Evolution demonstrates the value of co-operation and the discovery of skills and potentialities in the most unusual places. The fact of evolution by natural selection does NOT mandate and programme of eugenics, selective breeding nor the sterilisation or termination of so-called mutations. The only rule is survival to produce viable progeny results in the persistence of traits. It matters not by what means this is achieved, nor does it validate any direction towards intelligence, strength or fertility.

Seems to be your fallacious answer to everthing. Sadly your obsession answers nothing.

The fact of evolution by natural selection does NOT mandate and programme of eugenics, selective breeding nor the sterilisation or termination of so-called mutations. — charleton

Right. Natural Selection merely is the prime motivator for the helpless glob of material called humans that naturally creates such actions as eugenics, sterilization, selective breeding (science is well on its way to promoting this), and of course mass genocide. Natural Selection did it all. Sort of like a vengeful god.

One really has to get their arms around this story and really understand why science/industry/government collaborate to promote it.

So, people playing trumpets, and a drawing of Manhattan Island are evidence that we aren't animals?

No, they're merely evidence that we're a type of animal that does some things that other animals don't do.

...as do most or all animals.

Michael Ossipoff

Then share with us one piece of evidence that we're animals. — Noble Dust

Biology classifies us in the grouping "Animalia", because of our similarities and commonalities with other members of that grouping.

Of is it just a coincidence that have so much in common with other members of Animalia, anatomically, chemically and cellularly?

The evolution of humans from apes is thoroughly well-established, and is a virtually unanimous consensus in biology.

When I say that, however, I should emphasize that there's strongly-convincing evidence that there's a pig in our ancestry too--so that, though we're mostly of the order of Primates, we're also partly from the order Artiodactyla, the Even-Toes Hooved Mammals.

I believe that Eugene McCarthy is the name of the hybridicazion-specialist geneticist who has written about that. He has a large website that thoroughly discusses the convincing evidence for his claim, and answers objections to it. Search google for "Eugene McCarthy, Pig ancestry.", or somesuch combination.

(Yes, "Eugene McCarthy" was also the name of a politician.This is a different Eugene McCarthy.)

Michael Ossipoff

So, people playing trumpets — Michael Ossipoff

:-O >:O

I didn't mean to say that we're not animals. But we transcend that basic starting point. See my comments here

So, people playing trumpets, and a drawing of Manhattan Island are evidence that we aren't animals?

No, they're merely evidence that we're a type of animal that does some things that other animals don't do. — Michael Ossipoff

H. Sapiens has abilities which demonstrably are absent in all animals. Nobody here is disputing that humans are in some sense animals, but that they are not merely or simply animals, on account of having such abilities as constructing buildings and composing symphonies (among many other things). And if that is a distinction that you're not able to recognise, then surely it is not worth wasting time on debating it. Just squeak, or grunt, or whatever animals do. ;-)

[img]

H. Sapiens has abilities which demonstrably are absent in all animals. — Wayfarer

Birds and insects have a capability that is demonstrably absent in humans--the ability to fly without mechanical assistance.

Chameleons and octopi have a capability that is demonstrably absent in humans--the ability to change color.

No one here is disputing that humans, as well, are different from the other animals in some ways. Humans, too, do things that other animals can't do. Welcome to the animal kingdom.

For one thing, unlike the other animals, humans can perpetrate a mass-extinction among the other animals, and are in the process of doing so. ...and have the ability to render the Earth uninhabitable, and are in the process of doing that too.

Nobody here is disputing that humans are in some sense animals,

Wrong. Humans aren't merely "in some sense" animals. Humans are, in every regard, animals, and nothing more.

If you don't believe it, observe Wayfarer's expression of his animal instincts here. ...and they call that evolution? Maybe we shouldn't kid ourselves about how far we've come.

Every forum has someone whose behavior reminds us that we aren't as far from our simian ancestors as we might want to believe.
.

but that they are not merely or simply animals, on account of having such abilities as constructing buildings and composing symphonies (among many other things)

Different animals do different things.

