- Sid Tafler
- Victoria British Columbia
- Canada
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Which attribute most makes humans different than all other life forms on earth?
Humans are the dominant species on earth. Or to put it more humbly, perhaps we are the species that has more impact on the planet, good and bad, than any other.
So which single attribute had made us more fundamentally different from all others over the last few hundred thousand years?
Is it our ability to make and control fire? Our legendary opposable thumbs? Our ability to communicate? Our social connections with other humans, or our spiritual explorations? Or some other factor?
Perhaps in your response you will demonstrate the attribute you chose by example.
Topics:
anthropology evolution
Random Chance 30+
Roberto Garcia
Chris Kelly 20+
If you told me that, I'd ask what you meant by 'spirituality'. I'd also ask what you mean by 'thinking'. However since you claim to have no soul, I suspect you'd be unable to provide answers.
"It's very old fashioned to believe that instincts only have to do with sex and food."
I never made such a claim about instinct, so I hope you're addressing this statement to someone else.
"I love my kids out of instinct.But that's because I don't have a soul."
Given that the "soul" is the (subconscious level of) mind, this is a very self-effacing comment. Are you saying you believe love is generated by the instinctual mind?
" Arrest my case."
Anyone actually presenting a case would say "I rest my case". It comes from legal terminology meaning all the facts as they know it have been presented to encapsulate and prove their argument. If you feel you've done this, I'm glad you rest your case because I'm not sure I could take any more of this tripe.
Roy Bourque 20+
Your question leads me back to what came first, the chicken or the egg? Is our ability to make and control fire what makes us different, or is that which makes us different is what led us to make and control fire?
I believe that all of your examples are byproducts of what makes us different. I believe that our advanced capacity for thought is what led to all of these things coming into being, for thought precedes all action. We can think deeply, we can reason, we can imagine on a scale that dwarfs that of animals. We can take ideas and translate them into working products. We can build upon existing ideas to advance them to extraordinary results. Animals can do all of these things on a much smaller scale, but we triumph in our ability to create far beyond any other species because of our ability to think things out and foresee the results. We see possibilities before they come into fruition and we can predict the results of those possibilities because of our ability to think.
People with deformed hands are still able to do things that animals cannot because they can adapt by using their brains. People who are deaf can still communicate in other ways that dwarf that of animals. Everything that I have seen posted on here thus far all appear to be a byproduct of advanced thought capacity.
Ankita Khanna
Eun A Jo 10+
http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html
Chris Kelly 20+
First, he either does not understand the meaning of the word 'morality' or he is attempting to redefine it.
Nowhere, in any dictionary I have accessed, is morality defined within 'two pillars' of "fairness and compassion".
Am I the only one to notice the 'reward' system? At the end of this "cooperation" segment was a reward ... so it wasn't a sense of "morality" that "inspired the spirit of cooperation", it was the reward.
As for the elephant test, if you listen to the actual tape and not the presenter, you can hear the trainer shouting to the elephant after every tug of the rope. This doesn't show cooperation, it shows manipulation and training.
Additionally, the 'yawning' segment doesn't prove or even indicate empathy or contagion ... it shows intelligence and mimicry at best.
"Consolation" is 'proven' by a photo of a chimp with his arm around its parent? If this is science, then I'm a monkey's uncle.
Re: the cucumber and grape test doesn't prove inequality, it proves the chimp prefers grapes to cucumbers if a choice is available. The chimp getting the grape certainly had no problem with the 'inequality' ... so much for fairness ... much less, compassion or empathy.
That he claims (withiout proof) the trainer asserts another chimp did reject the grape until the other received one doesn't show fairness ... it shows intelligence, but evolved morality? Not by a long shot.
Claiming continuity w/other primates, empathy and consolation, pro-social tendencies, reciprocity and fairness ... oh ...and of course the photo of Darwin to top it off.
What's next ... record them looking upward and screeching, then call it prayer? Just make sure it's accompanied with a photo of Ghandi.
At the end he says "to create a morality from the bottom up" ... the whole video is a travesty, not science.
James Turner 10+
Brother James
Tofig Ahmed 500+
After watching this talk, I learned that it all started from our ability to communicate differently than any other species in a very unique way at the very beginning of us...
Jaime Lubin 10+
You remove my comment because in your standards my words seems to to you not respectfull... I dissent, and if I want to express my point of view i have the right to do it. So if your standars are different from mine,....¡¡¡¡ vive la difference. ¡¡¡¡¡
The freedom for expression is not one of your virtues. Its a pity.....
