|
Replies: 63
| visibility 1
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
What is the difference between humans and (other) animals?
Aug 14, 2015, 11:22 AM
|
|
Or do you believe there is no real difference, except a higher level of intelligence? Are humans just really smart animals?
Do you believe there is something else that is distinctive for humans among the other life forms on Earth? What is it?
I'll chime in to start. Yes, I believe there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals, and that is the soul. The soul makes the human different in that they are capable of awareness of right and wrong, and are thus moral agents, responsible to God for their actions.
Obviously my answer goes into the spiritual realm, but I'm looking for any thoughts, from scientific to spiritual and anywhere in between.
|
|
|
|
 |
Oculus Spirit [81078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56152
Joined: 9/13/04
|
A human only knows the difference between right and wrong
Aug 14, 2015, 11:30 AM
|
|
after they are told, sometimes many times.
So does my dog.
The main difference I see is that my dog holds no contempt towards me for telling her the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I disagree with that.
Aug 14, 2015, 11:38 AM
|
|
I don't believe a dog knows right and wrong. He knows what actions will lead to him being bopped on the nose, or put in a cage. And he will learn to avoid those actions. But he does not have any understanding of what it means for something to be wrong.
I believe humans are the only life forms on earth that can understand right and wrong, independent of consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Animals certainly don't care about having character
Aug 14, 2015, 12:40 PM
|
|
I think the major difference between people and animals is that people can choose against their nature. Human being is the ability to choose against human being. Or, another way to say that is that what we are is a question for us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Isn't #### just a bop on the nose from God?
Aug 14, 2015, 12:50 PM
[ in reply to I disagree with that. ] |
|
And isn't something only wrong because God says it is? If so, then we're the same as dogs when it comes to comprehending morality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: Isn't #### just a bop on the nose from God?
Aug 14, 2015, 1:12 PM
|
|
I don't have the same concept of helll as most. Helll to me is just an existence without God. It seems to me that eternal burning is as close a description as one could give to someone who didn't understand or know the joy of God's presence. It's kinda like describing heaven as a place that has streets lined with gold and gates made of precious stones. That makes no sense to me either but if I didn't know God living in a place like that might be desired.
All the descriptions of heaven and hell are from human perspective and are attempts to provide a frame of reference.
Bop on the nose? No, from God's perspective it's just giving folks what they want, to continue their existence without Him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56152
Joined: 9/13/04
|
I exist pretty well with out him.
Aug 14, 2015, 1:23 PM
|
|
And certainly exist very well without all the nonsensical rules.
I assure you, I'm in no hell. I may not live as well as a millionaire, but I'm pretty satisfied with what I have and who I am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
God is present with you and every other living human.
Aug 14, 2015, 2:16 PM
|
|
No living creature has experienced life without God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: God is present with you and every other living human.
Aug 14, 2015, 2:19 PM
|
|
Now that is what I call unfalsifiable claim.
"Thor" is present with you and every other living human. No living creature has experienced life without "Thor".
See how that works? If you don't have to back up your argument, then neither do I.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Isn't #### just a bop on the nose from God?
Aug 14, 2015, 1:28 PM
[ in reply to Re: Isn't #### just a bop on the nose from God? ] |
|
> No, from God's perspective it's just giving folks what they want, to continue their existence without Him.
Giving folks what they want? Who wants eternal damnation?
I think you are looking at it from the wrong perspective. You make it sound like there is a crystal clear case that god exists and that you have the choice to simply accept or deny his offer. Yet, we can't see, hear, touch or even smell him. How are we supposed to know these options even exists? Because a preacher man says so?
Seriously, how are we supposed to know what options are even on the table?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You probably ought to take all that up with Him.
Aug 14, 2015, 2:21 PM
|
|
I don't defend God and I'm not claiming to speak for Him. Someone asked a question and I gave my opinion. You don't agree, I get it, Rudeus Interruptis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You probably ought to take all that up with Him.
