BBC News Story

For the first time, scientists have observed monkeys using stones to help them find food. This is the first time that such behaviour has been seen outside the great apes (including humans!).

This prompted me to wonder what makes us unique. We used to say we were the only animals that laugh, but some other animals seem to have a sense of humour, so maybe we are not that unique here. We used to think we were the only animals that use language, but the more we study whales (for example), the more it looks as though their "singing" is a type of long-range communication.

We used to think we were the only creatures with notions of higher, abstract concepts, for example justice, but it seems even that is not uniquely human

We can say that we are the only creatures that used abstract thought, but we can only be sure of this because we can tell each other about them.

What do you believe are the special factors that make us uniquely human?
Are they totally unique to us, or qualities we share with fellow creatures but in a more heightened or specialist expression?

This has been a question that has come along often. Stemming from the idea that we are not like animals, all sorts of attempts have been made to support the idea, most of which can be shown in some form among animals.

My take on this is that what the heck, humans are animals. We share more things than not, and so it goes. I don't need to have been made in God's image, as what I believe to be God has no image -- only symbolic representations.

But we can do things that other animals cannot. We can destroy the Earth with nuclear weapons. We can travel in space. We can invent things like cars and televisions, and we can be deluded more than any other critter.

Written language is unique to us, and I'd imagine the need for belief in some kind of spirtuality, although I wonder about those whales.

Our senses of self and the resulting vanity isn't unique, but it is stronger than in animals. For example, living in the right part of town in the right house, driving the right kind of vehicle and wearing the right clothes for the season. Seems that animals just do what works for survival -- that makes it right. We like to think we're among the in crowd, given a situation.

Animals do not have pop stars! Ha, there you go.



I'm pretty sure that animals and humans have the same qualities in various levels of expression. Our creativity is highly developed, as is our curiousity. We have greater problem-solving abilities, and along with this goes greater problem-creation abilities. We probably hate and love to far greater degrees.

That we don't have other species closer to us right now is a puzzle. We know about Neanderthals in the past, and we speculate about Big Foot as existing and being closer to human. I think we feel lonesome and apart from this.

Still, we like pets and pets like us. Horses become close friends and allies. Dogs get all excited over owners, and cats -- well, they have their moments. It's tough to eat an animal that you've killed if you've come to know the animal. We do Kosher and give thanks to the animals we eat, at least in some cultures.

That could be unique.

What do you believe are the special factors that make us uniquely human? Are they totally unique to us, or qualities we share with fellow creatures but in a more heightened or specialist expression?

First, you're assuming that we're all human on this debate forum. How do you know for sure?

That said, intelligence, cognition, language and tool use, while not uniquely human, are very important to humanness. It's really just a question of degree and scale. Humans do things and have done things that other animals have not done to the same level. If you're looking for a boolean attribute which defines humans' uniqueness versus that of all other animals, you'll be looking a long time.

Of course, there are huge variabilities in humanness. Is a person in a coma still a human, a quadriplegic, a severely mentally retarded person, a child? In that sense, humanness has more to do with shape, gender and emotive impact rather than mental or manipulative actions. Because humans have hands of a certain configuration, we say humans share the common "latent" capability of manipulating a tool even if a particular human, who happens to be quadriplegic, cannot do so.

Let's say that eventually we genetically modify chimps or dolphins to have human level cognitive capabilities. Will we call them human? No, they'll have a new name and designation distinct from humans. Thus, there is no fear in this regard of "humanness" being in peril.

However, what happens if the mind-machine interface is perfected? What happens when consciousness can be downloaded into processing devices other than the human brain? Is this entity human? Not sure. It would certainly think like a human but not have all the other attributes we associate with humanness.

well, some of us can hit a baseball "far" and about .35% of the time, this then makes that human a "rich" person, so i guess that might count.

I guess one could look at comparative physiology, then of course what this biology has allowed for over time, stone age, bronze age, books, etc... Does a monkey doing math or speaking in sign langauge mean anything, or using tools or materialism mean anything in particular. No, not really. Phylogeny is what it is, for the sake of learning biology, i wish naming or overall models of learning were more bent to phylogeny in such a field, but no, we have to have people that names beetles latin for marys chaffer and what not kind of stuff, but i do know that phylogeny in terms of organizing life is not complete yet. primates/sapiens are very interesting, and so is all life really. Its a shame that not much of the population holds any care to learn about it, or much else for that matter, like atoms and what not. I think its funny we are only roughly 2% different in respects to terms phylogeny covers, like genetics, i think that point is missed a lot.

Humans are unique for being human, much like a zebra to a horse. I would like to rant on this one, but i will save memory and peoples interest

There seem to be a lot of factors that are "human", but that other animals seem to share, like the aforementioned examples of justice and language. Although I would like to say that there are some things that do make us human, and the only thing I could think of was this: we're doing the studying here.

I can't even remember the last time I read a research article by a monkey or great ape about human behaviors and things humans are capable of doing.

