The difference between Humans and Animals...Subjective vs. Objective

My cousin posed this question to me out of the blue the other night, "Zach, what do you think the difference between a human being and an animal is, like, the core difference." I told him he'd have to give me a minute, that's something you really have to wrap your mind around..

So after thinking I tell him that, describing it in the best terms I could but still not doing adequate justice, humans can choose sort of how to feel about something, they sort of direct their instincts. Humans have a force of Will...
Animals merely react to the stimuli of their environment, and the telling of their instincts and basic needs. There are times when they can sort of process a situation and basically figure out a new way of approaching it, just as some monkeys have invented bug-catching tools, not to mention some of the things killer whales and dolphins do..

ANYWAY, he says, "Well that's basically what I got to but to me it was in the terms of Subjectivity and Objectivity." And so we went on talking all about it, blah blah blah...

I want to know what everyone else thinks. I expect questions, opinions, maybe some flames , you know.. the usual. But that's alright, I'll try to answer them all with Civility and Decorum, rarely seen these days on ATS.

There are animals throughout the animal kingdom that exhibit similarities to humans in various ways. Animals show emotions, critical thinking, inventiveness, they are social, etc. The one glaring difference that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is the creation of art. To my knowledge, there are no animals that create art in the wild. For instance, an elephant may be trained to paint at a zoo, but they don't do it in the wild. Although, some could argue that the birds of paradise create art as part of their mating ritual...

my 2-cents

reply to post by Aggie Man


Donnie the Dog Artist

I know he's not in the wild, but I saw this guy on one of my dog shows and it's pretty amazing.

As to the OP's question, I don't think people are ALL that different than animals. I think we have entirely different priorities and that may be the biggest difference. Of course, we are more intelligent than most animals, but then, who is creating the intelligence tests? If the dogs created the tests, I bet we'd fail. I mean we can't even tell who someone is by sniffing their butt or be able to sense someone's mood by the way their ears are lying From a dog's perspective, we're really pretty stupid.

So,my answer is priorities.

Art is a form of communication, humans are best at it and that is what sets us apart. Otherwise we'd still be crawling around in caves ousting primitive tones out of our bodies. With language we've described life, death, feelings, each generation passes this on to the next and after centuries here we are, communicating over vast distances by simply using our fingers, we can even communicate without vocal cords.

Well interestingly there is a bird that makes an "Art gallery" in order to attract it's mate. they decorate it with random things and each birds style is different, the objects in the "gallery" have no use to the bird whatsoever outside of the aesthetic

Is it art in the sense that we think of it, I don't know but it's damn impressive



As for the difference between man and animal, there is none, we are animals we just happen to have developed a more complex brain then other animals

reply to post by lateralus11235

The difference between Humans and Animals

Subjective:

Take a human child, lock him/her in an isolated environment where they receive required nourishment but nothing more. No external stimulus, no other humans to communicate with or learn from, no world to observe, nothing but the daily meals.

Take a dog; a poodle and put them in a human family environment where they receive love and attention for an entire, natural life... say about 10 years or so.

In the end, you have a human being that is really nothing more than a basic organism that sustains its life through food intake... and a dog that has learned a degree of human language, knows howto interact and convey its wishes and understand what is asked of it.

Objective:

The whole thing is not about capability, but filling the available space with useful information. Knowledge is obtained through learning what is already known. Wisdom is gained from taking that information and living day by day and adding life-experience.

The human being may have more brain space and capability to learn, but in the scenario above, the dog had the opportunity to fill a more limited space and put it to use.

The world is a test platform; a classroom for the life experience to overcome, or rise above, the human condition. Neglecting that, we are no better than the animals who don't understand the concept, but still operate within it without ever having to understand why.

This certainly has become even more relevant in the last decade as people have become more content to hide behind technology and less inclined to work within the world around them. Texting has all but replaced voice communication with the younger of our species. Many today simply have no idea how to function in person-to-person situations.

In fact, young couples today often choose to get a puppy, or dog, instead of having children.

This is, of course, good for the dog...

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

Donnie the Dog Artist

I know he's not in the wild, but I saw this guy on one of my dog shows and it's pretty amazing.

As to the OP's question, I don't think people are ALL that different than animals. I think we have entirely different priorities and that may be the biggest difference. Of course, we are more intelligent than most animals, but then, who is creating the intelligence tests? If the dogs created the tests, I bet we'd fail. I mean we can't even tell who someone is by sniffing their butt or be able to sense someone's mood by the way their ears are lying From a dog's perspective, we're really pretty stupid.

So,my answer is priorities.

I cringe at getting caught up in semantics but... Here I am.

Ya know... I dunno if I would say "priorities". I think overall, biologically speaking (that is to say, the base motivator for much of our behavior), our priorities aren't much different from a dog, or a field mouse, or a frog. It's pretty simple really: Sex, food/water, and safety. Not necessarily in that order situationally.

Humans are different (in the basest of terms) because instead of surviving within the parameters of our environment, we do our best to adapt our environment to suit our parameters. Every bit of our current supremacy and dominance of the planet is owed to that. Evolutionarily speaking we flowed down the path of least resistance, and filled an (nearly) unfilled niche not with specialized claws, beaks, or really bodies (just soft and pink), but with our minds, how we think, how we CREATE. I'm not assigning a value to that, just saying that is where I see the key difference.

