Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

A continuation~

Here is a report on a recent study that shows just how similar our brains are to rats and why they're considered "model organisms".

Rats' brains are more like ours than scientists previously thought

{ Neuroscientists face a multitude of challenges in their efforts to better understand the human brain. If not for model organisms such as the rat, they might never know what really goes on inside our heads. }


I also want to point out in advance that even among scientists, taxonomic levels below "species" genuinely do not have a uniform meaning and are used completely differently depending on what kind of scientist you're talking to. This includes "breed", "sub-species", "strain", etc.

Strain is commonly used for viruses/etc but scientists also use it to refer to different "strains" of genetically altered animals, usually strains of mice.

"Breed" and "Sub-Species" are hotly debated. In a lot of species, their "sub-species" aren't even genetically distinct, they instead refer to geographical populations or even simply being named for the scientists that discovered different colors/patterns.


A great example of this are the 39 species of Birds-of-paradise.

While they can be convincingly broken into ~15 separate genera, from there the difference between "sub-species" is geographic and pattern-based.

Visual example for fun because they're so interesting to look at:

genus: Parotia

Western parotia:


Queen Carola's parotia:


Lawes's parotia:


These are three different species on their own, and then they each have ~5 "sub-species" that only differ slightly in color/pattern or geographical range. Why aren't they considered breeds if they're genetically indistinct?


Some people would say that "breed" infers human guided selective breeding, but many consider the term applicable to all species that selectively breed based on their own preferences. The drastic variation in Birds-of-Paradise, all existing on one isolated island, is purely because females of their common ancestor desired different visual traits.



All of that weird ass shit evolved in males because that's what females wanted to see, they selectively bred with the males they found most attractive, not indiscriminately to simply keep the species going.


Slightly derailed myself, but they're interesting little birds.

Because humans are capable of communicating and expressing how they feel verbally on a level like no animal can while also having thumbs, which give us a massive advantage when it comes to grasping things and making things.

Of course, there are other very intelligent animals (Raccoons, Squids, Monkeys, Dolphins, etc) but none of them have all of the right things to make them superior to us or have evolved to the point to which humans have.

Humans also developed civilization and culture to a level that an animal could almost never dream to achieve in a million years.

Humans built the Pyramids, animals build small stick nests. Humans fight with bombs, animals fight with teeth.

But in the end, we humans are still animals.

I was hoping someone would make this thread. I firmly believe that there is nothing setting us apart from animals other than our egotism. Sure we are the best at certain things, but it is our own cultural conditioning that says the qualities we are best at are the same ones that dictate the worth of a species.

Because humans are capable of communicating and expressing how they feel verbally on a level like humans

I don't know if you meant to say that or not but it really gets to the heart of the matter in my opinion. We're the only that fits all the same criteria that we do. All criteria is based on us and what we value and excel at therefore we must be the best.

while also having thumbs which give us a massive advantage when it comes to grasping things and making things

Many other animals have opposable thumbs and even more use tools.

none of them have all of the right things to make them superior to us

Well of course they don't have the qualities that make them superior to us if we decide what is superior and what isn't.

or have evolved to the point to which humans have

Evolution isn't a ladder, it's a tree. The only way you can say something is more or less evolved than something else is if you are comparing backwards or forwards in time. We are no more or less evolved than a raccoon or a lizard or a frog etc.

Humans also developed civilization and culture to a level that an animal could almost never dream to achieve in a million years.

I'm sure lots of species have cultures, they certainly have social structures analogous to our civilizations. It's hardly fair to say that ours are better than theirs when we can't even communicate with them.

Humans built the Pyramids, animals build small stick nests.

Humans fight with bombs, animals fight with teeth.

Eh, with as much self derailing that you did I'm not exactly certain what the topic is, lol.

Yeah, below species, there really isn't consistency much. Breeds usually refers to domesticated animals that were breed specifically for certain traits. While stuff like this has happened in the past at certain times, most differences between people were not due to something that could be consided deliberate selective breeding.

Also, sometimes the physical differences between two separate species is very minor, while physical differences within the same species is huge.

If the topic is really about the title of the topic, it's hard to say. While there are countless things I can say we can do that animals cannot, almost all of these are "cultural things" or things that are taught, which are not truly innate. If a person was alone since birth (and somehow survived into adulthood), while they still have the capacity to learn many things, they would not have the same skills and abilities as a person raised in a society, or even just raised by another person. A snake can survive better than a human from birth when left solely to their own devices. Of course, certain birds cannot sing their mating song unless taught by a parent. Does that diminish the accomplishment of their singing?

Intelligence I would say is what separates us from other animals. Not in the sense that "we are not animals" but you get what I mean.

Of course, this brings up another question. What do we do if and when we are not the only ones with our kind of intelligent around. Be it robots that can think like a person, or uplifted dolphins, or a secret city of intelligent gorillas or aliens that don't look like the Rubber Forehead type?

Is there really enough debate over this subject to warrant a discussion? I'm under the impression that the general consensus is (I'm pulling this out of my ass so forgive the poor phrasing) "people are animals (as we are evolved from animals), but our intelligence and physical characteristics grant us an unparalleled ability to perform complex equations, consider qualities outside our immediate surroundings, invent complex devices, and any other qualitative abilities that are either totally absent from the animal world or are at least much more minor among animals (eg a bird crafting a nest vs humans building the Apollo spacecraft)". If some disagree with such a factual statement as that, I think they're in the minority and their opinions are… 'discardable'.

I understand that OP brought 'breed vs species vs etc' into the topic because it was addressed in the last conversation, but I'm afraid I don't see how it's immediately relevant to the question at hand. So if you could explain that I'd appreciate it. Even if it is irrelevant, I think the bird pictures are nice.

I want to avoid the inevitability of an echo-chamber wherein everyone just posts "humans make bombs, beasts don't", so let's consider another dimension of the question at hand: do you think the true quality that separates man from animal is that human beings have 'souls'? A 'soul' here can have whatever significance you want: religious (eg the Christian conception of a soul), neurological (eg sentience produces a conscious that innately knows right from wrong), artistic (eg 'the soul' = creativity), or whatever you want. If you respond to the question be sure to define what you think a soul is. I myself don't believe in such a thing as a 'soul', but I'm open to any compelling arguments one might have. If you have a strong opinion that humans have 'souls', you might be able to convince me depending on how you define it.

We can talk and engage in trade. Therefore, we can function as a society.

[drops mic]

Yes, it is entirely possible that certain species are just as intelligent as humans, and simply interact with the world and each other and store information on a level of reality that we are naturally incapable of tapping into. It is also possible that we're all just brains in jars, having our entire lives pumped into our neurons by inter-dimensional beings. These are unfalsifiable hypotheses, useless in almost every sense. So unless I see convincing evidence of a non-human animal conducting science, or inventing a useful device wielded henceforth by its decendents (with an understanding of how and why it works), I will continue to assume that we are the "superior" species. Which other has the potential to save life itself from future catastrophes like a massive asteroid impact or the expansion of the Sun. For that matter, which are capable of even conceiving these things?

