In an ongoing comment thread about evolutionary theory I just posted a link to this excellent Ted lecture on The Uniqueness of Humans by Robert Sapolsky, professor of Biological Sciences, and professor of Neurology & Neurological Sciences at Stanford University.
It is apparentlymandatory that everyone who writes anything on human consciousness has to have a chapter or section describing their own version of evolutionary theory, with a paragraph or subsection on what it is that distinguishes humans from other animals. Whatever *it* is, that factor represents the author's central point in their entire argument. It's a pretty funny formula. At first it bugged me. Why is it so important to make this distinction in the first place? And just because something supposedly is uniquely human, why does it follow that it's important? But now I'm kind of getting into it, and thinking that I maybe need to write one of my own. Robert Sapolsky, who has a lot of first-hand experience studying baboons, devotes his entire 37 minute lecture to the topic, and his breakdown is pretty good.
So here's your quiz for the day: What is the single most important thing that distinguishes animals from humans?Mark has already posted his theory in the aforementioned comment thread. I quote:
I suspect that art, language, symbolic thought and social behavior are a set of intertwined developments that distinguish homo sapiens from other hominids, e.g. Neanderthals. The same mental facilities that allow us to create art allow us to create the mythology and propaganda that lead to social structures on a massive scale?
Note: we already had this conversation back in 2008, but Sapolsky makes me think now's a good time for an update. As Sapolsky says, in most physiological respects we're just basic "off the rack mammals." So if you're sick of the old topic here's an alternative quiz for the day: Why is it important to distinguish humans from other animals?
according to my friend Ben the difference is that animals don't have bank accounts. - sally mckay 1-18-2010 3:39 pm
My answer would simply be language, although I agree with your original position, Sally, and actually think it's important NOT to distinguish humans from animals. We ARE animals. Fact. We've been trying to separate ourselves from other animals for far too long and it has only blinded us from who we really are and what we really need. I mean, do our egos really need more stroking? Is it not obvious that we have won? And by won, I mean, are about to ruin everything for every animal.
Having said that, I have yet to see the Sapolsky lecture, so I just might be back in 37.27 minutes... - Roberto (guest) 1-19-2010 1:53 am
Best line of the lecture:
"Beat me," said the masochist.
"No," said the sadist.
Paradox as a/the defining characteristic of humans from other animals is an interesting idea. I'm sticking with language as my answer, though, as paradox exists within it, through it and perhaps even because of it. - Roberto (guest) 1-19-2010 4:50 am
I think it probably is important to make the distinction. As you say, we are the ones causing all the problems for everybody else. But I think an argument ought to made for it on a case by case basis. "It it important to distinguish humans from other animals in the context of my theory because ...(xxx)..." Most people skip that step.
I agree, Roberto, it's ecologically important to recognize our kinship with other animals. But there's a flip side to the coin. So much art/science theory these days is focusing exclusively on the non-conscious processes of perception. A lot of popular science journalism about the brain and consciousness is doing the same. On one hand its refreshing because its celebrating the animal aspects of human experience, on the other hand its frustrating because it diminishes the importance of conscious thought, volition, attention, agency, choice, responsibility, etc. And, as I mentioned in the other thread, there's a yucky dangerous side to it as well, tending to veer back toward biological determinism. One way to move forward is to celebrate the agency and volition of all animals, rather than reduce our human experience down to its physiological building blocks and then imply that other animals somehow lead a reduced existence compared to us. Other species have unique traits too. Birds fly, bats use echo-location, dogs smell absolutely everything, etc. etc. etc. - sally mckay 1-19-2010 2:45 pm
By the way, the guy pictured on the screen capture above is just the dude making the introduction. Sapolsky actually looks like this.
Oh boy I like the homepage for that link. - sally mckay 1-19-2010 11:48 pm
I just realized that I had a beast-crush! Wow!! What a romantic. That sure brings back memories. And I'm not talking about Linda, although she sure as hell kicked ass in those terminator flicks.
Sally said, "on the other hand its frustrating because it diminishes the importance of conscious thought, volition, attention, agency, choice, responsibility, etc."
But why/how are these things "diminished" by being animal? Isn't that just a bad hangover from religious thought? I of course love and celebrate these things, and would thank God if I believed in Him that Eve ate that apple and got us all free will. (ĄGo Eve go!) On the other hand, I believe in pure biological determinism as much as I believe in fate. (bor-ing).
I think you're right, though. If you're going to try to make distinctions between humans and animals it's important to figure out why it's important to you and your argument. The best thing - a very human thing - is that you can always change your mind. - Roberto (guest) 1-20-2010 6:51 am
I agree completely, being animal doesn't diminish them, but celebrating and focusing only on the non-conscious aspects of being animal does. My argument here is with people like John Onians, who I've complained about before on the blog. - sally mckay 1-20-2010 2:32 pm
My 2 cents ... of course it is vitally important that we distinguish ourselves from all other animals. After all, when they finally get standing in legal proceedings (animals, trees, rocks, et cetera) they will need a clearly defined class to blame for the class action suit. - Maranda (guest) 1-22-2010 7:52 pm
Here in the USA we've decided that corporations have all the legal protections that individuals do. So maybe the question should be what separates animals from corporations.
gotta watch the vids before I can answer more. - joester (guest) 1-22-2010 11:10 pm
It is apparentlymandatory that everyone who writes anything on human consciousness has to have a chapter or section describing their own version of evolutionary theory, with a paragraph or subsection on what it is that distinguishes humans from other animals. Whatever *it* is, that factor represents the author's central point in their entire argument. It's a pretty funny formula. At first it bugged me. Why is it so important to make this distinction in the first place? And just because something supposedly is uniquely human, why does it follow that it's important? But now I'm kind of getting into it, and thinking that I maybe need to write one of my own. Robert Sapolsky, who has a lot of first-hand experience studying baboons, devotes his entire 37 minute lecture to the topic, and his breakdown is pretty good.
