What separates us from animals? Where do we fit in nature?

[pigknuckles211]

that was a beautiful angel @ 2:44 I pity you for not believing in that divine origin stuff.

[technologysucks]

My answer was;

"That's a loaded question based on a false premise, it assumes something seperates us at all"

Not the same as your answer, but I think you'd agree

[RyuDarragh]

Let's suppose someone did manage to "rise above their animal nature"... they'd have to castrate themselves. Excise their sense of touch, smell, pleasure, hearing, sight (if you start saving bits and pieces, you are not "transcending"). Once you are done, you will be a point of conciousness in a pitchblack space you cannot sense. You are, in point of fact, dead. If you managed to become a disembodied conciousness, do you *know* what senses you would have? Sight? Hearing? But, not touch. No sex.

[MotionFur]

I got vote botted a while back. My newer vids are unaffected though.

[SHADYSPAW2]

glad i just watched that on my natural toshiba satelllite so helpful in case you did not notice we are the odd animal on earth! if something works why make it better or even change it? like animals except us do? try harder next time maybe I'll believe you?

[MotionFur]

Jesus Christ, is this in English?

[SHADYSPAW2]

yep be nice if it made sense ha ha? animals building the same old same old, us not ha ha whatever?

[MotionFur]

*moves around on the ground with my knuckles and grunts at you, then scratches my armpit*

Nice talking to you.

[SHADYSPAW2]

o.k. you are an ape, unlike me? so how many apes you know that fix their car? or helicopter? or even comprehend electricity? du wake up. not hard to understand there is a major difference we are the oddball "animal" on this planet.

[MotionFur]

I was simply saying that grunting and scratching myself conveys about as much information as you are now.

Am I an ape? Yes. Are you an ape? Yes

Are humans apes? Yes. Therefor: Apes can fix their cars, helicopters, and comprehend electricity.

But some of us apes, mainly you, are still struggling with ENGLISH.

[SHADYSPAW2]

from what i've seen Darwins dead ape ha ha ha so you be an ape i'll be a human o.k. bla bla ENGLISH whatever ha ha see ya monkey boy

[Jargonification]

These are good, well you-tube fix your vote-bot problem? Do you need help to petition?

[Jargonification]

*will

it's late

[MotionFur]

I doubt youtube is going to do anything about votebots [or, at least, not attempting to repair any damage from previous votebot attacks.]

I'm not going to bother petitioning them, because I think youtube has shown themselves not to really care about this issue.

Thanks anyway.

[lake7less]

as for suicide: after you die it really doesn't matter how long you lived or why you died and weather you have achieved freedom or not. Thought in itself can not advocate suicide. Psychological depression can. That is u get so messed up that perceiving reality equals unbearable pain, angst or whatever issue u get into. The "sensation" of reality being unbearable can lead to suicide, not philosophy.

[killshin]

I'm not sure if any other commenters have mentioned this, but I do think there is something separating us from 'animals' -- even though we are animals.

I believe that all life forms are unique and groups of life forms are unique from other groups. Most groups are mediocre, but some groups are exceptional. I believe that humans are exceptional only as far as we have reached a level of organization where we as a species can dominate any other species currently on the planet.

[MotionFur]

"I believe that all life forms are unique"

Well, just because you're different/unique that doesn't mean your separated. A '68 Pontiac Firebird is unique, and different from any other car, but it is in no way "separate."

"Most groups are mediocre, but some groups are exceptional."

How do you determine mediocrity or exceptional? Some people view our dominance of the world as a bad thing, and would rather us have never invented the bow and instead stayed in small groups with our Atlatl and dart.

[lake7less]

well we don't dominate "any" other specie out there, some species don't even know we exist. Some, even some  that r now extinct had a much longer run than we'll ever have. Being aggressive towards the environment & other species doesn't make us really "dominant".

Though4 some communities of animals like the chickens at a farm designed for mass production & supply 4 the fast food industry, we r far more dominant & more ruthless than the "robot specie" in the movie matrix was2 the human race.