{ animals build small stick nests }

That is… disturbingly inaccurate.

bower bird's even do interior decorating.

edit: I feel compelled to share this recent Nature documentary now, it's a series on animal homes and the first episode shows an awesome variety of different nests and nest building techniques.

{ expressing how they feel verbally on a level like no animal can while also having thumbs, which give us a massive advantage when it comes to grasping things and making things }

woo girl you mean they can't express verbally how they feel to humans? There's evidence to support and no reason to deny that each species within itself is capable of verbal and non-verbal communication of exactly our level, including the emotions we used to think were so uniquely human.

{ Humans also developed civilization and culture to a level that an animal could almost never dream to achieve in a million years. }

Humans did/are still rapidly depleting the planet's natural resources with no viable means of alternative, causing enough pollution to drastically change local weather and atmosphere, and have even started using space as a garbage bin. Modern humans have existed for 100k years at best, some of the species on this planet have been surviving and coexisting for millions of years before we got here. Why exactly should I be more impressed with humans than I am with crocodiles?

{ Which other has the potential to save life itself from future catastrophes like a massive asteroid impact or the expansion of the Sun. }

Which is far more likely to destroy itself and everything else along with it long before the sun expands? We're not going to last another thousand years at this rate.

Animals have been doing this way before we arrived to the scene bla bla bla monkeys are smarter bla bla bla dolphins are more intelligent
Well, if animals are so smart, how come they can't come up with dank MEMES?
Do animals have memes? Of course they don't, the concept is too complex for such simple minds.

Well it all depends on your definition of what People/Person is.

I believe that people are capable of emotion, deep thinking, introspection, contemplation. Not too many animals fit that criteria. Some do fit it, some come closer to it.

I was expecting something a little different when you said animal rights vs. human rights.
This may be sort of off topic, but I find the types of vegetarians that choose their lifestyle out of principle and not out of necessity a bit egocentric.

I mean they ride in on their all natural organic fed, gluten-free high horses of morality and whip out their smoothies of condescension against meat-eaters. But seriously though, they claim to be on higher moral grounds because they don't eat other animals. Because they empathize with other living creatures and feel bad they decide their lives are valuable like ours. Then there are people like PETA that take it to a whole new level and advocate for animal rights. The whole argument boils down to "don't kill it because it feels pain and it deserves to live".

When the spotlights turns away however, all those life loving sympathizers head home to their gardens. With their carving tools, a vegetarian will manically dismember carrot foliages for their next meal. I guess if it doesn't have a pretty face and no one hears it scream then its OK right?

I think its a pretty crappy self centered argument that animals shouldn't be eaten because they feel pain like us. Why is a life valued more because it has nerve receptors like us. A carrot plant will almost certainly die without its root, but it doesn't feel pain. Why would a plant like a tree need nerve endings?
I believe that equal respect for all life forms is more admirable. And I respect all life forms so much that I'll eat any living thing if I have to (not another human though, I don't respect those creatures as much)…

{ Also the word you’re looking for is not breed, but species }

A species is made up of breeds (where applicable). There's 1 species of modern human but many different breeds.

All animals are capable of contemplation and problem solving. Not all of them can solve complex problems, but all of them are faced with decisions and choices in their daily lives. They don't just wander through the planet with white noise in their heads, they're consciously deciding do I go out and hunt now, do I stay in my home awhile longer, if there's a predator they choose the best course of action. I can't imagine how anyone could possible justify thinking animals aren't capable of contemplation and emotion and logical thought. We don't have a very good method of finding out if animals are capable of introspection, but we know they can learn from their own actions/mistakes and consciously adjust their behavior to avoid repeating them.

This may be sort of off topic, but I find the types of vegetarians that choose their lifestyle out of principle and not out of necessity a bit egocentric.

What if it is the principle of not liking the taste of meat that drives them?

Many philosophers (not scientists, so apply your own biases as you see fit) characterize an animal's mind as a rudimentary form of impulses that are similar to a human's (though clearly lacking in certain respects depending on the species, their neurology, senses, etc), but the essential difference is that humans can transcend such impulses through rationality. Researchers have proved pretty conclusively that animals possess consciousness, cognition, and some ability to differentiate qualia (which is the basis of true sentience, depending on how you define that pernicious word), so it's certainly reasonable to extend that evidence to characterize animals as "thinking"… But let's return to the philosopher's perspective; none of those aspects guarantee that such a creature can form rational thoughts independent of impulses reacting to qualia.

OP says that its obvious animals are capable of contemplation and emotion, which I agree with considering those are qualities of cognition, but let's be careful about the phrase "logical thought". A lot of people fall prey to thinking "logic" simply means "problem-solving" which is false; logic is a specific form of reasoning, a process of considering validity and soundness when attempting to reach a conclusion. I don't think animals are capable of rational thought, nor are they able to apply logic to subjects and reach sound conclusions based on introspection, experience, education, etc. I think animals depend almost solely on reactions to their immediate surroundings, innate psychology that has been evolved into their species over time, and a limited consideration of patterns that is not like rationality or logic (in fact I'm open to the idea that we should stop considering animal's intelligence by human standards). But I can only suppose these things because I don't actually know, nor does anyone actually know for certain, so if you believe otherwise I'd like to hear your side of the debate.

Consider Artificial Intelligence: for a service project in high school I taught kids how to program treaded robots to navigate around obstacles independent of human control. The final challenge was that we went to a basketball court where I was the 'enemy'; the only rule was that the robots had to avoid me as I walked around, picking up any robots that failed to escape me. The robots would all flee based on their perception of a roving object (calculating decisions on where to go and what speed to travel at), and if they were creatures capable of emotion they would probably have expressed fear when they detected me approaching. These robots were not actually possessed of any sensation, as they lacked minds, but they were capable of reacting to their environments and were programmed to 'fear for their lives' in a sense. Before you say anything, I'm not suggesting that animals don't actually possesses emotions or aren't capable of cognition (ie I'm not saying they're unthinking automatons like the kids' robots), but I think it illustrates the difference between an intelligence that is grounded in reactions to it's environment, versus an intelligence like mine that is instantly capable of rational and logical thought (eg would an animal ever even consider whether or not these robots posses minds like theirs?).

Finally, I want to reiterate what I said in my first post and suggest that perhaps 'the soul' is what separates man from animal and machine, depending on any definition of soul we can agree on (I think I've made the argument in this post that perhaps a philosophical conception of the soul is "a mind capable of rational/logical thought").

Thoughts, perspectives, questions, rants, etc anyone?

Maybe I'm being dismissive, but I can't see humans being even remotely equal to animals. Firstly, the word "animal" was created by humans to designate that which is not us. It's true that we are related as fellow organisms, and there are parallels between some human and animal behavior (constructed shelter, tools, verbal communication), but humans have taken these concepts so far that the similarities are barely recognizable. Until we see another species come up with something as clever as written language, theoretical physics, hydroelectric dams, or instantaneous intercontinental communication, we may continue to feel smugly superior to all other life forms on the planet. It ain't bragging if it's true.

Game. Set. Match.