That doesn't mean that some of them aren't animals.

And if that is a distinction that you're not able to recognise, then surely it is not worth wasting time on debating it. Just squeak, or grunt, or whatever animals do.

...or make angry noises to support an invalid claim.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The initial topic wasn't about whether we differ from the other animals in some way.

Michael Ossipoff

I didn't mean to say that we're not animals. But we transcend that basic starting point. See my comments here — Noble Dust

There are important considerations and standards by which humans are the shame of the animal kingdom.

Michael Ossipoff

What does that mean and how does that relate to my comment?

I just want to add that, at no time did I disparage Bach, Einstein, or people who play the trumpet, or cartoonish pictures of Manhattan-Island.

What I said about our being the animal was in response to Spiritualist positions taken by some self-styled "Physicalists" (who are really Spiritualists), and other Spiritualists in these forums.

Some of the opinion expressed by the OP in a different topic had showed up in this topic. Here is something that was said in the original post at an only slightly different topic:

It is I think self-evident that we are not merely material beings. This is because of many reasons but mostly do to the fact that we actually have analytic proofs for the soul. for example: There are things that are true of me but are not true of my brain and body. So "I" am not identical with my body and thus I must be non-material substance called the soul.

People here have said basically similar Spiritualist things.

Though it's from a different topic, let me comment on a few things said in that paragraph:

It is I think self-evident that we are not merely material beings.

No, what's self-evident is that that's exactly what we are. All of our experiences are entirely consistent with that.

This is because of many reasons but mostly do to the fact that we actually have analytic proofs for the soul. for example: There are things that are true of me but are not true of my brain and body.

So you say, but you've merely defined yourself as something else.

So "I" am not identical with my body...

...by your definition of yourself as other than your body.

and thus I must be non-material substance called the soul.

See above.

And now, you can try to explain it to Spiritualist Searle and friends.

Michael Ossipoff

What does that mean and how does that relate to my comment? — Noble Dust

Ii was merely agreeing with you, and giving a few examples of ways in which we've shown ourselves different from the other animals.

Michael Ossipoff

But how is us being the "shame" of the animal kingdom related to what I said?

But how is us being the "shame" of the animal kingdom related to what I said? — Noble Dust

Here's what you'd said:

I didn't mean to say that we're not animals. But we transcend that basic starting point.

I agree that we of course differ from the other animals. All the animals differ from eachother in various ways.

And we differ from the other animals in various ways. I was merely mentioning some of those ways in which we differ from the other animals--as you'd said that we do.

As I said, I was agreeing with you, and giving examples.

Michael Ossipoff

I agree that we of course differ from the other animals. All the animals differ from each other in various ways. — Michael Ossipoff

But the distinguishing feature of humans is not simply another biological attribute. While it's true that spiders can make webs, birds can fly, and so on, the rationality that characterises humans is not something of the same order as those attributes. So the thing that makes humans different, is of a different order to the biological. To say that it is, is precisely to fall into the trap of 'biological reductionism'.

As a matter of interest, are you aware of what biological reductionism is, who its proponents are, and who are its critics?

So why shame?

So why shame? — Noble Dust

You're right. We should be proud of the fact that we're the rogue species that is perpetrating a mass-extinction, and in the process of rendering the Earth uninhabitable. :)

Michael Ossipoff

But humans aren't as rational as they'd like to believe.

It's a big exaggeration to say that rationality characterizes humans.

While it's true that spiders can make webs, birds can fly, and so on, the rationality that characterises humans is not something of the same order as those attributes. — Wayfarer

"Here's an idea", said the giraffe, let's just say that the one with the longest neck gets all of the jellybuns."

(Roughly quoted from Kenneth Patchen)

So the thing that makes humans different, is of a different order to the biological. — Wayfarer

That I don't understand. Our entire construction is biological.

Are we completely different from the other animals, in regards to technology and science? Of course.

