Are humans animals? Are Races in fact breeds?

[RoseSkye]

To those who are skeptic about the thin line between humans and animals (in my opinion.. none). I've sparked this debate. Perhaps you don't believe in evolution but will you note the similarities between Humans and (other) animals? Our systems are one in the same, we survive by consuming either plants or animals, and  water is needed to hydrate us. We also urinate and create excrement..

What is a man? (A miserable little pile of secrets! But enough talk. Have at you!) If nothing but an evolved tool user. Do we not bleed? Have we not instincts? Do we not reproduce? If we share so many traits of fellow animals, how are we excluded from the charts?

If you accept this.. you have to admit mankind is nothing but a Rose (<--- yes I am that narcissistic) by another name.

[Starrodkirby86]

I don't have much new points to bring up as my previous post states a whole lot about this.

We are just like other animals. Just more developed. Other animals have emotions, reactions from events that stimulate or relax some chemicals in the brain...I suppose. All I'm saying is assumption-based so pardon me if it's wrong. But regardless, we're just like all the other animals in the world, just that our brains are more complex and intelligent than those fellows. Therefore, that's how we have all those technological awesomeness.

True Artificial Intelligence? That's quite hard to make as everything can be limitless. We can go so far, but yet we can't even reach to the end. And I don't even think we should create true artificial intelligence. Eventually one day that product or robot is going to turn on us and become useless or dangerous. :/

Yep. *nod*

[Diokatsu]

Humans are animals. Done.

A. n.

    1. a. A living being; a member of the higher of the two series of organized beings, of which the typical forms are endowed with life, sensation, and voluntary motion, but of which the lowest forms are hardly distinguishable from the lowest vegetable forms by any more certain marks than their evident relationship to other animal forms, and thus to the animal series as a whole rather than to the vegetable series.

Are we a living being? Are we endowed with life, sensation and voluntary movement?

I can assume you know the answer. One-half of the discussion is done.

[RoseSkye]

Damnit.. this forum sucks. I'm going to Fox News. =/

[Starrodkirby86]

This particular forum isn't SPAM, 4chan, or idiotic humor. This is serious business, (Or is it?) and making questions like that would get some erm...educated answers, hah.

If you don't like it, then hey, there's a bunch of other boards in the forum to check out...Though it is such a shame there may not be any disagreement on this subject... >.>;

[Diokatsu]

This particular forum isn't SPAM, 4chan, or idiotic humor. This is serious business, (Or is it?) and making questions like that would get some erm...educated answers, hah.

If you don't like it, then hey, there's a bunch of other boards in the forum to check out...Though it is such a shame there may not be any disagreement on this subject... >.>;

There isn't disagreement because we're dealing with facts. Srsly.

[RoseSkye]

This particular forum isn't SPAM, 4chan, or idiotic humor. This is serious business, (Or is it?) and making questions like that would get some erm...educated answers, hah.

If you don't like it, then hey, there's a bunch of other boards in the forum to check out...Though it is such a shame there may not be any disagreement on this subject... >.>;

There isn't disagreement because we're dealing with facts. Srsly.

This.

This is hardly a debate its more of "Yeah you're right.." "Well topic solved, lets have a burger."

[Fallen Angel X]

Well for a debate to really start off, you need an opposition. So, I suppose I'll take the role of that. Though I must say that this isn't my area of expertise.

I agree with the above mentioned points but humans are quite different than other animals. We have the capability to reason. Animals act on instinct, humans do too. But humans can fight off their instinct with reason. I mean technically, humans are mammals. That is fact and I can't argue that. Although I can say we are on a different level compared to other animals that makes us more distinct.

[Chaze007]

Humans are in fact Mammals...but idk for pure animal..i believe in evolution but I also believe in God..so this is kinda weird for me.. infidel!

[RoseSkye]

Well for a debate to really start off, you need an opposition. So, I suppose I'll take the role of that. Though I must say that this isn't my area of expertise.

I agree with the above mentioned points but humans are quite different than other animals. We have the capability to reason. Animals act on instinct, humans do too. But humans can fight off their instinct with reason. I mean technically, humans are mammals. That is fact and I can't argue that. Although I can say we are on a different level compared to other animals that makes us more distinct.

~.~ But mammals are one of the six main classes of animals.. you're reinforcing the topic.
There is no technically. You know what is also a mammal? Bears.

Couldn't it be that reason and instinct are like night and day? One can't exist without the other. Sure humans are inquisitive and they would like to know things and etc.. yet, wouldn't you say that we instinctively would like to achieve great wealth, popularity, and greatness? Isn't that a trait we all share?

I'm sure I could use this forum as an example. Noone wastes hours upon hours toiling away in photoshop, RGSS, or RMXP on something that people wouldn't like. They make things to gain popularity .. to get better.. or just to get a pat on the back.

So what would you say the driving force of humanity is? Is it reason, or instinct?
Why do you think we are attracted to others (be it the opposite sex or the same sex). Sometimes it is reproduction the other times its just for someone to fill a "void".. for someone to be with. Yet, what is the reason in our worker bee's hive of civilization? Why?

An innocent question with an translucent answer.
This answer will blow your mind

Spoiler: ShowHide

The driving force of humanity is infact sex.. instinct. Even someone that can be seen as a loner as myself can see it. I can exist alone but I always feel a need for someone else. I feel the need to attract the opposite sex (yet, I hate kids..)