Gonna play Devil's Advocate here (I haven't really figured out my exact stance on this subject yet)

1.) This implies animals can't communicate or "talk" to each other. This is incredibly wrong. In fact there are many examples of animals that can communicate in incredibly intricate and subtle ways we can't even comprehend. Your cats are talking to each other through noises you can't hear and you wouldn't even know it's happening. So they aren't forming what we know as actual words, does that make it any less of an actual language?

2.) I'm not any kind of expert on animals, but I feel this statement that animals don't trade is false. Even if it's true, that doesn't prove very much. Monkeys have been proven to understand the concept of value. If you give one monkey a single grape and the other one a banana, the monkey you gave the grape to will feel cheated and know the other monkey got the better deal. And even if animals don't trade, one could argue if trading is even necessary to be a working society. If your species is living in a habitat that has all the food and resources they could ever need or want, why would they feel the need to trade?

3.) Implying animals don't have their own society? Perhaps you haven't caught the memo, but there are more than enough examples of animals creating their own functioning societies in the good ol' animal kingdom. Lions have prides, wolves have wolf packs, etc. etc. Animals get along just fine making working societies without an ability to "talk" or trade like we do.

Take a look at this thread's title. The existence of the question answers itself. I know this is the Serious Debate section of the forums and we are supposed to carefully consider each other's opinions, but I feel like I could just point out that we are a group of humans in far-flung locales holding a philosophical conversation by way of machines designed to perfectly arrange the invisible building blocks of electricity and go, "Tah-dah!"

@Crimson Locks

but I feel this statement that animals don’t trade is false.

Such a claim is indeed false. Not only does trade between animals occur on its own in nature, but certain non-human animals are also fully capable of working with the human idea of money. An experiment with primates was done where the idea of currency was introduced in a controlled environment; the Capuchin monkeys could trade tokens for food. Certain foods were made cheaper or more expensive than others, and the monkeys responded by obeying economic laws created to model human behaviour to a T. The highlight of the experiment came when one of the monkeys traded tokens for sex, essentially creating the first (observed) monkey prostitute.

(Source)

At the risk of sounding wax poetic I'd argue that the difference is that animals seek to survive whereas humans seek to exist.

Animals are able to form basic communities and other such conventions as Particle Mare's monkey economics show, but that's more the exception to the rule of animals focusing on eating, surviving and breeding for procreation. Animals don't strive for much else outside of those three parameters.

Humans share those parameters but are capable of so much more. Art, science, community on a grander scale. Intellectual thought and developments bereft of baser intentions. We are also capable of discernible morality, able to do great goods as well as great evils. Animals have no such code; a lion doesn't hunt and consume a gazelle out of malice, just to feed itself.

I guess you could say that humans have a "soul" in terms of being capable of comprehension and thought outside of physiological drives, whereas animals are largely incapable of such things. That is what separates us.

animals focusing on eating, surviving and breeding for procreation.

Dolphins get high off puffer fish. As far as I'm concerned, this is indication that they know how to appreciate the finer things in life ;) But jokes aside, my point is that it's not accurate to assert that non-human animals only feel motivation to survive and cannot pursue human-like leisure or recreation.

Also, orangutans have been known to make, and masturbate with, wooden dildos.

Yes, humans have done a lot of amazing things. We created things that no other species could have done. But, in my eyes, we're still just animals. All we did was just take what other animals have done and done it bigger and better. We still run on animal instincts.
We domesticated animals, but it's just another type of symbiosis. We've built buildings that lasted for thousands of years, so have termites. We strategies, communicate, with other members of our species, so do most other pack animal.
Again, in my opinion, we took what other animals have done and just improved it or configured it to our needs and likings. We haven't mastered the sky, land or sea. If we did, we wouldn't die out in those locations. We know more about our lifeless satellite, the moon, that is 238,900 miles away from our own home, than we do about the very oceans that shape the weather, provides us food, and can cause carnage if we don't take care of it.

Humans are special, yes. But, we're still an animal that still works on instincts. We can create art, music, video games, make tv shows, have the internet, etc. But, it's just another way of entertainment. A fucking crow can get the same high of entertainment by rolling off a back of a snow covered car. A dog can play with the members of its own species to learn and entertain itself.
We traded teeth and claws, to rocks and sticks, to swords and arrows, to guns and explosives. Really, that's not much of a feat. All we changed was how we fight and kill one another for territory or for being different.

Look, this is all my opinion. I can keep going, but I hate going into deeper psychology. I'm no expert on these matters. These are just my views.

Millions of humans every single day take part in the endeavor of developing a codified resource of knowledge on the universe and the laws that govern it, which has been expanded and revised generation after generation for thousands of years. Some have done it for pragmatic reasons, but many others simply for the noble goal of discovering truth that will stand the test of time. No matter how many basic elements of cognition other species share with us to some degree, I think it's self-evident that science is something that only we are capable of. I now point back to Arcane's fantastically written post for the beginning of an understanding of why that is.

{ logic is a specific form of reasoning, a process of considering validity and soundness when attempting to reach a conclusion. }

There's a population of dolphins off the east coast of FL who have developed a "mud net" hunting strategy that no other dolphins in the world have exhibited, the pod lines up and one dolphin swims rapidly in a large circle to kick up the substrate which scares the fish into jumping out of the water over the "net" and into the waiting pod's mouths.

Hermit crabs have learned to coax anemones onto their shells to avoid octopus attack, but they don't just abandon them when they outgrow their shells. They gently remove them from the old shell and bring them with to the new shell, that is not only tool use but long-term foresight in the case of a tiny little hermit crab (which is the reason Scrub Jays are considered so intelligent, they consciously plan ahead).

These are not animals simply responding to their environment or basic problem solving, those dolphins developed a never-before-seen hunting method that is superior in efficiency, the hermit crabs developed a mobile defense strategy (while also engaging in "business" as it were, the anemone stays attached to the crab because its meal scraps provide a constant source of food [anemones can move]).

{ suggest that perhaps ‘the soul’ is what separates man from animal and machine }

That's literally the idea that founded religion, you know? We're not animals~ we have souls~ God chose us to prosper over all other animals on the Earth~

You've only made this argument:

{ I think I’ve made the argument in this post that perhaps a philosophical conception of the soul is “a mind capable of rational/logical thought”. }

because you are apparently unaware of the thousands of ways various species use rational and logical thought every day.

{ animals focusing on eating, surviving and breeding for procreation }

That is simply untrue. Very few species breed simply to procreate, if they were then any male and any female of the same species would be fine with each other on sight. It's far more common that a male will need to put on a full display, and in some species offer a dowry, before being allowed to breed. That's selective breeding, a concept we once considered solely human.

{ Until we see another species come up with something as clever as written language, theoretical physics, hydroelectric dams, or instantaneous intercontinental communication, we may continue to feel smugly superior to all other life forms on the planet. }

But how do those things make us superior to the animals that haven't come up with them? Do they help us live longer? Do they help us live more efficiently? Have they contributed to the decay of the natural resources we all depend on to survive on this planet? Is human invention greater than animal existence if it carries so many weighty consequences? Nobody is going to blame deer if pesticides render bees extinct.