Eun A Jo 10+
I think there is an extraordinary sense of imagination and morality in humans that are not readily recognized, if ever, in animals. I remember watching a TED talk on the intelligence of crows and thinking how smart they were, but relatively speaking, those habitual actions would be nothing worthy of praise if performed by humans.
Verble Gherulous 20+
Humans spend time in introspection, in questioning, in debates, in contemplation of the motives of their actions. Animals do not question why they do what they do, they simply act, react, or do not act, depending on immediate responses to any given situation.
Years ago, i read some poem that goes something like:
Animals sing. So do we, but we make it into music.
Animals breed. So do we, but we also make it into love..
Animals kill. So do we, but we try to feel remorse.
I've probably butchered the poem, but you get the genral point.
Mary M. 100+
The fact that we can ask this question and then have everyone voice their opinions
makes us humans.......we develop a desire to communicate very, very early.........as this video
well demonstrates ;D
http://youtu.be/_JmA2ClUvUY
Nice poem BTW
Chris Kelly 20+
Obey,
There is no "reply" option, thus the new thread.
.
"You couldn't even bring yourself to say "other" animals."
Perhaps because I realize I am not "other" animals. I am a human being, which means I am an immortal spiritual being having a mortal physical experience on this earthly plane.
My physical being does not have any relationship (not cousin to, nor ancestry with) any member of the animal kingdom. That modern science has brainwashed the masses with such evolutionist dogma is every bit as damning to humanity as those who 'blindly' follow religious cults.
.
"So you don't believe humans are vertebrates?"
The physical human body has a spinal column, which 'identifies' us as "vertebrates". As to what I "believe", it's that humans are not solely defined by the physical aspect of our nature.
.
"Or mammals?"
Given that we are warm-blooded, have a vertebrae et cetera, our physical being is classified as mammalian, however again, the state of being human is not solely defined by the physical aspect of our nature.
.
"Or primates?"
Define "primate" ... does it include opposing thumbs, the ability to intentionally increase the intellectual mind and awaken oneself to higher states of conscious spiritual awareness? Because the ORIGIN of the word "primate" is from "L. primas; the first ... as in primary, i.e., being of the "highest" order of mammals." So if this is what you mean by "primate", of course I agree.
If, however, your definition of the word is "characterized by refined development of the hands and feet, a shortened snout, and a large brain" ... no. In my family tree of humanity, there is not now nor has there ever been any heritage linking me to any family of ape, and I've never had a "snout" [13c., "trunk or projecting nose of an animal"] note keyword: animal, (specifically not human).
My human heritage is not concerned with the size of one's brain, per se, but with the expansion of one's mind.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
If my understanding is correct you do accept we are animals in the physical sense but separate from other animals most importantly due to having an immortal spirit. I understand your point that biological classification ignore this critical difference.
I presume you don’t think animals have an immortal spirit. I‘m curious how do you come to these conclusions? How do you know we have an immortal spirit?
I’m not sure if you believe in an afterlife or reincarnation, or whether human spirits are created or always existed. I’m not sure if you are a theist. Obviously not the typical mainstream theist if you are one. Similar views perhaps to Bridget Trenton.
You obviously don't believe or understand in evolution in the same way I do. We can disagree here. Perhaps you might acknowledge that evolution in a physical sense could explain the tree of life including humans even if you hold a contrary view.
However, in other ways we are not so far apart. My view is similar in that modern humans are as far removed from other animals as mammals are from fish in terms of consciousness etc. I really don't know if we have an immortal spirit. I doubt we need one to be as we are, but I can not rule it out.
In fact I've had some unusual experiences that make me think that the simplistic materialistic view is not the full picture. But to a large extent I think our consciousness resides or is created in the brain. Even with MRI's showing brain activity while praying, or brain damage or dementia changing people, I understand this could fit with your view.
I agree in that our mind type experience appears to be far far richer than other animals. In fact we are the most advanced mind/consciousness verified in the universe so far.
Chris Kelly 20+
Alas without so much as one warning of a comment being deleted, nor any notice or any regard whatsoever, BridgetTreton joined the ranks of my other TEDavatar as that account became yet another casualty of the TED deletion system, due to the extraordinary efforts of a certain cry-baby who is, shall we say, so intolerant of me/my expressed understanding of the universal energy system, someone so desperate to protect their own paradigm that my very presence on TED must be eradicated ... avatar by avatar.