Why would someone want money the supposed root of all evil? Sex
Why would someone want to be better than anyone? Sex
Why would someone want to go to japan and be in animes? Sex (friggin weeaboos)
Why would someone want to do anything productive in society? Sex
Why would someone want to be beautiful? Sex
Why would someone want to not age ever? Sex
Why would someone want to attract the opposite sex? Sex
Why would someone drown their troubles in alcohol? Lack of Sex
Why would someone want to be immortal and live forever? To not die.. for the above reasons
Why would someone want to have sex? SEX .. and probably to reproduce.

Yeah I know what you're thinking? What about the people that don't want to have sex? Are you kidding me?
Listen.. those who really are that miserable usually go insane after being alone twenty two years and lose track of time very frequently.. sometimes they frequent a forum called Chaos Project and drink tons of alcohol. Deep down those people hate life for the sole reason that he will die regardless of what he'll do and life if a big joke.

Those types of people don't exist. Sex is an instinct, natural selection is inevitable, and I like turtles.

Spoiler: ShowHide

^I was totally drunk when I wrote that.. I'll leave it there.. I have had a busy night involving naked women.. I'm beat.. later. My point still remains humans are animals.

Spoiler: ShowHide

^Still buzzed

[Shadonking]

all we are is an evolved form of prime-apes and becuase of that of course were animals, just becuase we use tools doest change this fact (there are monkey's that use tools). also we use instinct have you ever seen some one hurt and felt that you needed to help, that is instinct (even if there are people that would ignore it).

[Blizzard]

you have to admit mankind is nothing but a Rose

Now, now, you don't have to insult yourself to prove your point.

I agree. Humans are just animals. Have you noticed how there are people who want to solve everything with violence? That's a primitive instinct. Also you can affect the human subconsciousness in various ways like creating phobias or manipulating a person just like you can do the same thing with animals. Just because we know how stuff works and because we can do it on purpose, doesn't mean we're immune to it. Also communication between animals works without voice, without words. Even human communication is only 30% in form of words (7% of actual words and 23% the way they are spoken). The other dominant 70% is, of course, body language just like between animals. Humans are nothing more than sentient animals. Most people don't even their primitive instincts under control. :/

[Fantasist]

I'd like to make a point here. For all those who say humans are "advanced" in ANY way, well, that's just an illusion. Development doesn't mean physical comforts and the so called "science and technology", this is proven by the fact that many civilizations existed before our own with equal (probably greater) mental and social complexity. So claiming that humans are in any way superior to other animals by using "technology" as an argument is lame. We using our heads more than our bodies has got NOTHING to do with advancement, it's evolution. Many don't consider the impact of abstract (non-physical) phenomenon on reality, but it's always there. Predators depend on powerful claws and muscles, smaller animals depend on a keen sense of smell and sound so they can defend themselves from predators, fish depend on fins and gills, birds depend on wings, and humans depend on elaborate social complexity. We aren't any different from other animals.

[RoseSkye]

you have to admit mankind is nothing but a Rose

[bold]Now, now, you don't have to insult yourself to prove your point. [/bold]

I agree. Humans are just animals. Have you noticed how there are people who want to solve everything with violence? That's a primitive instinct. Also you can affect the human subconsciousness in various ways like creating phobias or manipulating a person just like you can do the same thing with animals. Just because we know how stuff works and because we can do it on purpose, doesn't mean we're immune to it. Also communication between animals works without voice, without words. Even human communication is only 30% in form of words (7% of actual words and 23% the way they are spoken). The other dominant 70% is, of course, body language just like between animals. Humans are nothing more than sentient animals. Most people don't even their primitive instincts under control. :/

You sly bastard. I see what you did thar. *squints*

Yeah but I agree with him.

[Diokatsu]

Well for a debate to really start off, you need an opposition. So, I suppose I'll take the role of that. Though I must say that this isn't my area of expertise.

I agree with the above mentioned points but humans are quite different than other animals. We have the capability to reason. Animals act on instinct, humans do too. But humans can fight off their instinct with reason. I mean technically, humans are mammals. That is fact and I can't argue that. Although I can say we are on a different level compared to other animals that makes us more distinct.

This means nothing. You just said we're animals, but high level. We are still animals. You never picked the opposite side, just a more particular view on the side we others had picked.

[Fallen Angel X]

Well, I can't go and say that we're NOT mammals. Who am I to claim such a claim? This isn't my area of expertise and I don't have any evidence to disprove that we're not classified as mammals. Did you want me to make such a ridiculous claim, just for the sake of arguement? No, but I'd rather take the arguement to something that actually is possible to debate. Science already says we are animals! If I disagreed, I'd look like an insane high school student who makes no sense whatsoever. I can say that we are on a higher level than other animals though! Personally, I agree with everything said. But if this is to be a debate, the other side has to have something they can actually argue back. Forgive me if I mislead you. But I'd be more than happy to take the opposition role that is destined to fail terribly.

How can you people classify humans as animals? We have the capability to reason, they don't (so says my religion textbook). You're right though Rose, we do have instinct. And yes, there are some people who like to shoot first and then ask questions later. But humans can think before they act. They can fight off their instincts. Otherwise we'd be having sex 24/7. We can also negotiate with each other. With animals, it's kill or be killed. You don't see animals sit down and just try to mediate the situation. We have reason, unlike animals.

[Diokatsu]

Ok, now you've taken an actually position we can argue.

Reason and intelligence alone don't make us not animals. Even among the hierarchy of animals, there are differentiating levels of intelligence...


I was typing more. But then I realized just how bogus this argument would be for you. XD Sorry.

