What makes us human?

[Witalian]

Separate from the animal kingdom? :|

I don't mean it biologicaly. I thought this was clear by the very fact that this is in the philosophy forum.

 

[Zylstra]

The only thimg that truly saparates us from other animals is thechnology.

How advanced need it be?

 

[Witalian]

How advanced need it be?

I already said that. No other animal is improveing their tools and no other animal is leading a lifestile that depends on the use of tools. That means - a simple stone hammer is just advanced enough.

Exept our pets. they are dependant on our tools because they depend on us. And now as I think of it, no other animal has addopted and selected other animals.

 

[Marcus]

And now as I think of it, no other animal has addopted and selected other animals.

Yes they have. There are plenty of symbiotic relationships out there, including one where a species of ant essentially keeps "herds" of a species of aphids (IIRC) which they defend and "milk".

 

[Witalian]

Yes they have. There are plenty of symbiotic relationships out there, including one where a species of ant essentially keeps "herds" of a species of aphids (IIRC) which they defend and "milk".

Symbiotic relationship is different. The bacteria in our digestive tract is in symbiotic relationship with us, but that does not mean that they have addopted us, or we them. So is the fungi on the roots of some plants. The fungi dissolves minerals that the plant can not, and the plant provides the fungi with finised organic food.
The ants and the aphids are better example of addoption, however they just "milk" and protect them whenever they find them. That is to say they just take advantege of them the same way a fly takes advantage of a corpse. They don't breed them and surtenly they don't select them. And they don't hold them as pets.
I should say however that we addopted other animals in the first place for exactly the same reason- to take advantege of them, and we have only recently started to hold pets because some of us live in surplus.
So I am stll holding my position that there is nothing unique about us, that is not seen in other animals.

 

[ninja_lord666]

It seems you're trying to define 'human' in a way that makes us fit instead of simple acknowledging that we are human because it is the designation we give ourselves and then seeking to discern what all members of our species have in common that might set them apart from other species.

Exactly, starting with a preconceived notion that we are different and then forming 'explanations' to reason out why. That's reversed logic, and that's wrong.

@ Witalian:

Symbiotic relationship is different.

How? The relationship between pets and us is symbiotic, too. We protect them, feed them, shelter them, and they amuse us.

No other animal is improveing their tools and no other animal is leading a lifestile that depends on the use of tools.

The first part is mostly true, but there are several animals that do depend on tools, like the chimps. A large part of their food source is bugs that they 'fish out' of logs with a stick. There's also another animal that depends on tools. I forget exactly which one (I want to say otter?), but they use rocks to break open clamshells which constitute almost their entire diet.

The only thimg that truly saparates us from other animals is thechnology.

So, if aliens came to Earth, they'd be human, too, despite the fact that they'd be completely different, biologically speaking? Technology is not unique to us; we were just the first ones to discover it on this planet. Also, the tools that other animals use are technically considered technology, simple technology, but technology all the same.

This begs the question how complex exactly do you need your society and language to be, to clasify it as something separate of the animal kingdom.

This question makes no logical sense. We will never be separate from the animal kingdom. We are, and always will be, animals (unless our technology advances so far that we transfer our consciousness into computers and become a race of machines, but that's a discussion for another thread).

 

[Witalian]

How? The relationship between pets and us is symbiotic, too. We protect them, feed them, shelter them, and they amuse us.

No, it's not symbiotic. They depend on us, but We can survive without them.
With that logic you can say that computers are in symbiotic relationship with us, they depend on us, and they amuse us.

The first part is mostly true, but there are several animals that do depend on tools, like the chimps. A large part of their food source is bugs that they 'fish out' of logs with a stick. There's also another animal that depends on tools. I forget exactly which one (I want to say otter?), but they use rocks to break open clamshells which constitute almost their entire diet.

Crows sometimes use tools, but they can survive without them. Abouth the chimps, I think they can also survive without tools, but I'm not too shure so I'll grant you that.

So, if aliens came to Earth, they'd be human, too

No, they will be different from the other animals too.

This question makes no logical sense. We will never be separate from the animal kingdom. We are, and always will be, animals (unless our technology advances so far that we transfer our consciousness into computers and become a race of machines, but that's a discussion for another thread).

I allready replyed to that. I didn't mean that we are not animals in the bilogical sence. I was just looking for a different way to say "different from other animals" as this is what this thread is abouth. I obvously made a poor choice of words, but that's about it. There's no logical incosistency there.

 

[ninja_lord666]

Dependence is not a requirement of symbiosis. Let's look back at the ant/aphid relationship that was mentioned earlier. Yes, the aphid rely on the ants for protection against predators like ladybugs, but the ants don't depend on the aphids. They don't need the 'milk' that the aphids produce; they just like it. There are also some fish in the ocean who live in symbiotic relationships: they eat the bits of food stuck in the teeth of other fish. The former gets food (dependence) while the latter gets a nice smile (definitely not dependence). A symbiotic relationship occurs when both parties benefit, not when both parties depend on the other.