Aug 14, 2015, 2:24 PM
|
|
But you are the one making the claim. This has nothing to do with speaking for or defending god. It's all about your claim that you can't seem to substantiate. Why you feel you are so special and don't have to back up your opinions is beyond me.
> Someone asked a question and I gave my opinion. You don't agree, I get it, Rudeus Interruptis.
Again with this? Why do you post on a forum if you aren't interesting in discussing the topic at hand?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
A testimony is refuted in court.
Aug 14, 2015, 2:55 PM
|
|
Why do folks end up in prison with only the testimony of witnesses? You're the only person obstinate enough to requite proof from a witness. That's good, it means you'll never have to do time on a jury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: A testimony is refuted in court.
Aug 14, 2015, 3:05 PM
|
|
You haven't even given testimony, you just made a claim. When testimony is given in court, they explain in detail what happened. That's not what you did.
The witness doesn't simply say "He did it!" and that's it. They give a detailed recap of the events that happened.
> You're the only person obstinate enough to requite proof from a witness.
Also, In what universe is this a problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I explained in detail several times about my life...
Aug 14, 2015, 3:25 PM
|
|
and how God changed it right here in this forum. You're not baiting me into the same situation again, everybody's seen it. You ignore the witness one way or the other. That's fine but you must understand my opinion is based on personal experiences with God, not listing to a preacher or another who claims experience in the Bible. Henceforth, take that as a given. You should have already. I don't understand why you haven't. I'm positive my testimony was a reply to at least one of your post.
If you'll check the subject line to which you replied it says, 'A testimony is refuted in court.'
That's the world in which a testimony is refuted. This is the internet, a place where one can escape the rules of civil communications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I explained in detail several times about my life...
Aug 14, 2015, 3:32 PM
|
|
I'm not baiting you into giving your personal testimony, you HAVE done that a few times and for the record I believe that you sincerely believe it. I'm asking for actual proof to back up your claim, your testimony doesn't prove anything and I shouldn't have to explain why that is. I could ask a muslim, Buddhist, mormon or scientologist and they would give a very similar testimony to yours. They can't all be right so there's proof that testimony prove anything.
>If you'll check the subject line to which you replied it says, 'A testimony is refuted in court. That's the world in which a testimony is refuted. This is the internet, a place where one can escape the rules of civil communications.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I know the court accepts testimony, just because they do doesn't mean that ok or a perfect system. If a single person can just testify and put someone in prison, that's pretty messed up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: I explained in detail several times about my life...
Aug 14, 2015, 3:48 PM
|
|
As if mine is the only personal testimony you've experienced. Faith in God is a living proof. That's all you're ever going to get in this world.
If it were 'evidence,' which suited your definition then faith would not play a part in man's destination. Angels don't have faith, that's why we are a little higher than angels. Satan doesn't have faith, that's why we are stronger than Satan. Well, it's faith of The One who is within us that has the power that's stronger than Satan, not we ourselves by ourselves.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Yeah, that's not one of my original thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I explained in detail several times about my life...
Aug 14, 2015, 4:09 PM
|
|
> As if mine is the only personal testimony you've experienced. Faith in God is a living proof. That's all you're ever going to get in this world.
You are correct, i've heard the testimony from other christians as well, that is true. I even gave my own testimony at one point. However, how do you differentiate the testimony of a christian from a muslim's? Or even a protestant vs a catholic? Do you see how testimony in numbers alone doesn't mean much? Not to mention, each person's testimony is going to be slightly different (if not completely different).
If a million people told me that aliens existed, but then had no physical evidence to show me, should I believe them simply because there are a million of them? Furthermore, what if they told me that they never actually saw the alien personally nor has anyone they know. BUT, there is a book they have about people who did see this alien. You are telling me that i'm the one being obstinate here for dismissing that?
> If it were 'evidence,' which suited your definition then faith would not play a part in man's destination. Angels don't have faith, that's why we are a little higher than angels. Satan doesn't have faith, that's why we are stronger than Satan. Well, it's faith of The One who is within us that has the power that's stronger than Satan, not we ourselves by ourselves.