Yet, here I am again, same spirit being expressed through another identity. :-) Nothing supernatural about it. [g]
Ken brown 30+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
The more view points the better in principle in my view.
I find your view coherent although we differ in some fundamental perspectives.
No issue disagreeing passionately, while respecting the individual although not all ideas/views/beliefs are equal in my view, and yet our beliefs are often connected to our ego.
Still the less taboo the better although TED don't tolerate preaching or evangelistic or overly controverisal material that may cause offence.. I guess there is a grey zone between expressing ideas and more dangerous territory.
If a bit of censorship/moderation is required to keep the discussion going then so be it.
Personally I have to be careful making comments f when in a hurry or forgetting I'm not talking to myself.
Chris Kelly 20+
.
"Or animals?"
If, by "animal" you mean "from L. animale "living being, being which breathes," neut. of animalis "animate, living; of the air," from anima "breath, soul", then yes, my physical being is animated by virtue of the "breath" (Spirit/God) and "soul" (mind).
.
"Its bizarre if you can not admit humans are animals."
I just did admit it ... under the codicil of the original meaning of the word, not the bastardization of it used in common lexicon. Although from some of the behavior I observe, I'm well aware of how those who think of themselves as animals often live down to their expectations and therefore behave as such.
.
"Have you never noticed the similarities between humans and other animals?"
Of course I have ... some people 'eat like pigs', some 'sing like birds', some are 'hung like a horse', (lol) et cetera.
There are also similarities between humans and plants (both require sunlight and water to live, both are intelligence-driven multi-celled organisms, et cetera) ... but I wouldn't call humans plants just because of our similarities.
.
"Just look at your pet dog - similar eyes, hearing, teeth, 4 limbs, reproduction, breast feeding, bones, muscles, immune system, nervous system, organs, oxygen breathing, C, H, O based lifeform. Are we dogs - no. Are dogs Chimpanzees - no. Are we mammals - yes."
Of course there are similarities between humans and animals ... all of life is made of the same materials, in different measure and level of dependency upon the "lower" life forms; this doesn't mean we are in the same category or species or kingdom.
For me, being a human requires more than observation of the obvious. It requires engaging more than the intellectual level of mind from which to comprehend one's place and purpose in the world.
Evolution indeed takes place, as evidenced through intelligence and order; not through random inter-species mutations.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I agree that we are different, in part due to the obvious differences in awareness, intelligence, language, tool use, culture. I also expect we are the only living creature on the planet that believes in a spiritual world, an afterlife, etc. I guess I just see stronger ties to other animals, and believe we evolved from a common ancestor as the great apes, then mammals, then vertibrates etc. Probably all DNA based life has a common ancestor in my view, unless DNA developed independently a few times.
You seem to accept evolution for other living creatures, but not humans - I'm not completely sure. Perhaps you infer some purpose or guiding hand to this evolution. I admit I don't know. It is possible. There probably doesn't need to be although others might disagree on that point.
I would point out that while mutations are random, natural selection is not a completely random and pointless process. It is a process by which the fittest survive to mate and pass on their genes. Our ancestors were the survivors.
I agree being human is more than the obvious, although you seem to ignore the obvious links to other animals. I see a progression to a step change in consciousness, self awareness, a mind capable of great thinks, numinous experiences, while not completely detached from instinct. Its a strange you accept we have instincts and biology like other animals but don't see the possibly of some relationship or progression, or kinship.
I would add that this kinship does not make us base creatures with no concept of ethical behaviour or improving the human condition. Rather it frees us from ancient mindsets, tribalistic, violent, sexist values. But it helps keep you a bit humble if you don't think the universe revolves around us. In my mind it also supports a view on animal rights.
Chris Kelly 20+
From my perspective, being a human means we have a choice to increase our intelligence, or not; a choice to increase our consciousness or not. A choice to kill or not. A choice to identify with our obvious lower "animale" physical nature alone, or integrate it with our higher spiritual nature.
.
"The root cause of what makes us different from other animals is our amazing brain."
This is a very narrow perception, but then, I'm fairly certain you're of the school of thought that believes everything modern science claims, without question (dogma). Thus, you most likely believe that thoughts are generated by the brain, that memory is a storage facility in the brain, that the brain is synonymous with the mind, et cetera, so I understand why you'd attribute the 'root cause' of what differentiates humans from animals to the amazing brain.