Simply put, I think one strictly human characteristic is we study anything and everything, and I mean further than observing things. We do experiments to determine the properties and do research to understand our world, whereas other animals, although being able to learn, do not seek out knowledge voluntarily (unless someone has a link to a chimp reading for pleasure).

What do you believe are the special factors that make us uniquely human?

Religion. The ability to be self delusional. The ability to lie. The ability to preach. The ability to spread a message by word of mouth across vast distances. The ability to believe in an abstract concept. The ability to murder.


Are they totally unique to us, or qualities we share with fellow creatures but in a more heightened or specialist expression?

Orca play with seals before they eat them. Cats play with mice. Are they going to set up any religions any time soon?

What seperates us from the other animals is the fact that we are given the dubious honour of being stupid.

Its funny how human beings often regard cows as stupid, and yet, I've never seen any examples of bovine holy war. I've never seen dogs bow down to a perceived deity. I once saw a film where a Dolphin saved a sailor from drowning but I've yet to see dolphins waging a holocaust.

Interesting thoughts, all. I'd be tempted to say that faith and hope are uniquely human sentiments, but I'm not sure. I've read some stories about dogs which lead me to believe otherwise.

I think regret and guilt are probably uniquely human emotions. Animals do what they need to do to survive, but I doubt they spend one second contemplating their actions after the fact. Of course, since I cannot speak to the animals, and they cannot communicate with me, there's no way to really know.

Humans are animals. Most animals have something unique about them that seperate's them from the rest of the animals. Humans are set apart by superior intelligence. This results in many occurances and also provides the means to extreme one way or another.

For example many other animals entertain themselves but Humans entertain themselves with music. We can also observe animals that appear entertained by music but do not have the means to inspire music.

With intelligence come questions and with questions come science and religion. Religion being the answer to all questions and science being the answer to questions that stem from other questions.

Humans can help our enviroment and others and devastate the enviroment and others more than any other animal. Intelligence is simply an understanding of our surroundings and manipulating them to our ends and our moments. Whether these moments and ends be entertainment, assistance, or devastation are entirely up to the individual intellect.

The only unique ability that humans have is our superior intellect, everything else stems from that.

What do you believe are the special factors that make us uniquely human?

Reasoning ability...and the choice to use or not to use it. Written language. Religion. Guilt. Music...though I imagine the birds would dispute that...maybe writing and using instruments to make music?

Some birds also use tools.

Moif's assertion that only humans murder is incorrect. I know that lions will murder another male to win over a pride of lionesses, and will also kill that male's young. Granted, the reasons are different; a lion kills to ensure only his get will endure, but humans kill for many reasons, or none at all (that reasoning ability again). Animals also learn, though not in the same way as humans.

Are they totally unique to us, or qualities we share with fellow creatures but in a more heightened or specialist expression?
The two characteristics I mention - reasoning and written language - I believe are unique, although I could be wrong about the reasoning. Sometimes I think animals make wiser decisions than humans.

Daffygrl



Without law, there is no murder.

Murder, (unlawful killing) is a human concept. For example, when a lion kills another lion, it is basically doing the same thing that soldiers do when they kill other soldiers.

Only by the human instution and concept of law does murder exist.

To me biology defines a life form, be it an ant of a human. You can get a certain amount of plasticity of abstraction of that biology of a specific species in terms of an individual. I doubt that genetics has it specifically for a dog to play frisbee, or for a human to play football. These things regardless come to be. My point on it all, is to debate this point is lacking in the fact of 100% understanding of biology has not been reached.

Damage to an organism, be it a single cell or a human starts to have impact on that organisms behavior overall. In terms of damage to the brain in animals, you can see a wide variety of effects, or abnormal behavior maybe for words. So in that light, or angle, or perspective, it would be rather difficult to say why something is the way it is. Maybe the brain made a concept of the "other" or "you", this then can correlate in the mechanism of thought as allowed by that organism. Be it proteins alone in an organism, or cells that actually make up a nervous system, biology alone allows for movement, i cannot will myself to something like table without the use of my body(or other physical means like planes), that would be something most life has in common, though their could be some unknown life in the sea that uses telepathy or something.

My whole point in examples in the ignorance that can exist in terms of making an explanation or an answer to something like this. Monkeys are declared social, but they will make social constructs in a giving troop, steal from each other and kill each other, reproduce sexually and so on. The biology part needs to be fully understood, then that relation to ecology(probably at the same time maybe), being i would think by now that a connection exists this can be found in humans and monkeys in a zoo or in the "wild".

obviously a dolphin can do more then a typical house cat, and that house cat can do more then your typical insect and so on, and of course all dwell from a stance of being multi cellular type being in tleation to that specific biology. I doubt that such a debate can really generate much save relativity of that persons stance on the issue alone without required fact, which is not going to be allowed in this debate for it would require organic evolution/biology i would rather leave up to person to study.