Are those still attributes of an animal? Of course. Do our special attributes give us unique environment-ruining capability? Sure.

As a matter of interest, are you aware of what biological reductionism is, who its proponents are, and who are its critics? — Wayfarer

Not yet. Let me get back to you on that.

Michael Ossipoff

You're right. We should be proud of the fact that we're the rogue species that is perpetrating a mass-extinction, and in the process of rendering the Earth uninhabitable. :) — Michael Ossipoff

It was a serious question because it wasn't clear to me what you meant.

The problem is that you're beginning with the assumption that mass-extinction and rendering the Earth uninhabitable are bad states of affairs, but the very consciousness you possess as a human being is the sole tool with which you've come to that conclusion. In other words, you're looking at only one side of what it means to be human. The idea of us as the "shame" of the animal kingdom has no referent; shameful as opposed to what? In reality what you're saying is that humanity should care for the earth, not destroy it, but your consciouss mind is what came to that conclusion, and your conscious mind is the very thing that actually sets humans at the top of the animal kingdom. You're ironically beginning with an irrational emotional argument when you address the question of where we fit into the animal kingdom.

As a matter of interest, are you aware of what biological reductionism is, who its proponents are, and who are its critics?
— Wayfarer

Not yet. Let me get back to you on that. — Michael Ossipoff

You'd be prudent to research that before further trying to expand on your ideas here.

It's a big exaggeration to say that rationality characterizes humans. — Michael Ossipoff

Humans aren't always rational - but you have to be rational to know what 'exaggeration' means, or to argue any case whatever. An animal is not going to be able to persuade you of anything by argument.

Our entire construction is biological. — Michael Ossipoff

A theatre is a building, right? Perfectly true, but also beside the point. One doesn't go to the theatre to study architecture, but to watch drama. So the fact that we're physically the product of biological processes doesn't provide for a complete account of what it means to be human.

Do our special attributes give us unique environment-ruining capability? — Michael Ossipoff

Nowadays humans are demonised, by the likes of animal rights activists and environmentalists. I can understand it, but I think it's also mistaken.

The problem is that you're beginning with the assumption that mass-extinction and rendering the Earth uninhabitable are bad states of affairs
[/quot]

Silly me! :D
— Noble Dust

, but the very consciousness you possess as a human being is the sole tool with which you've come to that conclusion. In other words, you're looking at only one side of what it means to be human.

Incorrect. Just because the many other animal species on this planet can't speak human language, doesn't mean that they like it when they or their young die prematurely. ...as many of them do when we destroy their habitat, by clearcutting, pollution, global-warming, etc.

Predatory animals routinely kill other animals? Sure. But we do it on a much bigger scale. An animal or its young might be killed by a carnivore, or might not. An animal or its young, or its descendants is much more likely to be killed by us, simply because we kill a lot more. We kill so many that we're perpetrating a mass-extinction.

The idea of us as the "shame" of the animal kingdom has no referent; shameful as opposed to what?

Compared to the other animals.

In reality what you're saying is that humanity should care for the earth, not destroy it, but your consciouss mind is what came to that conclusion

If the other animals spoke a human language, they'd tell you themselves, that they don't want themselves or their young to be killed by overhunting, clearcutting, pollution or climate-change.

...in other words, by us.

And, as I said, we kill more than the other predatory animals do, because we, not they, are currently perpetrating a mass-extinction.

, and your conscious mind is the very thing that actually sets humans at the top of the animal kingdom

Humans have great potential. As a species, we don't live up to that potential at all, and our effect on Earth's life is incomparably worse than that of other animals.

You seem to be confusing our potential with our actual deeds and effect.

.Wayfarer said:

As a matter of interest, are you aware of what biological reductionism is, who its proponents are, and who are its critics?
— Wayfarer

I said:

Not yet. Let me get back to you on that. — Michael Ossipoff

You'd be prudent to research that before further trying to expand on your ideas here.