Funny that you'd notice the similarities between animals and humans only to use the "amazing (human) brain" as a point of distinction ... animals have brains ... intelligence ... emotion ... what they don't have is the capacity to intentionally increase their mind or control their instincts or emotions. They have the capacity to learn, but they cannot choose to increase their knowledge. Humans have choice.
.
"This is responsible for our self awareness, tool use, language, concept of time, complex culture and technology, and our morality."
The brain is an exquisite processor, but not a generator, nor is it a memory storage facility. It is incapable of creativity or thought or imagination, because it is not a generator, it is a processor.
The brain is a facilitator for the mind, and it is the mind which energizes the brain. The brain functions as a radio for the various levels of mind, as it acts as receptor and transmitter of energy. Not the generator of said energy, but the processor for it.
It is amazing, just not in the ways we've been programmed to believe.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I disagree if you think believing in kinship or descent with other animals means we give up on the beauty and responsibility of being human. I feel blessed, lucky, awed by having been born and living this life.
Perhaps atheists like me see our base instinctual nature more clearly or more widely than theists would admit or acknowledge. This does not diminish us. If we don't have an immortal spirit, we still have the same depth of experience and capabilities and responsibilities and choices.
I agree we have more intellectual or consciousness potential. What you see as spiritual I see as a natural process of transcendent experience etc. We don't need a spirit to have the experiences we do. However, I admit I don't know if there is the classical type spiritual realm you suggest.
These days I'm not as straight forward materialistic as in the past. Modern science is showing amazing things. We know there is an invisible world and forces unseen. Gravity, non visible electromagnetic etc. Every bit of matter exerts gravitational force on every other bit over cosmic distances. There may be forces and stuff beyond what we currently know of. Dark matter and energy for example are recent concepts. I just doubt that these connections are as described in the traditional religious sense just as they are likely beyond high school science.
I agree there may be more than the brain as a processor and storage device. The more I understand about the human mind the more gaps I see. Again, I don't have a deep understanding of your perspective of energy flows, but wonder what evidence or sources you have for these conclusions. I suspect revelation to some ancient peoples, perhaps passed on verbally or in scripture.
Chris Kelly 20+
Because modern science limits itself to the study of the physical portion of our human nature, it has a very limited understanding of the whole.
.
"You probably don't agree with evolution. Even the Catholic church accepts evolution."
LOL! The Catholic church is right about ... what, exactly?
It's not that I don't agree with evolution, it's just that I understand it differently ... as viewed from a broader scope. Perhaps you understand it in the Darwin-to-Dawkins scope. It is my understanding that ancient science describes it far more aptly, albeit via a language that seems incomprehensible to the lay person.
On the Origin of Species twice states the hypothesis that there was only one progenitor for all life forms and ending with "There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one."
Hmmm, One progenitor for all life forms ..Breath of Life ... Several powers ... where have I heard this before?
Oh yeah ... the Vedas, the Egyptian Book of Thoth, the Zohar, the Tanakh, the Bible ... notice a pattern?
.
To date, there is not one iota of physical evidence to prove the physical evolution of ape-into-man. Oh wait, the explanation and terminology has evolved yet again, we're not even humans anymore ... we are apes ... modern science calls it 'Common Descent' ... well guess what?
Ask your local quantum physicist - every thing in the entire universe is of 'common descent'.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
My point regarding the Catholic and also the Anglican church, natural opponents to the theory of evolution is that they have looked at the evidence and accepted much of the theory. They try not to talk about it, because it turns the traditional beliefs of the last 2000 years upside down, but they have had to make an accommodation with it. I'll give them credit for that much.
Again, I'm not sure if you are a theist but it seems very human to have a special group of people holding the key to the secrets of the universe. Sort of makes you special if you know something others don't. Humans love patterns and codes. Perhaps the old books were written with patterns and codes in mind, but guess you'd have to look at the original language.
One progenator means one ancestor or common decent via DNA to me. I think it is not doing your cause much good if you think the use of religious type metaphors by Darwin is a deliberate or miraculous link to the Vedas etc etc.
What I notice is we can link lots of things that do not really have a mystical connection. That there are many similarities between different religious belief systems, some due to the evolution of religion and ideas and cultural mixing, some due to the similarity of human experience, and possibly due to some supernatural cause.
