How are humans different with other species?

[Belinda]

The human brain is different only by degree because it is biologically similar to other animal brains and especially primates
But the pre frontal cortex is way beyond the ability of other animals and this is fundamentally what separates us from them

What do you intend to communicate by fundamentally ?

Things that on all available evidence are absolutely unique to us :

The ability to understand abstract concepts such as mathematics
The ability to invent and communicate in multiple languages
The ability to understand how observable reality functions
The ability to eliminate or reduce diseases that can kill us
The ability to understand how our brain functions
The ability to evolve into a technological species

All these may be subsumed under 'abstract concepts'.
Chimpanzees and crows have been observed planning ahead by using an abstract concept of something that does not exist except as an idea in the animals' brain-mind.
Fundamentally, if you will, we men are no different from other animals except by degree .i.e. relative difference.

[RCSaunders]

Is my "unique human mind" a unique degree of mind, or a unique kind of mind?
Is a non human animal unable to explain because it lacks the human's anatomical arrangements of the chest, head, and neck? Or what?

It is unique in the fact that you have one, and the animals don't. It is not a physical attribute, though it is a perfectly natural one, like, "life," and, "consciousness," which are also natural attributes, but not physical ones.

What do you think is the attribute of a man's mind that sets it apart from the mind of another species?

Animals do not have minds. They have consciousness and instinct which determines their behavior. They do not have the attributes of human conscious: volition, intellect, and rationality, which are the human mind by which human beings determine their behavior.

Now I can only speak for myself and others who have minds and know it. I cannot say every organism that looks like a human being has a mind, because it is not possible for one organism to know what another organsim's consciousness is. If your consciousness is only different from the consciousness of non-human organisms in degree, I'll have to take your word for it.

If non-human animals lack minds then they are automata. Descartes held this view which has been a major cause of suffering ever since.

Plants do not have minds or consciousness. Are they automata?

If by automata you mean, "mechanically determined," or merely physical, that is not true of any living organism, or conscious organism, because the attributes of, "life," and, "consciousness," are not physical attributes and can be neither explained or understood in terms of the physical alone. They are perfectly natural attributes, like all the physical attributes, just addition natural attributes only found in living organisms.

Descartes was wrong, just he was about dualism, but I have no idea what suffering you think his mistakes caused.

[RCSaunders]

Chimpanzees and crows have been observed planning ahead by using an abstract concept of something that does not exist except as an idea in the animals' brain-mind.

That is simply not true. Some crackpot self-styled, "scientists," observed certain behavior of chimpanzees and crows and made up a story to explain it and called it planning. The actual conscious processes of no organism can possibly be observed, not even other human beings, much less non-human animals.

It is not possible for a non-human animal to have a concept of the past or future, much less have the concepts necessary to make plans for the future.

[Dubious]

When a monkey scratches its head it will never tell you why!

[Belinda]

Chimpanzees and crows have been observed planning ahead by using an abstract concept of something that does not exist except as an idea in the animals' brain-mind.

That is simply not true. Some crackpot self-styled, "scientists," observed certain behavior of chimpanzees and crows and made up a story to explain it and called it planning. The actual conscious processes of no organism can possibly be observed, not even other human beings, much less non-human animals.

It is not possible for a non-human animal to have a concept of the past or future, much less have the concepts necessary to make plans for the future.

Animals that can't speak are enigmatic. However the made-up story is better than other known explanations of the observable behaviour of animals that can learn from experience.

Animals that can learn from experience can be trained by stimulus and response methods, have good memories , and can generalise e.g. this kitchen is where I get tasty food therefore all places that smell like this kitchen might be good for tasty food. E.g. when he calls (my name) I sometimes get a piece of baked liver therefore I will gamble this time he called (my name) I will make the effort to get close to him. The Chimpanzee that arranges planks to make a simple ladder has learned she can use found objects to do something rewarding with.

Most intelligent animals can't use symbols for learning useful strategies but they can and do use signs and signals.

[RCSaunders]

Chimpanzees and crows have been observed planning ahead by using an abstract concept of something that does not exist except as an idea in the animals' brain-mind.

That is simply not true. Some crackpot self-styled, "scientists," observed certain behavior of chimpanzees and crows and made up a story to explain it and called it planning. The actual conscious processes of no organism can possibly be observed, not even other human beings, much less non-human animals.

It is not possible for a non-human animal to have a concept of the past or future, much less have the concepts necessary to make plans for the future.

Animals that can't speak are enigmatic. However the made-up story is better than other known explanations of the observable behaviour of animals that can learn from experience.

Animals that can learn from experience can be trained by stimulus and response methods, have good memories , and can generalise e.g. this kitchen is where I get tasty food therefore all places that smell like this kitchen might be good for tasty food. E.g. when he calls (my name) I sometimes get a piece of baked liver therefore I will gamble this time he called (my name) I will make the effort to get close to him. The Chimpanzee that arranges planks to make a simple ladder has learned she can use found objects to do something rewarding with.