 

[Witalian]

Dependence is not a requirement of symbiosis. Let's look back at the ant/aphid relationship that was mentioned earlier.

You are right that symbiosis does not requore dependance. It could be obligate or facultative. However symbiosis discribes a very specific kind of interaction. It does not need to be beneficial for both organisms, so if we don't specify the definoition furder, then even predation will be included.
Symbiosis comes in two types Ectosymbiosis - when one symbiot lives on the surface of the other, and Endosymbiosis - when one simbiot lives within the tissues of the other.
So if they are not in constant phisical contact, it is not symbiosis. That exculdes us and our pets, and the ant/aphid relationship.

With plants and fungi, theres ectosymbiosis, and with humans and bacteria theres endosymbiosis. With animals and parasites it could be both ways.

 

[Ictinike]

The only thimg that truly saparates us from other animals is thechnology.

I hate the word "human" unless it's used in taxonomy. Most people present the word like it's the tipy top of a "who's better in nature" pyramid. Like the entire rest of the animal kingdom has aspirations of becoming more human. Gag. Couple shiny tech toys and a road or two and we think we're the best species on the planet.

We don't even come close to outperforming an ant colony in too many important respects. "But we're so smart!" Yes, yes we are. But that doesn't mean we're the most intelligent. (How you measure or value intelligence means a lot here)

So my idea of what makes us human? Arrogance + Ignorance = Human

 

[Witalian]

I hate the word "human" unless it's used in taxonomy. Most people present the word like it's the tipy top of a "who's better in nature" pyramid. Like the entire rest of the animal kingdom has aspirations of becoming more human.

Wether they want or don't want to be more human-like, doesn't mean that it wouldn't be better for them to be.
And even if it isn't good for them, that doesn't mean that we are not the top of the "who's better" pyramid.
Haveing supperior inteligence does not make us unique, but the fact that we are not unique does not mean that we are not the most inteligent speacies. Even with all the fucktard creationists around.
And since we are not unique, I would argue that arrogance and ignorance are not intrinsicly human atributes. I am pretty shure that if ants could comunicate with us, and comperhand complex concepts, thay would be allmost 100% creationists. It is in their instincts to blindly obey authority. If some other species manage to combine relativity and quantum mechanics before us, then I will admit that we are not the smartest, but you and me know that this is not going to happen.

And in wich exctly aspect do ants outperform us?
We can colonise all enviorments on earth. All species of ants combined can't . And in the future we may be able to even colonise other planets. No other current animal can do that in any forseeble future unles we take them with us.

And if we compare total biomass, please do not compare one species of humans against 1000+ species of insects.
Being the best does not make us perfect or unique, but we are still the best.

 

[ninja_lord666]

"We are the best?" :lol: There's that arrogance! We are far from being the best. As Ictinike said, ants outperform us, and they're just one example of many. How, you ask? One ant colony is far more productive than any human city. The ants work at near perfect levels of efficiency. In fact, due to that efficiency, it would be wrong to even consider ants as individuals. They are a colony, not a colony of ants. They almost act as one mind, one being. That's somethings humans have never grasped. We bicker; we argue; we're extremely lazy. You look at any working environment and we humans are struggling with even the most basic levels of synergy. Also, you know what? They perfected construction when we were still hiding in caves. Ants are our superior in many ways. The only reason we're still around is because of our technology. Without it, we couldn't survive. You take an average human, strip him completely naked and leave him in the middle of nowhere, and he's as good as dead.

 

[Witalian]

"We are the best?" :lol: There's that arrogance!

Arrogant - yes, true - double yes.
If they are so prodictive, then what actualy do they produce? Obviously more ants, but the last time I checked, we were pretty good in overcrowding the world as well.

"Ants are everywhere on earth. When combined, all ants in the world
weigh about as much as all humans (H lldobler & Wilson 1994)...

More than 12,000 species are currently known

So : 1 species of humans almost equal in total biomass to 12 000 species of ants. No ants in antarctica, grenland, iceland, and the moon. I would say we outperform them in the only thing they are good at.

The only reason we're still around is because of our technology.

Oh thank God that he, in his infinite wisdom gave us technology, for our inferior and arrogant brains are incapable of inventing it on their own.

They perfected construction when we were still hiding in caves.

And their construction is still on the same level while we are now bouilding spacecraft.

 

[IrBubble]

You take an average human, strip him completely naked and leave him in the middle of nowhere, and he's as good as dead.

You take an average ant and leave him in the middle of nowhere I doubt he's going home any time soon either.

 

[Witalian]

Don't get me wrong ninja_lord, I am allso fascinated by ants, but we should allso take credit for our own achievements. I would argue that self pity more counter-productive then arrogance.