Well, you are assuming that animals do not have a concept of law - what do you base that on? Dolphins may well have concepts of good or bad, or even socially accepted practices that equate to laws, but we cannot really say, because we don't know. We assume they don't - but it is an assumption

I always thought the ability to adapt to any environment (including the moon) was the big difference between humans and animals. Animals tend to adapt to suit a particular environment and do not fare so well outside that environment or if that environment changes. Humans try to manipulate their environment to suit them.

What do you believe are the special factors that make us uniquely human?
Are they totally unique to us, or qualities we share with fellow creatures but in a more heightened or specialist expression?

Well I imagine the technical answer would be our genetic makeup. However, that's no fun to discuss.

What makes use unique in the animal kingdom?

Well we have seen examples of animals using tools, I have seen a squirrel use what would appear to be reason and problem solving skills to figure out how to open a peanut butter jar (locked in between it's legs and screwed of the lid), We know that animals will kill for selfish reasons (like the lion example), we know animals will act as protectors of other species (like the dolphins who defend human swimmers from sharks), and we know that animals are capable of adapting to all sorts of environments, including suburbs.

I think what makes us unique is the combination of all these abilities along with our strange willingness to choose to adapt to more pleasurable environments rather then seek more survivable ones (Like those who choose to live in natural disaster prone areas, or those who choose to struggle though living in a high cost of living area rather then move to a cheaper one). And lastly our ability change our environment to best suit us rather then change us to best suit the environment (the basis or civilized society, cities, etc). Not to mention our ability to reason...badly.

Ptarmigan

I'm not talking about a sense of right or wrong, or even a sense of justice and morality. Any dog can understand whats right and wrong!

I'm talking about an institutionalised perception of law. Because, forgive my sarcasm, but I don't think dolphins have lawyers!

Precisely, you don't think they have lawyers, but they may - or an equivalent in dolphin terms. We don't know - I know it sounds far fetched, but our understanding of dolphin society is not yet so far advanced as to clearly say what roles different dolphins play within the group. Is it so unusual to say that they may have those who act as mediators in a dispute?

And when you say that a dog can tell right or wrong, how do you define right or wrong? I'm not trying to be picky, but our concept of law really derives from our concept of what is good or bad for our society. Dogs may well have concepts of what is good or bad for canine society, which equates to 'law' in dog societies.

If a dog can understand right from wrong, then it is equally possible that a more intelligent animal has a more complex understanding and may have roles within its social grouping to help promote 'right' and prevent 'wrong'.

I mean the Dog understands when its been naughty...

I doubt very much if Dogs have a greater concept of society. I don't think a pack instinct qualifies, for dolphins either. Dolphins have been studied for decades and there has never been any indication that they have 'mediators'.

Although I understand your point, I don't think we can claim ignorance in this matter. If Dolphins had evolved such concepts, I think its safe to say we'd have seen some evidence of it by now.

Well, I think our understanding of dolphins in the wild is still fairly unfinished, certainly once dolphins or killer whales (or indeed normal whales) get out into the deep ocean, they tend to disappear into the uncharted deeps as it were.

I'm not really trying to put forward a concrete case for dolphins having a legal system - or dogs having a social conscience, but I think that saying 'humans have a concept of X whilst animals do not' is always going to be a dodgy argument, as we have no way of really knowing what concepts animals do or do not have.

Ahhh, one of my favorite topics. Perfect chance to ruffle some feathers!

What do you believe are the special factors that make us uniquely human?

Well, let me see. We stand alone in the animal kingdom as the only creature capable of destroying our planet. We also seem the only one singular unable to coexist with nature. Yet, we use this to claim we're the most intelligent species, clearly showing we suffer from excessive hubris. We study animals that seem able to understand us, yet we cannot understand them, and somehow conclude from that that we are more intelligent than they are. I could say we are the only creature capable of appreciating beauty...but doesn't that then indicate we are the only ones able to experience vanity? We claim that we have a more complex understanding of social structures, law, justice, etc...yet we seem the only animal capable of committing senseless murder. Or wage war. So, looking at this list, I would say that yes, there do some to be some qualities that make us uniquely human. And that none of them are much to be proud of (did I mention vanity?).

Are they totally unique to us, or qualities we share with fellow creatures but in a more heightened or specialist expression? Whose to say we don't have them in a lowered sense? Again, note that we seem to be the ones singularly unable to coexist in a natural environment, we seem to be the ones capable of committing senseless crimes, we seem to be the ones most unable to communicate with other species (for those that own dogs...does you dog understand you? If so, do you understand your dog? If not, what does that say about their intelligence vs. ours?). We are capable of laughing, but don't do it often enough. We are capable of creating beauty, but then we usually destroy it. We are capable of love, but seem to thrive on hate. We constantly judge others when we're not comfortable with ourselves. And, from all this, we then conclude we're superior? No, I think not.

Intelligence does not require a limit of ability to destroy the planet. We do co-exist with nature. The simple fact that we can destroy the planet demonstrates superior intelligence.