[fugibo]

WE DIDN'T COME FROM MONEKYS!!!! STFU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HUMNAS ARENT ANIMALS CUZ WE IS SMART AND GET THUMBS AND STUFF LIKE THAT AND IF YOU THINK WERE ANIMALS YOUR STUPID CUZ YEAH DUMMY

[Reno-s--Joker]

Yes, humans are animals (placental mammals I think) - but you can't overlook the fact that we're special.
There is a pure definition of 'animal' that cannot be argued with, and humans fall under this category (I'm pretty sure the others are fungi, protista, monera, plants and animals - we are not fungi D:).

If you think about dogs, races might be breeds. That's a harder one to answer.

[Fantasist]

NOTE: I'm saying a lot without proper proof, only because I can't readily find them right now. I will quote my sources eventually.

I can say that we are on a higher level than other animals though!

That is an illusion. We may think we are "on a higher level", but that that's not necessarily true. Refer to my last post for more details.

We have the capability to reason, they don't (so says my religion textbook).

Wrong. Animals have ability to reason, they just don't find the need for it too often. The "need to reason" for humans is the extremely complex social dependency, to which animals are not bound to such extent.
(When I said wrong, I have nothing against your religion textbook! ^_^')

We can also negotiate with each other. With animals, it's kill or be killed. You don't see animals sit down and just try to mediate the situation. We have reason, unlike animals.

Says who? Did you know that almost EVERY species of animals have their own social patterns and communities? Yes, animals can sit down and try to mediate a situation. They can choose a leader among their group. They can coordinate attacks and they have the brains to share the food among their community, like giving priority to the newborns. They can also teach their children how to survive, just like we do.

Yes, humans are animals (placental mammals I think) - but you can't overlook the fact that we're special.

Illusion. It seems so because you can't really connect to how animals live their lives. There's so much we don't know about them, and us, here at CP, don't even know a fraction of how they behave, so we can't really make any of these claims.

[Fallen Angel X]

How is technology NOT development? And please Fantasist, give us an example of one such civilization that existed before us and was equal or possibly greater social complexity than our own. Although not a hard task, would that civilization be considered animals? Otherwise your point means nothing.

Perhaps we were animals in the beginning but perhaps we've evolved to a point where we can be classified as something different from animals. I mean, we've lost several of our natural protections. We didn't rely on elaborate social networks, we had normal body functions that protected us. But we've lost some of those (We had large amounts of hair that would stand when we were in danger, we had larger canine teeth, etc.), perhaps we've evolved into a different classification.

(I don't believe a single word I'm saying.)

[Tazero]

Humans are 'evolutions' the next society with it's own complexity wa most ikely the neanderthals!
Other than that i don't know xD

[RoseSkye]

http://www.articlesbase.com/pets-articles/top-10-smartest-animal-countdown-426134.html

Humans are excluded .. but yeah.

[fugibo]

Humans are multi-cellular eukaryotic organisms with advanced nervous and skeletal systems, who are warm-blooded and give live birth. Obviously we fall under "animal."

However, we do not understand our fellows as well, so meh. Actually, I don't believe in races: they are only very mild differences in DNA. Cultures, on the other hand, have huge differences -- thus, I discriminate against _cultures_. This leads many people to think me racist, when in fact I'm basing my assumptions on fact rather than "color."

[Valcos]

Fuck that! I aint no animal... I'm a Beast 

[Fantasist]

How is technology NOT development?

Thus modern sociocultural evolutionism rejects most of classical social evolutionism due to various theoretical problems:

• The theory was deeply ethnocentric--it makes heavy value judgements on different societies; with Western civilization seen as the most valuable.
  
• It assumed all cultures follow the same path or progression and have the same goals.
  
• It equated civilization with material culture (technology, cities, etc.)
  
• It equated evolution with progress or fitness, based on deep misunderstandings of evolutionary theory[citation needed].
  

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_development#Critique_and_impact_on_modern_theories

My own opinion: ShowHide

Besides, if technology makes us so superior, it also leads to singularity which, in my opinion can potentially lead to extinction.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPTCountdowntoSingularityLog.jpg

Notice how starting from "Art, cities" everything is technological and social development. Evolution operates on diversity (again, this is my understanding only). Today's technology is unifying the world (which is a good thing and I like it), but will eventually lead to singularity and thus potentially extinction. Again, everything in this spoiler is my honest belief, and I'm not asserting this information on anyone.

And please Fantasist, give us an example of one such civilization that existed before us and was equal or possibly greater social complexity than our own.

Ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, ancient India. The bases for almost all religions were born in these civilizations.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_civilization

Although not a hard task, would that civilization be considered animals? Otherwise your point means nothing.

My point is not whether humans are animals. My point is that we can NOT use the so called "technology" as a supportive argument to imply we are in any way absolutely superior to other animals.

Perhaps we were animals in the beginning but perhaps we've evolved to a point where we can be classified as something different from animals. I mean, we've lost several of our natural protections. We didn't rely on elaborate social networks, we had normal body functions that protected us. But we've lost some of those (We had large amounts of hair that would stand when we were in danger, we had larger canine teeth, etc.), perhaps we've evolved into a different classification.

Classification can be done from many angles. In some of them, we are clearly animals and probably in others, we are not. All I want to say is that in those other approaches to classification, we cannot claim we are any more superior to other animals by basing technology as the mode of classification. I mean, of course we can, but that superiority is only limited to that scope, which is not exhaustive or absolute.

Humans are multi-cellular eukaryotic organisms with advanced nervous and skeletal systems, who are warm-blooded and give live birth. Obviously we fall under "animal."

