Spirituality
22 Feb 06
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by PawnCurry"In order to try and answer the original question, we need to define exactly what it is to be "human". One poster stated that as opposed to animals, humans have a "soul", and are therefore capable of abstract reasoning and articulate speech."
In order to try and answer the original question, we need to define exactly what it is to be "human". One poster stated that as opposed to animals, humans have a "soul", and are therefore capable of abstract reasoning and articulate speech.
I find this definition to be unsatisfactory. Firstly, there are many humans who are incapable of abstract reasonin ...[text shortened]... ed in with the spirit of the original post, but looking at it from a different angle.
Actually, no (although I am agreeing!). I think we have to define what it is to be an animal. If humans fit that definition then humans are animals. If either speach (communication) or abstract reasoning are used to try and separate humans out, they fail. The only possible way to define humans as any more than animals is based upon this thing called a "soul". Of course, we can't even define what that is, it's unmeasureable and there is no way to directly detect it. We can't even definitively say that animals other than humans DON'T have one.
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionWho conducted these experiments? Methinks it was humans. We apparently share 99%of our DNA with some primates, the remaining 1% must account for quite a lot of our activities and abilities! Also, abstract reasoning is more than an ability to act on things which are not in plain sight, it includes things which are not perceived by any of our five senses. No animals are able to find their own genetic information and rely on the 1% of our genes which are unique. What does this tell you? It should tell you that however similar to animals we seem to be, we are in fact much more sophisticated. Btw are you veggy?
Experiments on Chimpanzees, Bobobos, Gorillas, and believe it or not Octopi all show clear evidence of abstract reasoning - which in simple terms is the ability to consider and act on things not actually in plain sight.
I'm sure there are many more.
If you want me to chase up some references, I'm happy to do that.
But I'm guessing it's not going to matter how much evidence I stack up for you ...
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeWe are in no way genetically superior if that's what you are implying! The things that have contributed to our succuss as a species are generaly far more to do with differences in our behaviour rather than our genes directly. These differences include the advent of agriculture, medicine etc. Of course, these advances are due to primarily three things; our large brain capacity, our ability to communicate effectively, and our opposable thumb (especially).
Who conducted these experiments? Methinks it was humans. We apparently share 99%of our DNA with some primates, the remaining 1% must account for quite a lot of our activities and abilities! Also, abstract reasoning is more than an ability to act on things which are not in plain sight, it includes things which are not perceived by any of our five se ...[text shortened]... er similar to animals we seem to be, we are in fact much more sophisticated. Btw are you veggy?
In terms of animals ability to abstract reason, octopi have been shown to navigate mazes, based upon learned behaviour of other mazes, they've learned how to undo screw lids to get to food. Chimpanzees are some of natures most efficient hunters; complex traps are common, including ambush etc. These are hardly the behaviours of unthinking automatons.
Humans tend. as a group, to have this amazing complex about "how superior we are". It's nothing more than vanity. Superior only means 'more adapted to an environment' - in which case anaerobic bacteria are superior to living in oxygen free environments, or hot springs, or the bottom of the ocean (which we remain unable to visit). We talk about being 'masters of our universe' but we remain passengers to the environment in which we live.
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI think you have missed the point. These things do not present any evidence of abstract reasoning, simply a little ingenuity and cleverness.
We are in no way genetically superior if that's what you are implying! The things that have contributed to our succuss as a species are generaly far more to do with differences in our behaviour rather than our genes directly. These differences include the advent of agriculture, medicine etc. Of course, these advances are due to primarily three things ...[text shortened]... 'masters of our universe' but we remain passengers to the environment in which we live.
Implying that if animals had correctly positioned thumbs they would then be able to advance to similar levels of civilisation as humans is ridiculous, you seem to have no shame in making these undefendable statements, I am astonished.
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeCan you give us an example of human abstract reasoning, that couldn't be dismissed as "a little ingenuity and cleverness"?
I think you have missed the point. These things do not present any evidence of abstract reasoning, simply a little ingenuity and cleverness.
Implying that if animals had correctly positioned thumbs they would then be able to advance to similar levels of civilisation as humans is ridiculous, you seem to have no shame in making these undefendable statements, I am astonished.
D
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by RagnorakWell considering this forum is about "Spirituality" it doesn't take much to work out. "Spirits" are not tangible, so any logical discussion about them or understanding of them, is abstract.
Can you give us an example of human abstract reasoning, that couldn't be dismissed as "a little ingenuity and cleverness"?
D
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeOk, so our mental abilities make us more sophisticated than animals?
What does this tell you? It should tell you that however similar to animals we seem to be, we are in fact much more sophisticated.
Which would you rather be on an African plain, being chased by a leopard? An unarmed gazelle or an unarmed human? My choice would be gazelle as a human has no chance of outrunning a leopard, a gazelle has some.