Somehow I highly doubt that other animals retian a superior understanding of Humans than we do of them.



http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/98/10...ORMAT=&fulltext



Dolphins and great ape's at the very least have a sense of self-awareness and a curiosity of their appearence. Lions seem to have a sense of vanity, of course we don't know if they do.



Five year old children don't commit sensless murder. I would think that it is a more complex understanding of social structures that lead to senseless murder.



I am able to communicate with my dog just as much as he is able to communicate with me. I know when he wants food, need's to go outside and when someone is coming near the house.



Superior intelligence does not require Humans to attempt Nirvana. So then it come's down to how you define superior. Humans as a species may not be superior, but I believe the individual can be if you choose to.

I knew a dog who hid under the bed, and refused to stay outside (for longer than it took to do his business), for several days after having his hair shorn. I'd assume that for him to have been embarassed about his new appearance, he must have some sense of vanity to begin with.

I don't know about that. Hampsters often eat their own (live) babies. I don't see much sense there. If we are doing a comparative analysis I'd say that the animal which doesn't eat its own living babies is the superior species.

I would say that the species that has a concept of the future (i.e., what are you going to be when you grow up?) is the superior species. Just making plans for bearing offspring is instinctual--to actively plan for a future in more abstract terms (saving money for college, retirement, etc.) would qualify under this category.

Oh, yes, this is too much fun! Onward!



You mean like...building a nest? Establishing dominance for the continuation of your line? Taking care of the pack for the good of the whole? Also, what demonstrates superior intelligence...not having such ability, or having the capability of such planning, and then failing to use it?



Oh, joy, we've corrupted the poor dogs now, too! (or perhaps he was just cold?)



So, where on your list would you put eating your own babies in comparison to..say, mass genocide, like the Holocaust? I think the hamsters are still one up on us.



I don't think you can make that assumption without backing it up. First, I suspect Green Peace, etc. will disagree with the statement that we do co-exist with nature. Of all the currently endangered species on the planet, how many are in danger from some species other than man? YA! We're number one!

As to the fact that we can destroy the planet demonstrating superior intelligence--how so? One could easily make the case that having such capability, which would naturally also destroy your own species, to be quite stupid..especially given the other human deficiencies I've pointed out.



Really? Consider the case of the gorilla, who has been learning sign language. What was she up to...something like 270 words? How many of the nuances of gorilla language do you think her keeper understood? Ditto for people with their dog. They understand numerous words in our language. Yet, how many people do you know who speak fluent dog? I haven't heard of a single one.



While I do understand the point you are trying to make, I can't help but say that nothing I could say would demonstrate my point better than this.



Congratulations! So, we're equal with dogs now?



Doesn't it? Let me ask you then, what is so smart about not doing so? Either it is not within our capabilities, which indicates an overall lack of intelligence...or it is within our capabilities, and we choose not to do so, which indicates an EXTREME lack of intelligence. Which brings up another comparison. For all our supposed superiourity...are we any happier than any other species? If so, I challenge anyone to demonstrate it. If not...then explain again why we're supposedly superior? Is their a better measure of superiority than overall happiness? I am reminded of the quote from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, describing known intelligence on Earth. "Man feels he is superior to dolphins because all they do is play in the ocean all day. Dolphins feel they are superior to men for exactly the same reason." Hard to refute that logic, if you think about it. What is a better measure of superiority than overall happiness?



Yes, agree with you here (and only having fun with the rest).

I think I did suggest something other than the instinctual, or something to that effect, Hobbes, didn't I? How about planning a city with highways on which machines convey them to their work? How about buying life insurance, or establishing a trust fund for minor children? Please, let's not be coy.

I also mentioned the abstract: show me a monkey who performs equations and, what's more, knows what they are for. Show me one that writes and reads letters from its own species.

And show me an animal that you know thinks about an afterlife, or considers it wrong to take another animal's only food away when it has its own food to begin with. Show me an animal that has a conscience, not to be confused with an animal that knows it is going to be punished by its master if it does something to displease him/her.

Obviously monkeys possess very high intelligence. So do dolphins and whales. We ought to treat them with respect for that reason. They do not have to have exactly the same intelligence that humans have to merit that respect.

But hamsters eat their young to provide nutrients for the mother. If food is that short, so that it comes down to either the mother surviving by eating the babies, or the babies surviving by eating the mother (or both dying by refraining from cannibalism) then in terms of species survival, it makes more sense for the mother to eat the babies and live, as the mother can look after herself and produce more babies, whereas if the babies lived and the mother died, then they would probably be easy prey for the next desert hawk (or whatever).

We would find the idea monstrous, but then we, unlike hamsters, are not naturally adapted for living in the desert. There is no 'superior' or 'inferior' in evolutionary terms, there is that which works and allows the species to live, and that which does not work.

Ok just to do my part to throw a "Monkey Wrench" into the works

Monkeys, Dolphins, etc do not need complexities like equations, mechanical convenances and the like to live and be happy. It is the creation of such things by man that have encroached on their lives and made them unhappy.

