Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you distinguish between living things and nonliving things? Aren't living things made of non-living matter?
You distinguish between them because life has emerged as an emergent property from nonliving matter. In the same way humans have emerged from the Animal Kingdom. We are something entirely new
I get it, you are saying life has emerged such that we can classify human as "something else". i understand that but I don'r agree with that. humans are just to close in basic operation, physiology speaking, to animals. we do have one trait that makes different, the brain, but that's why we are the human animal.
lmao, I guess we could say all animals differ in the brain, but you get what I mean. I also agree, distinguishing "life" from non life gets tricky.
also, because of what you point out, I classy the biosphere as life and we are part it. I use a complexity vs volume ratio and a measurement to show that the biosphere actually matches "alive" more than it matches "not alive". A claim that the more militant atheist denies. but, to my dismay, its a denial based on not liking theist more than fact. That's why I classify that sect as more religious than not.
If a bacterium lacks as sense of feeling or ability to really experience things, I'd say that in many ways it has more in common with a rock than a person, despite it and a person both being alive, in most relevant ways.
I don't see a firm distinction between life and non-life either, at least based on how we currently define life.
Maybe if they started the definition of life at "the ability to experience something's surroundings" the divide would be more clear...but then researchers would be arguing over what that means for the next thousand years and there would never be an agreed upon system to categorize life forms.
Our classification system for life has significance in ways...but in other ways it's not very useful, and everybody knows this.
That's why I'm in the same category as certain types of single-celled organisms, but other types of single-celled organisms are not in our category.
I can't get into to much science.
look at complexity versus volume ratio. as the number of "chemical equations" increase, in both different types and quantities, the object tends to look more alive. single celled organisms, the first classification of life, have their own classification. Then we add complexity to life forms and give them classifications.
you are basically saying that human have reached a level of complexity that separates them from the animal kingdom. we are just to close to animals to make that distinction.
I look at it this way, what subsets are working together to form the "life form"? Are humans a confluence of of previous life forms?
i don't see it. I see humans as just a complex protein working with other complex proteins to react homeostasis in the biosphere. as proteins increase in complexity they don't need to "bump into" raw material to carry out life functions. They basically, with the next degree of freedom, can go to the resources to carry out life.
for example, hemoglobin, can carry oxygen to the reaction site. In less complex life forms, oxygen is used directly (diffusion) due to the smaller volume it has to travel through. evolution has added layers of complexity.
I just don't see humans as that much more complex and using the other classification to "form it".
We are the only animal that practices self-excusing.....what we call "morality" is usually an excuse for doing bad things.
For example, it is highly moral for a soldier on the battlefield to kill 10 innocent draftees who were recently married and have loving families...and would greatly benefit mankind if they lived.
It is moral to "make lots of money" in legal ways...even if they involve predatory behavior.
It is obviously highly moral and ethical to live a life like our current POTUS....because that's why the church goers went with him...
Most of what we call moral are just excuses so we can live with ourselves within the bounds of our culture(s) and traditions. Without those excuses we'd have a hard time justifying not only our own actions, but - more importantly - those done in our names. Many millions have died due to our tax payments....but modern society keeps that from us. We don't have to watch.
"The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world."
Or...I can just look at the difference, rather than the similarities.
Same thing
Except there are differences. If we're unique enough, it makes sense to place humans in some other category, at least if your goal is less related to biology and more related to behavior.
I don't see a problem with placing humans in a separate category from other organisms. Biologically, we're animals, but I think we're unusual enough we could be placed in our own category for more practical reasons.
Humans ARE in a separate category from other organisms. Do chimps not behave vehemently differently than ants? Are they both not animals?
Again, what is this complete obsession with not seeing all mammals (including humans) as animals?
Is it because to be an animal is seen as a denigration? That is really on those who love to denigrate, not on those who categorize based on observable, testable, and logical reality.
Yeah...but it's still sounding like human's are the better meme-users. Language allows a lot of power to adapt rapidly.
We can purposefully make and store bread and beer too. Even the Egyptians knew that we've never seen an animal (not including humans) do that.
Language allows for one kind of adaptation. But there is a cognitive tradeoff hypothesis out there that highlights how grammar and syntax is not so good for adaptation when it comes to being quickly aware of the entirety of our surroundings and in detail, especially as relates to quick maneuvering (the legend of Tarzan excluded).
Amoral person is a person that understands that the universe does not revolve around their ego.
A civilized society is a society whose laws do not revolve around any one person or group of people.
The more a society treats everyone as equals the more civilized it is.
Most animals arent even domesticated.
Adam = domesticated
I no longer think that "moral" is the right word here. I think "morality" is another word for "godliness" and that is why "god" is seen by theists as the source of "morality".
I would instead say that a right-minded person is a person that understands that the universe does not revolve around their ego and therefore exercises proper self-restraint.
I started a thread to discuss my new way of looking at it but it was deleted.
Last edited by mensaguy; 12-26-2018 at 04:48 PM..
Reason: Stop using red text
Humans ARE in a separate category from other organisms. Do chimps not behave vehemently differently than ants? Are they both not animals?
Again, what is this complete obsession with not seeing all mammals (including humans) as animals?
Is it because to be an animal is seen as a denigration? That is really on those who love to denigrate, not on those who categorize based on observable, testable, and logical reality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
We can purposefully make and store bread and beer too. Even the Egyptians knew that we've never seen an animal (not including humans) do that.
Language allows for one kind of adaptation. But there is a cognitive tradeoff hypothesis out there that highlights how grammar and syntax is not so good for adaptation when it comes to being quickly aware of the entirety of our surroundings and in detail, especially as relates to quick maneuvering (the legend of Tarzan excluded).
Give me some credit here. I'm not a scientist, but as a hobby I suck up everything I see that has to do with science. There are decent reasons for perceiving humanity as separate from other organisms. They might be wrong...but my reasons for thinking it's not unreasonable to perceive humans as separate from other organisms are the sensible types of reasons...not the sorts of reasons espoused by chuckleheads with the sorts of pointless obsession with human ancestry you're talking about...the ones who perceive having evolved from apes as something shameful.
I agree that there's a trade off...but we can build machines or train animals to deal with the limits of our personal intelligence can't, in many cases. When it comes to the ability to adapt to new environments, we're the gods of that, so far as I can see. Most of that sort of adaptation you're talking about is overtaken by human adaptability. Our inventions and our social organizations mean we don't need the sort of awareness you're talking about.
I would say it would make a lot of sense to put humans in a separate category than chimps too. Chimps don't have language.
If we're talking about the structures produced by a species...I think humans are in a league of their own. If we were compared to ants, for example, our constructions are vastly more complex. To equal the complexity of human constructs you have to start looking at the multi-cellular structures cells have built. You could say those are more complex than humans...but we're the only large organisms that can do similar things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
