Thread: Are humans designated to specialer than our animal friends?

Option 2. What do you mean by higher perpose anyway?

Originally posted by Stevehattan
Option 2. What do you mean by higher perpose anyway?

If its number two does that mean you had just as much of a chance of being born a rat as a human?

Are humans designated to specialer than our animal friends?[/b]

Only those of us with basic grammar and communication skills are "specialer" than our animal friends.

(just jokin)

Of coourse, we are specialler. Our lives should have a higher purpose, it makes us feel good about ourselves, dammit!

Yes, I see where you're going with how maybe you have a sense that humans seem so separated from the rest of the creatures. It's ego making the separation, but still, it gives us some useful views.

I don't know

Maybe some animals are conscious beings like dolphins and great apes but the rest aren't.

Humans are no more special than anything else. You and I are made up of the same sh*t as dirt and a bottle of coke. Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, that's pretty much it. Just because our molecules happened to be arranged in a slightly different manner than a tree or a gorilla does not make us more special than that entity.

As for "purpose", I despise that word and any connection that anyone makes with it to reality. Purpose is completely a human concept and if humans ceased to exist tomorrow, all human concepts would also cease to exist. Events don't happen because of, or with any, pupose. They just happen.

I agree with bradybraker, we are exactly the same as animals, infact we are animals if you'd like to say that, but we just evolved quicker i should say and we have larger brains.

Evolution is not a ladder. We didn't "evolve quicker", we just evolved differently. A chipmunk is just as evolved to its environment as we are to ours.

Ya, I agree too.

Purpose...I admire more a man who's happy without a purpose than somebody who needs one to validate their existence.

don't get me wrong...I don't think people should treat animals badly, like blowing them up for fun or whatever the hell. but COME ON.

Evolution is still a tricky topic, but brady's right. It isn't something like: prokaryotic->eukaryotic->multicellular organism (small fish or such)->amphibian->etc, etc...

This is why we have different kingdoms, families, classes, species, and organisms.


And though I agree that at some level, we're all the same (carbon, hydrogen, etc, etc.), there is the further scope of how the brain is connected and how it perceives, and such. The brain is very fascinating...if you ponder about this a bit. Millions of brain cells working together to create thoughts. The very concept is absolutely mind-boggling.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Evolution is not a ladder. We didn't \"evolve quicker\", we just evolved differently. A chipmunk is just as evolved to its environment as we are to ours.

I don't see how you can say that.

I would agree that we have no discernable purpose but that doesn't mean don't have a purpose as assigned to us by some other being(diety or otherwise).

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joseph_Stalin)</div>

The brain is very fascinating...if you ponder about this a bit. Millions of brain cells working together to create thoughts. The very concept is absolutely mind-boggling.[/b]

The brain is fancy computer, nothing more.

<!--QuoteBegin-Belisarius
I don't see how you can say that.

Are you going to elaborate on that?

I would agree that we have no discernable purpose but that doesn't mean don't have a purpose as assigned to us by some other being(diety or otherwise).[/b]

That's a very different can of worms. Since I have yet to see a shred of evidence in support of such a deity, I would have to disagree.

If perpose=a deity creating us to fulfill some mystical mission, I have a few problems with that:
1. This deity didn't even tell us whether he exists or not, let alone what our mission is.
2. Why would a deity create some far-inferior forms of life to do a job for it? Why not do the job yourself, if you're powerful enough to create a universe? What could a deity possibly want from US?
3. Who says we have to complete the mission? Not only do I not see the deity making its desires known, but it isn't threatening anyone with a punishment for not doing what it wants either.

You could say that the deity might be "remote controlling" us so that we unknowingly complete some kind of mission for it, but still, I don't see why a deity would need to resort to that.

Yes, except a computer is man-made. It uses machinery, hard drives, processors, memory, etc., etc.
The brain, however, uses cells, organic matter in other words, to create thoughts (I'm not limiting this to humans, either, however, the human brain just shows a vast degree of complexity in this). I think you are over-simplifying the brain in general.

Originally posted by Stevehattan
If perpose=a deity creating us to fulfill some mystical mission, I have a few problems with that:
1. This deity didn't even tell us whether he exists or not, let alone what our mission is.
2. Why would a deity create some far-inferior forms of life to do a job for it? Why not do the job yourself, if you're powerful enough to create a universe? What could a deity possibly want from US?
3. Who says we have to complete the mission? Not only do I not see the deity making its desires known, but it isn't threatening anyone with a punishment for not doing what it wants either.

