Why are homo sapiens better?

[Orenholt]

Without the geniuses in our history many of us would be completely lost. So many of us depend on modern conveniences to survive. If you set a modern human out in the woods with no civilization around for miles and miles surely they would die within a few days unless they had been taught survival skills by someone else who was smart enough to figure it out. Even if they themselves were smart enough to figure out what plants to eat and how to set traps for rabbits and such they wouldn't stand a chance against larger predators like bears and wolves. I think many of us forget that. Even if you had a group of humans out in the woods chances are they wouldn't be smart enough or strong enough to survive very long without things like electricity, medications and guns. It's because of the geniuses that our whole civilization is held together with their brilliant inventions. Many of the geniuses didn't come up with ideas completely on their own either though and instead built upon and improved the ideas of others.

So I have to ask, what makes modern homo sapiens better than animals given that it's only the rare few that make our lives over all possible?

[Dan Rowden]

Well, I was having an argument with a particularly arrogant okapi just the other day. He was trying to tell me that okapis are the best species ever. I reminded him that his species lacks the capacity to consciously make such value judgements and boy did that shut him the fuck up. Humans 1 - Okapi 0.

[Orenholt]

Well, I was having an argument with a particularly arrogant okapi just the other day. He was trying to tell me that okapis are the best species ever. I reminded him that his species lacks the capacity to consciously make such value judgements and boy did that shut him the fuck up. Humans 1 - Okapi 0.

Lol Dan that's hilarious!

If okapis can't make value judgements how do they know that running away and keeping their life is better being eaten by lions?

[Dan Rowden]

Who says they "know" any such thing? Evolution explains such behaviour without the need to introduce such anthropomorphic notions. It's really dangerous, in my view, to project human psychology onto other animal species. It defies Occam's Razor for one thing. The instinct to survive is built onto genetics itself.

[Orenholt]

Who says they "know" any such thing? Evolution explains such behaviour without the need to introduce such anthropomorphic notions. It's really dangerous, in my view, to project human psychology onto other animal species. It defies Occam's Razor for one thing. The instinct to survive is built onto genetics itself.

So you're saying that an okapi that runs away from lions is no more cognizant than a plant that bends toward the sun?

[Dan Rowden]

It's impossible to make any such comparison (at least for now). No-one knows how "cognizant" plants are. All we can say is there's no evidence that they possess what we generally regard as "cognizance".

[Pincho Paxton]

We are like ants to some degree. All of our separate skills work as a single unit. I can't kill a rabbit, so I can't eat a rabbit unless somebody else kills it. I can cook pretty well. I can invent very well. Now medicine is probably more accidental than anything, so people may die early. We will not be the final survivors however. In most cases it seems that the insects survive best. They can survive radiation, so that's them as winners in the end. Unless we build Dalek bodies for ourselves, or robots.

[Orenholt]

We are like ants to some degree. All of our separate skills work as a single unit. I can't kill a rabbit, so I can't eat a rabbit unless somebody else kills it. I can cook pretty well. I can invent very well. Now medicine is probably more accidental than anything, so people may die early. We will not be the final survivors however. In most cases it seems that the insects survive best. They can survive radiation, so that's them as winners in the end. Unless we build Dalek bodies for ourselves, or robots.

Yes, I think that insects will likely prevail too. There are already multiple times more insects than humans and humans are doing more to destroy the environment than the insects ever will.

[Orenholt]

It's impossible to make any such comparison (at least for now). No-one knows how "cognizant" plants are. All we can say is there's no evidence that they possess what we generally regard as "cognizance".

How do you know that other people are cognizant? What if you're the only one?

[Dan Rowden]

If okapis can't make value judgements how do they know that running away and keeping their life is better being eaten by lions?

Ok, we need to deal with this. How does your paradigm of assigning cognizance and willfulness to other animals explain a certain global phenomenon? Namely, that of species extinction due to introduced predators? There are myriad examples of species that have evolved in environments free of predators. When a predator is introduced these critters all get bumped off in no time flat. This should not happen in your schema. Even when their compatriots are being chomped on around them, species that have not evolved in a predatory environment still sit there and die. How do you explain this?

[Dan Rowden]

It's impossible to make any such comparison (at least for now). No-one knows how "cognizant" plants are. All we can say is there's no evidence that they possess what we generally regard as "cognizance".

How do you know that other people are cognizant? What if you're the only one?

I don't know for sure that they are (though sometimes I'm pretty damn sure they're not). I can and will never know. It's an empirical model I work with, essentially.

[Orenholt]

Ok, we need to deal with this. How does your paradigm of assigning cognizance and willfulness to other animals explain a certain global phenomenon? Namely, that of species extinction due to introduced predators? There are myriad examples of species that have evolved in environments free of predators. When a predator is introduced these critters all get bumped off in no time flat. This should not happen in your schema. Even when their compatriots are being chomped on around them, species that have not evolved in a predatory environment still sit there and die. How do you explain this?

Maybe we're talking about manatees being hit by the propellers on motor boats? It's because the part of their brain that causes fear is not as developed because they had no need for it.

