[Stormsmith]

Language, math and communication has served us well. The more we have been able to communicate with a broad number of people, the more we have increased our skill sets. Consider the old world, Europe Asia and Africa to the new world N and S America, Australia. Stone architecture and cosmology was well developed in early societies, but it was in the old world where vast amounts of information were broadly exchanged, from Roman concrete to Chinese gun powder to the printing press. This exchange was facilitated because the old world had something the new world did not: horses. knowledge was exported with tradable goods.

It hard to say that our opposible thumbs were indispensible in our development, because its hard to find a thumbless society and see how it developed, but we can look at the effects of communication.

I'm not sure if we are all that superior to other animals, or just lucky enough to have the right configuration to do what we do, and because these activities or achievements are important to us both individually or collectively, we regard them as successes that make us superior to beasties. But isn't it interesting how often we instuct our children to 'look within' for what is important: compassion, non-judgemental love, faithfulness etc.

I think most of us think our family pets trump us every time.

This is incorrect or perhaps entirely misleading. Second stage-tool making (and anything beyond) is limited to man.

define second stage tool making, svp.

Not every creature has language. The only creature that seems to have developed remnants of syntactical structure are whales - but even those who admit there is some organization in whale songs admit it is far inferior to the syntactical complexity of human language.

Language is having the ability to communicate. It doesn't have to be through the spoken word (ASL?). If you study a species long enough, you'll see that most social animals- by which I mean a species that lives collectively, from a congress of baboons to a herd of horses, have the ability to communicate through fixed behaviours rather than through spoken language/symbol manipulation.

Human language is, perhaps, the definitive demarcation between animals and humans. Thus, it is not that our language is written, it is that our language has a complex hierarchy of syntactical organization that is not seen elsewhere.

Well, lets be clear here.... Only man and parrots have the necessary throat structures that allow for complex sounds. It's pretty hard to correct a dog's grammar when he's telling me that he needs to go outside, but he gets the message through, loud and clear. Not being able to speak is not the same as not being able to communicate a concept, or to use language. Primates have been taught to use sign language. Pigs and primates and dolphins and parrots are thought to be among the brighter lights because they demonstrate the ability to solve complex problems with touch-screen computers


lastly, some one said animals don't create art. There are animals that create art, and I think one example was an elephant. Anyway, every time I wear a white shirt down to the stables, some hairy great joker wipes his mucky mouth on me. A random mess, or the equine equivalent to a Jackson Pollard? who's to say

[Vera Politica]

Nothing your talking about lifts humans out of an animal category.

But it does. The category I have added is the inability to explain human activity by recourse to the physical/biological sciences only - which is generally true of animals. It is also in addition to the ones I enumerated earlier in this thread.

define second stage tool making, svp.

In general, the ability to construct tools from other tools.

Language is having the ability to communicate.

Absolutely false. A grunt is a form of communication but it is not a language since it does not have any syntactical structure. Language is a system for codifying information. Linguists distinguish between 'language' and 'animal communication'. Only humans have language.

It's pretty hard to correct a dog's grammar

A dog does not have grammar. It does not have language. It can communicate, but not by using language.

Primates have been taught to use sign language.

But they cannot be taught the syntactical structures of sign language. Thus, they are only able to communicate through repetition and association, not by language.

[Suska]

my proposition stands; people are categorically animal lifeforms, although we do things differently we do the same things and however strongly you draw the line between our ability to organize and employ abstractions and what animals do, everything significant to us has an obvious corollary among animals. We have sex - they have sex, we eat - they eat, we socialize - they socialize. And this covers an enormous range of critically important things to us and outside things that are easy to relate to animals are paltry superficial things, we go to movies - they howl at the moon, we drink tea - they drink water, we read love poems - they have pretty feathers. Beyond the important things is beyond the context of nature, but there isn't anything really there. Everything we do extends out of the roots of nature. The main difference is we handle for ourselves some of the things animals rely on natural selection to deal with.

