Are we essentially the same as non-humans?

[zubin]

Nazaratun darbarye soal...

Adamha "fundamentally, essentially" different hastan? Ya fargh nesbat be shebahat-ha bozorg neestan?

Rationality yani chi? Non-humans rationality daran ya na?

Donyaye non-humans che shekliye va aslan chera een mozue mohemiye? Aslan moheme?



Ye maghaleye marbut ham taghdeeme shoma




Social relationships affect personality of fish, say experts

Liverpool, UK - 22 November 2006: Fish who display bold or shy personality traits are influenced by watching the behaviour of others, University of Liverpool researchers have found.

[mike435]

no we are
i used to think that way unitl i proved to myself that only humans can experiance love and non humans cant you see this everywere

but here

what is the one thing that showes humans can express love which is not the same as like or caring?

caring for a chiled every human and non human does it

and look i no longer belive that love is a selfish state of mined.

[zubin]

so you're agreeing that we are essentially similar or disagreeing with that idea?

[zubin]

there are differences in care but how is it fundamental? Even if God has given humans the unique capacity for love, doesn't it ultimately come from the same basic physiological mechanisms as non-humans?

Also, how do you know non-humans don't have love? It may not be as developed as humans but nonetheless can't it basically be the same thing?

[mike435]

love is love if your capcity for love is not developed it is not developed you are further from having it

they are diffrnt here are some intresting things

at first i said that only humans care about their grand kids you onlt see that humans were we care for grand kinds and the other way we care for elders
even thogh we dont need to old people are taking our resources and a grand chiled you can care less about it is no longer yours

than an anthropolgy major told me no some species of monkey the grand mother looks over the frand chiled while the mom is out hunting

so than we can say every one has that feelong and humans arnt uniqe

but intresting i read an artical from the economist magazing that was an excerpy of another artical from a scince journoul and in it said

every time wether human or animal you give to a stranger endorphins are released and your body both physicly and mentaly likes it so than reading that you can definiatly argu their is no such a thing as love and that humans only love becuase it makes you feel better and infact the other argumant that love is selfish would be correct

but and a big but is this

it is only the human that has a deliema to excersise this love, a humans rational and intiligence tells him not to care for elder becuase all they are doing is taking up space, consuming vital resources that you need and they arnt contributing yet we human choos to care for the elder we do it and we have a delima for doing it
the artical said that the reason humans have the delima is becuase of frontol cortex

so you can say that yes if anaimals also had frontal cortex than they to can experiance love hate jelousy etc
but until they do they can experiance love and that is what makes us diffrnt from animals

also allways keep this mind to scince is allways changing so what is valid right now could very well be wrong
consume coutiosly

[zubin]

do you believe humans and non-humans are part of the same world and should share it in harmony together, essentialy be conscious of each other? Or do you agree with "ownership" of the earth. I know Jewish custom there is some respect against ownership of the earth, right? (I'm not assuming you practice or believe in this custom though)

[mike435]

i do belive in harmony both becuase og my oen personal belife and religious

according to jewish law
i do belive it does anknowledge that humans are supirior
it also aknowldeges that everything is g-dly from the plants to the cows
and that is why it must be treated with respect
that is why i think their is blessing and laws regarding eating meat and other animals
if see in the jewish religion thier is a limit on everything while everything at the same time is being encouraged

i dont belive in personal owner ship of land i would love to to live in like a marxist based socioty a kibutz lets say
but becuase i dont have a choice i will engage this false reality of ownership with a vegance to better the life of myself and those sround me but allwys keeping it in check not to damage socioty while i am doing it and to give back also no by chaerity but by bettering socioty

but lets get back to the subject what do you think regarding my atguamt of love
do you belive in love?
but you have to

[zubin]

love is love if your capcity for love is not developed it is not developed you are further from having it

they are diffrnt here are some intresting things

at first i said that only humans care about their grand kids you onlt see that humans were we care for grand kinds and the other way we care for elders
even thogh we dont need to old people are taking our resources and a grand chiled you can care less about it is no longer yours

than an anthropolgy major told me no some species of monkey the grand mother looks over the frand chiled while the mom is out hunting

so than we can say every one has that feelong and humans arnt uniqe

but intresting i read an artical from the economist magazing that was an excerpy of another artical from a scince journoul and in it said

every time wether human or animal you give to a stranger endorphins are released and your body both physicly and mentaly likes it so than reading that you can definiatly argu their is no such a thing as love and that humans only love becuase it makes you feel better and infact the other argumant that love is selfish would be correct

but and a big but is this

it is only the human that has a deliema to excersise this love, a humans rational and intiligence tells him not to care for elder becuase all they are doing is taking up space, consuming vital resources that you need and they arnt contributing yet we human choos to care for the elder we do it and we have a delima for doing it
the artical said that the reason humans have the delima is becuase of frontol cortex

so you can say that yes if anaimals also had frontal cortex than they to can experiance love hate jelousy etc
but until they do they can experiance love and that is what makes us diffrnt from animals

also allways keep this mind to scince is allways changing so what is valid right now could very well be wrong
consume coutiosly

response to your premises and arguments


first, just a point that similar to how evolution does not negate God, reductionist science does not negate love.