{ Animals have no such code; a lion doesn’t hunt and consume a gazelle out of malice, just to feed itself. }

What about sharks/large predatory fish that come into the reefs "cleaning stations" where they literally line up and let smaller fish clean them without preying on any of them or the medium-sized fish being cleaned themselves? Is their silent agreement of this no-kill zone not an example of a moral code? The same in breeding season among animals whose testosterone levels surge and they become violently crazy, even they manage not to seriously injure or kill any of their rivals. They have a silent agreement that dominance can be solved without death. These seem to be great examples of universal ethics.

{ I think it’s self-evident that science is something that only we are capable of. }

Untrue. There are species that have developed biological warfare we can't even dream of (mind control, body takeover). There are many species of meteorologist far more accurate than our TV weathermen with all their shiny tools and sensors. There are even scientific processes we use now that can only be done through the aid of some bacteria/microscopic organism, we haven't been able to come up with an artificial process as efficient. They're not using science to build computers, but they are certainly using science.

I'm sort of at a crossroads with this

Yes, Humans vastly superior intelligence, technology and Social structure do put us above all other animals on the planet, however, the idea that this somehow makes up separate from them and above nature itself is ridiculous. Yes, we are the most advanced animals on Earth, that doesn't mean we aren't still animals still affected by emotion, instinct, and primal desires.

Tchefuncte Bonaparte wrote:

We’re the only that fits all the same criteria that we do. All criteria is based on us and what we value and excel at therefore we must be the best.

Criteria like what? Intelligence? Social structure? Civilization? Is there some other criteria by which to measure a species' accomplishments or abilities? Can you think of another criteria? If so, what criteria do you propose that would put other animals even close to the same level as humanity?

Many other animals have opposable thumbs and even more use tools.

Are you really going to try to compare that to what humankind has accomplished with its tools? Just look at how far humanity has advanced within the last 150 years! We've gone from slow, clunky steam engines and gramophones to bullet trains, microchips, and wireless communication spanning the entire globe! What other animal has accomplished that?

I’m sure lots of species have cultures, they certainly have social structures analogous to our civilizations. It’s hardly fair to say that ours are better than theirs when we can’t even communicate with them.

And how have these social structures advanced compared to ours in the last one thousand years? The last one hundred thousand? Again, just take a look at how far we've come within the last one hundred years.

While some animal structures are simple stick nests, others are much more complex.

I'll agree with you there that animals that build complex structures. It really is quite fascinating to observe the varying structures that animals will produce in order to survive. But how much have those structures advanced within the last one thousand years? Humans have gone from stone buildings to massive steel skyscrapers in less than a century (I am, of course, ignoring the occasional architectural marvel, such as the Roman Colosseum, which was built, as I'm sure you know, by humans).

lisalombs wrote:

Humans did/are still rapidly depleting the planet’s natural resources with no viable means of alternative, causing enough pollution to drastically change local weather and atmosphere, and have even started using space as a garbage bin. Modern humans have existed for 100k years at best, some of the species on this planet have been surviving and coexisting for millions of years before we got here. Why exactly should I be more impressed with humans than I am with crocodiles?

I knew this would come up eventually. You can't have human vs. animals without someone bringing up just how horrible humans toward the environment. Let me just say that I think humans are more intelligent/more complex than other animals. I never said we weren't stupid.

However, do you really think animals are better than humans just because they haven't done what we have? Do you think that other animals wouldn't do what we have done if they were given the same tools and intelligence that we have? The only reason we realize the extent of what we've done is because we have hindsight on our actions. Do you think other animals, lacking that hindsight, would manage to avoid the environmental destruction we have caused? Do you think animals are just inherently better because they've lacked the ability to produce industrial materials and weapons and all of the other things we've done? Do you think they actually chose to avoid destroying the environment, and do you think that lack of a choice makes animals somehow morally superior to us?

Animals did not choose to be in their current ecosystems. The only reason animals have not caused environmental destruction is because they are where it is natural for them to be. Nature balances itself out. One could argue that humankind has broken the boundaries of nature, and whether that is a positive feat or a negative feat, it is a feat nonetheless. You can say that there is really nothing to differentiate between humans and other animals, and that it's all just subjective, but that's only if you ignore everything we've accomplished, both good and bad.

Also, I don't consider "they got here first" to be a convincing argument for animals being equal to/superior to humans.

So yes, while humans are technically animals, our complexity and our accomplishments place us on a plane higher than any other living creature on this planet.

No it wasn't… you're making things up. Animalia is 1 of the 5 kingdoms of life that contains multicellular eukaryotes that ingest their food (Biology, Campbell & Reece). By definition humans are animals. And you're also making up "the similarities are barely recognizable". In fact if you take a muscle tissue sample from a horse and a human and look at them under a microscope you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the cells unless you were an expert because they both use eukaryote cells as the fundamental unit of life. Not to mention that we share at least 90% of our genetic blueprint with monkeys. So how can you possibly say the similarities are "barely recognizable"? That's crazy.

You are making the same argument as the vegetarians that I mentioned in my previous post. You (and other people) are choosing cognitive thinking as the sole criterion of superiority and compare every other life form to that criterion. "If they don't have what we have they are sub par." What about what they have that we don't have? Well let me tell you that different organisms have different mechanics for success in life.

Plants can make their own food and are masters of chemistry so they can live well without our presence, yet we need plants to live. Electric rays can generate a current of 30 A and up to 200V. There are species of lobster than can sense magnetic fields to navigate. Our bodies can't do any of that so why is that we don't base superiority on those talents? Is it because having a big brain is better? Maybe. But the organisms I mentioned have been around for a much longer time than us and they are doing fine so why would they want a big brain? I mean they aren't interested in using tools; they have armor or venom that can make a grown man drop to his knees in a matter of minutes. They're not interested in written language because they have no hands to write with. The examples that you use are qualities or objects that only benefit us so what use is it to hold it against them?

We are at the top of the food chain so you can say we are superior in that regard, but I would never say that we are objectively superior as a species because of what we have because what we have isn't the only way to live.

I do think that stuff is fascinating Lisa, and is evidence of something that I and other users here are in total agreement with you on- there are other species that, to some degree, share elements of thought in common with humans.
That does not mean that they share them in an equal capacity. Here, I think, is the fundamental misunderstanding.

"But how do those things make us superior to the animals that haven’t come up with them? Do they help us live longer? Do they help us live more efficiently? Have they contributed to the decay of the natural resources we all depend on to survive on this planet? Is human invention greater than animal existence if it carries so many weighty consequences? Nobody is going to blame deer if pesticides render bees extinct."

You seem very dead-set on these standards. In response, I will ask you this question:

What is the fundamental value of life?

Or, in other words, if a massive catastrophe obliterated the Earth in its entirety (and assuming aliens don't exist, though I believe this to be extremely unlikely), what would be lost? I am curious to hear your response.

I see a lot of the same arguments being repeated and others picking on them as low hanging fruit, so I thought it would be useful to debunk them here and now.