[MotionFur]

By dominate, I'm talking about our power to be able to kill any other species, while making a reasonable assumption of our own safety in the process. We may not have complete control, but in the frame of reference of looking at the capabilities of other animals, we can do much more to them, then any single species can do to us. That makes us dominant.

[lake7less]

1/2

well mosquitoes COULD single out ppl who have aids, & then pass the virus along 2 as many ppl as possible. A lot of species "can" do a lot of harm to us. It's just that they don't have the knowledge to kill efficiently on a grand scale. The world would be awesome if all species laked that knowledge.

So we can harm the environment & gain temporary advantage from that action, but it's not an advantage useful to the human specie. It's advantage useful 4 "current" human civilization.

[lake7less]

1/2

future human generations will find themselves in a world of trouble. So current -civilization- is "dominating" but these actions as a whole are a great disservice to the human -specie-. We r not dominating as a specie.

[lake7less]

we do not survive by being "the fittest" but by acting in harmony with our environment. Every specie has it's place in the ecosystem. It thrives by fitting in , not by excelling & pushing itself away . Dominating into extinction the ones you depend upon is just bad business: Your business will have a booming peak but then you'll go into bankruptcy, as you have destroyed all other competition including the small business that supplied food to your employees.

starvation, brrr. tragic really:)

[MotionFur]

Honestly, almost everything you're saying here has nothing to do with what was previously said.

[MotionFur]

"well mosquitoes COULD single out ppl who have aids, & then pass the virus along 2 as many ppl as possible. A lot of species "can" do a lot of harm to us. It's just that they don't have the knowledge to kill efficiently on a grand scale. The world would be awesome if all species laked that knowledge."

You mean you don't count the intelligence of the animal? You could just easily as say they COULD dominate us if they were all bigger and stronger and we couldn't kill them.

[lake7less]

We "dominate" because we choose 2b aggressive. It can b called intelligence if intelligence is smth that ends up killing you. "Anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa about 130,000 years ago"(wiki)

Considering the way we dominate the environment since the industrial revolution, I'd be surprised if we made it 4 another 2000 years.

Just pointing out that specie "domination" should b directed at the wellbeing of the specie, not that of society.

Do you agree?

[MotionFur]

I can not read most of what you're saying, but domination has NOTHING to do with being aggressive.

[lake7less]

If u can't read it, find some patience & try harder. 2 stands for "to", 4 is "for", & is "and" &so forth:)

By building a city we have 2 drive out all wildlife from the site & modify the entire ecosystem there. that might have SOMETHING to do with being aggressive:)

-your title 4 the vid :"What separates us from animals? Where do we fit in nature?" -the point i failed to get through 2 u: "we don't try 2 fit in, that's what separates us"

would u agree?

[MotionFur]

No, I would not agree. A wolf does not "try to fit in" any less then a human does.

[lake7less]

(wiki)"The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by 36% and 148% respectively since the mid-1700s.[12] These levels are considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores."

I would say wolves & any other specie "fit in" a lot better than we do.

wolves, like any other sane predator, kill what they need 2 feed on, we kill what we need to sell.

Entire species r extinct because of us.

do u agree?

[MotionFur]

Wolves do what they do. Their nature dictates to them to preform certain actions as to make more wolves, and survive.

Humans do what they do. Their nature dictates to them to preform certain actions as to make more humans, and survive.

Both humans and wolves occour naturally.

Saying that one does not "fit in" makes no sense.

And I think it's funny you say that we don't dominate the earth but then admit that we cause extinctions of entire species of animals.

[lake7less]

the actions of wolves lead 2 the survival of their specie.

our actions lead to the advancement of civilization & 2the extinction of our specie. We r rapidly modifying the environment we were designed to live in. our specie & those around us won't b able 2 keep up with the changes.

if i go into an apartment building & throw sticks of tnt all over the place & the whole building crashes on top of everyone including me, it won't mean i "dominated" the neighborhood.

[MotionFur]

You're doing nothing but twisting the words at this point, and ignored what I have stated it means to "dominate." I'm not going to participate in your word game.