[Potemkin]

Beyond the important things is beyond the context of nature, but there isn't anything really there. Everything we do extends out of the roots of nature. The main difference is we handle for ourselves some of the things animals rely on natural selection to deal with.

I have to agree with Vera Politica on this one. The possession and use of abstract symbolic language constitutes a qualitative difference between humans and other animals, not merely a difference of degree. We are indeed animals, but a very special kind of animal, one without precedent in evolutionary history.

[Suska]

We are indeed animals

Then you're not agreeing with Vera actually, unless I've misunderstood him.

[Potemkin]

I believe you've misunderstood him. I believe he is asserting that we are indeed animals, but that we are a rather unique kind of animal, one which is qualitatively different from all other animals. What makes us unique among the animal kingdom is our possession and use of abstract symbolic language. I might also add that this abstract symbolic language is probably also the basis of our uniquely heightened sense of subjectivity. Certainly, Lacan believed that the human mind only splits into the conscious and the unconscious due to the development of language in early infancy. Without such a split, according to Lacan, there can be no subjectivity. As Lacan put it, "My teaching is language, and nothing else."

[Suska]

Chomsky has a pretty convincing argument that language, at least Grammar, is heritable. I don't have any problem with "people are different" - obviously - but its easier to understand why people do what they do by observing animals and children than buying into vain obfuscations like splitting consciousness and symbolic language. We don't have a unique sense of subjectivity, we have a uniquely inflated sense of self importance.

As for Vera's opinion the record is fairly clear

...not substantially different than what other animals want

I'm not sure I agree with this.

We are most meaningfully similar to animals, especially mammals, advantages don't change motives.

[Vera Politica]

I believe he is asserting that we are indeed animals, but that we are a rather unique kind of animal, one which is qualitatively different from all other animals.

This. I think this qualitative difference makes our biological classification (which is biologically correct) entirely misleading. It also obfuscates the tremendous gap between humans and animals, in general. I am not sure whether this difference should lend itself to a separate biological classification - as this would probably not suit the discipline in any pragmatic sense - but it certainly does mark the unique distinction between humans and all other species in the 'animal kingdom'.

We are most meaningfully similar to animals, especially mammals, advantages don't change motives.

I still take issue with this statement - it denies a very peculiar feature of humanity: that it constructs socio-historically specific needs. The ability to construct languages, however, is not merely an advantage, and as Potemkin mentioned it is has no precedent in evolutionary history. It would be unwise to dismiss its importance.

[Suska]

That's a fairly weighted statement, but I still think that because socio-historical needs ultimately serve biological necessities that its misleading to suggest we are a new order altogether. I mean if you had to put it simply and you tell people that they are primarily different than animals you're basically instructing them to serve some alpha-politician they will never meet in a pack made up mostly of strangers who might even have bad intentions about you. Its how modernity has destroyed loyalty and the concept of utility, by co-opting them for ever more abstract and personally counter-productive goals. If we are natural creatures on the other hand we are accountable to our family and neighbors and how we feel is how we know how we're doing. I would further suggest that socio-historical needs are generally exploitations of nature, by which I mean scams like Naziism and Bolshevism where the idea - however well meaning ultimately results in a few people treating a lot of people like livestock, the more sophisticated methods merely disguise this well, and the way a person can know they are being scammed is very easy and natural - common sense really.

[Vera Politica]

but I still think that because socio-historical needs ultimately serve biological necessities

But they do not. It is not very clear how the needs to reproduce the relations of production in say, a capitalist system, are reducible to any biological necessity. In many respects they are not - this is why social science is irreducible to biology. If our sociohistorical necessities could be reduced to biological necessity, then the whole social scientific discipline would be superfluous.

