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
You refute yourself. Life is just a subset of chemistry, but it is still chemistry.
Just as we are a sub set of the animal kingdom.
Arguing same = different adds nothing to the conversation.
I could see humans as something different. While it's true that many species have unique characteristics...we have A LOT o VERY unique characteristics.
*language
*incredible skill at inventiveness
*incredibly rapid adaptability
*memes which evolve our societies much faster than any other life form on the planet can change. Our ability to change makes bacterial evolution look like snails crawling through molasses. We can change with a word. Bacteria actually have to procreate to change.
*incredibly complex social organization
*incredible ability to alter our environments that makes ant tunnels look fairly pathetic in comparison
*free will. It's quite possible that no other organism on Earth has the ability to hold as many diverse pieces of knowledge in their mind at once as humans can, which allows humans to weigh various options against each other and engage in free will
Compared to every other species on Earth, so far as I can tell, we're basically gods.
Most of that has to do with our mastery over memes...but our mastery over memes is one hell of an advantage. Through meme evolution, our species has a way to alter its behavior many, many times faster than through biological evolution. Almost everything else on this planet has to either very slowly learn new trends, if it's a clever group of social organisms, or slowly build new behaviors into its DNA through evolution. Humans can alter the entire species with a single idea, and we've done that many times. That's something quite new, so far as I can tell. That's an entirely new form of evolution. It solves the same sorts of problems as biological evolution, but countless times faster. Also...memes can alter the behavior of currently existing organisms. You don't have to wait until new organisms are formed. I'm thinking human-style meme evolution makes biological evolution obsolete in almost every way.
I think humans are best described as something new. Maybe there should be four classes: animals, vegetables, minerals, and meme-users.
Or we are animals with some unique skills. You need to look at the similarities, not he differences.
What I don't understand is why such an aversion to the fact that humans are, indeed, classified as animals.
Advanced and civilized (Well, in some cases) but other than that.
In fact, when 'man' finds himself in a dire situation , fighting for sheer survival, it's more often than not that his actions and behavior will revert to the very basics of animal survival instincts
You refute yourself. Life is just a subset of chemistry, but it is still chemistry.
Just as we are a sub set of the animal kingdom.
Arguing same = different adds nothing to the conversation.
It's like saying that chemistry is so extra-special that we shouldn't simply consider it a branch of materials physics although it actually and obviously IS! And knowing and accepting that helps chemistry be understood and worked on way better then if we were still doing Alchemy. All chemists are required to take classes in physics for this very reason, as all human physicians should take classes in biological evolution and comparative anatomy if they want to run humane animal experiments to try to help human patients in the future by gathering knowledge. The problem we run into is that people then want to talk in depth their unworked opinions and hearsays about subjects they've barely dipped their toes into. Human nature, I suppose, trying to be trailblazers.
That's all I've ever said. The argument is against those that think humans are not animals, not with those that agree that they are.
But if even I found a fault in that particular line of argument, you can be assured that their combative minds found it and more. Of course, humans are animals, but it's not just because we aren't vegetables or minerals.
Perhaps you were thinking that since they (political/apologetic/"militant" monotheists) rely on the "what else could it be" argument so much, then they would respond well to it. I'd have to disagree, with biased people it's really never about method (hint: Trump) even if they lie to others or themselves at the time saying that it was so.
Or we are animals with some unique skills. You need to look at the similarities, not he differences.
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.
What I don't understand is why such an aversion to the fact that humans are, indeed, classified as animals.
Advanced and civilized (Well, in some cases) but other than that.
In fact, when 'man' finds himself in a dire situation , fighting for sheer survival, it's more often than not that his actions and behavior will revert to the very basics of animal survival instincts
I'm going to play devil's advocate. That may not mean what I think it does...because it's very late and I'm not sure I'm thinking clearly. I'll just assume it does mean what I think it does.
Except for the paternal and maternal instincts...probably most of our more "animal" -ish characteristics are viewed as negative by most of us. When we think if our "better" emotions, we usually think if the aspects of us that are rare within the rest of the animal kingdom - creativity, patience, emotional control, love, complex dreams and ideals, politeness, long term thinking, etc.
It's now wonder people frown upon the idea that we're animals. Our language and culture is filled with instances of us frowning upon animal characteristics.
Those negatively-viewed aspects usually include our mentalities in dire situations too. In dire situations sometimes we'll act rapidly to solve a problem, but often, particularly if we're surprised, we'll get impulsive, reactionary, panicky, be led by our instincts, etc...most of which are not looked highly upon.
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.
The argument is against those that think humans are not animals, not with those that agree that they are.