This is something I don't really understand. How do you KNOW that it is by faith alone if the only thing you have to go on is, well, faith? If your only source of truth is this faith, and there is literally nothing else to go on, that just doesn't seem like a compelling argument.
You're basically telling me that there is no evidence to go on and that I should believe in something without proof?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You have a measure of faith.
Aug 14, 2015, 4:46 PM
|
|
Everyone has a measure of faith. Past that, it's you choice in what you place your faith. I struggled mightily about my faith during my first few years with The Lord. Again and again I came to the finality that having such a little faith wasn't a problem for Him but only for me.
I came to understand why and how faith so small as the grain of a mustard seed could move mountains, heal the sick and raise the dead. I understood how Christ could truthfully say that those who follow would do greater works than He.
When Lazarus was raised from the dead he lived only a relatively short time. Eventually his body died and it returned to the grave. When I recalled the witnesses who had testified to me I was raised from death to life which is eternal. In essence, they had greater work in me than even The Christ had in Lazarus. That is to say that the particular miracle which Christ performed in the day Lazarus returned from the grave was temporal, while the miracle which they performed in me was eternal, thus, greater.
Likewise, when Christ made the lame to walk they walked only until death. When witnesses testified to me about my misunderstanding of faith I was healed for eternity. When I testify to you and the cover fall from your third eye you will see eternal things. Likewise with me, I was once blind but now I see.
This is the testimony of a man who has the smallest amount of faith that God gives. You can't have less faith than I. It's impossible for I'm sure of few things, this is one of them. It just so happens that God has chosen to manifest His Son to me. It's nothing I've done, it's nothing I deserve and it's nothing I have any real measure of control over. I wouldn't change it if I had the power.
I struggled greatly with such small faith but I'v found that how I gauge faith is insignificant. In whom a man puts his faith is the only true measure of faith. If it's in God, His Son and His word it is fruitful. In something else it will not be satisfying.
You just happen to choose a different object of faith than I. I worship The Creator not the created.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: You have a measure of faith.
Aug 14, 2015, 5:45 PM
|
|
It's clear you won't stay on topic and answer direct questions so I'll just go with whatever you're throwing me here:
> When witnesses testified to me about my misunderstanding of faith I was healed for eternity.
Ok, so when you say you were healed for eternity, how do you know? What specifically happened? Honestly, how do you know?
> When I testify to you and the cover fall from your third eye you will see eternal things. Likewise with me, I was once blind but now I see.
What is it that you see now specifically? Do you mean you literally see supernatural things now? Things you never saw before? Or you have some kind of greater understanding? Please be as specific as possible.
> I came to understand why and how faith so small as the grain of a mustard seed could move mountains, heal the sick and raise the dead. I understood how Christ could truthfully say that those who follow would do greater works than He.
What have you seen that is equal to mountains being moved or someone being raised from the dead?
> You just happen to choose a different object of faith than I. I worship The Creator not the created.
That's a pretty pompous thing to say. I don't "worship the created". And what "faith" are you referring to? I don't have faith "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: You have a measure of faith.
Aug 15, 2015, 10:36 AM
|
|
Look faith up in your funk and wagnalls. What you're asking of me is impossible. This is the second time I've said that and I even when to the trouble to explain why.
If you have questions about this post I'll refer you to my previous post in this sub-thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56152
Joined: 9/13/04
|
I think this is one of the main arguements for religion
Aug 14, 2015, 1:25 PM
[ in reply to Isn't #### just a bop on the nose from God? ] |
|
isn't it?
It has been told to me in here that without God and religion, that I can have no basis in morality.
The consequences of denying God and religion are the "NO!" that my dog gets if she drops a deuce on the rug (which she has never done BTW).
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Put aside hell and God for a moment, even.
Aug 14, 2015, 1:32 PM
[ in reply to Isn't #### just a bop on the nose from God? ] |
|
Do you not feel an innate sense of something being right and wrong, independent of any consequences that might arise from the actions?