However, we do not understand our fellows as well, so meh. Actually, I don't believe in races: they are only very mild differences in DNA. Cultures, on the other hand, have huge differences -- thus, I discriminate against _cultures_. This leads many people to think me racist, when in fact I'm basing my assumptions on fact rather than "color."

I agree, and cultural differences are good imho. Cultural diversity supports evolution unlike a homogeneous goo of a world which will become stale.

Fuck that! I aint no animal... I'm a Beast 

lol Valcos! *powers up*

[Reno-s--Joker]

Illusion. It seems so because you can't really connect to how animals live their lives. There's so much we don't know about them, and us, here at CP, don't even know a fraction of how they behave, so we can't really make any of these claims.

It may be an illusion, but its as good as an illusion as thinking you're not the only being to exist. I think you need to give us a little more credit about how much we know about other animals.

I tend to not like arguing, but your argument in this case is quite hard for me to grasp. The other stuff is cool.

[Blizzard]

I agree. Most animals have a specific behavior pattern to applies. There are subpatterns among different animal races and slight personality variations in each individual. It's pretty much like humans.

[Fantasist]

Illusion. It seems so because you can't really connect to how animals live their lives. There's so much we don't know about them, and us, here at CP, don't even know a fraction of how they behave, so we can't really make any of these claims.

It may be an illusion, but its as good as an illusion as thinking you're not the only being to exist. I think you need to give us a little more credit about how much we know about other animals.

I tend to not like arguing, but your argument in this case is quite hard for me to grasp. The other stuff is cool.

Sorry, I should rephrase that: For as much as we know about other animals, there is so much we don't know... *looks at the sky dreamily*
And I didn't mean none of our race know about animals. I meant that most of us here at CP don't even know what others in their respective fields know. For example:

We can also negotiate with each other. With animals, it's kill or be killed. You don't see animals sit down and just try to mediate the situation. We have reason, unlike animals.

Says who? Did you know that almost EVERY species of animals have their own social patterns and communities? Yes, animals can sit down and try to mediate a situation. They can choose a leader among their group. They can coordinate attacks and they have the brains to share the food among their community, like giving priority to the newborns. They can also teach their children how to survive, just like we do.

@Blizz: Agree with who...

PS: If I sound harsh, sorry, it's nothing personal. I'm just a bit touchy when it comes to this subject. If things get rough, I will stop posting here and I won't cause any problem

[Lost_Hope]

I believe we have similar traits as animals. I DON'T believe that we were once a small single-celled organism (hence I believe in God and what-not). I believe in some ways we classify as animals but we also have traits that seperate us from them. I'm not saying we are animals and I'm not saying we are not animals. To me, the human being is too unpredictible. Animals usually follow a similar pattern that their previous generation does but we constantly change (correct me if I'm worng). Some of us strive to be better than those before us. Some of us don't give a sh**. One may think careing and loving upon the world while the other one wishes to kill ever f***ing person he/she sees (lol). We all go our seprate ways. Examples are aliigators are usually aggresive because that is a trait they carry and they choose to follow that instinct. We actually choose to follow an instinct or not. Animals basically know they MUST do this to survive so they attempt to do whatever it is in order to survive. Humans are, how should I put this, different. We choose whether or not to do what is nessecary. We are complex and we do not even come close to knowing our full potential. The average human only uses 9.9% of their brains. the smartest person has only used around 15% of their brains (correct me if I'm worng). Who knows what we could do if we used all 100% the the same time. We could be something more and I see us one day being able to use all 100%. Who really knows if we're animals are not. To me its not based of DNA and similarities, but what we can achieve.

All of this might be a pile of sh** but I reall don't care. just thought I'd throw my own thought into this  

[Fantasist]

Of course, I agree that humans depend on intelligence more than most other animals do. But intelligence comes at a cost: we lose our in-built physical strength. To compensate for the weak link, we depended more on social structures which is the best way to ensure maximum chance of survival. Since that worked, it allowed us to use more of our brains, which again demanded more social complexity. That's how we have probably the most complex social structure of all species. It solved the basic needs of survival (like food and shelter) only to give rise to new criteria on how to "survive". Now we need education, we need jobs, we go work in cubicles, which is in no physical way related to finding food. Complexity always has a cost, be it cost of management, it's unpredictable and hard-to-understand success rate and what not.

[Blizzard]

@FTS: I agreed with Reno.

[Fallen Angel X]

How is technology NOT development?

Thus modern sociocultural evolutionism rejects most of classical social evolutionism due to various theoretical problems:

• The theory was deeply ethnocentric--it makes heavy value judgements on different societies; with Western civilization seen as the most valuable.
  
• It assumed all cultures follow the same path or progression and have the same goals.
  
• It equated civilization with material culture (technology, cities, etc.)
  
• It equated evolution with progress or fitness, based on deep misunderstandings of evolutionary theory[citation needed].
  

What does that prove? You're right, material culture isn't the same as civilization but technology can still be considered development and evolution. Technology has lengthened our life span, how can you say that's not development? Technology isn't the same as civilization but it's a component of it and it differentiates us considerably from animals.

And please Fantasist, give us an example of one such civilization that existed before us and was equal or possibly greater social complexity than our own.

Ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, ancient India. The bases for almost all religions were born in these civilizations.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_civilization

Although not a hard task, would that civilization be considered animals? Otherwise your point means nothing.

My point is not whether humans are animals. My point is that we can NOT use the so called "technology" as a supportive argument to imply we are in any way absolutely superior to other animals.