Most intelligent animals can't use symbols for learning useful strategies but they can and do use signs and signals.

There you go. You can say about animals that they, "can learn from experience," but when it comes to human beings you say, "Briefly, we know nothing."

[Belinda]

That is simply not true. Some crackpot self-styled, "scientists," observed certain behavior of chimpanzees and crows and made up a story to explain it and called it planning. The actual conscious processes of no organism can possibly be observed, not even other human beings, much less non-human animals.

It is not possible for a non-human animal to have a concept of the past or future, much less have the concepts necessary to make plans for the future.

Animals that can't speak are enigmatic. However the made-up story is better than other known explanations of the observable behaviour of animals that can learn from experience.

Animals that can learn from experience can be trained by stimulus and response methods, have good memories , and can generalise e.g. this kitchen is where I get tasty food therefore all places that smell like this kitchen might be good for tasty food. E.g. when he calls (my name) I sometimes get a piece of baked liver therefore I will gamble this time he called (my name) I will make the effort to get close to him. The Chimpanzee that arranges planks to make a simple ladder has learned she can use found objects to do something rewarding with.

Most intelligent animals can't use symbols for learning useful strategies but they can and do use signs and signals.

There you go. You can say about animals that they, "can learn from experience," but when it comes to human beings you say, "Briefly, we know nothing."

Human learning is such that circumstances alter cases; same as for other animals.

[RCSaunders]

Animals that can't speak are enigmatic. However the made-up story is better than other known explanations of the observable behaviour of animals that can learn from experience.

Animals that can learn from experience can be trained by stimulus and response methods, have good memories , and can generalise e.g. this kitchen is where I get tasty food therefore all places that smell like this kitchen might be good for tasty food. E.g. when he calls (my name) I sometimes get a piece of baked liver therefore I will gamble this time he called (my name) I will make the effort to get close to him. The Chimpanzee that arranges planks to make a simple ladder has learned she can use found objects to do something rewarding with.

Most intelligent animals can't use symbols for learning useful strategies but they can and do use signs and signals.

There you go. You can say about animals that they, "can learn from experience," but when it comes to human beings you say, "Briefly, we know nothing."

Human learning is such that circumstances alter cases; same as for other animals.

I just do not see how you can know the animals learn anything if you know nothing. If you believe animals learn today, are circumstances going to convince you that is no longer the case tomorrow?

I certainly believe animals can be conditioned, a la Pavlov, but to equate that to human learning is really stretch for me.

[Belinda]

There you go. You can say about animals that they, "can learn from experience," but when it comes to human beings you say, "Briefly, we know nothing."

Human learning is such that circumstances alter cases; same as for other animals.

I just do not see how you can know the animals learn anything if you know nothing. If you believe animals learn today, are circumstances going to convince you that is no longer the case tomorrow?

I certainly believe animals can be conditioned, a la Pavlov, but to equate that to human learning is really stretch for me.

I believe an important but possibly not a definitive difference between men and other animals is men use symbols to 'pigeonhole' (thanks Veritas Aequitas!) ideas for ease of juxtapositioning them.

[seeds]

How are humans different with other species?

...I know that according to the Bible, God created man special from the others, we are made according the image of God...

cicero117, in referring to what the Bible proclaims, you seem to have answered your own OP question.

In other words,...

(at least according to what is implied in Christianity)

...humans are the same species of being as God,...

(as in God’s literal offspring/children/progeny, who are imbued with the same potential as God)

...whereas all other species on earth are not.
_______

[Dubious]

We fuck-up on a far grander scale than any other species to the point where the future of the planet and everything on it, including us, is in jeopardy. Intensely ironic that what we denote as intelligence is extremely likely to have a far shorter future than what the Dinosaurs themselves had available.

[Age]

All of what I mean by knowledge must be held by means of language.

Okay. So, now we get back to how do you KNOW that other animals besides the human being animal does NOT HAVE 'knowledge' by means of their language?

By the way, knowledge can be and IS HELD in thought, within a brain/body, BEFORE it is shared through, or by means of, 'language', with "others".

You now might argue that this knowledge held within, or as, thought is also held by means of language. But what language do those deaf and blind human bodies have? Or, do you propose that they do not have knowledge?

Age, I don't care if you want to believe animals have the same kind of knowledge human being have.

If this is what you have taken from what I have said, then you could not be any further MISTAKEN.

OBVIOUSLY other animals do not have the same kind of knowledge that the human being animal has.

Also, you ONCE AGAIN wrote as though human beings are not animals.

I was only trying to answer your questions, not convince you to change your views.

And I am only trying to gain clarity of what you see or believe is true.

When you use the word knowledge it does not mean what I mean by knowledge. You don't have to use what I mean.