If you do feel that, do you think other animals do, too?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24808]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42555
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Yes and yes. Instinctual or learned morality?***
Aug 14, 2015, 1:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [9107]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14107
Joined: 11/5/05
|
Some people do, some don't.
Aug 14, 2015, 1:36 PM
[ in reply to Put aside hell and God for a moment, even. ] |
|
Sociopath is one word to describe those who don't.
A lot of higher mammals appear to have similar traits (ability to tell right from wrong) according to recent research. Also, just like humans, some animals are just jerks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56152
Joined: 9/13/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Put aside hell and God for a moment, even.
Aug 14, 2015, 1:38 PM
[ in reply to Put aside hell and God for a moment, even. ] |
|
What point are you trying to drive home? i feel like you are tip-toeing around getting us to say something.
> Do you not feel an innate sense of something being right and wrong, independent of any consequences that might arise from the actions?
What do you mean by "innate sense", that could mean something instinctual or something acquired through experience. My guess is that you are trying to say we have an externally sourced morality within us. Which, i'm not sure why you see as a requirement.
It's easy to see why we would acquire these traits through natural selection. How well would an "immoral" person get along in society? Not very well.
> If you do feel that, do you think other animals do, too?
Well they do have instincts. I don't know how they are feeling though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Just asking questions to see what people think.
Aug 14, 2015, 1:42 PM
|
|
Honestly, I often think about this subject when "climate change" or "global warming" come up. I wonder if anyone would take the stance that it's really just "humans being humans". We don't assign any responsibility for the health of the environment to any other animals. They're just animals being animals, part of the "circle of life".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Just asking questions to see what people think.
Aug 14, 2015, 2:09 PM
|
|
> We don't assign any responsibility for the health of the environment to any other animals.
Well, that's because they aren't actively deteriorating it at the rate we are. I don't think any other animal has the capacity to understand it even if they did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56105]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31650
Joined: 8/27/02
|
There are animals who protect each other.
Aug 14, 2015, 1:50 PM
[ in reply to Put aside hell and God for a moment, even. ] |
|
And there are dogs who protect their owners and property. Does that count as an innate sense of something being right and wrong?
I'm not sure if my sense of morality is innate or not. I suppose I innately dislike seeing others in pain, including animals, but that isn't an irrational reaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: There are animals who protect each other.
Aug 14, 2015, 3:38 PM
|
|
How do we know that dogs are not just protecting their possessions and territory? We assume a human frame of reference for dogs. That's natural, we all find within ourselves a frame of reference by which to understand the world around us.
I can't say you are wrong. Knowing how cats seem to own their keepers, I can see how you might be wrong.
It seems to me that instinctive compulsions in animals dictates their actions, primarily. Dogs have a high natural ability to alter their instinctive compulsions. That's probably likely because humans typically work more frequently and intensely with dogs than other animals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: What is the difference between humans and (other) animals?
Aug 14, 2015, 12:10 PM
|
|
> What is the difference between humans and (other) animals?
Well first of all humans ARE animals, that's simply a classification. We are the human animal made of similiar genetic make-up to all other animals.
> Or do you believe there is no real difference, except a higher level of intelligence? Are humans just really smart animals?
Well there is a huge difference between us and other animals of course. No other animal has dominated Earth anywhere near the magnitude that we have and yes that is because of our intelligence.
We we just really smart animals? I mean, to be pedantic yes. That is the what separates us.
> Do you believe there is something else that is distinctive for humans among the other life forms on Earth? What is it?
As stated above, we are far more intelligent and capable of abstract thought.
> I'll chime in to start. Yes, I believe there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals, and that is the soul. The soul makes the human different in that they are capable of awareness of right and wrong, and are thus moral agents, responsible to God for their actions. Obviously my answer goes into the spiritual realm, but I'm looking for any thoughts, from scientific to spiritual and anywhere in between.
I have no problems with your beliefs, I simply disagree with them. What proof do we have of a soul (or literally anything supernatural for that matter)?