Is he fact that we have needlessly complicated our lives really a sign of superiority? Since the invention of all these sciences and the resulting technologies are we truly better off?



I couldn't agree more.

Also I think an important point was missed here:




If a species has the ability to plan for the future and chooses not to use it, as so many Americans who choose not to contribute to 401ks, save for college education, etc seem too, is that really a sign of superior intelligence? Many people in this country choose to have the bigger house, the better cars, and all the toys rather then live by more modest means and save for their and their childrens future. Where is the Intelligence in that?

I'm glad this thread has proven to have some legs - most of my recent topic-starters have died after three or so posts.

Anyway, here are my thoughts on my own questions:
What do you believe are the special factors that make us uniquely human? Are they totally unique to us, or qualities we share with fellow creatures but in a more heightened or specialist expression?
My flippant answer is that I think that the only truly unique thing about us is that we think there is anything unique about us!
My seriously, I think that our key differentiators include

• our love of complexity. For instance, most mammals play, even as adults, but they don't invent things like Microsoft X-Boxes or Dungeons & Dragons, they just play fight or chase things. In almost every area, we do more or less the same basic things as other creatures, but we make them more elaborate and complex most of the time. Other animals kill one another, often with no apparent reason (especially when they are under social stress), but they don't invent new ways of doing it that require no proximity.
• our curiosity. Like most omnivores and opportunists, we're innately curious, and will explore our surroundings to find food. This is so ingrained that we explore even when we aren't hungry, again, like most other opportunist species. We just take it to another level. We don't just look at the stars, we try to get to them. We don't just cope with the weather, we try to predict it. We even kill each other and other animals just to find out how they work (less so these days with each other).
• our upright stance, which frees our hands and allows them to become specialist in handling rather than having a dual purpose for handling and locomotion like our close cousins;
• our vision - I have a hunch that our primate cousins, being forest-dwellers, do not have the same distance vision that we do (I may be wrong - but how do you give a chimp an eye test anyway? "Read the lines as far down as you can please" "Ooh. OooH. Ooh-oooh. Oooh-oooh-ooh. No, that last one is just an ooh."). I'm surmising that we needed to have good distance vision when our ancestors moved from forests to open plains, and that legacy is one of the things that enables our sense of wonder and particularly of awe - something we usually get from Very Big Things like a canyon or a mountain. Maybe a chimp doesn't stand open-mouthed on the edge of the Grand Canyon (if they ever got there) because he's a bit short-sighted by our standards and so can't see just how damn BIG it is, but he would have more of a sense of awe (and maybe would develop something we might recognise as religion off the back of it! ) if he could see further. Maybe there's an experiment in there - take some chimps to Arizona and fit some of them with spectacles. Maybe they'd find God.
• our innate language skills coupled with our talkativeness - even among other animals that seem to have sophisticated vocal communication (I'm thinking cetaceans mostly), they don't talk all the time. Whales only sing some of the time, and while dolphins are rarely silent, most of the clicks dolphins make are for echolocation not communication. They only seem to talk when they have something specific to say (clearly they're all men ) Yet most humans, when in human company, only shut up for specific purposes (when hunting, or at the library, or to avoid confrontation, for instance).

Overall, I think that we are not as unlike animals as we like to think, and many of the things we like most about ourselves as a species are the areas where we are most like other animals. If God created us in His own image, He must look a lot like a monkey too.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=co-exist

To exist together, at the same time, or in the same place.

Humans exist in the same place as other animals. If you want to make the argument that humans are the least tolerant toward other species living near them, then yes that is true. However we do co-exist with animals whether we like it or not. So do you believe the members of green peace would state that they as a person do not tolerate other animals?

I could say that Stalin was "stupid" but he certianly had superior intelligence than a five year old who didn't kill millions of people. This all depends on how you define superior. I could say that ant's are superior than dolphins because they are greater in numbers.



This is inane. You are comparing apples to oranges. This demonstrates that humans have superior intelligence than other animals. If the gorilla or dog could teach humans their "language" then we would understand it as well. The ability to pass on information to another species demonstrates superior intelligence of the species that taught it, not the other way around. Do you believe the gorilla would have learned sign launguage without us teaching it? Effective teaching demonstrate's a superior ability of the teacher, not the reciever.



Same situation as above.



Again, this is how you define superior. I don't believe that humans are happier overall. Which is what brought me to this comment.



Though I could define superiority as the ability to survive. In that case humans take the cake.

Normally, I'd agree with you....but domestic hamsters often eat their own babies when they are in cages, and well fed. Hamster fathers are especially prone to this behavior.