Don't worry, i wont say a peep about biological reductionism till I find out what it is. :)

But no, regardless of what it means, its definition, whatever it may be, doesn't invalidate anything that I said. Labeling something doesn't refute, invalidate or contradict it.

So far, I've taken a look at a few articles that define biological reductionism, and (unsurprisingly) have found various definitions.

One article said that biological reductionism says that if ractial-minority students do more poorly on an exam, it must, and can only, be because of their different biological make-up.

If biological reductionism says that, then you can forget about trying to pin that label on me.

Some other articles say that biological reductionism merely holds that human affairs are the result of humans' biological makeup. Well what else? ...unless you're a Spiritualist. Are you a Spiritualist?

But I won't say more about it till I read more articles' definitions of it.

Michael Ossipoff

While it's true that spiders can make webs, birds can fly, and so on, the rationality that characterises humans is not something of the same order as those attributes. So the thing that makes humans different, is of a different order to the biological.

Yes it is, as any type of thinking humans do comes from our bodies and genetic programming, as does birds' ability to fly. Secondly, rationality is just our Western cultural concept we apply to our thinking; it isn't an exact description of our thinking process, not to mention the fact people are usually more irrational than they are rational.

The rationality that characterises humans is not something of the same order as those attributes.

Wayfarer

Yes it is, as any type of thinking humans do comes from our bodies and genetic programming, as does birds' ability to fly — Thanatos Sand

You know this - how? That is simply question-begging, i.e. 'assuming what needs to be proven'.

Of course, humans are often irrational. I am not saying that rationality is a Dr Spock-like attribute, meaning that humans live according to reason. I'm referring to the ability to think, infer, use language and abstract symbols, to say that 'this means that', and so on and so forth, which is demonstrably and clearly different to the abilities that animals exhibit. And, I think it's discontinuous, it is not explicable in strictly biologistic terminology.

You know this - how? That is simply question-begging, i.e. 'assuming what needs to be proven'.

No, your erroneously calling it question-begging is question-begging. I know it because there is nothing else it could come from. Feel free to name something; you haven't yet.

I know it because there is nothing else it could come from. — Thanatos Sand

That is the dogma that is the question this thread is exploring. The fact that you have swallowed it to the point you can't even see what it is anymore, is what I'm calling into question.

I know it because there is nothing else it could come from.
— Thanatos Sand

That is the dogma that is the question this thread is exploring. The fact that you have swallowed it to the point you can't even see what it is anymore, is what I'm calling into question.

No, the only dogma is your correction of it, since you clearly can't offer an argument for an alternative to what I said. Thanks for helping to prove me right.

I don’t think there’s a disagreement here. It seems to me that we’re just talking about different matters.
.
I’d said:
.

It's a big exaggeration to say that rationality characterizes humans. — Michael Ossipoff

.

Humans aren't always rational - but you have to be rational to know what 'exaggeration' means, or to argue any case whatever.

.
With that I have to disagree.
.
Turn on NPR any day of the week, or network TV, and you’ll hear all the irrational arguments that your heart could desire.
.
Listen to speeches by various politicians too.
.
No, regrettably, someone doesn’t have to be rational to argue a case.
.
Yes, sometimes fallacious arguments are done intentionally, with a rational purpose. …because they’re always readily believed by the irrational sheep-population.
.
But, admittedly, there are regional differences—You have Jeremy Corbyn, and we have…well you know who.
.
So maybe your perspective is influenced by your immediate surroundings.
.

An animal is not going to be able to persuade you of anything by argument.

.
A dog that I was walking persuaded me to go to a hamburger-place, because she emphatically argued how much she wanted a hamburger.
.
But the same dog, using the same sort of argument, failed to convince me to let her go down into a creek-bed in alligator-country, where the depth of the water, and the abundant aquatic-reed-vegetation could easily conceal an alligator. (Later we saw a 7 foot alligator sunning itself on the bank of that section of river).
.
She didn’t have instinctive knowledge of alligators, and didn’t know of any reason to not let her go down there. But, in the human-environment, she accepted that I knew better about where was safe to go, and when it was safe to cross a street, etc.
.
I’d said:
.