[Suska]

delete please

[Suska]

Scientific endeavors are social, scientific theories too and society is natural - a specialization of something acutely human, but even cats reason and cooperate to some degree, and everyone will look for a niche in which their particular feathers are considered pretty. Yes, the contents of our scientific theories are on the superfluous side, its a specialization of storytelling if it isn't an engineering exercise with which we make bombs, drugs and sex-toys and scientists tell us we're special because we finally understand what's going on behind the stars, other people just get their dates drunk and talk about tv shows. The highest quality of life is the best conditions for an animal etc etc.

[Plaro]

What separates animals from humans?

Perhaps, the fact that some of us (humans) can ask the questions what, when, where, why and how.

And I agree with

I have to agree with Vera Politica on this one. The possession and use of abstract symbolic language constitutes a qualitative difference between humans and other animals, not merely a difference of degree. We are indeed animals, but a very special kind of animal, one without precedent in evolutionary history.

Vera good job.

[Suska]

Far as I'm concerned that falls under the category of a uniquely inflated sense of self importance and a mistake. But whatever...

[Quercus Robur]

I doubt that there is any fundamental qualitative difference between different forms of life.

And if he is an animal, what is it that makes man so dominant even against creatures which are superior in physique?

I really don't know what superior physique has to do with anything. Maybe OP means what makes man top predator? Or more accurately (as man isn't straightforwardly a predator like a wolf) what makes man the creature most able to control its environment. The answer to that lies in our greater brain power. Most advanced animals (mammals/birds only?) can only imitate / differentiate between themselves and others- the world is experienced as a whole. The most intelligent animals have only a limited ability to conceive of objects as elements that lie in a relationship with other elements which is something we have in abundance.

Is it fair to consider man 'above' animals, or is man merely 'different?

While this is of course the case from the point of view of humans the only meaty point of view is an external one. I think that it is possible to consider that man is above animals because if they possessed our ability to influence their environment they would rival man for existence in its environment. As there is no environment which we cannot use or pollute then its fair to say that we are above all animals from the point of view of life. A fairly reasonable sparrow would definitely be of the same opinion

Side note:
The difference between humans and some animals is far less than between some animals and other animals (compare ape vs human to ape vs plankton ) so it is a bit misleading to talk about the difference between humans and animals.

[Vera Politica]

I doubt that there is any fundamental qualitative difference between different forms of life.

As we've been discussing in this thread: language is a fundamental, qualitative difference between humans and animals.

[Quercus Robur]

thanks for the reply. To trace what I said on to the language thing:

The use of language, especially formal language, is the most indicative distinction between human and animals: formal logic, mathematics, physics, biology, etc. The fact that human beings can create a formal syntax for abstract languages (like logic or mathematics) shows a quantum leap between humans and animals.

...
Not every creature has language. The only creature that seems to have developed remnants of syntactical structure are whales - but even those who admit there is some organization in whale songs admit it is far inferior to the syntactical complexity of human language. Human language is, perhaps, the definitive demarcation between animals and humans. Thus, it is not that our language is written, it is that our language has a complex hierarchy of syntactical organization that is not seen elsewhere. Surely, the complexity of mathematical language is not just a reflection on the fact that it is written but, rather, a reflection on its unique complexity that reflects a very sophisticated syntactical structure in human language.

well I disagree that this is a fundamental qualitative difference as the whales are only doing something less that we do a lot more of. For us to do something utterly different surely there'd have to be no relationship between them. Another example is maths- not knowing much about maths I'm still fairly sure that it all boils down to abstract relations between elements; don't certain animals engage in a very protean sort of maths when they appreciate that the objects they perceive have elements?

The difference between humans and animals is so evident I am not sure, outside of liberalism and environmental philosophy, why it is even an issue

I suppose the issue touches on a number of interesting things I quite like the way it asks us to step outside a human perspective. It's a ticklish sort of question because I know that there is a fundamental difference without their being (I think) any logical basis for it. The logical answer is wrong.