Since you asked, scientifically it is very obvious that we evolved over time from the simple life forms. The evidence for this is quite astounding and can be seen very clearly from the fossil record and our DNA (completely separately too I might add, even if we didn't have one, the other definitely shows we are related to all other plants and animals and evolved over time).
If you map out the fossil record, it shows a very clear tree of life. If you map out our genome and compare with other species, it shows the same tree. I'm not sure how else you can interpret those findings. To be blunt, I think the only reason to interpret otherwise is a religious conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Do you think that the difference between humans
Aug 14, 2015, 12:26 PM
|
|
and other animals, is cause for an added moral responsibility that other animals do not have?
For example, what about humans means that they should be punished for killing or ###### another human, while the rest of the animal kingdom is not held to the same standard?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
r*aping is censored, apparently.***
Aug 14, 2015, 12:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: r*aping is censored, apparently.***
Aug 14, 2015, 12:34 PM
|
|
Yeah, the censoring on this site is a bit weird. I don't understand the need for it all really, we all know what it's saying anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Do you think that the difference between humans
Aug 14, 2015, 12:32 PM
[ in reply to Do you think that the difference between humans ] |
|
> Do you think that the difference between humans and other animals, is cause for an added moral responsibility that other animals do not have?
> For example, what about humans means that they should be punished for killing or ###### another human, while the rest of the animal kingdom is not held to the same standard?
From an evolutionary standpoint, morality is a human construct. Think of it this way, if we didn't punish murderers, there would be more murder and thus it would be harder to survive. It's simply a matter of survival.
Also, I don't like when people steal things from me, so I think it's fair to punish people to reduce that from happening. These moral constructs help us thrive as a whole. In general, humans don't like death/destruction unless they have something to gain from it.
I fail to see a deity as a requirement for morality. Morality is a construct that helps us move forward as a species and doesn't require an outside force.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Would you agree with this statement?:
Aug 14, 2015, 12:35 PM
|
|
"Humans are the only animals with a morality construct, because of their superior intelligence level."
Modify as you see fit, if not.
Thank you for your answers, which are very interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81925]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 47119
Joined: 3/18/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Would you agree with this statement?:
Aug 14, 2015, 12:40 PM
[ in reply to Would you agree with this statement?: ] |
|
No, other animals also exhibit signs of morality and fairness.
Even dogs can tell when you unjustly give one a treat and not the others. More intelligent animals such as dolphins, elephants, chimps and even ravens all demonstrate these concepts. I'm not an expert on the subject though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
None of which tells us why any of that is important
Aug 14, 2015, 1:01 PM
[ in reply to Re: What is the difference between humans and (other) animals? ] |
|
Modern science will tell us that we're smarter than other animals and that our big brains have allowed us to use abstract reasoning, but modern scientists apparently don't want to use their abstract reasoning to examine why we care about activities like modern science to begin with. Evolutionary biology doesn't so much explain why we do certain things as it tells just so stories about things we do that accord with its theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: None of which tells us why any of that is important
Aug 14, 2015, 1:06 PM
|
|
I'm honestly not sure what point you are trying to get across here.
> Modern science will tell us that we're smarter than other animals and that our big brains have allowed us to use abstract reasoning,
Ok sure.
> but modern scientists apparently don't want to use their abstract reasoning to examine why we care about activities like modern science to begin.
> Evolutionary biology doesn't so much explain why we do certain things as it tells just so stories about things we do that accord with its theory.
I think you are confused on the role science plays here. What does the question "why we care about activities like modern science to begin with" have anything to do with the validity of evolution?
If by "stories" you mean it explains its findings through experimentation, I guess so...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56152
Joined: 9/13/04
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Because it tells us something essential about ourselves
Aug 14, 2015, 1:38 PM
|
|
We've got a fundamental orientation towards the truth that is peculiar to human being. That's the meaning of our big brains (some would even say that's why we have them). Just using modern science to describe the fact that we have big brains and that our big brains allow us to use abstract reasoning ignores a large part of what that abstract reasoning tells us about ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Because it tells us something essential about ourselves
Aug 14, 2015, 1:41 PM
|
|
> We've got a fundamental orientation towards the truth that is peculiar to human being.