Argument 1 (con 'Animals are highly intelligent'): Human beings have invented/built incredibly complex things and animals have not, these incredible complex things necessitate a high degree of intelligence, therefore human beings are highly intelligent whereas animals are not. This is a valid argument but it is not sound for two reasons; not only does it use a circular kind of reasoning, but it also has a pretty big hole in that it doesn't cover the whole of the human race.

Firstly, you're defining 'intelligence' by the degree of complexity inherent to designs only human beings are capable of, which means you're basically saying human beings are good at doing what human beings do, therefore animals are stupid. Multiple users here have demonstrated that researchers have found a myriad of similar complex/social behaviors in animals, and the degree of complexity with which humans do such projects is simply a matter of scale. Even without nuclear reactors or clothing or geometry or whatever human beings would still be more intelligent than animals, so these inventions are poor evidence when considering the essential quality that separates human/animal intelligence.

Secondly, I am a human being, but I cannot design a bridge or a nuclear reactor or a computer or whatever, so does that mean my intelligence is no better than an animal's? Defining our intelligence through invention and creation then infers that people incapable of replicating such things lack sentience, which is obviously untrue. There is an inherent, essential quality (ie that can be found with deductive reasoning) of human intelligence that is greater than animals; a wild savage who never learns to speak and can only craft spears is still more intelligent than an animal, despite never learning to master fire. The creepy implication of this argument is that any culture that does not engage in complex social, economic, or scientific endeavors is possessed of people who are not as of high intelligence as people from cultures that do, which is not true in the slightest.

Argument 2 (pro 'Animals are highly intelligent'): Animals clearly demonstrate cognition and consciousness (through social interaction, small inventions, emotion, seeking pleasure, etc), such consciousness denotes high intelligence, therefore animals are highly intelligent and are not too different from humans. This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the qualities that form intelligence, as cognition and consciousness do not guarantee the ability to perform higher thought; logical reasoning, moral/ethical forethought, empathetic ritualization (ie undue attention paid to contextual formality, respecting the dead, courtesy to strangers, etc), and other traits necessitate rationality, a quality of human intelligence that has not been conclusively observed in animals. Intelligence is an immensely complex quality with many dimensions, but the chief of which I want to discuss here is "higher thought" aka "rationality".

Lastly, I have a complaint over a flawed perspective that some are taking: an animal is capable of X, which is similar/superior to human beings, therefore animals are highly intelligent. Let's be clear that there is a massive difference between behavior based on a cognizant choice and evolved behavior. There is literally zero evidence to suggest that animals are cognizant of qualia, though I imagine some of you think it's reasonable to make that leap (but it's not).

Let me know if you agree or disagree with my criticisms. I want to reiterate that citing scientific evidence of cognition and consciousness does not prove higher thought; hypothetically speaking I could genetically engineer a bio-mechanical machine capable of growing into a life form capable of expressing emotions, making complex decisions, communication, etc despite having no mind (ie being a robot). I hope I've laid some flawed argumentation to rest.

{ Or, in other words, if a massive catastrophe obliterated the Earth in its entirety (and assuming aliens don’t exist, though I believe this to be extremely unlikely), what would be lost? }

Nothing. Nothing was lost when mass extinction wiped out the dinosaurs and gave rise to mammals, it simply began a new era of life. Nothing will happen if humanity ceases to exist, the planet will again enter a new era of life and some other species will rise up and think themselves greatly superior to the rest of the universe.

{ logical reasoning, moral/ethical forethought, empathetic ritualization (ie undue attention paid to contextual formality, respecting the dead, courtesy to strangers, etc) }

We've seen all of these things in so many different species. Especially grieving/mourning rituals, which just about every single species of mammal has some variation on, and many other kinds of animals as well. These examples of higher thought that you keep giving are things we have consistently and reliably seen demonstrated throughout the animal kingdom.

Have you never seen dolphins and whales trying for hours to resuscitate their calves before accepting their death, even going so far as to remove bits of decaying skin that don't belong on living animals? That is pure grief. Elephants have been reliably seen gathering around a dead family member and crying, and many animals attempt to bury or cover their dead. Elephants and chimps are especially known to cover dead bodies with leaves and branches. Dolphin and giraffe death rituals are commonly documented. Birds as well, there's a species here I've become familiar with that's called the most intelligent bird in the world, the Western Scrub Jay. They're known to conduct group funeral services for their dead and refuse to forage in the area of the fallen bird for a full 24 hours before they resume daily life as if nothing happened.

{ but the chief of which I want to discuss here is “higher thought” aka “rationality”. }

This is Aristotle metaphysics (humans are the only rational animal), which has been largely debunked. His theory also argues that God must exist for humans to be the only rational animal.

Why yes, I am a big fan of Aristotle (his ethics, aesthetics, the Platonic ideals, though a lot of it is outmoded as you mentioned), and you should be too; he was the first recorded philosopher to consider dolphins as very intelligent creatures, even going so far as to believe they were almost human-like, which is trivia I've been waiting to use for like three years now…

To avoid going in an endless circle back and forth, let’s consider a simple statement: cognition and consciousness (including emotion, puzzle-solving, social behavior, etc) does not indicate higher thinking, rationality, or even sentience (depending on how you want to define ‘sentience’, though I try to avoid the word because it’s such a loaded term). It might indicate such qualities, but it’s not conclusive in the slightest. Do you, OP (or anyone pro-’animals possess higher intelligence’), agree with that statement? I believe that’s true, as that’s what neurology, psychology, philosophy, and research conducted on animals indicates (certain religious beliefs also indicate this, but it seems some of us don’t value such as beliefs as truthful so I’ll leave that out). If you disagree I want to hear your reasoning, and I ask that you consider the problem of qualia in animals, as well as any particular definitions of cognition, intelligence, etc that others might take issue with.

I also want to stress my counter-example of robotics, which might shed some light on the different forms intelligence can take. So consider that as well, if you please.

Edit: if you want a simple explanation of my robot argument without digging through my earlier posts, I'm basically saying that the animal mind is closer to a p-zombie than a human.

Lisa, you seemed to have entirely missed my point. Let me repeat what I asked before:

"What is the fundamental value of life?
Or, in other words, if a massive catastrophe obliterated the Earth in its entirety (and assuming aliens don’t exist, though I believe this to be extremely unlikely), what would be lost?"

I'm deliberately not just referring to humans.

@Windy
By "barely recognizable" I wasn't referring to biological dfifferences, but sociological. Tool use, for example. Comparing the crude stick-based tech on a handful of animals to that humans, who are now capable of preforming microsurgery and building space stations, we have the advantage to the point that the closest non-human equivalent is negligible. Imagine a science fair in which the winning entry is a combustion engine and the runner-up started a fire by banging two rock together. As for the plant comparison, I'm not sure how to respond. If I have to explain why the life of a human is superior to the life of a plant, we're too far apart to have a reasonable discussion. All I've got is that plants can't think. That's enough. It is entirely reasonable fo believe that consiousness indicates superiority. Plants don't need to think to survive. Humans don't need to build supercolliders and skyscrapers to survive. We were in no imediate threat of extinction pre-industrial or pre-agricultural. It is the desire to not only survive, but improve and build that puts humans on top.

