-2002, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undercurrent:


Is there some reason why we couldn't send ourselves off into space, populate this entire galaxy and others, and be sitting pretty until the heat death of the universe? I've heard people assert that all species have life spans and eventually we'll be gone before, and certainly it is possible that we will all go extinct, but I've never heard any reason why it should be inescapable.

Do you really think humanity could spread that far over so much time and change environments so completely, yet still remain unchanged? That's like Star Trek-style science fiction: it's 20th Century America In Space.

Quote:

(Of course, I don't see any reason why individual personal immortality is unattainable with approprate technology either.)

As for the stagnation bit, I know several people who would be completely happy with stagnation. We're not all conquerers and explorers.

Personal immortality sounds disastrously catastrophic, and the surest thing to lead to the end of the species that I can think of.

But I don't believe it's possible, anyway.

Dr S · 09-04-2002, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ksagnostic:

Sure, we may not be talking about philosophical comparisons, but the ability of some nonhumans to make comparisons has been so well documented that the debate is essentially over.

Koko, who spent most of today wearing make up and lipstick, which she applied herself (thickly) while looking in her Barbie mirror, advised me that when I went to see a major donor I should wear my blue shirt and a big red cowboy hat we have hanging around.
Animals make comparisons with no problem; but their fashion sense is somewhat lacking.

ksagnostic · 09-04-2002, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GeoTheo:


I remain unconvinced that animals can make any kind of comparison about anything.

After replying to your post, I remembered this incident.

About ten years ago, two events occurred about a week apart. First, our dominant male chimpanzee was injured in a fight with another adult male. His right middle finger was injured, and the fingernail came off. Second, a person served in the adult life skills program where I worked at the time slammed my office door shut, not realizing that my hand was in the door. My right middle finger took the brunt of it, and I also lost my fingernail (twice).

At any rate, when his finger was first injured, this chimpanzee would come up to people he recognized, including me, and show us his injured finger. When I first saw him after my finger got hurt, I showed him mine. His eyes went extremely wide as he looked at my finger (I took off the bandage and showed him the loose nail, it hadn't come off yet). After that, long after his own finger healed, and he stopped showing off his injured finger to others, he would still come up to me and raise his hand and show me his finger. However, he was clearly looking at my hand as he did so, and would not leave until I showed him my hand. He did this for about a year. While this is a subjective impression, there is little question in my mind that he was "comparing" our injuries.

And that probably is not nearly as obvious as the stuff Dr. S sees from Koko all the time.

ksagnostic · 09-04-2002, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr S:


Koko, who spent most of today wearing make up and lipstick, which she applied herself (thickly) while looking in her Barbie mirror, advised me that when I went to see a major donor I should wear my blue shirt and a big red cowboy hat we have hanging around.
Animals make comparisons with no problem; but their fashion sense is somewhat lacking.

LOL!

If you were to ask her who dresses the best, would she answer?

psst! Geo. Assessing one's appearance in the mirror while applying makeup is a comparative behavior.

On a serious note, I realized I should probably offer my condolences with regards to Michael (I guess it's been a year and a half now?).

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: ksagnostic ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-04-2002, 03:46 PM	#31
Marduk Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: the 10th planet Posts: 5,065	Why since we evolved from the apes, we are much more advanced while other species are so inferior?” Inferior in what way? I agree this is an ‘aren’t we just special’ human value judgement, crocodiles, sharks, crabs, roaches whatever have been around for almost a half a billion years, why haven’t they evolved? Because they don’t have to, they are perfect surviving machines. Modern humans have been around a few short millennia and with no surprise to me will no doubt cause their own extinction relatively quickly, I hope, then things can get back to normal, the aberrant error of nature corrected. "I remain unconvinced that animals can make any kind of comparison about anything." Studies on Rhesus Monkeys (Sagan gave the reference in his book Broca’s Brain but I can’t remember where it was done) showed they displayed what we would call compassion; A monkey could get something to eat but the food lever when pulled would also shock another monkey, when the monkeys learned that they were causing there friends pain they stopped eating.

09-04-2002, 04:07 PM	#33
DireStraits Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 81	First, we have defined intelligence as the sole criteria of greatness. DS: Yeah I've often wondered why it is that superiority is though to reside infallibly in intelligence. Because we have it in greater abundance than any other creature? If so, then then we are doing nothing more than having a beauty contest to see who is most like Man. Surprise! We come out on top! Humans lose in all other stakes. We are not faster, stronger, longer-lived or equipped with better senses. DS: Right. But our adaptability is superior to all other species. Humans can adapt to any environment on earth that any other species can - albeit with special equipment. We can even live outside of earth's atmosphere for short periods, and even on other celestial bodies. No other animal or plant species can match that. Second, the differences in our intelligence are only of degree, not kind. So all we can really claim is that we are have developed intelligence to a larger degree than most. DS: Yes.

09-04-2002, 04:22 PM	#34
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I would quickly like to address the various posts about our use of intelligence to overcome all of our shortcomings. I am aware of this, but my point is that these are directly derived from our intelligence. Intelligence is still our sole strong point. If you took it away we would not be superior in any other feature. So it really is still true to say that we have defined superiority as either 'most intelligent' or more realistically, that superiority is measured by things that we rely on intelligence to do. No surprise that we come out on top, if we define the criteria.

09-04-2002, 04:29 PM	#35
DireStraits Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 81	I totally disagree. Human intelligence is of another kind altogether. Non-human animals have only perceptual intelligence. Humans are capable of conceptual intelligence. DS: Well, most are. But you may be surprised to find out how badly so many rate in this respect. The other animals are always called upon the match the best of human intellectual achievements. Animals are sentient to a degree but are they self aware? I don't think so. DS: Why not? Have you ever owned a dog? Have you ever seen a shepherd handling four different sheepdogs at a time? How could the dogs possibly react correctly if they did not know that a certain sound referred to them specifically? Be glad to see some proof if you have it. DS: It's difficult to know what would constitute proof here. Can you prove to me that you are self-aware? Maybe you can start by listing some conceptual thoughts expressed by chimps or dolphins or somthing. DS: I don't have any refs for this since I read it years ago, but studies attempting to teach chimps sign language overturned the idea that they were dumb animals decades ago. One signing chimp was asked to sort photographs of other non-signing chimps and humans. She sorted all the other chimps away from the human pile but placed her own picture in the human pile. When a (human) friend left, she signed to herself - thinking she was alone - "Jane gone, me sad." I don't think that sort of emotion arose through sign language, I think it was already there, but now simply feeling it was not enough. There is an excellent book called "Beast and Man" by Mary Midgley that I highly recommend.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.