What exactly is it that separates humans from animals?inb4 "hurr durr we are aminals" *tips fedora*
I mean what is it that allowed us to (for the most part) assume control over the planet? Superior intellect? Opposable thumbs? Or the desire to obtain more than just food and water?
Discuss pls, I'm interested to see what my friends have to say.
I dunno
We make tools, maybe ?
>it's okay to kill animals and wear their fur
>its not okay to fuck them
I never got this
>>28173233
Self awareness, successful evolution, the ability to understand abstract concepts, the ability to communicate efficiently
Nothing. The only thing that let us take over was luck, luck that we were physically more advanced than animals
It's not brains or even our craftsman skills, it's simply that we ended up with the bodies we have today.
Think about it, dolphins are some of the smartest animals on earth, do you think if they had human bodies they'd sit around in the water all day? No, they'd colonize, they'd build things, they'd study other animals.
Its all luck, and we were lucky enough to get the good end of the stick
We teach and pass on knowledge from one generation to the next while expanding on it.
>>28173774
>It's not brains or even our craftsman skills
It is though. This is evolutionary biology 101
>>28173233
ability to reason
>>28173803
Our adaptability to, if we get into a hostile environment we weren't built for we have a habit of just inventing shit to let us survive.
>>28173774
>if dolphins were humans u think they'd be still be dolphins bro???????
The ability to differentiate between right and wrong.
A bear kills somebody, it doesn't care.
A human kills somebody, it's wrong.
We are spirits inside of an animal body, it's up to you whether you choose to be an animal or rise above that. These are the basics of the christian faith, the only problem is that it is impossible to deny your animal instincts without Gods help.
Are you going to lust after every woman you see? Or are you going to tame your mind and have save it for that one special woman? If someone wrongs you are you going to smash their face in? Or are you going to turn the other cheek and forgive them. Are you going to honor your father and mother? Or are you going to be a spoiled brat? Are you going to care only for yourself? Or are you going to sacrifice your own needs and pleasures to help somebody in need?
Are you going to conform to this world? Or are you going to reject it and follow the Lords words?
Don't let your body control you, you control your body. Don't listen and conform to what everybody says, find out for yourself. Be an individual, not another brick in the wall.
The ability to ask questions.
Although even that is disputable, since a certain grey African parrot managed to ask a question in a human language unprovoked.
So I guess nothing, empirically.
>>28173844
That's not at all what I said.
I said if they had human BODIES, would they still act like they do today.
It's an easy question and it can be attributed to anyone, if you had the body of a dog, with your human brain still intact, would you go about barking at shadows and chasing your tail, or would you masturbate and go on the Internet?
>>28173803
No.
Our kinds and craftsman skills have allowed us to survive, but they are not what has led us to the top of the hierarchy.
Other animals also use their brains and craftsman skills to survive and adapt to new locations, but we are still on top
>>28173762
Does ability to recognise oneself in a mirror count as self-awareness? In that case monkeys and elephants are also self-aware.
All knowledge can be reduced to an understanding of an abstract concept. A bear using tree branches to kill fish in a river demonstrates an understanding of the abstract concept of using a tool to reach and apply force to places unreachable otherwise.
Communicate efficiently?
Ants and bees existing in perfect harmony in their colonies and hives communicate through pheromones much more efficiently than human beings.
>>28173934
I think I understand what you're getting at (human evolution was triggered due to superior physical qualities), but if you put the brain of a modern human into a dog I doubt they would start acting like a dog
Metacognition, the ability to think about our thoughts
>>28173233
Two feet, a lack of feathers and flat fingernails.
>>28173974
You can't prove the more intelligent animal species can't do this to some extent.
Granted, the burden of proof is on the opposing side, but it's not definitive yet.
>>28173970
That is exactly what I am saying, my bright anon
If you place the brain of a dolphin into a human, it will not instinctively act as a human, no, it will first try to live it's life as before. However all animals adapt to new living situations quickly out of fear of not being able to survive.
Because of this, the dolphin would eventually adapt to its new lifestyle and not soon become an average human being, standing at the top of the hierarchy.
It's all a sense of physical quality
well, you're posting this on a korean cartoon forum. From a computer. With a internet connection. All made by man. Monkeys would have a hard time doing that.
Superior intelligence allowing us to conceptualize on a level that no other animal is capable of reaching. Art, science, and philosophy are strictly human.
>>28173967
What makes humans superior is that we have all of these abilities, and all at a much higher level than any other species.
>>28173850
So atheists can't have self-discipline or morals? Lol.
>>28173967
>Does ability to recognise oneself in a mirror count as self-awareness? In that case monkeys and elephants are also self-aware.
Self awareness in the metaphysical sense. We understand that we are part of a greater chain of humans. We understand our own psychology (to an extent), we are at least able to discuss our place in the universe. We can come to realise analytic truths that animals seemingly can't. If I were to say "all existing matter must exist" for example, I am articulating a belief which 'animals' could not come to conceive of themselves. They might "know" it in the instinctual sense, but they can't visualise it in the same way humans can. Human's can reach into their subconscious, if you like
> the abstract concept of using a tool to reach and apply force to places unreachable otherwise
The bear's knowledge of the world is limited by it's ability to understand. It might know that if it impales a fish with a branch, the fish will die, but who's to say the bear is applying causal principles to these events. The bear might not understand the concept of applying force, and just knows that after one event, impaling a fish, tends to come another, that fish dying. Humans have come to reason the existence of abstract principles such as cause. We never experience 'cause', but we suppose it exists because we have created it to justify the universe's apparent consistency. You might say that our ability to gain knowledge through reason (our ability to gain a priori knowledge) is what makes us human.