I'm just trying to illustrate that (I think) it's a pretty sketchy argument to group all animals together and suggest that they are comparatively not "senselessly violent" as a group. Humans have reasons to engage in warfare and genocide, too (at least think they do). Those things aren't just random, and they usually involve a scarcity of resources or something else that tips the balance. That's hardly unique behavior to the animal kingdom, in which animals often kill in ways which seem equally senseless but actually probably do have some purpose most of us are unable to understand. I disagree that the same behavior patterns, when demonstrated by an animal, are noble or at least explainable, but when demonstrated by humans are "senseless". "Mass violence" could easily be demonstrated, for example, by an overpopulation experiment with animals. Put a bunch of chickens in a very small cage, and they'll quickly start pecking each others' eyes out (which is why they debeak chickens in those large egg-laying facilities, and why I prefer free roaming hen eggs ).

Welcome to the club, OS! This thing is starting to gain some momentum!



Good point, Vampiel (and, I might add, demonstration of a superior intelligence and reasoning capacity ). However, I don't think it's as simple as that. These were not examples of a teacher-student relationship, but rather one of master-subject. Also, if we are so superior in intelligence to animals, why do they need to teach us their language...shouldn't we be able to figure it out on our own? I have never heard of a single study in which we have yet communicated to any animal in their own language...yet there are numerous examples of them relating to us speaking to them. Effective teaching requires intelligence and willingness to lear on the part of the student, as well. If I made the supposition that we are simply to obtuse to recognize when animals are trying to teach us their language, could you prove me wrong? I don't think so. So, my point still stands, I think.



Vampiel, please refer again to the list of endangered species. We are killing off other species at an alarming rate. Completely irrefutable proof that we are in fact unable to exist together at the same time in the same place with the vast majority of other life on earth. Also, I ask again...of all the species on the endangered list, how many are endangered by anything other than Man? Not a single one, I wager.



Yes, Mrs. P...this is exactly my point. We are unable to understand such things. Where exactly is our superior intelligence in this? If we truly had such superior intelligence, we would understand these things. After all, they are actions taken by supposedly less complex, intelligent beings...should be easy for a species such as ours with supposedly vastly superior intelligence to figure out, shouldn't it? Yet, we are unable to understand. So, either animals are more complex than we give them credit for, or we need to take our perception of our intelligence down a notch or two.



Indeed. In fact, the argument seems to be how many legs it should have!



Woo Hoo! OS, I do believe our ranks are growing!

To add to your list, I will take off my Devil's Advocate cape for a second. I really enjoy Isaac Asimov...he combines philosophy and sci fi in a totally fascinating way. He compiled a series of short stories, many of which grappled with this question. The one I enjoyed the most was 'Danger: Human!' The central concept of this story was that Man's singular distinquishing charactheristic was an inability to recognize his limitations. Man didn't think anything was impossible, and, in refusing to accept that it was, would eventually achieve it...further strengthening their own belief that nothing, in fact, was impossible. Think about it. Man can't fly...yet he does. Man can't survive underwater, either...yet he does. Things can't be teleported, yet I read just recently that that had in fact been achieved (sorry, no link handy)! Man has spontaneously created life. In fact, I don't think anyone can come up with a list of things that Man can never achieve. As soon as that list was created, Man would go about trying to achieve them, and would almost certainly succeed. Anyway, the title of the story was due to the fact that all other species on the Universe were therefore barred from contacting Man in any way. Many of these species had vastly intelligence and technology. However, they also knew that Man would refuse to accept the inevitable end of a conflict with them, and that this refusal would eventually lead to the superior species downfall. So, all other species were simply barred from having anything to do with us...which has its own interesting philosophical questions, I think. It also shows that hubris is perhaps both Man's greatest strength, and perhaps our largest failing.

Anyway, enough of the pontificating! Back on with the cape--I have a movement to lead!



No, in that case cockroaches reign supreme (and are probably currently eating the cake off of the counter, anyway )

I think animals are more complex than some give them credit for, but that doesn't indicate superior intelligence on their part, nor must an animal with superior reasoning ability be able to understand every animal with inferior reasoning ability in order to be more intelligent. I doubt that dogs have much of an understanding of botany, fish, or insects, for example.

Anatomically, bees aren't supposed to be able to fly, either. I once had a gerbil that jumped about three inches higher than the supposed physical limitation of the animal, in order to escape his cage...I disagree that humans are the only ones to not recognize their own limitations. We just do everything on a grander scale. For example, "complicating things" is play to us, just as swimming and jumping is play to a dolphin. Both types of play suite a purpose and provide each type of 'animal' with skills needed for survival.

I've contemplated the topic some more, and come up with an answer to Julian’s question on human "uniqueness"….Humans are the only type of animal whose primary natural enemies are themselves....unless you count germs and prions .

Oooh! I like that one! Will make you an honorary member of our club as well. Now, to put that into question form (in true Jeapardy fashion)...Does being your own worst natural enemy indicate superior intelligence? or superiority in any other regard? While I can see the argument that this is true precisely because of our superiority to other species, I also think it difficult to argue that, on the face of it, this indicates a high level of stupidity as well. Mainly because we seem to be in that situation by choice...nothing forces us to be our own worst enemy, other than failings we inherently have.

