humans_are_animals Question man Technically, we are animals. We aren't plants so we must be animals. Scientific fact 070719 ... gja A plague perhaps? 070719 ... Lemon_Soda "fact" = working theory 070720 ... They call me Truth animal is a scientific classification and according to the characteristics of this classification a human is an animal. Scientific fact is something totally different from truth. 070720 ... dafremen Being the science-minded sort, I would imagine, that you, like me, believe in evolution. Whether or not that is true, let me pose this question to you: How does pointing out the fact that we are descended from animals advance the cause of human evolution? In other words, if I were to begin to think of myself as being an animal today...and not much more..how would my newly adopted perspective help me, the individual, or my species advance? Seems to me, that to reiterate the nature of our heritage, and to call us to embrace it is a call to regress..a trumpet sounding a charge in the direction of evolutionary failure and eventual extinction. 070721 ... dosquatch On the other hand, I see the mindset that we are somehow "too special" for the classification to apply as folly. We are animals, in that we are meat and bone. Saying so is not a call for anarchy or developmental regression. 070721 ... z we are. 070721 ... . Some say we're viruses. 070721 ... z define virus. 070721 ... zeke dafremen: from your discourse above, i infer that you believe in a goal-oriented, or hierarchical version of the theory of evolution. mainstream science suggests no such thing. evolution is not a force, a description of quality or a movement towards some goal or some perfected state. evolution is a description of the past and the present. to think of species as more or less evolved is the province of comic books and faux scientific pop culture. evolution is the explanation we use to describe what came before our time, and how it may have happened. 070721 ... They call me Truth when it comes to people i believe we can evolve as people, grow, adjust, become more conscious and that we can pass that kind of mind state down. i believe we can push ourselves to do great things, break records once thought unbreakable, make our body capable of withstanding things that we could not previously through training and determination. That may not be the scientific version of evolution but it is evolving. Faux science and pop culture philosophy or not, whatever name you decide to give it, life is life, and science has not fully explained all aspects of life or of the universe. So lets take this in humility. humans have the potential to be much more than animals 070721 ... z humans are animals. 070721 ... z see: unintelligent_design and evolutionary_psycology 070721 ... that should be evolutionary_psychology 070721 ... dr. ameen dr_syed_ameen 070721 ... . thats all for now, i'm getting a migrane. 070722 ... . define human. 070722 ... dafremen When you say that evolution isn't a "goal-oriented" process, you undersimplify. Absolutely, it is a goal-oriented process. The goal is survival. Those organisms that are successful, are allowed, by the evolutionary process, to continue to exist, and take part in the pool of genetic material from which evolution draws its direction. To say that we are meat and bone may be true, but it's also a statement with no redeeming value whatsoever. In other words: to say it adds no value to either our knowledge of the human condition, nor does it do anything to advance that condition. Instead, it has the overall psychological effect of bolstering our view of human beings as mere objects surrounding us. All of the investment of a child stomping on ants in words that bolster the view that has kids pulling the trigger in classrooms with an almost casual disregard for human life: We are just things. We are just flesh and bone...we are just animals. 070722 ... dosquatch You overstate what I said. I am, among other things, meat and bone. I never said "just". Adding that word disregards all else I may also be, though nothing else I am changes the fact at I am also meat and bone. Pretending I am not is intellectual dishonesty. Pretending that's ALL that I am is equally intellectually dishonest. 070722 ... zeke dafremen: if i understand your comment, i am inclined to say that your argument is not from the platform of science, but from one of humanism. that is all well and good (and i approve of humanism in most cases) but it does not retroactively alter the scientific method, or it's conclusions. goals of the individual, though they may affect the outcome, are not those of evolution because it does not have goals (being a human construct used to understand the past). viruses have no goals, and neither do mollusks, grasses, mold, lichen, or arguably most complex animals. yet they comprise the vast majority of the history of evolution. the earth is not flat, the sun does not circle it and humans are animals. 