second, a minor issue, I personally disagree with using the word "animal" exclusively for non-humans, but that's a minor issue.

third, another very minor point, I believe human beings are capable of understanding truth without the need for scientific advancements

now the meat, or, in the spirit of this conversation, the vegetable: just because humans have a very developed frontal cortex in comparison to other animals, and this contributes to a more developed love, it doesn't mean that they are essentially and basically different. Monkeys first of all come quite close to the human frontal cortex. Second, the basic composition (biology) as well as the mechanisms (evolution) that produced a bigger fc in humans is the same as how non-humans developed other traits that we don't have (like a frog's jump etc). So even our differences come from the essentially same things.

You essentially say that humans have a deeper care and have a moral sense which non-humans do not. That's definately true, and it shows a huge difference in outcomes between humans and non-humans. But these big differences in outcome come from the same basic and essential composition and mechanisms, so that's why I say we are not basically and essentially different. We may be superior in some quality sense and this muddy's the waters. But because this comes from the same stuff as non-humans it at least fails to produce a clear dichotomy.

Also, if it were not for non-humans, we would not have developed love and morality, and so in a sense we are all a part of each other, though in our own life we must put ourselves at the center of the interconnectivity which isn't a bad thing as long as we acknowledge the interconnectivity and appreciate the lives of non-humans in our interactions and our own developments, in our exercise of our "superior quality". Also, if we don't acknowledge the context of our superiority, then I think we stop being superior because we are not really using it as it really exists. So in other words, we in some sort of matrix of the human world that exists today and need to get out of it. Call Neo!

I'm sure there's more that can be said but so far we already have much to rebut.

[mike435]

response to your premises and arguments


first, just a point that similar to how evolution does not negate God, reductionist science does not negate love.

second, a minor issue, I personally disagree with using the word "animal" exclusively for non-humans, but that's a minor issue.

third, another very minor point, I believe human beings are capable of understanding truth without the need for scientific advancements

now the meat, or, in the spirit of this conversation, the vegetable: just because humans have a very developed frontal cortex in comparison to other animals, and this contributes to a more developed love, it doesn't mean that they are essentially and basically different. Monkeys first of all come quite close to the human frontal cortex. Second, the basic composition (biology) as well as the mechanisms (evolution) that produced a bigger fc in humans is the same as how non-humans developed other traits that we don't have (like a frog's jump etc). So even our differences come from the essentially same things.

You essentially say that humans have a deeper care and have a moral sense which non-humans do not. That's definately true, and it shows a huge difference in outcomes between humans and non-humans. But these big differences in outcome come from the same basic and essential composition and mechanisms, so that's why I say we are not basically and essentially different. We may be superior in some quality sense and this muddy's the waters. But because this comes from the same stuff as non-humans it at least fails to produce a clear dichotomy.

Also, if it were not for non-humans, we would not have developed love and morality, and so in a sense we are all a part of each other, though in our own life we must put ourselves at the center of the interconnectivity which isn't a bad thing as long as we acknowledge the interconnectivity and appreciate the lives of non-humans in our interactions and our own developments, in our exercise of our "superior quality". Also, if we don't acknowledge the context of our superiority, then I think we stop being superior because we are not really using it as it really exists. So in other words, we in some sort of matrix of the human world that exists today and need to get out of it. Call Neo!

I'm sure there's more that can be said but so far we already have much to rebut.

nice nice

in regard to calling neo would you call neo?

i have come to the conclution ignorance is blis
i am not smart, but compared to my friends i know some more stuff and all it does for me it makes me apreciate things a bit better but still you end up the same place in fact my new mato has come to be
SO WHAT

and i dont think i would call neo i dono

[zubin]

everyone's smart (I truly believe this)

thanks for your intense opinions and great arguments

[mike435]

na wrong word no smart yea becuase every one can be

i am talking about knowledge
i mean were does it get you
it the sme bs at the end of the day
like big deal you can apreciate a situation
you understand what a euphoric stage of justice lets say is so what
it really doesnt make a diffrance


at the end of the day the world is a messed up place stupidity rules
roce rules and so on

[zubin]

Objective analysis of issues is the solution to the messed up world. It benefits everyone that global problems be solved, getting them out of a dilemma that hurts them all (the famous "prisoner's dilemma" where cooperation is the key to everyone's benefit). Objective solutions break the dillemma as they give the excuse to compromise and truly be benefitted, by virtue of being based on non-subjective criteria and so easier to accept.