While we’re at it, this points to one of the traditional arguments for a difference in kind between humans and apes—humans manufacture tools. (That is, they make tools to make other tools.) That requires a kind of foresight we don’t see in other animals. It requires conceptual thought in addition to perceptual thought.I think we’re quickly reaching the point where we won’t be able to design more sophisticated computers without computer assistance. Sophisticated modern aircraft don’t stay aloft without it.
Except when that species controls their our own fertility, their method of food production, their environment, their health. Except when that species can make conscious decisions in regard to where it lives and how it lives. We are the first species that can do that. I’m not sure we are being arbitrarily taken wherever the blind constraints of evolution might have otherwise lead us.As to the first, nothing in Darwin (or neo-Darwinian theory) allows for any species to slip the net of evolution.
Except when we do see it.While we’re at it, this points to one of the traditional arguments for a difference in kind between humans and apes—humans manufacture tools. (That is, they make tools to make other tools.) That requires a kind of foresight we don’t see in other animals. It requires conceptual thought in addition to perceptual thought.
I think humans demonstrate a range of capabilities and limitations due to millions of years of adaptations to the environment – possibly beginning with nothing more than bipedalism. For instance, I think most humans are right-handed and diurnal not by chance. I also think it’s not by accident that a species adapted to looking no further than the nearest horizon should be so severely handicapped when trying to contemplate things on the scale of our universe.[Previously addressed]
- Do you believe we are programmed by nature to think as we think and act as we act?
I understand what you are saying. But those capabilities are not equally available to all. That means some are more insulated from environmental pressure than others. It is almost as though this is another classification of selection pressure that could be layered over the existing ones. As I think unequal access to such tools and capabilities such as health care could impact the allele frequency of the human population.Except when that species controls their our own fertility, their method of food production, their environment, their health.
Would unequal access really make that much of a difference to the species as a whole? It might to different cultures but I don’t think that ‘culture’ is a concept that’s applicable to evolution.As I think unequal access to such tools and capabilities such as health care could impact the allele frequency of the human population.
Side note, would genetically modification constitute a form of horizontal gene transfer?
There’s tons of information available about the tool using capabilities of crows, but here is one example that seems pertinent. Also, IIRC, the traditional argument was that only humans used tools, but that had to be dropped after we discovered that we weren’t the only animals to do so. I’m sure that the argument can be further modified to render humans truly distinctive, but then I don’t think anyone’s ever held that we weren’t the smartest animals on the planet.While we’re at it, this points to one of the traditional arguments for a difference in kind between humans and apes—humans manufacture tools. (That is, they make tools to make other tools.) That requires a kind of foresight we don’t see in other animals. It requires conceptual thought in addition to perceptual thought.
The difference between non rational life (eg a microbe) and somewhat rational life (eg you) is indeed a matter of degree.Then the difference between molecular systems and rational beings must also be simply a difference of degree. Is that correct?
I think it potentially does. Especially if the availability of life supporting resources and chances of survival can be correlated to alleles (which may be likely if access to these resources is regional).Would unequal access really make that much of a difference to the species as a whole? It might to different cultures but I don’t think that ‘culture’ is a concept that’s applicable to evolution.
Interesting! Thanks for posting that. When you say that the argument can be further modified to render humans distinctive, that COULD be read as a suggestion of special-pleading.I hope you didn’t mean it that way. I think our use of common nouns—chair, person, talk, government, antelope–is something no other earthly species can duplicate.There’s tons of information available about the tool using capabilities of crows, but here is one example that seems pertinent. Also, IIRC, the traditional argument was that only humans used tools, but that had to be dropped after we discovered that we weren’t the only animals to do so. I’m sure that the argument can be further modified to render humans truly distinctive, but then I don’t think anyone’s ever held that we weren’t the smartest animals on the planet.