I still don't see how you're proving that we can't use technology as an arguement. Sure, previous civilizations existed. Yeah, they could've been more advanced than us. So what? They were still humans. They weren't animals. Their mental capabilities could've differentiated them from animals still! How, in what way, does your arguement say "Technology DOESN'T make us superior to animals! That arguement is false!" Enlighten me, I can't seem to figure it out.

Perhaps we were animals in the beginning but perhaps we've evolved to a point where we can be classified as something different from animals. I mean, we've lost several of our natural protections. We didn't rely on elaborate social networks, we had normal body functions that protected us. But we've lost some of those (We had large amounts of hair that would stand when we were in danger, we had larger canine teeth, etc.), perhaps we've evolved into a different classification.

Classification can be done from many angles. In some of them, we are clearly animals and probably in others, we are not. All I want to say is that in those other approaches to classification, we cannot claim we are any more superior to other animals by basing technology as the mode of classification. I mean, of course we can, but that superiority is only limited to that scope, which is not exhaustive or absolute.

So then what is it that you do believe? Are we or are we not animals? I get where you're coming from about not using technology as a way to differentiate ourselves from animals but what is your standing? Why are you even debating this? You having said that means you taking the noble middle path, does it not? And yet you seemingly claim humans are animals. Although I will admit that I'm being a hypocrite. I personally think we're animals xD

And FTS, I won't take offense to anything posted here. I know I'm saying a load of bull

[Vell]

@Lost_Hope: You ARE forgetting a little fact about our brains. our Conscious thought uses only about 9.9% and the smartest used 15%. However. This is only Conscious Thought: our intelligence as is calculable by modern technologies and tests. You forget that the brain monitors all activities. Your brain controls your breathing. even when you aren't thinking about it. I'm going to take a jump and say that most of our mental capacity, that is, the 90.1% of our brain power we Dont use, goes into our subconscious. I don't know about you, but I know many points where, looking back, I can definitely see my subconscious manipulating me. Your dreams ALL come from your subconscious. With some function or not, pretty much the entire brain is used. I haven't yet spoken of the standard %age used to Feel... to See. To Hear. Your brain processes ALL of these. immediately. so using more % of the brain for conscious thought might not be the BEST thing for humanity, in the long run.

a random thought I remembered: the average autistic brain is abot 10% larger than the average humans.

[RoseSkye]

Debunking Lost with own quotes: ShowHide

I believe in God

I believe we have similar traits as animals

I'm not saying we are animals and I'm not saying we are not animals

To me, the human being is too unpredictible. Animals usually follow a similar pattern that their previous generation does but we constantly change
To me its not based of DNA and similarities, but what we can achieve. *rainbows and unicorns*
We actually choose to follow an instinct or not. Animals basically know they MUST do this to survive so they attempt to do whatever it is in order to survive

We are complex and we do not even come close to knowing our full potential

Some of us don't give a sh**. *OVER 9000!!!!* *What? Over 9000?*

Who really knows if we're animals are not

Science knows.. also the fact that you involuntarily admitted that you believe in evolution.

To me its not based of DNA and similarities, but what we can achieve.

*twitch* That's like going to a baseball game and hitting the ball with your PENIS and then saying "To me it's not about the fact that you're right that my penis isn't as concrete as a wood bat it's about the fact that I get to flail my dick around"

We actually choose to follow an instinct or not.

So do other animals.

We could be something more and I see us one day being able to use all 100%

Dude no.. dude no.

The human brain is estimated to be able to hold 1-10 Terabytes of information

1,024 gigabytes = 1 terabyte
1,048,576 (1,0242) megabytes = 1 terabyte

Terabyte: A Terabyte is approximately one trillion bytes, or 1,000 Gigabytes. Now we are getting up there to a size that is so large that it is not a common term yet. To put it in some perspective, a Terabyte could hold about 3.6 million 300 Kilobyte images or maybe about 300 hours of good quality video. A Terabyte could hold 1,000 copies of the Encyclopedia Britannica. Ten Terabytes could hold the printed collection of the Library of Congress. That's a lot of data.

There is no way in hell that someone could use/learn that much data in our short lifespan.

Someone that could use 15% of the brain would be a super genius as is.. leave it at that.

All of this might be a pile of sh**

It -is- a pile of shit with sugar on top... it's steaming and decaying. Plopped up here with no basis but spoonfed down my throat.

[Blizzard]

ACTUALLY it's quite the opposite. Geniuses use the same ratio of their brain as other people. Our brain is 100% active, the thing is just that we don't have access to low-level functions.

Example: You can see with your eyes. But can you alter the image by changing the electrical impulses going from your eyes to your brain or can you alter the information that is being processed by your brain? No. This is one of the lower-level functions our brains does automatically.

An example of a lower-level function that can be controlled is our breathing. Breathing is automated (except in the very few cases of a genetic disease where it's not), but you can still take over and control it yourself which includes things like holding breath.

Humans ARE using 100% of their brain, they just aren't able to control it all consciously.
Also, I remember that I read somewhere that what we would call a genius actually uses less than the usual 10% of their brain for complex tasks. If I remember right, it has something to do with better access of lower-level functions. Since they are less complex, they need less processing power.

One thing that is definite is that humans have more access to their conscious being than animals. Maybe that's what "intelligence" is actually.

@RoseSkye: I think the human brain was able to store more information than that.