[Vera Politica]

well I disagree that this is a fundamental qualitative difference as the whales are only doing something less that we do a lot more of. For us to do something utterly different surely there'd have to be no relationship between them. Another example is maths- not knowing much about maths I'm still fairly sure that it all boils down to abstract relations between elements; don't certain animals engage in a very protean sort of maths when they appreciate that the objects they perceive have elements?

The issue of whale songs is very problematic with no consensus (from what I know). It is not clear that they signify any syntactic complexity and I assume that arguments for either side are informed by ideological considerations as the data isn't definitive. There is also no evidence (that I know of) that whale songs are laboriously learned and expanded on, nor any indication that whales can make use of any abstract symbolization. Human language is exemplified by our ability for abstract expression and symbolization which is typified in the very complex syntactical structures we've produced: mathematics, physics, biology, etc.

The issue of the foundations of mathematics is a grand issue in the philosophy of mathematics and being sure that it reduces to mere formal symbols between particulars is a grandiose assumption without merit. It is also not clear that animals form any distinct abstraction that would allow something even remotely similar to mathematics.

I suppose the issue touches on a number of interesting things I quite like the way it asks us to step outside a human perspective. It's a ticklish sort of question because I know that there is a fundamental difference without their being (I think) any logical basis for it. The logical answer is wrong.

One need not assume that humans are merely animals in order to 'step outside the human perspective'. Our very ability to abstract allows us to do this all the time. Sadly, many do not realize what gets lost and what remains when abstracting from one level of particularity to another.

I am also unsure what you mean with the latter part of your statement. A fundamental difference between what? A logical basis for? What logical answer is wrong?

[Quercus Robur]

thanks again

It is also not clear that animals form any distinct abstraction that would allow something even remotely similar to mathematics.

This is all getting beyond what I can (with merit) talk about. I think my main response to this talk about "symbols" "abstraction" and such is that while they are unique to us they are composed of other elements which are rather more basic and would be familiar to some animals. It stands to reason that a symbol represents something. What is that something? Usually an idea. What is an idea? (tricky) A reasonable definition would be a being's appreciation of an object. Our ability to use symbols allows us to appreciate millions of objects compared to the small range animals are capable of, but isn't this still a quantitative difference? That they would not go on to mathematics is just to restate that they cannot process millions of ideas and have no method (symbols) to do so as they do not have the brain power.

I am also unsure what you mean with the latter part of your statement. A fundamental difference between what? A logical basis for? What logical answer is wrong?

All referring to the OP's question - is there a difference between animals and humans. The logical answer (from my reasoning) being that there is no qualitative difference. I mean to say that this is wrong in some non-logical sense of the word.

[Potemkin]

It stands to reason that a symbol represents something. What is that something? Usually an idea. What is an idea? (tricky) A reasonable definition would be a being's appreciation of an object.

Not quite. Let us take Newton's laws of motion as an example. Newton's 2nd law of motion can be written as the equation F=ma. What does this mean? In writing that equation, we are writing down signifiers which represent abstract universal concepts (force, mass, acceleration) which are placed in a certain fixed structural relationship with each other (force is equivalent to mass multiplied by acceleration). In order to comprehend Newton's 2nd law of motion, we need to be able to do two things: derive abstract universal concepts from our raw sensory data, and then place those abstract universal concepts (in the form of signifiers) in a definite structural relationship with each other. Almost all humans can do this without too much difficulty, but there is no evidence that any non-human animal can do either of those things.

Our ability to use symbols allows us to appreciate millions of objects compared to the small range animals are capable of, but isn't this still a quantitative difference? That they would not go on to mathematics is just to restate that they cannot process millions of ideas and have no method (symbols) to do so as they do not have the brain power.

You don't need to process millions of ideas in order to have abstract symbolic thought; indeed, we use abstract symbolic thought precisely so that we don't have to process millions of ideas. It's a short-cut which enables us to gain a deep understanding of our environment without having to overwhelm our brains with data or computational processing of that data. It is this step which represents a qualitative difference between humans and non-human animals. It is, in fact, unprecedented in evolutionary history.