Difference between man and animal

Yes, just suppose you dropped a billion diverse test tube babies into the ocean, perhaps a very small number would survive and reproduce. There would be a human ocean species flopping around.

Now think about it, no language, tools, no culture, a primordial ferral ocean species. For that matter take some examples of kids growing up with wolves. You got it, without a culture, without a language, you have all the appearances of an animal. Now some would argue "but even these have a soul, and are better than the animals over which we have dominion." So what are you using to form your argument? Quite simply you are using words, culture, and tradition. There is no "rebuttal," from the ferral human except a grunt and actions suggesting "why are you putting clothes on me you monster!"

So who is the monster anyway, who is the so called animal? I would suggest there is a difference, in culture you have quite deliberate animals, who pretend to have "superiority," when in fact they behave worse than animals.

On the other hand there are many examples where having a culture allows us to behave well, think rationally, and plan on moving spaceships to the stars. So you go figure if all the "butt plugs," in our culture and others are really worth it. I suppose when we are all chipped and slaves, the ferral critter and the ocean ferral critter are better off.

Just when to move to the Amazon and live like an native is the question, just as long as you can stay as far away from civilization, ahem, anticivilization as you can.

[edit on 27-11-2004 by SkipShipman]

its important, skip, to realize that even if a man is 'raised with wolves' as you say, there are a number of differences still in existance between him and his companions. you'll notice, never in my posts did i mention civilization, the so called 'triumphs' of man, or any of the normal arguments for our domination of nature as reasons for that very domination. because they're not.

i dont know if you read what i wrote, but if you did you missed it. the man who lives with the wolves still posses the ability to do far more than the wolves will ever be able to. the odds are he will even do these things. yeah, mayb ehe wont invent the english language, he has no use for it. but i bet you he figures out a lever, a club, and the taming of fire. thats what separates us. (in a nutshell. read the whole thread)

Originally posted by ADHDsux4me
I would like a good meaty pleasant discussion, about what you feel separates the humans from the animals, or if there is one.

One thought I had, was the difference between instinctual action, vs. planning multiple outcomes before hand.

A mouse sees cheese, the mouse runs for the cheese to eat it.

A Man sees a steak, does he buy it? Does he steal it? What are the possible consequences of both? This is planning out the possible outcomes.

Anyone Else have some thoughts on the differences between man and animal?

-ADHDsux4me

Comment: I responded to the original post above, not necessarily emphasizing each and every other reply to it.

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
its important, skip, to realize that even if a man is 'raised with wolves' as you say, there are a number of differences still in existance between him and his companions. you'll notice, never in my posts did i mention civilization, the so called 'triumphs' of man, or any of the normal arguments for our domination of nature as reasons for that very domination. because they're not.

i dont know if you read what i wrote, but if you did you missed it. the man who lives with the wolves still posses the ability to do far more than the wolves will ever be able to. the odds are he will even do these things. yeah, mayb ehe wont invent the english language, he has no use for it. but i bet you he figures out a lever, a club, and the taming of fire. thats what separates us. (in a nutshell. read the whole thread)

Comment: Your thread is quite interesting here, however the topic thread is consistent for the what I had written. There is no doubt an individual human experience with developmental psychology about ferral species is inherently adaptive. Without a culture you cannot necessarily be better than your current environment, unless you get a ride with friendly space aliens. I do not think our current civilization and its predominant assumptions would interface or cope well with a ferral survivor so as to illuminate the individual to do what civilzation does best.

Now independently of all the above our task, to create a cumulative experience whereby we better ourselves and others is the hallmark of our goal within civilization. Where there is no improvement, a civliization stagnates. If disimprovements are chronic, when there is one step forward, and two steps backward too often, you gravitate toward our concept of the wild, the animal.

[edit on 27-11-2004 by SkipShipman]

Chimps have been known to go out in groups and kill other monkeys just for the sport of it. They also use simple tools.
I'm not sure about animals not experienceing guilt. Why does my little chihauhau get what seems to be tears in his eyes when I fuss at him for tearing up the newspaper???lol
Animals have emotions too.





[edit on 27-11-2004 by elaine]

Maybe there's not a whole lotta difference after all.

Emily that was sooo funy the Penguin smackin the other one up side the head like that lol lol lol rofl lmao

Predators are left-brain dominant. So are omnivores.

But herbivores are right-brain dominant. The size and side of the brain in use--focus versus direction--determine the perspective of the biological entity.

A snake is a predator's predator: it will eat another snake. It has to be extremely attuned to subtle cues in order--silently and without being noticed--to creep on, attack and overcome its dinner. A snake must calculate whether to kill and eat >THIS< now OR WAIT for some more opportune time, place, victim and circumstances. Snakes therefore are very intelligent, by design and practice.

A cow in a barn, on the other hand, doesn't have to do anything but stand, eat, drink, piss and poop and move its weight back and forth to swat flies. It never uses its brain to work out, locate, wonder or seek satisfaction for some arcene abstract need in future time.

Birds must locate food, all year long through different seasons, temperatures, fair and foul [fowl?] weather and be able to identify whether food is safe to eat or not. If you've ever owned a bird, you know they make a pet out of their owner long before their owner makes a pet out of them.

There are people whose dogs and cats are pets; and there are animals whose pets are people.

I think experience is much more varied than academic generalizations can either probe or articulate. The biology books don't really tell the story.

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
A snake must calculate whether to kill and eat >THIS< now OR WAIT for some more opportune time, place, victim and circumstances. Snakes therefore are very intelligent, by design and practice.