Good question. I think that 'being our own worst enemy' places us high in the order of evolution. Intelligence is defined, roughly, as 'the ability to learn facts and skills and apply them', but it is also defined as 'being capable of rational thought'...paradoxical sentiments in the case of many humans. I'd say we've advanced to the point of which we have few other natural enemies, but not to the point that we are smart enough to overcome our differences.

What do you believe are the special factors that make us uniquely human?

I think the question has evolved.

To the original question, what makes us uniquely human is physiological. We walk upright, have two arms, two legs, hair on our heads etc. etc.

What makes us superior, however, is our ability to adapt. We can do anything that another animal can do. We can swim, we can fly, we can breathe underwater. We can live at the bottom of the sea, or at the top of a mountain, or in the desert. We can communicate over vast distances (even from here to the moon).

There is literally nothing that another animal can do that we cannot do to some degree and that makes us superior.

Now when it comes to specifics, I think it is fairly obvious to say that if another animal is better at a specific task...that does not mean that they are the superior or more intelligent species.

Are they totally unique to us, or qualities we share with fellow creatures but in a more heightened or specialist expression?

We are problem solvers. We are adapters. We have a heightened sense of self AND of community. We are more unique as individuals. We have more capacity for love and more capacity for hate. We are human.

Is it? What distinguishes us from the great apes, then? We are physiologically very similar...identicial, in fact, on the characteristics you list. In fact, if physiology is the determining characteristic, it is quite obvious that most animals are vastly superior to us in that regard, opposing thumb or no. We are simply not as physically gifted as they..we are weak, slow, unable to withstand extremes of temperature, or extremes of any environmental condition, for that matter. No, I don't think physiology is where we want to hang out hat when it comes to differentiating ourselves.



But isn't what we are adapting to almost invariably some problem we ourselves have caused? I would think the true sign of superiority would be not to create situations that require adaptation.



Yes, indeed...in fact, TOO heightened, I would argue. As for the sense of community...how many people here know all their neighbors? This, I suggest, is one area in which we are distinctly inferior to many other species. Take bees or ants, for example...now there are some species with a true sense of community. Also, no other species is quite so capable, or has such an inglorious history, of destroying the community in which they live (again, refer to the list of endangered species, and tell me which ones are endangered by anything other than Man?)

Shouldn't other animals be able to figure out our language on their own?

There are examples of animals teaching humans their language. Dog's training their human counterpart that they are hungry, cat's meowing when they want something be it food, water, or the catnip (my cat's are addicted). Not to confuse this with humans observing animals, but animals actively teaching humans.

To address your last question in which if animals actively attempt to teach humans their launguage yet we are not aware this communication is an active attempt to teach us their launguage, you cannot prove a negative so I will not attempt to. Though you cannot prove you are correct. For example it would be like me stating that Hitler wore diapers on Jan. 25, 1931. Can you prove me wrong? You can literally throw out an unlimited number of questions with a, "can you prove me wrong?" after them. It doesn't make a point because you cannot prove a negative, it's just an interesting thought.

However I will throw a curveball at your question. If teaching another species demonstrate's superior intelligence, and ape's can understand humans, then if they had superior intelligence they could in turn teach us their launguage, or at least tell us how they communicate by using our launguage.

The ability to understand does require intelligence. The ability to understand another species requires a higher level of intelligence. There is no other species that has been able to understand the communications of other species more than humans. An ape may understand basic sign language but the ape does not understand when we communicate with each other in all of it's complexities, otherwise an ape would be able to learn algebra. Given language to a limited degree is universal, such as aggressiveness.

Human language is much more complex than any other species. Language utilizes actions, tone, and exclusive to humans writing.



Our brain.



If we were unable to exist together at the same time, we would be the only animal on the planet. Many species have become extinct for various reason's, humans are not the only cause of extiction.



What problem would that be?

OK, lets try this approach.

What makes us superior, is our ability to rise above instinct and act based on other factors (for better or worse).

Were as an animal my find that it's habitat has been lost to a new suburb and adapt to the new environment because of survival instinct, a human will purposely go to hostile environments and adapt it to us and us to it in order to live there, even though they could have survived where they were. They make this move for many reasons. For safety, For Prestige, For the simple joy of having something new, for the challenge of making it all work, etc. Be it an undersea habitat, a suburb or a mountian cabin.

Which was all I intended it to be.



True. I don't think animals have superior intelligence to us. However, nor do I think we're as superior to them as many seem to assume.



Do we? We have been studying whale songs for decades now...is there anyone who has deciphered them? Ditto for dolphins. In fact, for all the time and effort we spend on it, we seem singularly unable to understand much of the communication, particularly verbal, that other species use. Yet, with just a little training, they seem able to understand us.


Which just means we should give all the more respect to those animals that do seem able to learn even a little of our language.



Which was exactly the point I was trying to make However, the link you show has very little factual analysis demonstrating our brains superiority. The one claim is that our brain is larger as a percentage of body weight than other animals. Yet, the person with the largest recorded brain weight was mentally retarded...indicated that weight alone is far from sufficient to prove superior intelligence.



