Are humans animals? Are Races in fact breeds?

[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.