Great points you make here, and this explains WHY there is so much disagreement and conflict among 'you', human beings.

It is not possible for any non-human animal to have epistemological knowledge.

And as I have already acknowledged, this is a given. This is like saying human beings are different than other species because human beings have only what that have and which other species do not have. This, obviously, does NOT need saying.

If you had read my article, "Epistemology, Concepts," which I referred to, you would have known that and not asked me what I meant.

But I did NOT ask you what you meant, above in that quote of mine, which you have used here. What I did, however, is just ask you two very specific questions. By the way, you obviously have not yet answered.

I made it perfectly clear what I mean:

What Is Knowledge?

The whole of epistemology would be required to answer the question of what knowledge is.

And what would you say is required to answer the question; 'What is epistemology?' the whole of knowledge?

Now, if you can not explain simply and easily what 'it' is, which you are trying to explain, then just maybe you do not KNOW 'it' as well as you wish or believe you do.

Also, saying that "the whole of epistemology would be required to answer the question of 'what knowledge is' SHOWS 'perfectly clear' that you are completely and utterly incapable of explaining what you mean when you use the word 'knowledge'.

Here the question only refers to what knowledge, in the epistemological sense, refers to.

The word knowledge is used to identify many different concepts, such as developed skills and abilities (he knows how to drive, she knows how to type, he knows how to play the piano), things one has experienced (I know what cinnamon tastes like) or is acquainted with (he knows where the library is) or even for things animals can do (Rex knows his way home).

Knowledge, in epistemology, refers only to the kind of knowledge possible to human beings, knowledge held by means of language. Language is a system of symbols called words which stand for concepts.
Knowing a language is not just being able to respond to a few sounds, signs, or symbols. Knowing a language means capable of forming, speaking, writing and understanding complete sentences. Knowing a language means being able to think, read, write, ask questions, and understand verbal explanations in that language.

The primary purpose of language is to gain and hold knowledge and to use that language to think, and make choices. A secondary derivative purpose of language is communication.

When we are young, it is easy to believe in the world of Hugh Lofting (Dr. Dolittle) and Walt Disney. I'm sorry, but that magical world of talking thinking animals just does not exist.

So, after all of this, when you wrote: human beings are the only organisms that can have and must have knowledge. what you actually meant was; human beings are the only organism that can have and must have 'epistemological' knowledge, correct?

By the way, at whatever age you are it is easy for 'you' to believe in whatever 'world' you want to believe in. As evidenced and proven by ALL of the different 'worlds' that 'you', adults, see and believe are true.

[Age]

How are humans different with(sic) other species?

Is it a matter of degree or is a matter of kind? That is the question that matters. You will find that religious persons argue that people are different from other animals is matter of kind, not a matter of degree. What follows is disrespect for other animals.

Perhaps inadvertently, but you have slipped in a false dichotomy. Arguing that non-human animals are different in kind from human beings is not because one is religious, even if some religious use their religion for that argument. I do not believe in any form of mysticism or supernaturalism but am certain human beings are a unique kind of organism with attributes no other non-human animal has.

But you cannot name any human attribute that is not a difference of degree.

This is because all are just a part of the One.

[Age]

Perhaps inadvertently, but you have slipped in a false dichotomy. Arguing that non-human animals are different in kind from human beings is not because one is religious, even if some religious use their religion for that argument. I do not believe in any form of mysticism or supernaturalism but am certain human beings are a unique kind of organism with attributes no other non-human animal has.

But you cannot name any human attribute that is not a difference of degree.

No animal can make that argument.

ONCE AGAIN, you are writing like human beings are not an animal.

Obviously AN animal did make that argument. The human being animal did.

What makes it possible for you to make it is your unique human mind.

What is the 'mind'?

What is the 'human mind'?

And, how is this 'thing' unique? Is this, so called, "human mind", unique to human beings only or unique to each and every human?

When an animal can explain how it is only different from a human being by some degree, then I'll believe it. You saying it is totally unconvincing.

But an animal can very easily explain how EVERY animal is only different from a human being by some degree. That animal IS the 'human being'.

If you are claiming human beings are NOT different from other animals, by some degree, then what support, evidence and/or proof do you have for this claim?

[Age]

The human brain is different only by degree because it is biologically similar to other animal brains and especially primates
But the pre frontal cortex is way beyond the ability of other animals and this is fundamentally what separates us from them

What do you intend to communicate by "fundamentally" ? Either there is a defining attribute that defines the human, or there is not. If there is a defining attribute that defines the human what is it?

The ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely ANY/EVERY thing, is the attribute that defines and separates the human being from every other animal/thing.

If there is no defining attribute then the human is relatively different from other animals. This would be a difference of degree not a difference of kind.

The ability to 'learn, understand, and reason' itself is a difference of degree. However, the ability to learn, understand, and reason 'ANY/EVERY thing' is a difference of kind.