[lake7less]

Dominion over smth takes time. during a history of 130,000 years we need only 300 years 2make the environment good on it's way of being hostile 2 the species in it. that's not dominion; it's aggression. "humans occur naturally"?

dude, we create radioactive waste. 4 the love of logic pls explain how that seems natural 2 you.

[MotionFur]

Logic has no love for you.

[lake7less]

considering your arguments I'll just have 2 take your word 4 it:))

-"A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson

-"The Wisdom of your cells" by Bruce Lipton

-"Sophie's World" by Jostein Gaarder

These r really good books, you might like them. & you can find them in audio books 2. Have fun dude, thx 4 your time.

[RyuDarragh]

Values are subjective estimations of worth applied by beings to objective entities in the universe as perceived by their fallible senses. These values are subjective only due to the definition of "worth". Since both "value" and "worth" exist in context only, one must consider the context before assigning any other meaning to the terms.

Objective entities exist. Objective values exist (The charge on the electron. The rules of Chemical Interactions). All else is subjective.

[MotionFur]

Well, they are subjective estimations of subjective worth. Humans do not make subjective estimations of an objective worth of gold, they make subjective estimations of a subjective worth.

Well, the senses are not really fallible, just our interpretations.

I would not call the charge of an electron a value per say, more of an attribute. Attributes are real, but the value of an electron is whatever the power company charges you to push it down the wire to your house.

[RyuDarragh]

Dr. Manhatten (Jon) is a character from the Watchmen movie/comic who, in typical superhero accident, is transformed into a being of energy. One quote of his, "There is little difference between the person dead and the person alive. All the same elements are there." - he's becomming more abstracted from what it means to be human.

[MotionFur]

Well, I would agree. But I have feelings [regardless of how strong, they are feelings] towards one, and not the other, but this only reflects my feelings, not reality. :P

[RyuDarragh]

Dr. Manhatten would be so proud :P

You do realize that ascribing an emotional meaning to everything is, itself, an emotional appeal? By which I mean not every motivation arises because of an emotion. According to brain studies, many emotions we feel seem to happen *after* the fact.

I suppose it's an effect of a meeting between a Nihilist and a Weak Objectivist.. both sniff a flower, one says "I perceive a pleasent smell." and the other says "That's why you sniffed the flower."

[MotionFur]

Not sure who Dr Manhatten is. But I am allergic to flowers :P

Buuuut, I'm kind of lost in our conversation at this point. I'm not even sure where you stand on values being objective or subjective.

[RyuDarragh]

In that limited sense, yes. You are invoking a consensus of values, but there it is.

Now, do the laws of physics show any such leanings at the level of quarks, gluons or even atoms, planets and galaxies? Nope. Not directly.

But, but.. since the laws of physics resulted in us, and we can (and do) ascribe values to the universe, then in a sense, the laws of physics have arrived at a value assigning function. Us.

[MotionFur]

We do ascribe values to things. We ascribe values in a semi-arbitrary manner, it's a general mix of self-survival and other preference/desire/emotion. For instance, the emotion empathy could be the primary driving force for caring about the welfare of others. But just because I care about the welfare of a child, that doesn't mean the life of a child is inherently valuable, just because I would die for those I love, does not mean those who I love have more value then the materials that make them.

[RyuDarragh]

I'm a weak objectivist, so values to me have many forms (weak to distinguish it from the Ayn Rand version).

If you mean values ascribed by humans to objective and subjective elements of existance, then they do exist. Others have ascribed values to various aspects of existance.

The fact that the laws of physics do not favor one human value over another doesn't matter much.

So, things have values we ascribe to them, but not *based* on what we perceive, but by what we *think*

[MotionFur]

So, between two situations for the future, one with everyone dieing in a nuclear holocaust, and one with us all holding hands and putting flowers in eachother's hair in the middle of a meadow, neither of these situations have any more value then they other, but we ascribe value, we decide what one we want, yes?

[RyuDarragh]

That was my point about it being hardwired. You will survive, regardless of your desires, barring biochemical imbalance in the brain or some method of deceiving the mechanism of survival.