This could easily be a side-effect of simply having a big brain. Btw, big brain doesn't necessarily mean smarter. Other animals have bigger brains than we do.
We are most likely so curious BECAUSE of our intelligence. There doesn't have to be some larger meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56152
Joined: 9/13/04
|
Is that where were trying to get--some larger meaning
Aug 14, 2015, 1:43 PM
|
|
that we are curious other than we are more intelligent?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
We're not trying to get there, we're already there
Aug 14, 2015, 1:52 PM
|
|
By the very fact that we care enough to have this conversation- we even care whether we're right or not- we're already committed to the idea that what we do is meaningful. That certainly doesn't prove (scientifically speaking) any particular version of meaning, but we shouldn't avoid what our abstract reasoning actually tells us. The scientistic scientist who wants to make everything submit to scientific reduction is actually being scientific about everything but himself- maybe because the reasons for his scientific inquiry can't be fully reduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34113]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Question for you, camcgee
Aug 14, 2015, 2:13 PM
|
|
You've brought up the idea of "scientific reduction" in the past, but it has never been clear what it is or why it's a problem, and how you are proposing we change our thinking.
Here's a question to try to get at your position on this: If I have a moral theory, which starts with premises based on experience and reason, and which draws conclusions based on further reasons, would you say that my theory is guilty of "scientific reduction"?
Here's a follow-up: If I have a great pasta recipe, and it's based on premises based on experience and reason, and which I follow whenever I make pasta, is my cooking method guilty of "scientific reduction"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
The scientific reduction isn't a bad thing
Aug 14, 2015, 4:44 PM
|
|
It's just the assumptions and method that have to be used to get to certainty. But there are more things in the world than what we can be scientifically certain about.
In your two examples, you wouldn't have made the scientific reduction if all you were relying on was the totality of your experiences and reason. However, I would just point out that most people don't adopt moral theories or recipes "based on premises based on experience and reason. In fact, most people's morality is adopted through authority, feelings, or imitation. When people write a recipe or decide they like one, they don't generally make that decision "based on premises based on experience and reason." In fact, again, they trust the recipe based on authority (someone else's recommendation) or a subjective taste honed through mastery of cooking. I think, in both cases, a person who only adopted a moral theory or cooked after consulting a number of scientific premises would be kind of a strange person.
Why? Because what we're doing when we're "doing science" isn't how we normally behave. The kind of knowledge science produces is good for a very specific thing, but it isn't the only kind of knowledge. Your cook, for instance, might have his own way of telling when his pasta was done, but he wouldn't reduce the situation into measures of kinetic energy (he might judge the heat of the pasta, instead) or the molecular structure of the pasta (he might judge the firmness of the pasta, instead). So the problem with applying the scientific reduction is that, when not doing scientific research, the fullness of the experience is lost by always "bringing back" (the latin root of "reduce" actually means "to bring back") to something more digestible for modern science. It's simply inappropriate for some tasks, and requires us actually not to consult the totality of our experience and reason.
As Heidegger said, the materialistic presuppositions necessary to arrive at the facts required by modern science, if imposed on the whole of reality, lead to forgetting Being (or that which underlies all beings). We can only really talk about Being if we interpret the whole of human experience rather than treating our plain experience as raw data to be reduced by scientific theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Isn't the pursuit of "knowing" an expression of being?
Aug 14, 2015, 6:00 PM
|
|
so it can't be forgotten?
Also in googling about this issue, I found this quote from something called "#### Sacer"
"That Being abandons the being means: Being dissimulates itself in the being-manifest of the being. And Being itself becomes essentially determined as this withdrawing self-dissimulation."
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34113]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: The scientific reduction isn't a bad thing
Aug 14, 2015, 6:09 PM
[ in reply to The scientific reduction isn't a bad thing ] |
|
However, I would just point out that most people don't adopt moral theories or recipes "based on premises based on experience and reason.