Our entire construction is biological. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

A theatre is a building, right? Perfectly true, but also beside the point. One doesn't go to the theatre to study architecture, but to watch drama. So the fact that we're physically the product of biological processes doesn't provide for a complete account of what it means to be human.

.
…or to be any animal. Of course.
.
What it is, to be any animal has nothing to do with biological origin explanations. A squirrel doesn’t know or care what the biological explanation for squirrels is.
.
The stories behind various human accomplishments are more complicated than the stories behind animal behaviors (but not always less knowable). But that doesn’t mean that all that we are, isn’t the result of our biological makeup. Yes, our surroundings enter into it, but that’s true for other animals too.
.
I’m not finished looking up definitions of biological reductionism, but (as I mentioned in my post to this topic just before this one) I’ve found a few, and they differ from eachother.
.
If it’s “biological-reductionism” to say that what humans do is ultimately a result of humans’ biological makeup-- …well, how could that not be so? It’s either that or Spiritualism.
.
I emphasize that I’m going to read more definitions of biological-reductionism, and that I’ll try not to say any more about it till I do.
.

Do our special attributes give us unique environment-ruining capability? — Michael Ossipoff

.

Nowadays humans are demonised, by the likes of animal rights activists and environmentalists. I can understand it, but I think it's also mistaken.

.
Whoa…Now you’re sounding like a certain much-in-the-news politician (who will remain nameless) in this country.
.
To borrow a familiar saying, I’m not demonizing humans. I’m just demonizing what they’re doing to the Earth and to the Earth’s other animal species. I’m just demonizing their effect.
-------------------------------------------------
As I was telling Noble Dust, I agree that humans have great potential.
.
And, sometimes, some humans actually live up to that potential, to some degree.
------------------------------------------------
In fact, living up to our potential as humans, that’s really what Dharma (in Vedanta usage) refers to.
.
In future, I’ll refer to the text between the dotted-lines, if anyone says that I deny the human potential.
.
Of course the problem is that, overall, humanity doesn’t, worth diddly-shit, live up to human potential.
.
So, you see, we don’t really disagree. We’re just talking about different things. I agree that there’s such a thing as great human potential.
.
And I guarantee that it will never be realized on a societal scale. Not ever. Not a chance.
.
We humans seem to have a need for unrealistic hope for this world.
.
I love this world as much as the next person, having been born into it like everyone else.
.
But we have to be realistic too.
.
Though I love this world, even some of its humans, it’s only one of infinitely-many possibility-worlds. It happens that we were all of us born into the Land of the Lost. Human society has always been the Land of the Lost, and it will always remain so.
.
This human societal world hasn’t got a chance. Accept it.
.
So we just do the best we can, in our own lives.
.
And yes, we should each try to live up to human potential, regardless of how few people do, or what the Joneses are doing, and regardless of where the world as a whole is going.
.
All of that’s quite irrelevant to our own individual Dharmic need and responsibility to ourselves and to Life, to, on our part, live up to human potential as best we can.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Thanks for helping to prove me right. — Thanatos Sand

You're welcome, Thanatos. You have no idea of how happy it makes me to be able to cast light on your greatness!

f it’s “biological-reductionism” to say that what humans do is ultimately a result of humans’ biological makeup-- …well, how could that not be so? It’s either that or Spiritualism. — Michael Ossipoff

That's a really good illustration of what I consider the cultural dilemma around the question of evolution. Either humans are a 'product of evolution', and therefore basically a biological phenomenon, OR 'you must be a "spiritualist". You see, I think that's a false dichotomy. Obviously, evolution occurs, pretty much as described by evolutionary biology. But we are still compelled to seek and live up to 'our own individual Dharmic need', and I think that's not really a matter of biology.