You are attributing many things to humans that Darwin would not. He was clear that our difference in intelligence was only one of degree, not kind. If we alone among all species can take control of our fertility, food production, environment, and health, then that points to a fundamental difference between us and all other species, does it not?Except when that species controls their our own fertility, their method of food production, their environment, their health. Except when that species can make conscious decisions in regard to where it lives and how it lives. We are the first species that can do that. I’m not sure we are being arbitrarily taken wherever the blind constraints of evolution might have otherwise lead us…
No problem and you’re welcome.Interesting! Thanks for posting that. When you say that the argument can be further modified to render humans distinctive, that COULD be read as a suggestion of special-pleading.I hope you didn’t mean it that way. I think our use of common nouns—chair, person, talk, government, antelope–is something no other earthly species can duplicate.
I’m enjoying our conversation! It’s interesting that many ancients and medievals ASSUMED animals had a great deal of intelligence. (This may be because they had more exposure to animal life than many modern city-dwellers who have never seen an animal give birth, nest, forage, or play.)No problem and you’re welcome.
I didn’t mean that phrase in any kind of an accusatory sense, but only in the sense that scientists have had to continually modify their assumptions about the intellectual capabilities of other animals as new information presents itself.
As to your point about humans being the only animal to use common nouns, it seems that’s been called into question as well based on observations of velvet and other monkey species.
I’ll post more later.
I agree (although Tony might not). But it is quite some degree. I believe we reached a point where our development increased exponentially – almost a genetic version of the Technological Singularity (and I’ve no doubt that a lot of people on this forum might have an idea of how and why that happened).You are attributing many things to humans that Darwin would not. He was clear that our difference in intelligence was only one of degree, not kind.
A difference in degree, yes.If we alone among all species can take control of our fertility, food production, environment, and health, then that points to a fundamental difference between us and all other species, does it not?
There are direct results apparent in most countries because of the fact that we control our environment. Obesity is a problem now because we were programmed to pack in fats and sugars wherever we found them because they weren’t readily available. Now they’re at arm’s length any time of the day. We possibly might adapt to that. But I don’t think we’d develop hard shells to protect against the occasional landslide, or fins to help us out in the occasional flood.That said, I think you over-state your case. We influence our environment but do not control it–hurricanes, mud slides, tornadoes, and floods let us know pretty quick we’re not the boss of them!
Certainly the first.I wonder if we’re the only species whose members ponder whether another way to live might be better…
Is that view based on evidence or wishful thinking?Then the difference between molecular systems and rational beings must also be simply a difference of degree. Is that correct?
It sounds as if it’s a matter of faith rather than fact.The understanding of the difference between non-living and living is a work in progress. When we find out (sorry…if we find out), then I’m sure someone will tell you.
You can spend your whole life looking for answers but you are wasting your time and energy unless you have very good reasons for believing that the answers are of the type you expect. The failure of science to give us answers to the questions that really matter is an ill omen…In that regard, do you think that because some people believe that it can’t have happened naturally then we should stop looking for an answer?
I don’t think it is. Here’s a listing of what the statement seems to be saying.Bradski;9928787:
we find out), then I’m sure someone will tell you.The understanding of the difference between non-living and living is a work in progress. When we find out (sorry…if
It sounds as if it’s a matter of faith rather than fact.
The view that the difference between a microbe and you is matter of degree? That would be evidence. You are a direct descendent in an unbroken line from single cell organisms. Kinda cool, eh?Is that view based on evidence or wishful thinking?
A few theories, but no facts. But we’re looking for them, Tony. We’re looking for them…It sounds as if it’s a matter of faith rather than fact.
Well, in a scientific endeavour to investigate abiogenesis, you would expect a natural answer. As opposed to a supernatural one. But you didn’t answer the question. Do you think that, because some people believe that it can’t have happened naturally, then we should stop looking?You can spend your whole life looking for answers but you are wasting your time and energy unless you have very good reasons for believing that the answers are of the type you expect. The failure of science to give us answers to the questions that really matter is an ill omen…
If the ancients deduced that other animals were more intelligent than we think were based on their observations, then I think it would be inappropriate to call that deduction an assumption.I’m enjoying our conversation! It’s interesting that many ancients and medievals ASSUMED animals had a great deal of intelligence. (This may be because they had more exposure to animal life than many modern city-dwellers who have never seen an animal give birth, nest, forage, or play.)