If it were only a "desire", then suicide rates would be an order of magnitude higher in the depressed.

You will note I did not ascribe any value like "better" or "worse" to this aspect of life at all.

[MotionFur]

Just because it is a "desire" does not mean it is shallow, it can be deep rooted and extremely strong. This seams to be quiveling over semantics.

Not sure if you answered my question, do you agree that nothing has value, and value is based on how we perceive?

[RyuDarragh]

"Narrowly restricted in scope or outlook; provincial" - by which i mean I ascribed inferior and superior in the sense of that which promotes death is inferior to that which promotes life in the realm of survival. You don't *prefer* or *like* to survive. It's hardwired into your very being by billions of years of evolution of life itself.

What you are saying is that you are a Nihilist (look up the word and let me know if it fits).

I'm not. I'm a Realist, or perhaps a Naturalist.

[MotionFur]

Just because it's "hardwired" into you to survive doesn't mean it's "better" to survive, that is just your desire.

"Nihilism is the philosophical position that values do not exist but rather are falsely invented." -wiki

Yes, that would apply to me. I don't think gold or life is inherently "valuable" just because of rarity or my desires/emotions towards it, the value is something I PUT on it. You think things like life have inherent value, and we're perceiving it, not putting it there?

[RyuDarragh]

Uhm.. don't play me the fool, MotionFur. As someone else pointed out, that is a distinction humans are readily capable of and is much rarer in the other animals out there.

And I am mystified how tropisms that trump all but a supreme effort of will and a tool capable of causing lethality you can't escape somehow make survival something you "prefer" over non-survival.

Don't tell me you are stuck in the paraochial definitions of "superior" and "inferior".. not even social sciences fits..

[MotionFur]

I don't understand what you're saying, I don't even know of paraochial is a word. But the point is "goodness" and "badness" are not real traits. Values like what we put on gold because it's "rare" are just arbitrary and change with supply, values like this are not real traits. A human is not objectively "better" then a pile of minerals that make up the human body, regardless of how "rare" you perceive it to be. And you saying for us to "rise up" above our animal nature makes 0 sense to me.

[RyuDarragh]

Your argument about "objective" good and evil is not relevent (but I do agree there isn't much "objective" inside the head and have yet to hear a convincing description of "objective morals").

My argument is that lifes "survival" tropisms are not emotions of the sort you mean. You don't "like" life. You will try and preserve your own at almost any cost and will even give it up for your offspring. If this were not so, you'd be a Darwin Award contendor..

[MotionFur]

Yeah... darn Darwin award contenders who would not fight for their life... people like gandhi and other pacifists are just fucking retarded, eh?

But the point is, when you say there are "superior" actions that means you believe that some outcomes from the actions are better then other outcomes. I am saying no outcomes are better then any other outcomes, so nothing is "superior" but instead, only preferred.

[RyuDarragh]

Where do you get this "just like it" nonsense? It's hardwired in. If it were just "like", you could as cheerfully die and not care like a toy windup doll. If you try and take the life from most creatures, then you are risking your *own* life doing so. I'd call that more than "like".

[MotionFur]

Just because you emotions about it is deeply rooted, doesn't mean it's anything more then your preference. Your live has no objective value, you just have a deep seeded attachment to it.

Do you agree that there is no objective "good" and "evil" and these are just labels we put on things? Or do you claim objective morality?

[RyuDarragh]

Agreed, we'd still be animals, even after we merge with our machines or undergo Ascension into beings of pure thought, just composed of pure energy, but then, what else is there? There is only life and nonlife.. and that boundary is also easily crossed. Solipsistically, you don;t need to worry about anyone but yourself, but I tend toward the 10 billion year stare.. not because "humans" are so special, but because "mind" is the rarest thing in the universe. There's so little of it..

[RyuDarragh]

"There are not "superior actions" there are just "different actions." " I beg to differ. Inferior actions are those that are less pro survival than superior actions, or you wouldn't be able to have the definitions to attach to them. In this case, it's "Artificial Selection" in evolutionary terms. You just need to be clear what you are selecting for before you begin. If it were just "different actions", then breathing is just a hobby.