You could say that the deity might be \"remote controlling\" us so that we unknowingly complete some kind of mission for it, but still, I don't see why a deity would need to resort to that.

Or the purpose of existance might be existance itself for entertainment or aesthetics, or something else. I would agree that a diety would have to value what is hapening immediately, otherwise it could just accomplish its end without going through history.

Originally posted by Belisarius
Or the purpose of existance might be existance itself for entertainment or aesthetics, or something else.

In that case you're using \"purpose\" to describe everything, so it loses all meaning and describes nothing. You're assuming what you're trying to prove and explaining one unknown with another unknown. It's called \"begging the question\".

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin
Yes, except a computer is man-made. It uses machinery, hard drives, processors, memory, etc., etc.
The brain, however, uses cells, organic matter in other words, to create thoughts (I'm not limiting this to humans, either, however, the human brain just shows a vast degree of complexity in this). I think you are over-simplifying the brain in general.

A computer is a physical system comforming to the laws of physics, the brain is a physical system conforming to the laws of physics. In some areas of computation the computer does a much better job (ie. mathematical calculations, analysis of statistics). It's only the incredible parallel processing power of the brain that enables things like thought. I would say that a computer does think, in a very, very limited way.

I will make one change to my statement though, I don't think that the brain is a "fancy" computer. It's just a complex one, fancy is more of an aesthetic term, a human concept.

You make a good argument, that I'll say. However, until I see a computer that philosophizes about how 'it' can exist (on its own accord, through advanced programming and such, not a pre-existing outline of set instructions), I won't change my view that much.

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Belisarius

Or the purpose of existance might be existance itself for entertainment or aesthetics, or something else.

In that case you're using \"purpose\" to describe everything, so it loses all meaning and describes nothing. You're assuming what you're trying to prove and explaining one unknown with another unknown. It's called \"begging the question\".

[/b]

I guess I'm not fully sure what you meant by that.

I'm not trying to say that this is in fact the case, I'm just postulating on what might be the case. I would say that if a diety existed and created the universe it would create it for the immediate effects of the universe, as it could attain its other effects whenever it wants. So if there is a purpose behind the universe then I would say it almost must be for the entertainment, pleasure, or viewing gratification of a diety. Change would occur because just as there is no perfect piece of art, there is no perfect state of the universe. To be honest that's probably what I would use a universe for if I were a diety(thankfully for you I'm not), I might get attached to people and be charitable, but probably not.

The number of possible states and systems of the universe is limited only by our language's ability to describe them.

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin
However, until I see a computer that philosophizes about how 'it' can exist (on its own accord, through advanced programming and such, not a pre-existing outline of set instructions), I won't change my view that much.

All you're saying there is that the brain is more complex than a computer in areas such as thought, I've already agreed with that. That does not, however, make the brain \"special\" or somehow exclude it from the laws of physics. If I were you I'd starting researching artificial intelligence and watch how far we develop that technology in the coming years.

So if there is a purpose behind the universe then I would say it almost must be for the entertainment, pleasure, or viewing gratification of a diety.[/b]

Even if that is the case, it still does not imply that humans are "more special" than dirt or trees.

No, objectively(or to a diety) I don't see how they could be, but our own subjective preferences definitely tend twoards placing a higher value on human life than on dirt. I think we need to abandon this concept of objective morality, because logically that doesn't get us anywhere. Morality is purely a subjective thing that is created, managed, taught, and enforced by human beings whether they claim to be divinely inspired or not. I would insist that your conscience is infinitely more important to morality than some social or religious code or logical analysis of moral questions just as hunger is infintely more important to the decision of whether or not to eat.

So...we agree?

There's no doubt that artificial intelligence will achieve great leaps in the future. I'm not saying it isn't. I am not going into the laws of physics here, it's obvious the matter in question conforms to them (at least from current observations). However, I am merely admiring the way the brain works, how we can think so abstractly and the like. I don't find this impossible for a computer to do, because humans have created such things. I'm stating this on a biological level, that we, creatures that have evolved over millions of years from simple organisms, can think in such ways and communicate as we do--to think the way we think. A computer, on the other hand, is not going to evolve on some (bear with me here) distant world. It's made by people with existing minds and ideas.