> Ants and bees existing in perfect harmony in their colonies and hives communicate through pheromones much more efficiently than human beings.
What makes their communication more efficient than ours?
>>28174079
> takes this tone with me
> can't even speak english properly
>>28174246
>takes this tone with me
>can't even greentext properly
You better lose the attitude before you lose some teeth, kiddo
>>28174136
>So atheists can't have self-discipline or morals? Lol.
Not saying they can't have that at all my man. I'm saying those things are what differentiates us and they are mainly found in Christianity.
>>28173233
We can think about things that don't exist and that's pretty much it. Really all that separates us from animals is the frontal cortex which allows to to think abstractly. It's also the reason why we've never had an animal ask us a question, because they can't comprehend the abstract thoughts.
That and the fact that we have human DNA, otherwise retards wouldn't be human and that needs to fall under the definition.
>>28174226
>What makes their communication more efficient than ours?
The superior harmony and order of their societies.
>It might know that if it impales a fish with a branch, the fish will die, but who's to say the bear is applying causal principles to these events
"If... then.."logic is automatically causal.
> Humans have come to reason the existence of abstract principles such as cause.
That's just an extra step/level of abstraction, but it doesn't mean abstraction in general is completely exclusive to human beings.
>>28174136
> and all at a much higher level than any other species.
Where is the cutoff point?
>>28174226
>Self awareness in the metaphysical sense. We understand that we are part of a greater chain of humans. We understand our own psychology (to an extent), we are at least able to discuss our place in the universe. We can come to realise analytic truths that animals seemingly can't. If I were to say "all existing matter must exist" for example, I am articulating a belief which 'animals' could not come to conceive of themselves. They might "know" it in the instinctual sense, but they can't visualise it in the same way humans can. Human's can reach into their subconscious, if you like
You mean introspection. That was mentioned here: >>28173974
>>28174595
>"If... then.."logic is automatically causal.
This is an unreliable way to define cause. How are you going to ensure that every case of "if...then" is actually due to causation? If I wear my lucky underwear and it happens to be a nice day, then is it valid to suppose that my underwear caused that to happen? Cause comes from reason and reason alone, we know this due to our lack of direct experience with reliable cases of causation. Causation isn't tangible, it's not something that appears between two events. It cannot be conceived of without externalised thought. Even if cause was as simple as you say it is, there's nothing to suggest that the bear doesn't just view the river as a vending machine operated by a stick. It's a simple pavlovian reaction; "if I do x, y tends to happen. I will do x so that y happens"
> The superior harmony and order of their societies
I don't know much about bees desu.
> That's just an extra step/level of abstraction, but it doesn't mean abstraction in general is completely exclusive to human beings.
There's really no sure way to test this theory without being able to communicate with animals. I would actually agree with you since this makes sense considering how some animals seem to behave, but the ability that humans have to understand necessary truths about the universe far outweighs anything an animal could know
>>28174772
Ah, you mean "if...then..." can also apply to correlation and not causation.
I think I understand.
What exactly do you mean by "cause"? I am not familiar with the formal definition.
>>28173233
The fact that we are dominating the planet proves we are superior to animals
There is no debate actually
>>28174883
>The fact that we are dominating the planet
That would be bacteria desu.
>>28174855
Imo, causation refers to a phenomenon where one thing happens, and then another thing happens, and we can directly attribute the second thing happening to the first ("I posted using a trip, somebody called me a faggot")
The controversy is over whether causation can be said to exist, and therefore whether it's actually worth discussing at all. It would seem impossible to actually 'experience' one thing causing another in the epistemological sense of the word. You can "experience" assertions like "it is raining outside", or "Seattle is in Washington", but to experience cause you would somehow have to observe one thing being directly and absolutely responsible for another. We can experience correlation as you said, since that's just "one thing happening after another", but cause seems to work differently in each case that it exists. Therefore it would seem that to form the concept of cause, we would need to experience every feasible type of causation (which for the sake of discussion is impossible)
It must be the case therefore, that the idea of causation is somehow part of some a priori line of reasoning that we have projected over the concept of correlation. When a human hits a tree with an axe for example, he might suppose that something about the mechanics of the particles in the tree is causing it to be cut down. If you now imagine a dog begging for treats, the case is different. It's altogether more likely that the dog simply thinks "When I beg, treats tend to appear. I will beg to get treats". There's no in between of theorising why treats appear, it's just an automatic response
A common case which is used, is that if you imagine a man applauding, and then lightening happening to strike every time he claps, he might think that his hands are somehow influencing the sky above him. This is generally used to show that causation cannot be experienced (otherwise he would know that he's wrong), but it can also show that humans have introspective abilities