Previously you asked if animals used common nouns like “chair, person, talk, government, antelope…”. I provided examples of velvet monkeys using vocalizations for specific types of threats and now you’re asking if they also have common nouns for concepts like justice, hope or memory! I don’t know, but I doubt they do. It really doesn’t matter though since even if I did provide evidence that they did you’d then likely want to know if they can give a credible synopsis of the Summa! Rather than chase this down any further, I’ll stipulate now that humans have unique abilities relative to all other animals and that it’s likely that that will remain the case.The vervet monkey story is interesting but still, I think, a far cry (-pardon the pun) from a noun such as ‘justice,’ ‘fever,’ ‘hope,’ or ‘memory.’ What we understand when we understand a common noun----on the moderate realist view, in any case–is the nature of these things. (For nominalists, they have no nature but only a common name that we give them Nominalists would have a hard time explaining how vervet monkeys develop specific cries for different species when, on the nominalist view, there are no species, just names we give to things.)
The article on velvet monkeys seems to give conflicting information in this regard. On the one hand the author states: “Alarm calls in velvet monkeys are instinctual and not learned”. Yet they also state that the monkey’s proficiency to differentiate between threats increases with age and experience which seems indicative of a learning process. Perhaps alarm calling – in general – is instinctual, but is also subject to refinement through a learning process.The question is, do the monkeys learn these things or are they instinctual?
[/QUOTE]A few theories, but no facts. But we’re looking for them, Tony. We’re looking for them…The view that the difference between a microbe and you is matter of degree? That would be evidence. You are a direct descendent in an unbroken line from single cell organisms. Kinda cool, eh?
Then it is a matter of faith! What is its rational foundation?
You can spend your whole life looking for answers but you are wasting your time and energy unless you have very good reasons for believing that the answers are of the type you expect. The failure of science to give us answers to the questions that really matter is an ill omen…You are assuming that science is the **sole **explanation of life. How would you justify that act of faith?Well, in a scientific endeavour to investigate abiogenesis, you would expect a natural answer. As opposed to a supernatural one.
It is reasonable to look for answers to questions of the type that science has answered successfully but to look for scientific answers to **everything **is obviously absurd. For one thing persons are not biological machines.But you didn’t answer the question. Do you think that, because some people believe that it can’t have happened naturally, then we should stop looking?
Obesity is a problem. If we haven’t adapted to food surpluses but may yet, this goes against your earlier claim that we have somehow jumped off the evolutionary treadmill. I think you’re gong to have to choose one side of the other and try to stick with it.There are direct results apparent in most countries because of the fact that we control our environment. Obesity is a problem now because we were programmed to pack in fats and sugars wherever we found them because they weren’t readily available. Now they’re at arm’s length any time of the day. We possibly might adapt to that. But I don’t think we’d develop hard shells to protect against the occasional landslide, or fins to help us out in the occasional flood.t.
C’mon, Tony. That’s not answering the question. Do you think we should stop looking for a natural explanation for abiogenesis?It is reasonable to look for answers to questions of the type that science has answered successfully but to look for scientific answers to **everything **is obviously absurd. For one thing persons are not biological machines.
I don’t think there’s a line where we choose one side or the other in this case. You could use some examples to show that we’re still governed by evolution (maybe not the right word, but you know what I mean) and others where we are not. I’m open to any arguments one way or the other,I think you’re gong to have to choose one side of the other and try to stick with it.
Well if a species was going to reach this point, then someone had to be first. You could say we’re a different ‘kind’ of animal to homo australopithicus, and they were a different ‘kind’ to early hominids and they were a different ‘kind’ to earlier primates but they’re all a difference in degree.If we are ‘certainly the first’ species to do something no other species does, that suggests a difference in kind, not degree.