Humans are animals, right?

Right?

Originally posted by Jigtie
Right?

Right. A very special animal. It's our specie.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Right. A very special animal. It's our specie.

By God! Are you saying I'm a human?

Originally posted by Jigtie
By God! Are you saying I'm a human?

Animal-based. Definately not to be lumped together with other animals.

Here is the dictionary definition of an animal -

: any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation.

Do we fit this description?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Animal-based. Definately not to be lumped together with other animals.

Animal-based? As a programmer I can't help but snicker at that. See, in programming there are so
called object oriented languages. In such a language you work with the three pillars of object
orientation: encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism. But there are also the so called object
based languages, which are sort of simplified, less powerful versions of the object oriented
languages. Tee-hee. Humans are animal-based.

Seriously though, what's so different about humans? Sure, there's a huge difference between a
human and, say, a crocodile, but an ape or a pig is not that unlike humans (according to DNA
studies). Humans are more intelligent than all others, according to human assessment, but that's
about it, isn't it?

Originally posted by Jigtie
Animal-based? As a programmer I can't help but snicker at that. See, in programming there are so
called object oriented languages. In such a language you work with the three pillars of object
orientation: encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism. But there are also the so called object
based languages, which are sort of simplified, less powerf ...[text shortened]... ntelligent than all others, according to human assessment, but that's
about it, isn't it?

Humans have the ability to question.

Other than that humans seem to have the power of the world in their hands. (the power to destroy it, that is)

as for intelligence, we have yet to come up with a satisfactory explanation for what intelligence is.

who knows whats going on with other members of the animal kingdom. Dolphins for example seem to display an intelligence that is way beyond fish, for example.

My girlfriend says that I'm an animal (grrr). At least when I don't have too many beers inside.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Humans have the ability to question.

Other than that humans seem to have the power of the world in their hands. (the power to destroy it, that is)

as for intelligence, we have yet to come up with a satisfactory explanation for what intelligence is.

who knows whats going on with other members of the animal kingdom. Dolphins for example seem to display an intelligence that is way beyond fish, for example.

So, humans are animals then?

Originally posted by Jigtie
So, humans are animals then?

(thats a loaded question)
So my answer would be : YES and NO

Originally posted by FabianFnas
My girlfriend says that I'm an animal (grrr). At least when I don't have too many beers inside.

Because when you drink beer you magically transform into a non-corporeal entity whose only ability
is to experience the immediate surrounding, but not interact with it?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
(thats a loaded question)
So my answer would be : YES and NO

How is it a loaded question? It can't be both yes and no. Either humans are animals, or they're not.
Please elaborate.

Originally posted by Jigtie
How is it a loaded question? It can't be both yes and no. Either humans are animals, or they're not.
Please elaborate.

I will try , dear friend.

We have an animal 'base'. However we have been 'infused' with a 'greater conciosness'. (one that is able to question,etc.)

I am a believer in panspermia. IE. that we have been 'seeded' with 'higher' conciosness. The exact details of this 'seeding' are not important at this point, nor do I wish to elaborate on this point.

I believe the human organism has stopped evolving (or growing) any other way except for their brain size. Why has the human brain kept growing disporportianatly to the rest of the evolutionary response. Surely a larger brain is not for any (physical) defensive purposes.
(although you could argue the larger brain has made us 'outwit' our potential predators.I do not believe that this is what our larger brains are for...but lets just start with one point at a time, eh?)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I will try , dear friend.

We have an animal 'base'. However we have been 'infused' with a 'greater conciosness'. (one that is able to question,etc.)

I am a believer in panspermia. IE. that we have been 'seeded' with 'higher' conciosness. The exact details of this 'seeding' are not important at this point, nor do I wish to elaborate on this point ...[text shortened]... hat our larger brains are for...but lets just start with one point at a time, eh?)

Ok, so you agree that humans are animals, but that they're also something more (infused with a
greater conciousness)? Like a hammer is a tool, but unlike the saw, the hammer is perfectly
adapted for use when putting nails in place (and also for bluntly damaging your own thumb)?

Different animals have evolved differently, there's no question about that. But surely the "greater
conciousness" can be ascribed to the human brain's abilities? And like any other evolutionary
development, it just so happened that people with the "greater conciousness"-gene(s) has
survived, copulated and passed on their genes to their offspring. Is it any different from how the
eyes of the cat has evolved to make it easier for them to hunt in the dark, or the necks of giraffes
has evolved to allow them to eat from high trees? Isn't evolution pretty self-explanatory in this
sense? That animals with certain features in certain locations simply survived long enough to
pro-create and so their genetic make-up (throw in a few mutations) lived on in their own offspring.

I think humans are still evolving. Babies are born with different mutations that makes them
slightly (and sometimes a lot) different from their parents. If those genes help them survive in
their given environment, they may pass them on to their own offspring and there you go.

Or do you mean to say that our greater conciousness cannot be ascribed to the brain? 'Cause if
you do, my argument falls flat, and I'd appreciate some detail on exactly how you think it can't be.

🙂

Originally posted by Jigtie
Right?

If a human isn't an animal, what the hell is it???