Do you think it would be right for gazelles to deem themselves "much more sophisticated" than humans because they are stronger in this one area?
The same can be said for fish being able to breath underwater, birds flying, and elephants strength. We are lucky to have our "advanced" mental abilities as we are always having to be inventive to be able to achieve what other species take for granted.
So what is much more sophisticated and why?
D
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by RagnorakHonestly, did you read my original post or just scottishinnz reply to it? I never suggested that this made us "superior" to animals, that was scottishinnz's idea too. The point I made is that humans are different from any other animal and should treat themselves as such.
Ok, so our mental abilities make us more sophisticated than animals?
Which would you rather be on an African plain, being chased by a leopard? An unarmed gazelle or an unarmed human? My choice would be gazelle as a human has no chance of outrunning a leopard, a gazelle has some.
Do you think it would be right for gazelles to deem themselves "much ...[text shortened]... e what other species take for granted.
So what is much more sophisticated and why?
D
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeYes I read it:"If thats the measure of animals then yes, we are animals.
Honestly, did you read my original post or just scottishinnz reply to it? I never suggested that this made us "superior" to animals, that was scottishinnz's idea too. The point I made is that humans are different from any other animal and should treat themselves as such.
However, humans differ from animals in that humans have a soul (the capacity of abstract reasoning, articulate speech etc.). It therefore follows that humans must take care of their souls as well as their bodies and the standard way of doing this is by following a religion. As for evolution, If you prefer to believe that you are descended from a flatworm then that is simply your folly."
I had no way to address the points of view included, as you seem to be on a completely different plain of logical thinking to me. I don't practise a religion. Does that make me more of an animal than you?
Of course we're different, just like a chimpanzee is different to a orangutan. But which is superior, the chimp or the orangutan? Why do you think humans are superior, and why do you treat other animal's abilities with disdain?
D
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by RagnorakYou don't practise religion? What about your atheism? That takes a lot more faith than any other religion. Not practising religion does not make you an animal, it simply proves your neglect of your responsibilities as a human. I don't treat animals with disdain, I simply find it ridiculous to believe humans evolved from single cells, how did this happen and how did the cells gain life in the first place? These are questions no atheist can answer to a satisfactory degree.
Yes I read it:"If thats the measure of animals then yes, we are animals.
However, humans differ from animals in that humans have a soul (the capacity of abstract reasoning, articulate speech etc.). It therefore follows that humans must take care of their souls as well as their bodies and the standard way of doing this is by following a religion. As for evo ...[text shortened]... think humans are superior, and why do you treat other animal's abilities with disdain?
D
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeYou have absolutely no knowledge of the theory of evolution and yet you see fit to criticise it at every turn. You make undefendable claims about the existence of god and then accuse others of acting in such a reprehensible way. You think atheism requires faith. You say ridiculously illogical things like this "If God did not exist the world could not exist so no, goodness and badness could not exist." and that the bible claims the Pope is the antichrist. In short, you are deluded and uneducated and people like you are a serious threat to the safety, both academic and physical, of future generations.
I think you have missed the point. These things do not present any evidence of abstract reasoning, simply a little ingenuity and cleverness.
Implying that if animals had correctly positioned thumbs they would then be able to advance to similar levels of civilisation as humans is ridiculous, you seem to have no shame in making these undefendable statements, I am astonished.
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by StarrmanYou say I'm deluded and uneducated for using my opinions to support my arguments. Maybe so. But you used your own opinion, presuposition that I was wrong, to support your own very argument! Does this mean you confess to being deluded and uneducated yourself, or are you simply contradicting yourself?
You have absolutely no knowledge of the theory of evolution and yet you see fit to criticise it at every turn. You make undefendable claims about the existence of god and then accuse others of acting in such a reprehensible way. You think atheism requires faith. You say ridiculously illogical things like this [i]"If God did not exist the world could not e ...[text shortened]... ike you are a serious threat to the safety, both academic and physical, of future generations.
03 Mar 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeYou see, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not making an argument here, merely expressing my opinion. I was making no presuppositional inference whatsoever. I have observed you posts and am acting in reply to them, I wonder if you even know what presuppositional means. Whilst I may not believe in god, I make it an ongoing process to educate myself about theism, for two reasons. Fristly, to continually challenge my views and secondarily so that I have some idea of what I'm talking about when I discuss them here. You however see fit to slate complicated scientific theories on the grounds that basically, because you don't have any comprehension of how they could work, they must be wrong.
You say I'm deluded and uneducated for using my opinions to support my arguments. Maybe so. But you used your own opinion, presuposition that I was wrong, to support your own very argument! Does this mean you confess to being deluded and uneducated yourself, or are you simply contradicting yourself?