[MotionFur]

"I beg to differ. Inferior actions are those that are less pro survival than superior actions"

But survival is not "good." You just like it, you have an emotional feeling to it. Are things "superior" just because they sustain things that you personally enjoy or like?

[simplic10]

I agree entirely with you.

The only sense in which we are separate from (most) other animals, as far as I can see, is in the fact that our brains are able to overrule their own programming.

Consider birth control. It is, in a sense, overcoming our animal nature. We're enjoying the rewards nature provides as an incentive for sex, while completely subverting the objective of those incentives. So we are (almost) unique in the sense that our software can overrule our hardware, as it were.

[simplic10]

What happens if a calculator is made so big and complicated that it learns to write poetry?

It is still a calculator, but not, as it were, *just* a calculator; at least not in the same sense.

[MotionFur]

A calculator is just a specific type of computer/machine, like a dog is a specific type of animal. If dogs evolved to do something that it used to not be able to do, you might not call it a "dog" anymore, but it would still be an animal.

[MotionFur]

Seams to me that you take the nature "intends" for us to do certain things, like reproduce, approch. But nature does not intend for anything to happen at all. Pleasure from sex is not there TO encourage reproduction, but rather, between the animals that were spurred on by pleasure and the ones that weren't, the animals that were survived. If we were to go so far as to only have sex for pleasure and never reproduce [an evolutionary dead-end like many other] nature would be indifferent.

[simplic10]

Yes, all that is true. No, I'm not personifying "nature," merely pointing out that as an accidental byproduct of the evolutionary changes that gave us our large brains, we, unlike other animals, are capable of doing things actually *opposed* to our interest from an evolutionary standpoint (e.g., universal altruism, suicide bombing).

This makes people very, very queer animals indeed.

But still animals.

[MotionFur]

Well, all I'm saying is from an "evolutionary standpoint" you pass your genes on or you don't, neither situation is preferred.

I appreciate your responses.

[RyuDarragh]

What I'm getting at, is that we humans have the ability to end all life on this planet, either in the blink of an eye or over a few decades, at this point, and we had better get a handle on better ways to survive than the same old same old, 'cause it sure as hell isn't working.

We have to step up and do something other than "just be animals" if we want to survive. Let the nihilists kill themselves off if they want to. No skin off my nose.

[MotionFur]

"We have to step up and do something other than "just be animals" if we want to survive."

No matter what you do, it will always be the actions of an animal. Even if we survive, we survive as animals. Even if we build a utopian society like the world has never seen, we will do it as animals.

There is nothing qualitative or quantitative that makes humans not animals. There is nothing qualitative or quantitative that makes my Ford Taurus anything but a car.

[MotionFur]

There is no place to "step up" to, in the first place. There are not "superior actions" there are just "different actions." Different actions have different outcomes, and we tend to prefer some outcomes compared to others. Just because we prefer something doesn't mean it's a "step up" to do it, it's just that what's we're going to work for.

[RyuDarragh]

You keep trying to attach emotion where it doesn't go and ignore it's value as a survival tool in lifes toolbox of adaptations.

To repeat "You will note that I have stated thet there is nothing *qualitative* that seperates us from the animals."

And how is survival, the very essence of life itself, putting "an unjustifiable value on life". It's an emergent property and the only reason you are on the other end of this wire is due to its utility.

[RyuDarragh]

Define "objectively good". You can't. My logic is that life will struggle to survive. So logic dictates doing other than to further that purpose is counter productive. Emotions are also logical in this light as they exist to provide a tropism to do that which is pro survival.

You will note that I have stated thet there is nothing *qualitative* that seperates us from the animals.

I'd say quantitavive differences abound.. look at our capacity to alter the climate of the entire planet.

[MotionFur]

You're trying to use something that is unique to humans to try and say is "separates" us from other animals, just because it is unique to us. That's just nonsense. Nothing about us makes us any less/more of an animal then any other animal.