You're argument sounds like a word game to me. First of all "higher thinking" doesn't make a lot of sense because only animals have the capacity to think since only they have brains. So you're statement already has some bias in it.

According to this dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sentient Anything with a conscious and the ability to sense is sentient so consciousness does indicate sentience.

Rationality is harder to define. The dictionary defines rational as reasonable and sensible. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational

Its hard to say whether what animals do is a result of reasoning or instinct, but what about what they don't do?

Would you consider the fact that a monkey does not murder its social group a rational decision? Or would you consider the fact that an owl does not go after an animal that it could not possibly carry away a rational decision? How about animals like squirrels that store food for the winter. Given that foraging in the winter is difficult it would not be reasonable to leave collecting food for the winter. You could say that its all instincts and not rational thinking, but we have instincts too.

@Farm Zombie, Humans don't need to build supercolliders to survive, so then why is it an aspect that indicates superiority? Just because they can? You clearly missed my point that intelligence can't be the sole reason that makes an animal superior because life isn't a race to see who has the greatest intellect. How about I choose the the superior animal as the one that can live the longest? This type of jellyfish can apparently revert back to its polyp stage and regrow without dying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii. Because why not?

The answer is still nothing. I assume the orbit of the rest of the planets in our system would change, but that's not a loss. There is no fundamental value of life. What is the conclusion you apparently thought I would come to?

{ Do you, OP (or anyone pro-’animals possess higher intelligence’), agree with that statement }

I do not. Neurological studies have shown us that animals have the same brain capacity and function as us, that our brains are nearly identical to rats'. Philosophy and psychology are human concepts that humans can't even agree on, so that philosophy and psychology say humans are superior means nothing to me. I'm an ecologist, ecology (and our observations) says humans and animals have the same capacity to feel complex emotions and have rational thought processes, and also that none are inherently worth more than the rest based on intelligence or "sentience" if you want to put it that way. Ecology says bumblebees are inherently worth far more than humans because so much life depends on honeybees, despite their not being able to invent the internet.

{ Comparing the crude stick-based tech on a handful of animals to that humans }

Another statement of ignorance. Sticks are not the only tools employed by animals and far more than "a handful" have shown to be proficient users of tools. Before we even knew of animals using sticks to extend their reach or dig for bugs, otters using stones to open clams was the most common use of tools in animals. Let's not forget that our own early ancestors first tool was, in fact, a rock. The question isn't "are there any animals as evolved as we are" but "are all animals equipped with the same rational thought processes and learning ability that allowed us to reach the stage we're at today". If humans really are special, then in removing humans completely we should see that no other animal is capable of evolving to the point we were, but evidence shows many animals are going through the same stages of evolution/adaptation we once did (figuring out tools and agriculture and permanent homes, going from hunter-gatherer nomads to self-sufficient communities).

@Windy: "higher thinking" is characterized (ie in philosophy courses and such), as introspection and consideration on a cognitive level further 'above' ideas that are inseparable from impulses (conceive of a scale composed of thoughts ranging from "breathe" to "I think with proper strategy and ethical practices, globalization can be a force for promoting human security and development", many people suggest the latter is 'higher' than the former). Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, etc all consider humans as creatures that possess this capability, which I believe (though I can be convinced otherwise) is one of the definitive factors that separates man from animal.

Likewise "rationality" here means the mental capacity and capability to reason, particularly in terms of using logic to reach sound conclusions independent of experience or the immediate context of the mind considering such conclusions.

I've seen the "what is sentience debate" so many times that I cringe every time I see that word. If you have a useful definition feel free to share it.

I think you have bring up some compelling evidence, as I agree that we are also subject to impulses (especially our subconscious), but consider the possibility that what you call 'decisions' are not really considered in an animal's mind. Rather I imagine that evolution has ingrained animals (including humans) with incredibly complex networks of impulses that determine our behavior for us, ie they dictate 'decisions' without our minds considering as such on a higher level. We can see evidence of evolved impulses in humans (as you pointed out, certain mammals tend not to kill family members, for example), but I think what makes humans special is our ability to transcend those impulses (whereas animals cannot).

If you find either of these definitions objectionable then I ask you provide your own, so we can approach this concepts with the same perspective.

@lisalombs: I want to perfectly clear and note that I never said nor will say that humans are superior to any lifeform. I don't even understand that kind of thinking; it's like saying the peak of a mountain is "superior" to the stone that forms the base. I suppose if you define 'superiority' like 'hegemony' then yes, our nuclear weapons and pollution grant us the extraordinary ability to fuck over any living thing on the planet, but that's a thuggish way to go about thinking of humans and animals. Nonetheless, I ain't the Strawman you're looking for. I'm just trying to characterize human and animal intelligence, compare/contrast, and reach some kind of consensus on the possibility that human beings possess an essential difference that explains the contrasting evidence. I'm open to any possibility, but so far I've not been convinced by anyone's arguments.

Edit: That last part sounded harsh, I think this is a really fascinating debate and I've never thought about any of this stuff before, so good on you guys/gals.

{ but I think what makes humans special is our ability to transcend those impulses (whereas animals cannot). }

Can you give an example of an impulse humans are able to transcend that other animals can not?

I'd like to think most of my behavior is not done out of instinct, but a rational/reasonable effort to seek truth, be happy, create art, etc. I think ethics and morality are a pretty good example of this transcendence.

From the perspective I'm entertaining (for the record I don't necessarily believe this, I'm just arguing for it because I think it's the most reasonable perspective) a monkey doesn't kill it's friends and family because that species has evolved certain social impulses based on communal survival. In other words, it doesn't explicitly make an ethical decision after considering the implications of killing friends and family, the monkey's mind is just bound by mutually beneficial impulses cultivated over millions of years by symbiosis and the communal qualities inherent to many mammal species. But I make the conscious choice not to kill people, despite my impulse to do so sometimes (eg when someone cuts you off in traffic…) and the obvious advantages murder/theft present in the immediate moment (ie I could pilfer from a 7-11, and I have every reason to since I'm hungry and it would save me money, but I don't because I understand that it is an unethical practice and is uneconomical). This demonstrates a deliberate choice that transcends impulse, at least in my opinion. Of course human beings often don't transcend our impulses, hence violent/base things like petty crime, war, New Jersey, etc.

Though I imagine you don't agree with this perspective, you can at least admit that it's reasonable, right? And you can perhaps see why I keep harping on about an "essential difference" between the minds of animals and humans that is greater than the fallacious argument of "man builds space station therefore animals are dumb" (which I criticized earlier).

{ But I make the conscious choice not to kill people, despite my impulse to do so sometimes (eg when someone cuts you off in traffic… }

How is that different than a shark's/etc conscious decision not to kill other species when it comes into the reef for a cleaning? It could tear that place up, it has no evolutionary reason to allow the cleaning stations to be no-kill zones, it has no evolutionary reason to even need cleaning by other fish at a stationary location. A starving shark could come up at any moment and turn the whole thing into a bloodbath. Instead they wait in literal lines to be cleaned like everything else.