Another set of ideas that separate the two would be the composing of music, which I guess could be an art form.
No animals that I am aware of have rituals for the dead either. I've heard of elephant graveyards and such, but it wasn't that interesting to me at the time.
A story that I will relate, which if it's true is quite heartbreaking and creepy at the same time, was told to me by my grandmother which happened sometime during the 40's or 50's. At that time they had a herd of cows in a field, and there was a huge tree in the middle of it. One of the cows had a calf, and for meat, when the calf had gained enough weight - they caught the calf and slaughtered it under the tree. Now the story went so that on regular occasions the cow (mother of the calf) would go to the spot under the tree, and bend her front legs so her knees were on the ground while the back legs stayed straight - then she would bellow and bellow on and on. Some say she was crying, some say she was praying - IF the story is true, to me it does indicate something a little deeper than what is most obviously noted about cows intelligence. What else would elicit what appeared to be behavior from a traumatic event?
I think that the biggest thing that separates man from beast is man's EGO. That, and the fact we can do algebra.

I'm going to be completely honest with you right now. There is a difference between humans and animals that I can not properly describe because I don't have any empirical evidence to even begin to support my claims, so they can stand moot.

However, when you bring in the bare facts into the equation, there is no raw difference between humans and most other animals other than intelligence and capability; but, that's not such a huge difference because such a distinction exists between different species and types of animals and insects as well. So there really is a question of what makes us different?

Do our laws, morals, and ethical codes make us any different?
No, most pack animals have similar standards that they must abide by in order to remain intact with the pack. Its not socially acceptable or beneficial to one's survival to break established rules/laws. All animals, including humans depend on certain behaviors to insure their own survival. With pack animals, much like humans, laws are required. Communities depend on one another for food, protection, and order. When such order is disrupted, punishment is delivered. We are just like animals, we will "banish" rule breakers who endanger the pack or kill them. We will band together and war with other packs for territory and resources and sometimes we will combine packs for better chances at survivability.

All, everything we do, is objectively based upon survival and is no more different than other basic functions of animals.

Our ingenuity does not make us different. For many insects and mammals will build great structures in order for their survival given their capability. Humans may be on a varied scale of capability, but it's no different than another animals in any way that is quantifiable.

Just like when we will eventually meet beings who have a higher capability than our own, I don't expect them to think themselves so grand, or mighty....due to the fact that all life is basically one and the same...acting on basic principles of survival and using the natural tools that their mind and bodies allow them to utilize.

Either some misunderstand the question or the answers are answers to the wrong question. The question isn't "what do animals do that humans don't, and vice versa" but what is the fundamental core difference. As such, the answer is not about demonstrable actions but about the soul matrix. Animals are part of a collective that is the animal kingdom. Humans are different as they are individualized aspects of their own soul complex.

The difference is self-reflection. Animals are not self-reflective, they have not reached that evolutionary point yet. As a collective expression they are working to get there but they are not. Before you animals lovers say "my dog knows when he has been bad" and point to that as being self-reflection, let me educate. That is not self reflection, that is reaction to external stimulus. For the dog to be self-reflective it would have had to consider its actions outside of an external prodding from it pack leader.

The answer to the question is: Humans are self reflective, animals are not.

Originally posted by crankyoldman
Animals are part of a collective that is the animal kingdom. Humans are different as they are individualized aspects of their own soul complex.

Are you saying that animals don't have a soul, whereas people do?
What is a soul?
How do you know that people have a soul?
How do you know that animals don't have a soul"

(I'm not stating that they do have a soul. I'm just wondering about the facts behind this information.)

The answer to the question is: Humans are self reflective, animals are not.

How do you know that animals aren't self-reflective?

(Again, I'm not saying they ARE, just wondering how you know.)

IMHO;

Animal consciousness is entirely entrenched within the biome. Their greater consciousness is an expression of the Earth itself, and their purpose is co-dependence. So, all beings natural to this planet are essentially one consciousness.

Human consciousness is non-local and operates independently of the biome. What is our purpose here? Now that is a mystery. All that is clear to me is that we certainly do not belong here "naturally". Maybe we are an invasive species similar to a diseases we experience in the form of a virus or bacteria, and the Earth itself and all of it's "resources" are like our host.

Ergo, the essential difference between animals and humans is; the animals are of the Earth and so only developed to serve it, whereas we are of the cosmos and have been developed to serve ourselves.

Originally posted by Darce
IMHO;

Animal consciousness is entirely entrenched within the biome. Their greater consciousness is an expression of the Earth itself, and their purpose is co-dependence. So, all beings natural to this planet are essentially one consciousness.

OK

Originally posted by DarceHuman consciousness is non-local and operates independently of the biome.

OK

As much as I think you're on a right track of mind here, you bring up unsubstantiated claims that have little to no backing. There is no empirical that will emphatically prove your assertions. I agree that Human Consciousness is "non local"; however, I can in no way prove that. So, until I find the evidence proving my point and yours, I can not say that the claim made is correct.

We can not quantify what exactly separates us from animals...much like we can not quantify things like souls and spirits yet...or even the mind (not brain). We have a long way to go, but I believe with enough honest research and focus we will be able to one day find such answers (even if we do not enjoy what we discover).

reply to post by TheOneElectric


You are correct sir, I have no empirical evidence available for you to substantiate my opinion, but that is why I started my post with "IMHO;", as it is merely in my humble opinion that I share that thought with you.

You don't seem to disagree with me though. You seem to want to understand this concept by 'quantifying' it. I propose the questions; how can one quantify itself? Can the observer be the subject of quantification?

Probably not in any form of accuracy. So, you'll just have to FEEL your way out of this one.

Are animals not in some, or many ways superior to us human beings? Could this be evidence of our dependency on them, and thus our subordination?

I learned a long time ago that people who begin discussions on what is the difference e between humans and animals followed by animals simply respond to stimuli and instinct can not be reasoned with.

and that's the difference between humans and animals

I am guessing that your term 'objective' means discarding all of the tidal wave of proof that animals reason perfectly well

and 'subjective' means marginalizing anyone who knows that there really is no difference between us and them .