|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:01 pm
A few days ago my father and I had gotten into an argument about wether humans are animals or not.
My point was yes, we are animals. We are simply just at the top of the food chain and we have learned to dominate the world. We sre just the dominent species on Earth. We communicate and have forms of leadership just as some or most animals do. Our brains are further developed so it alows us to build and strive to be more than animals in sheds of clothing with a spear.
My dads point is that we are self-aware. Humans know that we are alive and supposivley most animals dont know they are alive. How that is possable i do not know. He said that along with humans, ants whales and dolfins are considersd to possably be self-aware. So humans are above all animals and shouldnt even be concidered an animal and should be an a totally different class.
What do you think are we just superior animals or are we a in a totally different class?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:21 pm
If a creature feels pain and expresses emotion, even discretely, then it must be self-aware. From wiki: "Self-awareness is the explicit understanding that one exists". Maybe he is confused with self-actualization? Yay for the hierarchy of needs! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_needsBut ja, we're animals. No different than any other living things. We just figured out fancy things like math and science. In a way, certain species of primates and dolphins are more intelligant than us. By not creating a society like ours there's no crime, murders, nuclear bombs, or pointless wars. Unless one dolphin steals another's fish, then we might have a slight problem... ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:50 am
Technically a human-being is considered a highly advanced mamal so... We are mamals, and are smarter than anything else on the planet, and can learn to adapt at a much faster rate of self-awarness of our surrondings, and can interract with things with a higher creative/strategic edge than most animals
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 6:01 am
Man.
Said to be more advanced than animals.
Animal.
Have increased senses and can do many things humans can't.
One link:
Both live to eat, and eat to live. Humans aren't capable of the fast-paced and deadly hunting required in the wild, but can create vast societies. Animals aren't capable of vast societies(or are they making their own cults.....OMG!!!!!), but have the hunting skills required for the wild.
Both categorized as mammals, omnivores, etc.
I'd go on but i don't want to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:19 am
the Ninja is right...we are animals...if you look at us, compared to other animals...we are almost the same. we've just eolved beyond the mindset of most wild creatures....people dont think they are animals because we have technology....people fail to understand...technology isnt always computers and cars...a hammer is technology...animals have technology...they use twigs o gather the termites, otters use rocks to smash open clams...sure its not as advanced...but saying we arent animals because of technology? i guess monkeys and otters are people too. oh...and we fight over teritory too. with that being said...we are animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:56 am
From a scientific standpoint I would say we are animals, advanced animals. We are from the kingdom animalia (sp?) and we are heterotrophs (must hunt for food) even if our senses are not as good as some other animals doesn't mean we aren't animals. Moles can't see as good as hawks but they are still classified as animals. Humans even have near vestigal senses such as taste and smell. For the most part they are only there to give us pleasure or annoy us, why would we have these if we didn't need them previously.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:46 pm
I think we are both animals and something greater. We are unlike any other creature that lives on the planet now or in the past. We are the only such creatures in our solar system. It's remarkable to think that this is just how evolution works. Evolution works to allow animals to physically survive until they can procreate and pass on their genes. The ability to philosophize and to be self-aware are not necessary. Insects and reptiles have survived for many millions of years without these skills.
Of all the creatures on the planet, why would such a group of monkeys as us rise above all others? There must be something else at work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:21 pm
Humans, in a biological make-up, are animals. We are mammals. So I take the side of “Superior Animals”, but doesn’t that sound a little egotistical?
Your father could’ve mixed up his idea with the theory of “if an animal is hurt, it does not know if it will survive or not”. That instinct is in all of us really but the example is, “If a person gets a deep cut and goes to the doctor they know they can get stitched up. But, let’s say a dog at a vet has no idea what is going on around it, and it will get scared and fear for it’s life though the veterinarian will take care of the pup!”
And your father could’ve mixed up “self awareness” with “self conscious” (it was conscious or consciousness, there is a slight difference, I can‘t remember what at the time). In my religion class the class had to make a list of extreme differences that humans and animals had. That was one, another was a language. When we compiled them, students were discussing how humans were better than animals, but I think we are just advanced. And if it wasn’t for modern medicine and technology, natural selection would have picked off a lot of us by now.
When it comes down to it, sure animals don’t wear suits and work on computers, but put me in the wild Amazonian jungle with nothing but the clothes on my back - I’d be in the fetal position rocking back and forth crying. In some ways, animals are greater than us, most don’t use excess and I doubt their cars destroy the ozone layer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:33 pm
Fairy_Sage you mention that without modern tech and medicine natural selection would have picked us off long ago but didn't natural selection lead us to discover modern tech and medicine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:03 pm
Humans differ greatly from animals because one we have an eternal soul. We differ from them because two, we are made in the image of God; No where is it said that animals are made in the image of God. God put us in charge of His creation, therefore not only are we not animals but we are greater than them.
Why look at it in reverse and say just because they basically do the same as us, ie. eat, sleep, and mate, that we were just only animals... Just because our species are less than the animal category. Why not look at it as if they're striving to be like us, to earn our favor and everything else?
Humans are humans, animals are animals. We are all creations of God though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 31, 2007 6:22 pm
Our so called "advanced mind" is our own worst enemy. It can do many great things, but mostly all it does is mess with nature, which by itself (without humans) would be perfect.
Scientifically, humans are animals. It's a scientific fact.
However, I'd have to add that animals are just as self aware as we are. They just aren't self aware of humans. Take for example the vet office scenario that Fairy_Sage brought up. Of course the animal is scared, it's new it's unknown, it's alien. Imagine you got beemed up by aliens and they were probing you. Would you be alright with it? I'd be scared out of my mind. A dog isn't used to being in a vets office, a tiger isn't used to a small cage, and humans aren't used to being probed by green people on a different planet.
@Ged: And cats are the only such creatures in our solar system. As far as we know at the moment, Earth is the only planet/moon/space object that can have any life whatsoever, down to a one celled organism.
If by "There must be something else at work" you mean a higher power please go find a new logical fallicy to pick on. I'm not even going to link you, cause I have linked it several times.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 4:39 am
We are animals. Animals are living things that need air, food and water to survive. They have some form of comunication, even if it's not vocal. They move because their bodies allow them. And I think most animals realise that they are alive. They hunt and go through hard times to survive. They mate so their species can live on. They even love unconditionally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 6:11 am
We're technically animals, but far more intellegent.
As far as the 'self awareness' goes, there are studies that test an animal's self awareness, and there for intellegence levels. There's no way to reach into an animals brain and fish around for an 'I am real' thought or something like that, but there are things like the mirror test, which most species have failed. The only animals I can think of off the top of my head who have passed the mirror test are dolphins, some type of monkey (can't remember if it was a chimp or not), elephants and African grey parrots.
So we are seperated from the rest of the animal kingdom by /something/, but we are classified as an animal. The answer to your question really depends on if you're talking strictly from a scientific definition of animal or a more philisophical sort of definition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 8:32 am
THe mirror test? Can you explain further?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2007 11:05 am
They put the animal up to a mirror to see if it recognizes it self. Which may have more to do with the animals eyesite than wether they are self aware. Most kittens put infront of a mirror will attack the mirror, but they are just kittens, they attack everything that movies, but most older cats, just look into the mirror. Maybe relizing that it's them, maybe not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