[Fallen Angel X]

The interesting thing is that the various pieces of a memory are not all stored together in one place as a single group of information. Scientists still have details to figure out, but they believe that one particularly important region of the brain called the hippocampus is involved in connecting different pieces of a memory (like the cup's color, the picture of a cat on the cup) that are kept in different locations. The more associations (connections) that are involved in a memory, the better the memory will be stored and recalled (the picture on the cup looks like your housecat, the color is the same as your bike). On the other hand, forgetting unimportant information (like the color and height of the table that the cup sat on) seems to be important in forming strong memories as well.

For knowledge typed intelligence, which are memorizing, understanding, etc, it's not about the percent of the brain being used but rather how many connections it can make.

The fact that learning and memory produce changes in the structure and function of brain cells provides us all with a certain unique biological individuality and independence of thought. Even though the overall architecture and organization of the brain is similar for everyone, the unique environments and stimuli we each experience modifies our brain structure, giving us distinctly different brains at the cell-to-cell level.

I'm not sure if it is the amount of our brain we use consciously that determines how "intelligent" we are but it could be how efficient each cell is in the brain. I'm assuming quality over quantity

Complexity:
    The human brain contains about 50 billion to 200 billion neurons (nobody knows how many for sure), each of which interfaces with 1,000 to 100,000 other neurons through 100 trillion (1014) to 10 quadrillion (1016) synaptic junctions. Each synapse possesses a variable firing threshold which is reduced as the neuron is repeatedly activated. If we assume that the firing threshold at each synapse can assume 256 distinguishable levels, and if we suppose that there are 20,000 shared synapses per neuron (10,000 per neuron), then the total information storage capacity of the synapses in the cortex would be of the order of 500 to 1,000 terabytes. (Of course, if the brain's storage of information takes place at a molecular level, then I would be afraid to hazard a guess regarding how many bytes can be stored in the brain. One estimate has placed it at about 3.6 X 1019 bytes.)

Umm just googled brain capacity and that was one of the results xD I'm not really sure about the actual facts though =\

[Blizzard]

You are quite right about those details, FAX. Intelligence is not about quantity but quality. Otherwise an elephant should be smarter than a human.

[RoseSkye]

@RoseSkye: I think the human brain was able to store more information than that.

You're right. I'm wrong.. about that.

[Vell]

Blizz pretty much restated, with a different focus point, what I said in my post. Blizz was idrecting his post at anothe rperson too.

[Blizzard]

My post sounds partially more like a contradiction to yours IMO. o.o;

[Vell]

we both stated that conscious thought is only a small part, and that 100% of our brain IS being used, just not consciously.

[Blizzard]

Then I misread your post.

Anyway, genetic data isn't compatible between races. Try to get a crossbreed between a parrot and a cat. It won't work. There are varieties in genetic data structure that allow crossbreeds, though. i.e. You can get a crossbreed between two dog races. Evolution seems to make much more sense to me.

How are monkey races compared in inteligence to humans? Depending on this ratio, it might be possible that a monkey race actually could be taught to speak.

[Vell]

actually Blizz, the reason most animals don't 'speak' like we do, is that their vocal cords and sound-system is designed vastly differently from our own, and aren't physically capable of producing the sounds our bodies are designed too. but with similarities, your right. Monkeys might be able to speak.

[Valcos]

If we all came from monkeys, does that mean we can crossbread with them? It make like planet of the apes kinda thing

[Blizzard]

Nah, that doesn't make so much sense. It's much more likely that we all came from some sort of pre-ape race. It's also very likely that there were actually several pre-ape races that evolved from different (or one) specific mammal race. It's complicated.

actually Blizz, the reason most animals don't 'speak' like we do, is that their vocal cords and sound-system is designed vastly differently from our own, and aren't physically capable of producing the sounds our bodies are designed too. but with similarities, your right. Monkeys might be able to speak.

I know that. But I meant monkey races specifically.

[Vell]

yeah and int he end i agreed with u on that point.

[Valcos]

So, there isnt no scientific way of crossbreeding a horse with a human? Like, I have seen TV shows were they go into the cells and stuff like that... but, its from a TV show -_-".

[Reno-s--Joker]

I think if there was people would've done it already and there'd be centaurs walking around all over the place.

I personally don't think it'd work because our DNA would be too different or something and the baby would self abort or something (I think it does that sometimes when there's something deeply wrong with the embryo or whatever). Personally think.

[Fallen Angel X]

Then I misread your post.

Anyway, genetic data isn't compatible between races. Try to get a crossbreed between a parrot and a cat. It won't work. There are varieties in genetic data structure that allow crossbreeds, though. i.e. You can get a crossbreed between two dog races. Evolution seems to make much more sense to me.

How are monkey races compared in inteligence to humans? Depending on this ratio, it might be possible that a monkey race actually could be taught to speak.

Blizzard has already explained that But science can do some pretty freaky things. Who knows, maybe there will be cross breeds one day. But it probably wouldn't be natural.

[Blizzard]

That reminds me of the crossbreed between a duck and a human in that South Park episode where the kids had to vote between a giant douche and a turd sandwich for the new school mascot. That duck-human thing kept saying "Killlllllll meeeeeeeeee..." It was creepy. What if crossbreeding races would actually cause a suffering like that? It's a really dreaful thought. I think we shouldn't try it.

EDIT: I also just remembered the episode of X-Factor where a woman suddenly becomes pregnant even though she didn't have sex for quite some time. She gives birth to some sort of octopus and it's being explained that she swallowed an egg while being in the sea during her last vacation. The egg somehow nested in her guts and ew. You get the idea. That story was, of course, fake. But it's also a creepy thought.