070723 ... dafremen The question wasn't whether or not viruses have goals, but whether evolution itself exhibits the tendency toward one. In fact, you and I are having a conversation as a result of the almost one-way valve like insistence that evolution has of moving in the direction of continued survival..and apparently, this has led to advancement(?)of life to who knows what point? We could happily argue forever as to whether or not evolution always leads to improvements. I suppose "improvement" isn't a very objective term. But does the process of evolution have a goal? Absolutely. The goal? Always survival through adaptation. That isn't to say that there is some GOAL held in the heart of evolution, but rather that the process indicates the goal through both its motions, and by its definition. Is evolution sentient? Well that wouldn't be a very scientific notion now would it? 070723 ... zeke evolution is a verb, not a noun. a verb cannot have intention. even if you insist that evolution is a noun (which it is not) evolution is a dynamic noun like a river. a river has no goal. it does not even have a destination. it simply flows downhill until it is not recognizable as a river anymore. life (at basic) does not want anything, it just is. burdening yourself with the necessity for things to mean something (meaning is another verb that is often misused as a noun) is a form of anthropomorphism. meaning is a human construct. 070723 ... fuffle is a Rainbow a verb or a noun ? 070723 ... dosquatch So many problems here. A goal indicates some destination, some end game, some point of completion. "Adapt or die" is not a destination, it is a mission statement. There is no goal. As long as our environment continues to change, life within it will continue to adapt. At the point where this stops, we're all dead. Unless you're indicating that the ultimate purpose of evolution is total extinction, I think "goal" is the wrong word. "Goal" also indicates an awareness of a change over time towards some end. Evolution is a process. It is not self-aware. It cannot have such a goal. It cannot have a goal at all. It simply is. As water flows downhill by the force of gravity, if you will. Gravity has no goal. The flow of water has no goal. They simply are, and are doing what it is in their nature to do. Evolution isn't even a force of its own. It is a collection of things that just happen, organized under a banner, by humans and for our convenience in discussion only. Any "goal" with which you might paint this banner is pure anthropomorphic filtering. You say "goal" because you are aware of the changes that have taken place over time, but that is thrust upon it. Evolution still has no goal in and of itself. And to say that evolution is a push to improve the species is a grave misunderstanding of the process. The process is to allow the strong to survive by killing off the weak. Improvement is a byproduct. But it's no fun to say that, it sounds pretty lame as a goal. Nevermind that it's true. Evolution is what it is. The same processes and forces would still be at play even without us here to name and analyze it. 070723 ... dosquatch dang, z, you must've been posting at the same time I was. You hit half the points I did, too. Ah, well. At least that means somebody agrees with me. 070723 ... (z) (yes, we seem to to be on the same page) 070723 ... dafremen It seems apparent that our Western way of thinking has inextricably tied itself to your perspective. To see the various components of a process as all remaining independent from that process is a bit isolationist and unrealistic. Ecosystems don;t necessarily have sentience, but they certainly have a progression, a life cycle and history. These encompass the individual lifetimes of all of the creatures and objects which bring about those moments. We have biologists who don't study individual organisms so much as the interplay of those organisms within the framework of "ecosystem." Evolution is no different. To insist on viewing it as a bunch of pieces interacting, instead of the complete puzzle that it is..seems a bit short sighted. But then, that's just my opinion. (Ol' sack of meat and bones that I am.) 080423 ... blather grammar check "evolution" is the noun form of the verb "evolve" 080423 ... They call me Truth Humans are animals. "animal" is a label given to organisms that possess certain characteristics. we possess those characteristics. we do, however, operate in ways different than other animals (most animals operate in unique ways) we do have our unique characteristics. we have built things in larger extent than other animals on our planet and we have done this for specific purposes. There are no animals that rival us in this. "Evolution" can be a noun and a verb. Language in itself is evolution. Evolution can be used to refer to different things, and not only the evolution of organisms. The argument I find on this page is more of a language issue. Animal seems to carry with it a connotation that has been interpreted as negative. This is an interpretational issue. The word animal has a simple denotation and a complex connotation. And this is where the disagreement comes in. Some people believe that the term "animal" means "lacking in somthing" whether it be thinking or action. Other people have a more observational view of an animal. Multi-celled organism and so forth. This is not wrong. It is a more denotative interpretation of the term. In constructs such as language, words are given a number of meanings. Meaning can be a noun and a verb. Meaning is the very reason why language exists (humble opinion). LANGUAGE is a method that transmits meaning from one individual to another through the use of words. these MEANINGS that are attributed to words are used to promote undertanding among humans. Words like "animal" and "evolution" have many meanings. When someone does something animalistic it implies that they did something that was lacking in civilized behavior. Arguing over meaning (a construct) does not lead to understanding, hoever, understanding that an issue is due to differences in meaning leads to profound understanding. 