We are rapidly approaching that point. True, humans are not the only cause of extinction (note the dinosaurs). However, I'm willing to bet that few, if any, animals on the endangered species list at this time are there for anything other than man made causes.



You tell me....I was simply responding to the assertion that it is our adaptability that makes us unique, and stating that it is fequently something we've done that we're adapting to.

EDIT: fixed quotes
-Amlord

List one species that understand's the launguage of every other species combined more than humans, particularly verbal.



That's not quite what you stated. My question was directed toward your question of "But isn't what we are adapting to almost invariably some problem we ourselves have caused?".

What problem would that be? I would just like clarification of these problem's that are causing us to adapt.

I know of no animals that understand the "language of other Animals. I also know of no human who understands the "language of any Animal".

Though this does not support Animal Superiority to Man, it doesn't support inferiority either. In the category we appear to be equals.

Not necessarily. All animals inherit a sense of language of other species. For example a dog communicate's to other animals by barking at the animal (or grass growing). Most animals will understand this is an agressive posture -- the dog is communicating to them, and they understand the communication. Language can also be in the form of symbols. Fish in the ocean have certian pattern's that indicate they are poisonous.

Xactly! In fact, allow me to use the following analogy. How many animals do you think there are that don't recognize both that bears are dangerous, and further the particular signs that indicate they are becoming aggressive? Yet, every year, bears kill or attack hapless humans--mainly because they're simply unaware of the danger they're in. Demonstration of superior intelligence? I think not. Darwinism in action? Possibly.

Hobbes... I think most people if they meet a bear in the wild understand they are in peril...




I agree with this, except to point out that dogs have been known to run into burning buildings to save human beings...

Absolutely right. There are many examples of animal altruism. Humans are not unique in this regard.

OK, I've been wracking my large (in relation to other animals) brain to come up with some irrefutable differences that make humans unique. I think I've come up with some:

*Fire
*Lack of body fur
*Clothing
*Different skin colors (races)

Best I can do. I think each of those is unique to humans. No animals I know of create or use fire, make clothing, or are almost totally naked like us (hairless cats and dogs don't count-crazy humans encouraged a genetic defect). And no species has such a variety of skin (i.e. coat) colors as humans.

What do you believe are the special factors that make us uniquely human?

In additon to the many attributes already listed,

1.Fear of the unknown, which probably caused us to invent religion to explain the mysteries.
2. Recreational sex, altho not exclusively. Dolphins and some chimps engage in sex without regard to who the primary male might be in the group, or whether the female is in estrus.
3. Boundless curiosity, we study things that may have absolutely no use to us, or most likely won't be of use for hundreds of years from now. We just want to know how and why we are what we are, and where we might be going. Lower animals only want to know where their next meal is coming from, or opportunity to mate.
Guess that also describes some humans, tho.

Fire and clothing are unique to humans, I could list thousand's of examples of human's manipulating their surroundings that other animals have not achieved. This is what Amlord was reffering to, our ability to adapt. Although a monkey did beat us into space.

There is a beetle that has probably caused a few fires.

Alot of species dont have fur and some reptiles and fish can change their skin color.

I think what both Vampiel and Amlord are saying is that humans are supreme generalists. That is, there appears to be no other example of a multicellular lifeform in the animal kingdom with the level of adaptability to diverse environments (hostile or otherwise). Humans have in some sense exchanged specialization for generalization. We don't need fur because we can fabricate clothing to fit the environmental conditions. We don't require trees or caves because we can construct protected environments to raise our young. We can eat a variety of foods (which we surely didn't evolve to eat) because of things like fire and flour and flensing. Necessity is the mother of invention and our big brains enabled humans to invent these things.

Of course, there are generalists in the animal kingdom that approach a human generalist level, specifically, insects, such as the cockroach. Wherever humans have gone, cockroaches eventually follow. I'm not sure if there's an infestation of them on the ISS but I wouldn't be surprised. Nevertheless, the cockroach generalist is a second-order effect. That is, it is a human-level generalist solely because of humans and not because of its own initiative.

There are a number of things that distinguish Humans from other primates.

1. The design, use, and development of precision tools.
2. The universal expression of thought through language, written and verbal.
3. Primarily bipedal stance that correlates with brain size and development.
4. Opposable thumbs capable of precision grip, strongly related to 1.
5. The deliberate use of fire to cook, forge and ward off enemies.
6. The ability to post to America's debate and present rational political argument.

It should be noted that the inability to post a rational argument in a debate forum does not necassarily mean that you are less then human.

easy. the fact we acknowledge details, fine details, minute details. and then scruntinize details... findin' details within details.

let's say a monkey uses a stone to chop down a tree.

we use an axe. a special axe crafted JUST for cuttin' down trees. no wait.. we use chainsaws now... electricla chainsaws.. sorry.. u see my point..