[Fallen Angel X]

I think if the opportunity did arise, we'd do it anyways. That's the funny thing, science will do a lot of things to just see what happens in the end. Even if people are against it.

[Vell]

thats also how science progresses. evil scientists don't, infact, exist. it's only who the scientists are working for who decide it.

[Valcos]

Argh, had a really good thought earlier today. Completely forgot it now

[Reno-s--Joker]

@FAX: My bad... I really suck at reading. >.<;

It's a really dreaful thought. I think we shouldn't try it.

Lol, I misread that as "I think we should try it."
Anyhow, even clones have heaps of malfunctions and illnesses (no doubt causing pain). So think of what would happen to crossbreeds. Or maybe don't think about it.

@Fant: Just to clarify, do you think humans are unique animals or just not superior animals? Quick, before it's my turn to lose the awesome thought I had today... o.O;

[Sally]

yes they are.

[Lost_Hope]

ok I asked my friend about this and he said no because we are have sapience. I looked up the work and some history and I'll post it here:

Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment. Judgment is a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence or alternatively may be considered an additional faculty, apart from intelligence, with its own properties. Robert Sternberg [1] has segregated the capacity for judgment from the general qualifiers for intelligence, which is closer to cognizant aptitude than to wisdom. Displaying sound judgment in a complex, dynamic environment is a hallmark of wisdom.

The word sapience is derived from the Latin word sapientia, meaning wisdom.[2] Related to this word is the Latin verb sapere, which means "to taste, to be wise, to know"; the present participle of sapere forms part of Homo sapiens, the Latin binomial nomenclature created by Carolus Linnaeus to describe the human species. Linnaeus had originally given humans the species name of diurnus, meaning man of the day. But he later decided that the dominating feature of humans was wisdom, hence application of the name sapiens. His chosen biological name was intended to emphasize man's uniqueness and separation from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Ok no as you can see he basically said we can pass judgement and we're inteligent or whatever. I really don't care but I want to see what everyone else here thinks about his argument. Oh and btw, I DON'T think animals judge one another and select their own leaders. Animals fight for leadership and ever sometimes kill one another (humans do too) but I've never seen (or heard) of a group of animals electing their leader. If we did that, than obama sure as hell wouldn't be the president of the united states. but anyways, back to the sapience thing. Lets see what everyone here thinks.

Oh @Blizz I don't believe we came from anything but humans. That's just my beliefe (hence my religion and take on God).

[Fantasist]

What does that prove? You're right, material culture isn't the same as civilization but technology can still be considered development and evolution. Technology has lengthened our life span, how can you say that's not development? Technology isn't the same as civilization but it's a component of it and it differentiates us considerably from animals.

• If you skim through the article, "civilization" roughly meant development. And longer life spans don't necessarily mean development. Would you say tortoises are more developed than humans?
  
• Yes, technology differentiates us from animals. In that mode of classification, I agree that we are superior.
  

I still don't see how you're proving that we can't use technology as an arguement. Sure, previous civilizations existed. Yeah, they could've been more advanced than us. So what? They were still humans. They weren't animals. Their mental capabilities could've differentiated them from animals still! How, in what way, does your arguement say "Technology DOESN'T make us superior to animals! That arguement is false!" Enlighten me, I can't seem to figure it out.

I'd like to think that technology makes us different from animals, not superior. You don't have to agree to this, but I hope you can see what I mean here.

So then what is it that you do believe? Are we or are we not animals? I get where you're coming from about not using technology as a way to differentiate ourselves from animals but what is your standing? Why are you even debating this? You having said that means you taking the noble middle path, does it not? And yet you seemingly claim humans are animals. Although I will admit that I'm being a hypocrite. I personally think we're animals xD

I believe we are animals.

And FTS, I won't take offense to anything posted here. I know I'm saying a load of bull

No, it's actually a good argument. You assumed the much needed role in this topic, so cheers

I shouldn't have got all jittery about it. I can't help it. I have this opinion that humans give more credit to themselves that they deserve and I'm critical of anything that suggests they are superior to other forms of life. But it's just a personal... thing >.<

@Fant: Just to clarify, do you think humans are unique animals or just not superior animals? Quick, before it's my turn to lose the awesome thought I had today... o.O;

I'd say unique AND not superior. Humans are unique and are different from many animals, but he is STILL for a good part an animal.

[Vell]

and on Fantasist's note, any animal is unique and different from many animals.

[shdwlink1993]

I shouldn't have got all jittery about it. I can't help it. I have this opinion that humans give more credit to themselves that they deserve and I'm critical of anything that suggests they are superior to other forms of life. But it's just a personal... thing >.<

Don't worry, Fantasist. People tend to do that about animals, but then you've got America. >.<

[Fallen Angel X]

Yeah, I was about to post my rebuttal but my internet went down the second I pressed post D: So I said "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" But nah. *goes to the trouble of rewriting the darn rebuttal* xD

What does that prove? You're right, material culture isn't the same as civilization but technology can still be considered development and evolution. Technology has lengthened our life span, how can you say that's not development? Technology isn't the same as civilization but it's a component of it and it differentiates us considerably from animals.

• If you skim through the article, "civilization" roughly meant development. And longer life spans don't necessarily mean development. Would you say tortoises are more developed than humans?
  
• Yes, technology differentiates us from animals. In that mode of classification, I agree that we are superior.
  