There is evidence for the evolution of man. There are also no modern human fossils with dinosaurs.
Interesting discussion. Good to look at a less typical view. I guess those tending to atheism are also not monolithic in their views.
Chris Kelly 20+
Coming from an atheist, I should take this as a compliment. :-)
As you've already noticed, mine is a rather atypical perspective, therefore I don't identify myself as atheist or theist, as both classifications are based on a concept of God that I do not share with either faction.
.
"One progenator means one ancestor or common decent via DNA to me."
But what did it mean to Darwin? He died long before the 'discovery' of DNA.
.
"... I think it is not doing your cause much good if you think the use of religious type metaphors by Darwin is a deliberate or miraculous link to the Vedas etc etc. "
1. I don't have a 'cause', 2. As you mentioned, people love patterns and having studied the correlation between various doctrine and current sciences, my mind is geared to see these patterns or correspondences as they occur.
"With the aim of becoming a clergyman he went to the University of Cambridge for the required BA degree, which included studies of Anglican theology." ~Wikipedia re: Darwin
He is the one using Biblical terminology ... I'm simply pointing out the correlation.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
I am aware of a bit of Darwin's history.
I don't exactly what is going on in anyone's mind. Agree we need to be careful about interpreting peoples words. I'm an atheist I an use cultural Christian metaphors too.
I note people argue whether Einstein or Darwin were theists in the traditional sense.
I note some Theists can and do accept Darwinian evolution.
I'm aware he didn't know the details of DNA when he put his theory forward. I should not have mention DNA for clarity. Still from everything I recall related to Darwinian evolution there is a generally held view that every life form with DNA evolved from the same evolutionary ancestral life form - including plant and animals. Most don't believe in multiple independent development of DNA replication. My interpretation, and it may be wrong is that is what Darwin was talking about that.
I probably have a better chance the more culturally aligned and closer to the same time/year. The further back or further away we go from our own culture the more challenging it is to interpret meaning and intent and understand the context and world view paradigms.
I would suggest co-incidence and perhaps some shared religious memes/terminology. But there could be a deeper connection.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Andres Aullet 10+
I would answer that the attribute that makes humans different (not one I can be very proud of, i must admit) is the naive misconception that this planet belongs to us, and not the other way around.
No other species behave as if they considered this planet their belonging. "pinnacle of evolution", "stewards of planet earth" etc, are all constructs to morally justify and make "heroic" the greed and drive to conquer everything around ourselves. I fail to see the heroic side in that.
cheers
Andres
edward long 100+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Chris Kelly 20+
This self-same dog will set different toys about the house and then play with them as if it's a team sport.
Sure looks like imagination to me.
Or is it just my perception?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Dogs like play and are social. Maybe it is lonely or just playing.
The bone thing seems more instinctual.
It would be really interesting to understand how they perceive and what goes on in their mind/brain. I have read studies that indicate dogs have a much greater sense of smell than we have relative to other senses. Whereas we are highly visual.
I guess they dream as well. Ever seen them sleep jiggling/running. Dog dreams.
Maybe non humans don't have Internet access
edward long 100+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
Basically our brain - followed by our physiology - hands, walking upright.
edward long 100+
Jim Andrews
Now, I might retort that what you should be mentioning is not our making of fire but whatever it is that we possess --as a human quality, not as a physical possession--and even possessed back then that allowed us to make fire. Such a retort might go on to say that surely it's that intellectual/cognitive capacity that distinguishes us from the other creatures who do not use fire as we do.
However, I'm not sure how sound such a retort is. Why? Perhaps creatures such as the great apes are very close to being able to use fire as we do. And perhaps that step, as you say, is important to further Promethean evolution. In that case, we would simply be the first to get there.
Yuri Gomez
Chris Kelly 20+
Robert Winner 50+
pranoy sundar 20+
The ability to recognize the suffering of others and to take action to help them, to feel the unity and brotherhood. to know that there are things valuable than food and shelter.
Mary M. 100+
Others which run along the same train of thought are:
- integrity
- commitment
- generosity
- peacefulness
- humor
- respect
- empathy
-fairness
- patience
Some however, continue to consider themselves as animals.....and act in kind....it is a personal choice.
Peter Law 50+
:-)
Ed Schulte 50+
of the "I AM"
(IOW the "first person singular, present tense"--------being conscious of being consciousness itself)