These cleaning stations are the result of large predatory species figuring out that smaller scavenger species will eat their annoying parasites and clean up food scraps in their teeth in exchange for not being immediately eaten. It's a multi-species community service that has been developed to solve a small annoyance, none of the species that are cleaned require cleaning to survive or remain healthy.

From my point of view, it's absolutely astonishing that so many species have been able to communicate to each other that these cleaning stations are safe zones where one must patiently line up and wait their turn instead of forcing to the front of the line or being a free for all. What other species do we communicate that clearly with? Inter-species communication is a total mystery to us, yet here's an example of a whole ecosystem coming together and putting aside their "instincts" so they can all benefit.

{ you can at least admit that it’s reasonable, right? }

No? I don't think it's reasonable at all to think there's some sort of non-natural difference that solely applies to us as humans that no other species on this planet could ever aspire to through even millions more years of evolution. That's an incredibly theological, and therefore extremely unreasonable imo, point of view to hold.

As I stated before, lifeforms don't make any intentional decision to enter symbiotic relationships; ecosystems aren't created by consent, they're created by mutual interests in compatible species. So yes, this kind of behavior is incredible when you consider the power all those sharks possess, but I'll suggest that they're actually powerless; millions of years of evolution has engendered them with one small form of communal impulse, which is remarkable considering their legendary appetites, but isn't that shocking considering all ecosystems find some measure of equilibrium (and the animals in that equilibrium are not actively designing or choosing to sustain it, they've just evolved social impulses that gave them advantages over the species that didn't).

I don't think the 'essential difference' has to be supernatural (ie from God or the Tao or the Flying Spaghetti Monster), I think it could be the result of so many neurons criss-crossing this way and that to produce a high intelligence almost by 'accident' ('incidentally' might be a better word). Some scientists are convinced that True AI might arrive accidentally, as information technology reaches a critical mass and independent thoughts start appearing; I wouldn't be surprised if the human mind also evolved that way (and animals are probably in that process right now, though our lifespans are too short to see significant progress in their evolution).

I think at the end of the day, we can all agree that science hasn't yet revealed enough about the mind to reach a scientific conclusion. I believe in an essential difference, and I think it is reasonable to believe in that, but considering all the anecdotes you've brought up I feel I have a greater appreciation for animal intelligence and there's obviously a lot more to their minds than the bare-bones instinctual stuff that many people characterize them as having.

(I don't want this to turn into a boxing match between you and me without giving anyone else a chance to participate, so I'll wait for a few hours before responding to anything else; anyone up for a debate on abortion in the mean time?)

{ lifeforms don’t make any intentional decision to enter symbiotic relationships; ecosystems aren’t created by consent, they’re created by mutual interests in compatible species }

Which is the opposite of what happens when cleaning stations are formed. Species that do not belong to the reef ecosystem enter it. The species that attend them are, at any other place and time in the ocean, completely incompatible, in both geographical range and prey-predator relationship. They all willingly remove themselves from the ecosystems and habitats they belong to in order to travel to and partake in these cleaning stations.

These species can even include US, with all our strange swimming gear:

Any animal that can stop by and open its mouth is welcome.
There is absolutely nothing in nature that could justify or explain such behavior.

I agree that it sounds theological. I feel like some people here treat the human mind as a unique gift rather than a product of the evolution of the most rudimentary sensory organs. Just as with every other animal, our brains operate in drives and we constantly seek to satisfy our pleasure drive. Our main goal as mobile predators is to search for nutrients and a drive for pleasure pushes us to excel at hunting.

Saying that our behavior is due to a conscious effort to create art and seek the truth is quite objectionable. Psychoanalysis and neurobiology were referenced before but do they agree here? The birth of philosophy in ancient Greece was at a time when the society was stable and there was time for leisure. Why is that important? Because like the Greeks before the Golden Age the prime directive of animals is searching for food; animals don't have the time to explore culture. There is no time for leisure to create art and question the universe. Animals are constantly threatened by predators and are constantly searching for food, so there is no time to expand their knowledge and exercise critical thinking.

If someone was thrown in a dense forest with nothing but the shirt on their back, I think listening to jazz music or painting would be the last thing on their mind after a few days with no food.

No one is saying that a monkey could replace a jury in a criminal case, but you are treating animals as if they are thinking machines with automated predetermined responses which is arguably not true.

This crow uses a metal wire to pull out a weight uncovering food. It realizes that the stick can't pull it out after which it bends the wire to properly grab the food inside the weight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYZnsO2ZgWo

would you call that an impulse?

@Windy

Once again, I would like to reiterate that the shared presence of a trait is very different from the equal degree of that trait. Finding evidence of an animal figuring shit out is cool and all, but it's almost always something that a young child could match them on. Yes, we stand upon the shoulders of giants, but that goes back to our very nature. What I'm really waiting to see is proof of a species advancing and refining their techniques generation after generation. Show me that, and I'll be much more convinced. (After all, to be fair, it did take homo sapiens tens of thousands of years to create civilization.)

Arcane wrote:

Secondly, I am a human being, but I cannot design a bridge or a nuclear reactor or a computer or whatever, so does that mean my intelligence is no better than an animal’s? Defining our intelligence through invention and creation then infers that people incapable of replicating such things lack sentience, which is obviously untrue. There is an inherent, essential quality (ie that can be found with deductive reasoning) of human intelligence that is greater than animals; a wild savage who never learns to speak and can only craft spears is still more intelligent than an animal, despite never learning to master fire. The creepy implication of this argument is that any culture that does not engage in complex social, economic, or scientific endeavors is possessed of people who are not as of high intelligence as people from cultures that do, which is not true in the slightest.

You make a compelling argument. I would say that intelligence ought be measured by a species as a whole rather than by a species' individual members. Therefore, since humans as a whole have managed to create such complex technologies, whilst other animal species have not, then it can be assumed that humans possess at least some level of intelligence above that of other animals.

Windy wrote:

Because like the Greeks before the Golden Age the prime directive of animals is searching for food; animals don’t have the time to explore culture. There is no time for leisure to create art and question the universe. Animals are constantly threatened by predators and are constantly searching for food, so there is no time to expand their knowledge and exercise critical thinking.

Are you suggesting that if animals were not bound by predatory instincts, then they would be capable of developing knowledge in fields such as science and the arts? Because if so, then that is certainly an interesting point. That is, of course, assuming that animals in their current state would be capable of progressing towards the pursuit of knowledge. You've also made an interesting point in regard to the crow. It is evident that some animals display certain behaviors which may denote intelligence. However, how do we know for certain that this is not merely another survival instinct, developed over many generations of crows?

I think it's important to note that almost nothing humans do is actually unique in of itself. Ants have formed massive societies that function as a whole, many birds communicate with complex calls and noises, some birds can even learn how to speak with basic human understanding, and many intelligent animals use tools, some even creatively.