080423 ... jane humanimal 080423 ... f the evolution of ideas... science with proof... how about believing in the unknown and accepting that you are an idiot to be religious if you are alive? words are a crap form of communication, its a diversion of looking into someone's soul. 080423 ... z dafremen: "To see the various components of a process as all remaining independent from that process is a bit isolationist and unrealistic." i don't think that i ever said that there were no interrelationships, no whole, as you imply. i merely pointed that evolution was not goal oriented. i do, however, have a tendency (as does science) towards reductionism. that is because it becomes impossible to apply the scientific method in experiments that have too many variables. it causes generalized observation, generalized conclusions and ultimately, junk science. it frequently takes science huge amounts of time to establish principles that we knew intuitively, all along. but, when we are wrong, we really learn something important. either way, it is worth the effort. "Ecosystems don;t necessarily have sentience, but they certainly have a progression, a life cycle and history" i have never heard of any evidence for sentient ecosystems. if there is any, i would be interested in reading about it. progress implies a goal, a state of perfection, or continued improvement, all of which go against the theory of evolution, which focuses on reproductive success and mutation. unless you mean progression in its most neutral sense, which is almost synonymous with history. understanding the historical evidence (the past) is what evolutionary science is. i very much like the idea of looking at ecosystems as very complex organisms and looking for evidence of comparable "life cycles" for these meta systems, but i have not heard of any actual science which does so. it is true, organisms are dependant on their habitat, and that habitat depends on them in a very complex web of interrelationships. that does not make them a "whole". blather grammar check: "evolution" is the noun form of the verb "evolve" my assertion that "evolution is a verb, not a noun", was rhetorical, not a literal one. of course i am aware that english includes the noun "evolution". what i am arguing is that it is actually misapplied. consider: what is the referent of the assertion "evolution is actual"? if you think it through, you will likely conclude, the referent is a process, an action. yes, you might refer to the total bio mass of the life forms described, and call it a noun (like a river is a noun) but that would simply support the (belabored) point that i am making. it is a process, and one which can only be seen in retrospect. humans are animals. 080424 ... z we are, at least i am. 080424 ... z animals 080915 ... daxle We were doing a concept sort (animal/not animal) in class today and a picture of a girl came up. Some kids wanted to say that humans are not animals, yet they didn't want to put the girl with the "not animal" group (which included things like rocks, plants, and rope). So we talked about what animals have in common, in kindergarten terms. They eat, the move around, they breathe, they have babies, they sleep. Based on that they conceded that humans are animals. Technically, sea sponges are classified as animals. Are you more like a cow or a sea sponge? If anything, we are a rather common form of animal. Wikipedia says: Animals have several characteristics that set them apart from other living things. Animals are eukaryotic and usually multicellular[2] (although see Myxozoa), which separates them from bacteria and most protists. They are heterotrophic,[3] generally digesting food in an internal chamber, which separates them from plants and algae. They are also distinguished from plants, algae, and fungi by lacking cell walls.[4] All animals are motile,[5] if only at certain life stages. In most animals, embryos pass through a blastula stage, which is a characteristic exclusive to animals. 080916 ... f i think animals are less cunning and more kind. 080916 ... Lemon_Soda Humans are spiritual beings placed in material bodies created by a divine process called evolution with the intention of tempuring the serene and unchanging spirit with the chaotic and fluxive material to the end result of which is a New God. (And I don't mean the Western Chauvinistic version of that word). Humans are not animals. We are the children of the Divine. 080917 ... z humans are animals (whatever else they may be). 080917 ... Lemon_Soda I think we're using different definitions of the word "animal" 080917 ... z perhaps. what is yours? 080917 ... Lemon_Soda Any living creature that isn't a human being. Huh...is that anything like describing the definition of a word using the word itself? 080917 ... z why exclude humans? 080917 ... Lemon_Soda Because I believe humans have a divine origin, nature, and eventual exaltation. 