How do humans differ from other species?

Excellent question. In terms of mental traits I would say what makes us special is the capacity for self awareness. It's not an innate sense though. Abstract thinking maybe.

I think to believe that is to deny your incredible freedom. For all we can tell, we are the pinnacle of existence. Why grasp for a master?

LilOc wrote: »

What do you guys make of the fact that scientists have spoken of classifying dolphins as "non-human persons"?

Scientists really like making the evening news.

I think there are problems with the question. If you ask what defines us, you're asking what strictly differentiates us from other species. I'm not a big city biologist, but I'd suggest that we share some basic characteristics with varieties of species. We need food, water, air, we reproduce, we have a capacity to be social beings, and we communicate. We share these basic functions with many other species, (some of) these basic functions are what allows us to live. I think the strict distinction that we try to answer in that question, is probably a more interesting question, that is, why do we look for a strict distinction between us and other species.

So, I think it would be more interesting to ask how did we differentiate ourselves from other species, and why did we do that. I'm going to stick with the "West" here, and I'm going to generalize and possibly not be entirely accurate, but that's okay, because I'm not expecting a nobel prize for this post, just trying to play around with some ideas.

Some Pagan religions revered animals, they worshipped them, and they tried to harness their powers for human use. It isn't that they didn't make a distinction between human's and animals, they did, and it wasn't a harmonious, hippy friendly, relationship, but I think the key point (for the next part) is that they didn't turn the beast in to something wicked, something evil, something entirely seperate and beneath human beings.

Catholicism I think was different. Man becomes above all beasts, and humans start to actively differentiate themselves from the beast. Not only do they differentiate themselves from the beast, as an entirely different creature, but the beast becomes all that is evil within Man. All of our sinful impulses are beastly instincts. Particularly sex. Catholicism being obsessed with sex, and controlling sex, sex became a beastly, carnal, act that is linked to the wicked, cloven hoofed, part-man, part-animal Satan.

I think you could argue that Catholicism made a very clear and very definite distinction between Man and Beast that lasted with us at least until Darwin came along and re-esthablished that link under science.

So, why? Why did Catholicism link sin to the Beast? What was the point? What was the function? I think the Beast is what Man falls to. When Man sins He becomes the Beast, he becomes no longer Human, he looses the spark of the divine, and he falls to damnation and earthly instincts. We held up animals as the symbol of the earth, and all of it's sinful wretchedness, and the earth was not what Catholicism was seeking. Heaven was what Catholicism was seeking. Not this life, but the next. What does Man have? A soul. Does the Beast have a soul? No. Man goes to Heaven, rids himself of his mortal coil and embraces the divine, while the animal remains on the wretched earth.

We differentiated ourselves from animals because they symbolised earthly, physical life and all of its apparent horrors. Human beings were more then animals, we were more then just physical life. We had to be more then animals because all animals do is live and die, and that's it. There doesn't seem to be any point in their lives. They don't go to Heaven, they don't have a soul, and they don't erect cathedrals, paint, write philosophy, or compose music.

Hmm. I can't remember where I was going with this I think what I'm trying to say is that we, through Catholicism, made a specific distinction between human beings and animals, for a specific reason, and that specific distinction has stayed with us, even past Darwin, and continues to manifest itself in the question, how are we distinct from animals, how are we a super-natural species, what separates us from animals. I think that question isn't the right question, because I think that question is built on the thinking of Catholicism, and assumes that there is a strict, definitive, difference. I think it's a question we need to go past, and we need to re-think what question we should be asking instead. What is the right question? I don't know :pac:

Gary L wrote: »

Excellent question. In terms of mental traits I would say what makes us special is the capacity for self awareness.

It's been scientifically proven that certain primates and elephants exhibit self-awareness.

WindSock wrote: »

Also imagination and creativity.

Personally I think they are big ones, I used to think that a concept of time was another one, but not so much now.

What separates us? Not a lot. Humans and pigs both get sunburn. We both suffer from swine flu and foot & mouth. Our current relationship is almost symbiotic. However, the whole "pigs in space" thing hasn't quite caught on yet.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The great thing we invented is language, so we can learn from the experiances of others (or rather a few of us do )

Humans are intelligent, people are stupid. While that sounds glib, we still engage in many behaviours that were learned hundreds of millions of years ago, e.g. if the herd runs, all its members will run, even if they don't know why they are running, simply because it is a measure that has evolved as a protection. It removes food from the reach of predators and tramples other predators. Drive a train past some horses and the horses will run with the train as they perceive it to be a herd and if the herd is running, they should be running also. Note there is no requirement for the herd to be of the same species - if 10,000 buffalo are running, getting out of the way makes sense.

Turtyturd wrote: »

I was talking more along the lines of living in the here and now. An animal will hunt its food and eat what it needs to do it until the next hunt. I used to consider that a big difference but hibernating animals kind of blow a hole in the theory.

Many animals, humans included, hoard food whether in cupboards or on their bodies. Give a dog or a bear food and they will eat a lot more than they need for one day. Give human or a squirrel food and they will try to store what they don't need immediately.

Pablo_ wrote: »

do scientists know of any animal/plant that evolved after 10,000 years ago? ie evolved into existence after homo-sapiens ?

Isn't that a bit homo-centric? Chickens and other domesticated animals are a lot different to what they were 10,000 years ago. Wildlife is always adapting to circumstance, e.g. the field mice that became beach mice on Bull Island that first demonstrated Darwin's ideas.

Victor wrote: »

Isn't that a bit homo-centric? Chickens and other domesticated animals are a lot different to what they were 10,000 years ago. Wildlife is always adapting to circumstance, e.g. the field mice that became beach mice on Bull Island that first demonstrated Darwin's ideas.

Ya Victor, I see the dogs/chickens variation as homocentric, and the elephant tusks scenario, i.e. its got mans hands all over it but I got reading about the beach mice you mentioned. That really is evoluton in recent times, an adaptation to their environment, by their paler colouring.

Pablo_ wrote: »

Ya Victor, I see the dogs/chickens variation as homocentric

I mean that picking 10,000 years is homo-centric, just because its a mile stone for your species, doesn't mean it is for all species.