A cow in a barn, on the other hand, doesn't have to do anything but stand, eat, drink, piss and poop and move its weight back and forth to swat flies. It never uses its brain to work out, locate, wonder or seek satisfaction for some arcene abstract need in future time.

looks to me like you're a little biased, if you dont mind me saying so. that snake? all those movements are programmed, just like the cow. yeah, it has a little room to learn and react, but same as cow. the snake learns to avoid poisonous birds, the cow learns to avoid the thin thing with two legs holding a glowing stick (branding iron). to say that just because a snake is required to do more to get its food proves its intelligence is a little premature, especially since it has been proven that the mammalian brain is evovled from the reptilian one. in fact, it still retains some aspects of the reptile brain, to perform the automatic functions, saving the higher functions for the 'newer,' more advanced developments.

Birds must locate food, all year long through different seasons, temperatures, fair and foul [fowl?] weather and be able to identify whether food is safe to eat or not. If you've ever owned a bird, you know they make a pet out of their owner long before their owner makes a pet out of them.

i dont see your logic here. how does the last statement follow logically at all from anything you've said?

There are people whose dogs and cats are pets; and there are animals whose pets are people.

ummm... ok. ive certainly never been any animals pet (cept for like, my mother, or a gf. i get whipped) and i cant think of any examples. help?

Do you want me to tell you how my dogs have trained me?

That's just a little bit more embarrassing than asking either my age or sexual preference.

Let's just say, my dogs know me very well and they know how to get what they want, out of me.

Originally posted by Emily_Cragg
Do you want me to tell you how my dogs have trained me?

That's just a little bit more embarrassing than asking either my age or sexual preference.

Let's just say, my dogs know me very well and they know how to get what they want, out of me.

as you wish, i was simply curious. didnt follow your train of thought, and i would have liked an explanation.


*edit* guess i wont be getting that explanation.

[edit on 11/28/2004 by Amorymeltzer]

I have wondered this as well. I think that the only difference between humans and animals is that humans are not in ballance with nature and animals are. Humans like to think that they can dominate nature and live above it.

I've thought about this one for a while. I believe one of the big differences is that humans, well some, can control thier emotions. What I mean is that through logic, humans can control, or stop, reactions that animals most likley couldn't. We can logically understand the possible consequences of our actions even if we have never been presented with that unique type of situation in the past. We have the ability to over ride our primitive flight or fight response.

I'm sure a huge list could be compiled on this topic, but to me, the differences would be the ability to rational our existence, beyond our existence, and high-order thinking.



seekerof

The ability to think. When the ancestors of humans began to pick up sticks and use them as tools to defend themselves and evolve upon the concept, that separated us forever from the animal. The best animals can do are take large piles of sticks and other debris and use them to make a nest or a dam. I have never seen an animal take a tree branch and use it as a club. Imagine tomorrow if video footage was released of mountain gorillas taking tree branches and using them as clubs against those that intrude on their territory and adopted this practice as permanent. What would you think?

Long term awareness of our own mortality..
I don't think any other animals face this particular dilemma..
I also think that is why we invented Heaven, god, religion, etc.

The prospect of an afterlife, may have been THE ONE thing, that kept us
going.

I had a thought in another thread that perhaps our most unique feature, is our ability to imagine. To fantasize or conceptulise ideas appeares to be a soley human trait. NOTE: i wrote "Appears to be". I have watched video of problem solving in chimps involving a bannana suspended beyond reach. The chimp tried several times just reaching and then realised it wasnt tall enough. It stopped and looked around then ran towards a chair, stopped again , went back for another look at the bannana, then went and fetched the chair and successfully got its bannana. Does this show an ability to imagine the consequences of the extended elevation the chair would offer if it stood on it? Did the chimp "imagine" itself standing on the chair and reaching the food? Was it forming a mental image, a conceptulisation of an idea?

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Long term awareness of our own mortality..
I don't think any other animals face this particular dilemma..
I also think that is why we invented Heaven, god, religion, etc.

The prospect of an afterlife, may have been THE ONE thing, that kept us
going.

I think so too. This isn't the only one, but top of the list.

Humans have showed documented ability to plan ahead, (duh) but animals haven't, at least we have noticed them.

We could go on about the physical features, but too lazy too., you already know them.

Surf

Originally posted by instar
The chimp tried several times just reaching and then realised it wasnt tall enough. It stopped and looked around then ran towards a chair, stopped again , went back for another look at the bannana, then went and fetched the chair and successfully got its bannana. Does this show an ability to imagine the consequences of the extended elevation the chair would offer if it stood on it? Did the chimp "imagine" itself standing on the chair and reaching the food? Was it forming a mental image, a conceptulisation of an idea?

one would hope that the animals we are directly descended from have some abilities similar to our own. our ability far surpasses theirs, as shown by our achievements vs. their achievements. theyve also been around longer. thats how evolution works. if we werent 'better' we wud be them

After long deliberation, considering all the cognitive, social, moral, and spiritual considerations, I have come to the conclusion that the only difference between mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom is that human males are willing to pay for sex.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
After long deliberation, considering all the cognitive, social, moral, and spiritual considerations, I have come to the conclusion that the only difference between mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom is that human males are willing to pay for sex.

You could say male peacocks are doing the same thing.

They show off their feathers to have sex, isn't that the same as paying to have sex. In both cases you are using something you have to get sex.

Surf