080918 ... birdmad I am neither vegetable nor mineral, though i consume both, therefore i must be animal. I have flesh that other animals might consume were i in the wrong place at the wrong time, therefore i must be animal too. esoteric and philosophical digressions aside, we are, in the simplest terms just like every other ambulatory meat-sack walking the earth which we call "animal" 080918 ... grendel our transcendent moments do not make us light_dressed_up_as_matter and our baser moments do not make us shit_dressed_up_as_chocolate_pudding we straddle the very broad line between divinity and dumbassery and that's ok 080918 ... Lemon_Soda There is more to me than just my meat. Remove the spiritual from the equation completely, then yes, the answer is "meat thing". But the spiritual is not removed, it is an intregal part. 080919 ... Bete Noir we are gifted meatbags, we are meatbags with potential, we are meatbags with a spark of the divine within us...but when all is said and done, when cooked to a minimum internal temperature of 165 degrees Fahrenheit, we still taste like pork 080919 ... dafremen So perceptive L.S. Perhaps I'll have to tell the story of Gods_new_insect_brain soon. 080919 ... Lemon_Soda I've almost come to think that you believe your gone when your body dies and deteriorates. 080920 ... lux why don't you think animals have souls? 080920 ... dafremen Why wouldn't animals have a soul? Do animals contemplate, do you think..the purpose of their existence? 080921 ... lux my question was directed at LS, not you, Dafremen 080921 ... dafremen I don't see the distinction or your reason for pointing it out. Do you? 080921 ... dafremen P.S. My questions were directed at YOU. However, this being blather, anyone's response will do. So keep those cards and letters coming folks! 080921 ... zeke LS: thank you for the plainspoken answer. i appreciate that you answered my inquiry with a declaration of belief. i respect your belief while not sharing it. knowing that, you shared it anyway. 080922 ... Lemon_Soda I don't recall saying animals don't have souls. Infact, I think they do, and so do rocks, trees, and chairs. 080922 ... - - 100425 ... lux "Humans are spiritual beings... Humans are not animals. We are the children of the Divine. " To deny the spirituality of animals is to deny animals have a soul. 100426 ... () (since i have never seen evidence of a soul, animal, human or otherwise, deny it i do.) 100427 ... jane i have seen what i believe to be evidence of a soul. however, it is not something i can substantiate for others, just as they cannot for me substantiate the existence of God. for me, there is energy, which cannot be created or destroyed. sorry to butt in on this one. just leaving my 2 pennies here. 100427 ... () (no need for an apology: this is, after all, blather. your thoughts are welcome, to me.) 100427 ... () (out of curiosity, and without the requirement to substantiate, what evidence?) 100427 ... jane i'm going to try and explain, but i may get my physics wrong on this, so i appreciate your patience. everything is made of or contains energy, which is constantly changing states but not being created or destroyed. we give off energy, and we have a field of it surrounding us - an aura. blind people talk about being able to feel walls without actually touching them. this nexus of energy is an umbrella for things like the collective_unconscious. connecting with another human being on a level that transcends verbal communication, or sexual communion, but a bond that transcends the physical, emotional, and mental realms - this is what i think of as a communion of souls. and it is definitely debatable, to skeptics and scientists alike, but it is what i consider a communion of souls - soulmates, really. i have felt this, and i believe in it. i'm not sure what it means for other people, and i don't necessarily just believe there is 1 soulmate for everybody, but i believe in it in a sort of Bokononist way. i hope i have explained somewhat sufficiently. my lexicon for such matters can be very limiting. 100427 ... (z) (thank you. that was quite coherent. i appreciate that you shared it with me.) 100427 ... - - 101022 ... fghio fghio 101116 ... () (animals) 101117 ... z humans are animals 130625 ... z dog_will_hunt 130625 ... dafremen No...humans are part what they came from, animals, and part what they are becoming (remove that which is not animal for indicators as to our evolutionary direction and possible outcomes.) Those that wish to look at where we've come from and say "that is us!" are by all means correct. As correct as looking at one's ass in the mirror and saying "boy, am I an asshole", then proceeding to spend the day walking backwards and into things. Be the side of your nature that you relate most with, the future, or the fading past. Evolution knows how to pick through her garbage. Evolution knows how to do its thing. ; ) 130626 ... dafremen see also: roaches_in_the_kitchen 130626 ... z i beg to differ, roger, evolution knows nothing, it being a system of categorization. 130626 ... dafremen A cell with no understanding of the complexity and sentience of the system that bore it? Ohh pshaw! How you do kid, Mistah Z. (Oh Fiddle Dee Dee..) 130628 ... dafremen P.S. Why did'st thou sidestep the issue of evolution maybe moving beyond animal..to something else? You know, like it did with simple molecules, single celled organisms, plant life and less-intelligent animals? Maybe humans are EVOLVED a bit past animal? Maybe? And maybe some embrace the animal side of their nature..proving that they are the short-necked giraffe of our times? 130628 ... dafremen P.S. Nietzche was a dog trying to prove he was a man..with words. He didn't have the balls to admit that he was nothing in the grand scheme of things. *Sniff* 130628 what's it to you? who go blather from