So here's your quiz for the day: What is the single most important thing that distinguishes animals from humans? Mark has already posted his theory in the aforementioned comment thread. I quote: Note: we already had this conversation back in 2008, but Sapolsky makes me think now's a good time for an update. As Sapolsky says, in most physiological respects we're just basic "off the rack mammals." So if you're sick of the old topic here's an alternative quiz for the day: Why is it important to distinguish humans from other animals?
- sally mckay 1-18-2010 1:01 pm
according to my friend Ben the difference is that animals don't have bank accounts.
- sally mckay 1-18-2010 3:39 pm
My answer would simply be language, although I agree with your original position, Sally, and actually think it's important NOT to distinguish humans from animals. We ARE animals. Fact. We've been trying to separate ourselves from other animals for far too long and it has only blinded us from who we really are and what we really need. I mean, do our egos really need more stroking? Is it not obvious that we have won? And by won, I mean, are about to ruin everything for every animal.
Having said that, I have yet to see the Sapolsky lecture, so I just might be back in 37.27 minutes...
- Roberto (guest) 1-19-2010 1:53 am
Best line of the lecture:
"Beat me," said the masochist.
"No," said the sadist.
Paradox as a/the defining characteristic of humans from other animals is an interesting idea. I'm sticking with language as my answer, though, as paradox exists within it, through it and perhaps even because of it.
- Roberto (guest) 1-19-2010 4:50 am
animals w/ bank accounts. the secret life of plants.
- bill 1-19-2010 1:34 pm
I agree language is pretty important, but again I think it's a matter of degree. Other animals do communicate, and often by vocalizing. As Bill has reminded us, even trees even communicate. ("Baldwin's first comment when they got the results was, 'Hey, poplars talk!'")
I think it probably is important to make the distinction. As you say, we are the ones causing all the problems for everybody else. But I think an argument ought to made for it on a case by case basis. "It it important to distinguish humans from other animals in the context of my theory because ...(xxx)..." Most people skip that step.
I agree, Roberto, it's ecologically important to recognize our kinship with other animals. But there's a flip side to the coin. So much art/science theory these days is focusing exclusively on the non-conscious processes of perception. A lot of popular science journalism about the brain and consciousness is doing the same. On one hand its refreshing because its celebrating the animal aspects of human experience, on the other hand its frustrating because it diminishes the importance of conscious thought, volition, attention, agency, choice, responsibility, etc. And, as I mentioned in the other thread, there's a yucky dangerous side to it as well, tending to veer back toward biological determinism. One way to move forward is to celebrate the agency and volition of all animals, rather than reduce our human experience down to its physiological building blocks and then imply that other animals somehow lead a reduced existence compared to us. Other species have unique traits too. Birds fly, bats use echo-location, dogs smell absolutely everything, etc. etc. etc.
- sally mckay 1-19-2010 2:45 pm
By the way, the guy pictured on the screen capture above is just the dude making the introduction.
Sapolsky actually looks like this.
- sally mckay 1-19-2010 3:03 pm
wow, nice hair.
- mnobody (guest) 1-19-2010 4:24 pm
hair-tastic. He's a really good speaker too. I love this guy.
- sally at remote location (guest) 1-19-2010 6:24 pm
you really must invite him over for dinner some time.
I will state my famous theory (the one I developed in grade 10) "that man's interest in animals stems mainly from his desire to eat them".
Then I will archly declare: Lorna Mills - 1, Robert Sapolsky - 0.
- L.M. 1-19-2010 8:03 pm
http://www.mybatbpage.com/digframes/digframe/digvincent/pages/dfbbvin24.html
- mnobody (guest) 1-19-2010 9:19 pm
Oh boy I like the homepage for that link.
- sally mckay 1-19-2010 11:48 pm
I just realized that I had a beast-crush! Wow!! What a romantic. That sure brings back memories. And I'm not talking about Linda, although she sure as hell kicked ass in those terminator flicks.
Sally said, "on the other hand its frustrating because it diminishes the importance of conscious thought, volition, attention, agency, choice, responsibility, etc."
But why/how are these things "diminished" by being animal? Isn't that just a bad hangover from religious thought? I of course love and celebrate these things, and would thank God if I believed in Him that Eve ate that apple and got us all free will. (ĄGo Eve go!) On the other hand, I believe in pure biological determinism as much as I believe in fate. (bor-ing).
I think you're right, though. If you're going to try to make distinctions between humans and animals it's important to figure out why it's important to you and your argument. The best thing - a very human thing - is that you can always change your mind.
- Roberto (guest) 1-20-2010 6:51 am
I agree completely, being animal doesn't diminish them, but celebrating and focusing only on the non-conscious aspects of being animal does. My argument here is with people like John Onians, who I've complained about before on the blog.
- sally mckay 1-20-2010 2:32 pm
My 2 cents ... of course it is vitally important that we distinguish ourselves from all other animals. After all, when they finally get standing in legal proceedings (animals, trees, rocks, et cetera) they will need a clearly defined class to blame for the class action suit.
- Maranda (guest) 1-22-2010 7:52 pm
Here in the USA we've decided that corporations have all the legal protections that individuals do. So maybe the question should be what separates animals from corporations.
gotta watch the vids before I can answer more.
- joester (guest) 1-22-2010 11:10 pm