You say that, but then you say
they trust the recipe based on authority (someone else's recommendation) or a subjective taste honed through mastery of cooking.
But those are just the sort of experiential premises I was thinking of. And the reasoning involved might include: "I love the food this cook makes, so therefore this next recipe from the same cook should also be good." Or "I tasted the results of this recipe before, and it was good but salty, so I will make it again, but with less salt."
Experience and reasoning. You act like I was suggesting that we apply chemistry and physics. But all I said was experience and reason.
In the end, I do not believe that you would say that [experience + reason] = [scientific reduction].
Would you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
Hence, the problem with making reductionistic science...
Aug 14, 2015, 1:45 PM
[ in reply to Re: Because it tells us something essential about ourselves ] |
|
into an all encompassing ideology. In order to get scientific certainty about everything, you just ignore anything that doesn't submit to scientific scrutiny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Hence, the problem with making reductionistic science...
Aug 14, 2015, 2:13 PM
|
|
> In order to get scientific certainty about everything, you just ignore anything that doesn't submit to scientific scrutiny.
Science simply seeks to explain the world around us. Science "ignores" anything that isn't falsifiable because there is no way to test it. I'm not sure if that's what you mean by "submitting to scientific scrutiny".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81078]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56152
Joined: 9/13/04
|
We can also perform complex mathematics
Aug 14, 2015, 1:42 PM
[ in reply to Because it tells us something essential about ourselves ] |
|
and we have opposable thumbs. We're pretty unique that way.
What does this have to do with the the OP's question?
Srsly..I'm not getting your direction on this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: We can also perform complex mathematics
Aug 14, 2015, 2:14 PM
|
|
I'm also very confused on what camgee is even getting at here...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18310]
TigerPulse: 79%
Posts: 24634
Joined: 11/3/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34113]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33621
Joined: 9/13/99
|
Re: What is the difference between humans and (other) animals?
Aug 14, 2015, 12:45 PM
|
|
Or do you believe there is no real difference, except a higher level of intelligence?
I believe all species of animals are different in various ways.
Are humans just really smart animals?
I wouldn't go so far as to say "really" smart. 
Do you believe there is something else that is distinctive for humans among the other life forms on Earth? What is it?
Humans are especially clever animals when it comes to tool-building and abstract reasoning. This includes the ability to theorize about morality, so in that respect I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93673]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Humans persist long after animals would give up.
Aug 14, 2015, 12:53 PM
|
|
Here's an example, the living trying to explain life to the dead.
I know, instructions is instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24808]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42555
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Reasoning vs. instinct, tho both have some of each...***
Aug 14, 2015, 12:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14768
Joined: 6/29/01
|
I'd like to share with you a revelation that I've had
Aug 14, 2015, 1:19 PM
|
|
https://youtu.be/UOi6v5DD_1M
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You're a plague and we are the cure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42196]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38272
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Whoa.***
Aug 14, 2015, 2:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38925]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 22731
Joined: 3/17/11
|
we are just really smart animals
Aug 14, 2015, 2:04 PM
|
|
I was trained not to poop my pants; the same as my dogs were trained not to poop in the house.
I was trained not to steal just like my dogs are trained not to take the other ones' toys.
I was trained not to throw tantrums or hurt people because I'm mad, my dogs are trained to refrain to from showing their ##### when we have company.
I understood none of the WHYS when I was being trained, I do now. My dogs probably will not ever understand WHY certain things are important, but they know things are important.
As mom, I have the responsibility of them teaching them their morals, just like my parents did to me.
I know there are wild animals, that kill without remorse. Man and beast alike.
And no matter how much domesticating of man or beast you do, you always see examples of those fall into the "evil" category or primitive behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24808]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42555
Joined: 7/31/10
|
+1...***
Aug 14, 2015, 9:09 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42196]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38272
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Aliens, man, aliens.
Aug 14, 2015, 2:49 PM
|
|
I got nothin'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [40353]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 23466
Joined: 7/13/12
|
humans can get arrested for peeing in public***
Aug 14, 2015, 3:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 63
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