And you're saying that doing other then helping life survive is counter productive? Why should we care about being productive? Is it because you're putting an unjustifiable value on life, due to your emotional attachment to it?

[MotionFur]

All I see is you say you don't want emotions to rule our lives, but that statement itself is directed by nothing but emotions. Therefore you should reject that statement you yourself made if you want to obtain it.

[RyuDarragh]

As I said, it seems emotional, but the benefits are logical as well since being humane does not just apply to other humans, but to the whole of life on this planet. You can't be humane and rape the environment. You can't be humane and overpopulate.

The other factor is, what's wrong with emotions? Break the word down. Any motivation to do other than consume time in the permanent mental "Idle State" *is* an emotion. There ain't no motion caused by a mind unless motivated by an emotion :P

[MotionFur]

Oh, you're the one who said you don't want to be directed with emotions not me.

" it seems emotional, but the benefits are logical as well since being humane does not just apply to other humans, but to the whole of life on this planet. You can't be humane and rape the environment. You can't be humane and overpopulate."

All those "benefits" you see are only benefits because you feel positive emotions towards them, not because they're objectively good. Emotion is the driving force, not logic.

[RyuDarragh]

Actually, no. Eugenics would not be needed. Energy patterns that can be self sustaining abound in the universe. It's more likely that *technology* will get us there, but biology could do it under the right conditions.

It may seem emotional, but, we humans *do* have the opportunity to get off the hamster wheel of natural selection. Not ready, just yet, but we have the ability. Eugenics was a ham fisted and neolithic politically driven first attempt.

[MotionFur]

Well, we've changed it greatly, because we let almost anyone reproduce, even people who are completely inept, we shelter and stop people from dieing. No one can be naturally "selected" if everyone is popping out babies [as in... no selection at all besides for mutations that do not allow children last to reproductive age.] But the point is, your wish for more "humanity" or "humane-ness" is just emotional. But it's part of your animal nature to feel that way, so I wont blame you.

[RyuDarragh]

Humans are animals. What "seperates" us from other animals is only quantitavive, not qualitative. Those of us who seek to "rise above" our animal natures seek to make us worthy of our name, to be HUMANE. To refuse to let our emotions rule our lives and to make them instead the spice that makes us humane. Who knows, someday we may very well evolve into being composed of pure thought.. living patterns of energy. We may do it biologically or technologically. But the goal is a worthy one.

[MotionFur]

"To refuse to let our emotions rule our lives and to make them instead the spice that makes us humane."

This seams like an emotional statement and goal.

"Who knows, someday we may very well evolve into being composed of pure thought.. living patterns of energy."

With forced eugenics, maybe [although the "being composed of pure thought" sounds like a fairytale, a soul.] But with current situations, I would guess evolution is all going to be about social/mating interaction, sexual selection.

[MotionFur]

"Those of us who seek to "rise above" our animal natures seek to make us worthy of our name, to be HUMANE."

You don't see chickens hanging around in drug gangs, do you? No. You don't see chickens strappin' someone to a chair and hookin' up their nuts to a car battery. And when's the last time you heard about a chicken who came home from work and beat the shit out of his hen? Huh? It doesn't happen. You know why? Because chickens are decent people.

-George Carlin

[ksol000]

I think that when people speak of "animal nature" they are speaking of the unconscious mind - the mind that is not consciously thinking. By this standard, most human beings have "animal natures", or perhaps all humans do, most of the time.

[MotionFur]

*thinks for a moment*

But, then, so what's our conscious mind, if not just another facet of our animal nature? Are we in a way transcending animal nature? Because dolphins, chimps and elephants all demonstrate self-awareness and reasoning like we do.

[MotionFur]

I guess people call the animal nature as an unconscious mind... because they do not think animals have conscious minds? But that's not true.

[ksol000]

I think it's a matter of degree. The other animals aren't conscious enough to do philosophy, or create universities and hospitals, so far as we know. Having said that, most people probably aren't conscious enough to do those things either.