What truly makes humans human I think is the combination of these factors, along with very high intelligence in tool use and language, along with the fact that we are upright and have aposable thumbs, that allowed humanity to rise to greatness. We had the right set of characteristics that made us able to conquer the world. Because we were upright, we could use our hands for other things, such as tool use. Because we have aposable thumbs, we can use our hands to grab almost anything. Our intelligence allowed us to survive in new environments and advanced communication allowed humans to bring their knowledge as individuals to others.

Honestly we are just as unique as any other species out there. Every species really is very unique in a way, it's interesting to watch my pet birds and just see how differently evolved the lovebirds are in comparison to my finches.

{ What I’m really waiting to see is proof of a species advancing and refining their techniques generation after generation. }

Every single species alive does that, they all have offspring, those offspring are not born knowing everything there is to know about the world. Elephants teach their young how to snap off the right size/bushiness branch and use it to swat flies away, those dolphins I mentioned early have been passing down the circle net technique to their offspring and dolphins from other pods for years, we're slowly seeing its popularity spread.

We started seeing dolphins use sea sponges as protection when digging around on the sea floor in Australia in the early 80s, now it's so widespread we can actually break down pods by "spongers" who prefer to forage for food and "non-spongers" who catch fish in open water.

{ However, how do we know for certain that this is not merely another survival instinct, developed over many generations of crows? }

That's what an adaptation (which leads to evolution) is, they're traits learned in response to a need that are further refined over many generations. Our opposable thumbs were developed over many generations in response to a need, why are they considered something that sets us apart instead of "another survival instinct, developed over many generations of human"?

For the whole thread: here is the research I was looking for earlier. It's a catalog of documented tool use in animals as well as a lengthy debate over the definition of tool use. It even breaks down tool use by what current definitions consider to be "true tool use" (white storks using moss as a washcloth to absorb water then take it back to their nest to squeeze into their chick's mouths = true use. Gulls dropping oysters onto concrete/in front of cars = not true use.)

lisalombs wrote:

Every single species alive does that, they all have offspring, those offspring are not born knowing everything there is to know about the world. Elephants teach their young how to snap off the right size/bushiness branch and use it to swat flies away, those dolphins I mentioned early have been passing down the circle net technique to their offspring and dolphins from other pods for years, we’re slowly seeing its popularity spread.

Are you sure? I was under the impression that most animals are guided by instinct; a primary example would be certain migratory birds or monarch butterflies, which just know where to go and when to go there.

Our opposable thumbs were developed over many generations in response to a need, why are they considered something that sets us apart instead of “another survival instinct, developed over many generations of human”?

The crow's use of metal wire to grab its food is evidence of just one behavioral trait that has helped it in its survival. The same is true for our opposable thumbs. However, it is not simply our opposable thumbs alone which has allowed us surpass other animals; as Hodgson-kun said, it is a combination of our human traits which has allowed us to build our civilizations and develop our technologies.

We started seeing dolphins use sea sponges as protection when digging around on the sea floor in Australia in the early 80s, now it’s so widespread we can actually break down pods by “spongers” who prefer to forage for food and “non-spongers” who catch fish in open water.

If that's true, then that's really interesting. It would at least go further to prove that dolphins are more intelligent compared to other animals (as far as we know), but what about compared to humans?

Look, I know that from the way I've been talking, it may seem like I consider other animals to be unintelligent or simply stupid. I'm not trying to say that. All I'm saying is that, compared to humans, other animals are intellectually inferior. I personally find all of the varying animal species to be fascinating (there are indeed many complex species of animal besides human), but that does not affect the way I think about animals and the superiority of human intelligence.

Anyway, I'll check your research later. It sounds interesting, but it's really in-depth, so I won't be able to read it right now, as I have other things I must be doing (I probably won't read the whole thing in its entirety anyway, but I'll try to look over the key points).

{ I was under the impression that most animals are guided by instinct; a primary example would be certain migratory birds or monarch butterflies, which just know where to go and when to go there. }

Some migration is innate, a lot of migration you probably assume is innate is actually learned. Butterfly migration is innate, we have no idea why they know where to go no matter where their caterpillars start from. Bug communication, though, is still extremely unknown to us. They could be leaving chemical or other biological trails we can't detect as they go to guide stragglers. There are a lot of possibilities.

Most bird migration is learned. Studies that show this follow birds of different ages as they migrate. Younger birds are always off by a great distance, especially if they're not tailing older birds most of the way (which the majority does), but each year they all get better and better at finding their way and flying there efficiently, learning the terrain and currents as they make the trips.

There's also the fundamental difference between birds and bugs to consider. Monarchs have got ~1 year to live at max. They need to be able to find the traditional migratory paths to ensure they mate, that's why Monarchs have been flying that exact route for thousands of years. Birds have years to live and learn the routes that aren't nearly as strict as the butterflies, they can be a few hundred miles off but everybody still makes it within a few weeks.

{ it is a combination of our human traits which has allowed us to build our civilizations and develop our technologies. }

I guess my question to that is, does that separate us from the rest of the animals? Are we just a bit further ahead on the evolutionary timeline? Is there any reason to suggest that other animals wont follow in our footsteps and over hundreds of thousands of years be something more than what they are now? Or are we "special"?

{ but what about compared to humans? }

Why are we comparing to humans though? If we're such a special exception, why are we the standard to which we compare everything else?

Intelligence is just one factor. I go back to the honeybees. Honeybees can't do calculus and they can't use computers, but if honeybees went extinct we would be fucked. We're superior in intelligence, they're superior in keeping our asses alive aka they are responsible for pollinating 70 out of the 100 crops that feed 90% of the world.

Why is specifically intelligence what separates us? Because that's literally the only thing humans are #1 at.

Memes is what separate us from animals. Memes are basically the embodiment of Human standarts: From porn to gasing jews, everything has been included in a meme and new topics are doomed to be meme'd.
Seriously, is there something that isn't a meme yet? We have trascended the simple concept of life and managed to get what is truly dank in this infinite cosmic dance. Survival, reproduction, we no longer believe that such things are important like animals. We want to reach more than what our eyes can see and embrace the dank secrets that this galaxy keeps away from the prying eyes of simple beings.
It was all thanks to memes my friends. We've been meming for thousands of years and we started to realize this only recently.

(yes I remember my "animals" comment from my morality thread)

I think this question is essentially a synonym of another philosophical question. the meaning of "Sapience". Is it simply intelligence?

Animals can think, they can learn and act, they can eat, sleep, drink, get high, etc. They even have their own standards of morality.

I think that part of it boils down to luck. Evolution granted Humanity something that enabled it to dominate the food chain. A higher capacity of intelligence. And through that they are able to advance further than any other species. But I also think evolution instilled another quality…

I think the ultimate answer to this question might boil down to "what is sapience?". AFAIK it seems to be a more specific version of "sentience" which is the term for those that can think, act and feel. But it seems like the two are used interchangeably (particularly when other beings that act simialr to humans are involved, particularly AI, Robots and aliens and animals that speak human languages), As it stands the concept of sapience might be a possible answer to this question (the other 2 are greater intellect and just plain ego)