And I would allso say that the thing you wrote are supposedly our drawbacks, are actualy our advanteges.

They almost act as one mind, one being. That's somethings humans have never grasped. We bicker; we argue; we're extremely lazy.

We argue because we are capable of holding individual oppinions, and each one of us is capable of engageing in an intelectual pursuit in different directions, and that helps the groth of knowledge. Allso we are not that much succeptable to following authority(athought we are to a great degree) and that also helps the growth of knowledge and allows, chalangeing of established doctrines.
And abouth lazyness, that's by far our greatest advantage. It gaves us a reason to look for better and easier ways to do do a job even when neccesety is not pressing us. Here in Bulgaria we even have a proverb abouth that : Teach a lazy guy to work, and he will teach you to think.
Smart work allways outperforms hard work. That's how we outperformed the ants.

 

[ninja_lord666]

Who says I'm preaching self-pity? I'm just saying that arrogance is bad. Isn't connecting the two a little fallacious? If we ain't arrogant, we must just hate ourselves! That's creationist logic. Also, since when has arrogance ever been a virtue? Arrogance halts advancement. If we think we're the best thing to ever exist, we have no reason to get better.

Ah, yes, I must have forgotten how great fighting is! I mean, war is always wonderful! We can be individuals without fighting. We don't have to agree with each other, but we don't have to fight about it. There is such a thing as rational discussion and debate.
No, laziness doesn't aid progress. Why are we still using fossil fuels? We're too lazy to bother developing better energy sources. "Don't fix what isn't broken." That's the motto of laziness.

What? You seriously expect ants to grow and develop? They aren't sentient; they barely even have a brain. Yet, despite this, they have been very successful. We, in all our glory and intelligence, are just barely as populous as them. Oh, sorry, not population, weight. Seeing as how the average human weights about 4.3 million times that of an ant, I think it's pretty safe to say that there are more of them, even if we factor in the 12,000 species. We haven't outperformed them; we're just bigger than them.

Also, if ants are so inferior to us, then why do we look to them to solve our computational problems? (Ant colony optimization) This whole "working as a team" thing doesn't seem like such a bad idea, does it?

 

[borrofburi]

What makes us separate from animals?

Nothing really.

The only thing that separates us is that we got better at higher levels of thinking faster than they did. Also we had opposable thumbs so we could take advantage of this thinking ability. That's not a terribly great difference though, and honestly we're still not terribly good at thinking anyway.

We are human because we designate ourselves as such, we are different from animals not in any specific ability but only in the depth of those abilities. And even that is mostly driven by the bell-cruve-breakers such as Newton.

Exactly, starting with a preconceived notion that we are different and then forming 'explanations' to reason out why. That's reversed logic, and that's wrong.

Also, This.

 

[IrBubble]

Also, if ants are so inferior to us, then why do we look to them to solve our computational problems? (Ant colony optimization) This whole "working as a team" thing doesn't seem like such a bad idea, does it?

Clearly, applying something that works on animals with practically no brain to humans would seem rather odd.

And saying that we're looking at ants to solve our computational problems is clearly misleading in a discussion like this, if ants were so on par, why aren't they building fucking computers? Because we're clearly better than them at this. And when humans have developed tech enough for interstellar travel and we're starting to inhabit the other worlds, will you still claim that we're not the peak of evolution?

The fact of the matter is that we're the only lifeform on earth who have ever built something useful. We're the only lifeform on the earth that has begun to uncover how nature works. Regardless of how perfect cooperation any other lifeform have, the fact of the matter is that we as a race have domesticated pretty much the entire planet. Within a couple of centauries we will be able to synthesize our own atmosphere and create our own nutrition without the help of other life.

Being arrogant is not good, but the fact of the matter is that with the current civilization we have, the only thing that could bring us down is ourselves. (and the spaceduck.)

 

[ninja_lord666]

...the only thing that could bring us down is ourselves.

I'm glad you mentioned that. Could the same be said for other animals? No. In fact, even if you removed the "only" part, the statement wouldn't apply. Sure, we may be the only thing that can take us down, but we are also the only animals who can destroy ourselves. Does that sound 'good?' Does that sound like 'evolutionary peak?' The ability to eradicate your own species, yeah that just screams perfection. Evolution doesn't have a mind, doesn't have a will, but if it did, do you know what it's goal for life would be? Survival. That's what natural selection is all about: survival. Our 'intelligence' has put us in a place where we could exterminate our entire race with the push of a button. We live in fear of ourselves. That is not survival. How can we be the best if we can't even meet the simple requirement that all other lifeforms posses?

 

[IrBubble]

You're simply twisting the terms. I'll just put it this way: We're superior because we can conciously evolve (through technology). We're superior because our survival is very seldomly in question.