[Dan Rowden]

Ok, we need to deal with this. How does your paradigm of assigning cognizance and willfulness to other animals explain a certain global phenomenon? Namely, that of species extinction due to introduced predators? There are myriad examples of species that have evolved in environments free of predators. When a predator is introduced these critters all get bumped off in no time flat. This should not happen in your schema. Even when their compatriots are being chomped on around them, species that have not evolved in a predatory environment still sit there and die. How do you explain this?

Maybe we're talking about manatees being hit by the propellers on motor boats?

It's a pity David Attenborough isn't dead otherwise I could make a joke about him rolling in his grave. That's not an example I would have come up with. I don't think it's actually an example, really.

It's because the part of their brain that causes fear is not as developed because they had no need for it.

Well, yes, sort of. The instinct to flee a predator is an evolved one. It's not about any kind of innate cognizance of danger - or even the will to continue living.

[Orenholt]

It's a pity David Attenborough isn't dead otherwise I could make a joke about him rolling in his grave. That's not an example I would have come up with. I don't think it's actually an example, really.

Well what would your example be?

Well, yes, sort of. The instinct to flee a predator is an evolved one. It's not about any kind of innate cognizance of danger - or even the will to continue living.

How is it different than human fear?
Are we not evolved to see something fearful in predators and things we are taught are bad?
Sure we may have a more complex system in our brains but it's fundamentally the same is it not?

[Getoriks]

We're on a higher level because we can have a higher level of consciousness (enabled because we have the faculty of reasoning), but we're on the same level because we too will die...

... Unless, of course, we follow our reasoning all the way....

[Dan Rowden]

It's a pity David Attenborough isn't dead otherwise I could make a joke about him rolling in his grave. That's not an example I would have come up with. I don't think it's actually an example, really.

Well what would your example be?

Stephens Island Wren (feral cats); Dodo (humans). Many Island based species (not surprisingly), particularly avian, show no sense of fear of potential predators. The Galapagos are a good example of this.

[Orenholt]

We're on a higher level because we can have a higher level of consciousness (enabled because we have the faculty of reasoning), but we're on the same level because we too will die...

... Unless, of course, we follow our reasoning all the way....

Your human body will still die even if you identify yourself as the universe.

Stephens Island Wren (feral cats); Dodo (humans). Many Island based species (not surprisingly), particularly avian, show no sense of fear of potential predators. The Galapagos are a good example of this.

Ok those are better examples.

But isn't human fear just a more evolved form of the fear that most animals have?

[Bobo]

What makes X better than Y?

1) X is better than Y in changing the environment. (X changes the environment)
2) X is better than Y in benefiting from changes in environment. (X benefits from the changes in environment)

- "(Few) X changes X environment":

1) X is better than X in changing the environment. (X changes the environment)
2) X is better than X in benefiting from changes in environment. (X benefits from the changes in environment)

If X changes X environment without X changing X to Y.
Then X is better.

[Leyla Shen]

Sure we may have a more complex system [...]

Oh, is that all?

[...] but it's fundamentally the same is it not?

And the point of reducing species-life to its lowest common denominator would be what, exactly?

[Dan Rowden]

Stephens Island Wren (feral cats); Dodo (humans). Many Island based species (not surprisingly), particularly avian, show no sense of fear of potential predators. The Galapagos are a good example of this.

Ok those are better examples.

But isn't human fear just a more evolved form of the fear that most animals have?

"More evolved" is actually a pretty meaningless term.

[Orenholt]

What makes X better than Y?

1) X is better than Y in changing the environment. (X changes the environment)
2) X is better than Y in benefiting from changes in environment. (X benefits from the changes in environment)

- "(Few) X changes X environment":

1) X is better than X in changing the environment. (X changes the environment)
2) X is better than X in benefiting from changes in environment. (X benefits from the changes in environment)

If X changes X environment without X changing X to Y.
Then X is better.

What about all the negative impacts X makes on the environment?

[Orenholt]

"More evolved" is actually a pretty meaningless term.

How about a "more developed" sense of fear?

And the point of reducing species-life to its lowest common denominator would be what, exactly?

Well we can focus on the differences too. So basically the human capacity for greater fear makes us "better"?
That's interesting.... I thought most people on here were saying the ego was bad. ;)

[Leyla Shen]

Only if you ignore the fact that our reasoning capacity, imagination, ability to be conscious of our own life activity rather than be ever merged with it is the other contrasting part of that "greater fear".

And we are STILL not doing science...

[Orenholt]

Only if you ignore the fact that our reasoning capacity, imagination, ability to be conscious of our own life activity rather than be ever merged with it is the other contrasting part of that "greater fear".

And we are STILL not doing science...

The primary reason people do ANYTHING is because of fear.
It may not be a conscious 'omg I have to run for my life' kind of fear but it is a kind of fear none the less.
Name any purposeful human activity and I can show you how it's caused by fear.

Also, isn't science a form of philosophy?

[Leyla Shen]

Also, isn't science a form of philosophy?

No. And that's been one of the points I've been making. You don't actually have to be a philosopher to be a scientist. Science is a methodological model dealing specifically with theory and experimentation, and which developed in the human dialectic as the result of a clash between philosophy and theology. In other words, just as with anything else, it didn't pop out of nowhere and has the causes which distinguish it from things it is/what it is not.

The primary reason people do ANYTHING is because of fear.

Are your proofs for this scientific?