Civilization
1. an advanced state of human society, in which a high level of culture, science, industry, and government has been reached.
2. those people or nations that have reached such a state.
3. any type of culture, society, etc., of a specific place, time, or group: Greek civilization. 
4. the act or process of civilizing or being civilized: Rome's civilization of barbaric tribes was admirable. 
5. cultural refinement; refinement of thought and cultural appreciation: The letters of Madame de Sévigné reveal her wit and civilization. 
6. cities or populated areas in general, as opposed to unpopulated or wilderness areas: The plane crashed in the jungle, hundreds of miles from civilization. 
7. modern comforts and conveniences, as made possible by science and technology: After a week in the woods, without television or even running water, the campers looked forward to civilization again. 

So there's an actual definition of civilization. If you choose to define civilization as development, that's your thing but I have to say that civilization and development are indeed two different things! Which your article agrees. That's why it's incorrect to equate civilization with materialistic culture. BUT that does not mean technology isn't development. And life span is an aspect of development. There's MANY different components of biological development. So yes, in that respect a sea turtle is more developed than us. But what about other aspects? I could make the assumption that humans are more intelligent.

Perhaps I should've rewritten what I wrote. I should've written different not superior. In the end, different would mean different from animals, which is what I'm supposed to be trying to prove.

[shdwlink1993]

FAX, be careful what you quote from, because sometimes if you don't read it all it looks rather silly.

Civilization
7. modern comforts and conveniences, as made possible by science and technology: After a week in the woods, without television or even running water, the campers looked forward to civilization again. 

That's why it's incorrect to equate civilization with materialistic culture.

Those two statements, at least to me, almost completely contradict each-other. xD

[RoseSkye]

actually Blizz, the reason most animals don't 'speak' like we do, is that their vocal cords and sound-system is designed vastly differently from our own, and aren't physically capable of producing the sounds our bodies are designed too. but with similarities, your right. Monkeys might be able to speak.

Parrots :/

[Fallen Angel X]

FAX, be careful what you quote from, because sometimes if you don't read it all it looks rather silly.

Civilization
7. modern comforts and conveniences, as made possible by science and technology: After a week in the woods, without television or even running water, the campers looked forward to civilization again. 

That's why it's incorrect to equate civilization with materialistic culture.

Those two statements, at least to me, almost completely contradict each-other. xD

Well, FTS completely disproved the use of the 7th definition of Civilization. So I kinda just ignored it xD

[Blizzard]

Oh @Blizz I don't believe we came from anything but humans. That's just my beliefe (hence my religion and take on God).

So you believe we were just there at one moment? Without any logical process regardless of what we witness every day?

actually Blizz, the reason most animals don't 'speak' like we do, is that their vocal cords and sound-system is designed vastly differently from our own, and aren't physically capable of producing the sounds our bodies are designed too. but with similarities, your right. Monkeys might be able to speak.

Parrots :/

They don't have voice coords, they are just able to reproduce a similar sound. And they don't know what they are saying, they just repeat stuff they heard.

[RoseSkye]

Oh @Blizz I don't believe we came from anything but humans. That's just my beliefe (hence my religion and take on God).

So you believe we were just there at one moment? Without any logical process regardless of what we witness every day?

actually Blizz, the reason most animals don't 'speak' like we do, is that their vocal cords and sound-system is designed vastly differently from our own, and aren't physically capable of producing the sounds our bodies are designed too. but with similarities, your right. Monkeys might be able to speak.

Parrot with intelligence



Parrots :/

They don't have voice coords, they are just able to reproduce a similar sound. And they don't know what they are saying, they just repeat stuff they heard.

Parrot doing math.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgK0Vpg3HnM&feature=related

Parrot with vocal recognition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMGk65UMlMo

Alex one of the smartest parrots.. (dead)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4gTR4tkvcM&feature=related

[Blizzard]

Wow. O.o But they mostly still lack the being sentient part.

[RoseSkye]

Evolution isn't just a one way street.. its not logical to say that they'll never be able to communicate fully on a comprehensive wavelength.

[Lost_Hope]

lol you know, I've been thinking, why does anyone even really care whether we're animals or not? lol does it even really matter? Just live life and have fun. F*** the confusing s*** lol.

[Pokol DaErran]

Yeah, I believe that humans are different from animals.  And I'll provide a handy spoiler so you can diffrentiate a human from an animal:

How To Tell Humans Apart From Animals: ShowHide

Look at the human/animal.  Is it destroying its natural environment, fighting needless wars with each other over trivialities, stabbing its friends in the back so that it can get ahead, and basically trying to screw over everyone and everything else, ever, in order to temporarily better its own life?
A: Yes.
B: No.

If you chose A, it is a HUMAN.  If you chose B, it is an ANIMAL.

[Vell]

I'm pretty sure a wolf would kill it's own father to become the alpha male.

[RoseSkye]

Yeah, I believe that humans are different from animals.  And I'll provide a handy spoiler so you can diffrentiate a human from an animal:

How To Tell Humans Apart From Animals: ShowHide

Look at the human/animal.  Is it destroying its natural environment, fighting needless wars with each other over trivialities, stabbing its friends in the back so that it can get ahead, and basically trying to screw over everyone and everything else, ever, in order to temporarily better its own life?
A: Yes.
B: No.

If you chose A, it is a HUMAN.  If you chose B, it is an ANIMAL.

Some animals fight over territory.. so that not exactly decisive.

[Shadonking]

chimpanzee kill there own for fun as well as for territory

[Reno-s--Joker]

Some suicide motives and creative murder? I dunno.

[fugibo]

The Kingdom Animalia

[Blizzard]

I'm locking this thread before it turns into chat or even spam. If somebody wants to actually post something more "intelligent", PM me or a moderator to unlock this.