How are humans different with other species?

[RCSaunders]

By the way, when you use the phrase 'linguistic knowledge' do you mean anything more than just language, itself?

All of what I mean by knowledge must be held by means of language. It is also referred to as intellectual knowledge. There is no other kind of knowledge.

So, again, is it just the knowledge learned through any particular 'language', which you are referring to here?

Yes, any language (not to be confused with meaningless grunts and signs such as those animals make).

By the way, are you SURE a child KNOWS what the 'I' IS when they ask, for example, "May 'I' have a cookie?"

Unless a child is simply reciting a phrase it has been taught to repeat (like reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag, which almost no child understands--fortunately) I'm certain the child is using the word, "I," to indicate himself as the desired recipient of the cookie, else he would have said, "may my sister have a cookie," for example, if it was for someone else. Of course he knows what the work, "I," means.

By the way, are you SURE a child
If you are SURE children KNOW what the 'I' means, then WHY have adults NOT YET been able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?", properly and correct, even after this question has been around for thousands of years if not for centuries?

No one has that problem until some damn philosopher or academic has got a hold of him and screwed up his mind. If you use the word, "I," and do not know what you mean by the word, if you do not know what your own identity is, that is a personal psychological problem. It is not a deep philosophical problem, it is a kind self-induced existentialist psychosis.

By the way, are you SURE a child
I would suggest that other animals besides the human animal might well have a language, and thus a 'linguistic knowledge'. For example, when a baby lion 'whimpers', then an mother lion might know that its baby is 'hungry' and thus wants to be 'fed'. Therefore, a type of 'linguistic knowledge' is passed between them. Or, when a playful lion is playing with a sleeping father lion and the elder lion 'roars', then the younger lion might know that it is time to 'stop' doing what it is doing. Therefore, more 'knowledge' being passed from one animal onto another one of its species, through their 'language', or their 'linguistic knowledge'.

But, you may have a completely different definition of the term 'linguistic knowledge', which supports your belief that ONLY human beings have 'linguistic knowledge'. I await for your definition.

The whole answer would require my entire epistemology. If you are truly interested, and only as an introduction, see my article on this site, "Epistemology, Concepts," which introduces the nature of concepts by which all knowledge is held. The following is from the introductory notes to that article:

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.

In your example, "... when a baby lion 'whimpers', then a mother lion might know that its baby is 'hungry' and thus wants to be 'fed,' the mother lion may respond to the baby's cries but that is an instinctive reacition, part of its automatic pattern of behavior, requiring no knowledge. I'm sure the mother lion has no idea why it reacts as it does, it only does it because it is how its nature makes it behave. I'm sure the mother lion cannot think, "oh, the baby is crying, it must be hungry, I better feed it," but a human mother has to learn what a baby's crying means, and for those who do, even how to nurse their child, because they have no inbuilt atuomatic pattern of behavior.

By the way, are you SURE a child
Also, and by the way, how did human beings survive and evolve before when they did NOT have this 'kind of knowledge'?

Or do you think, or believe, that when human beings came into Existence that they also 'instantly' came with 'kind of knowledge', at the moment when they 'instantly' came into Existence?

No human being is born with any knowledge. All knowledge must be discovered or learned from those who have discovered it.

I am not absolutely certain there was a, "first human being," but if there was, I have no more idea how that first human acquired knowledge than you do about where the first human being found a mate.

By the way, are you SURE a child
Also, are you aware that human beings ARE 'an animal'?

If yes, or no, then saying things like; " Humans have 'this', but animals do not need 'this' and cannot have 'this' ", is contradictory, absurd, and nonsensical?

Different animals cannot have different characteristics and still be animals? I see nothing wrong with referring to all other animals, in general, as animals, and specific animals, like humans or antelope, as having attributes animals in general do not have.

I think you will find that what I have consistently referred to non-human animals as, "other animals," or "all animals except for human beings." If you find I have referred to the other animals otherwise I'd like to know. I'll correct it. See the next quote, it's "except for human beings," isn't it?

Except for human beings, most animals are able to do everything their natures require them to do to live successfully, often within a few hours or days of their birth.

BUT, to me, human beings also are able to EVERY thing their nature requires them to do to live successfully. If this did not occur, then human beings would be doing what is UN-natural.

Human being are NOT 'unnatural', 'above nature', NOR 'beyond nature'. Absolutely EVERY thing human beings do IS 'natural'.

Although, at times, this OBVIOUSLY appears to be completely and utterly NOT True, WRONG, and INCORRECT.

By the way, are you SURE a child

They are able to walk, run, fly or swim, perform their biological functions, find and acquire the kind of food they must eat, prepare whatever shelter they need, mate and raise their young. Human beings are born unable to do anything their nature requires them to do to live as human beings and it will take years of learning to be able to live as a human being.

By the way, are you SURE a child
The CONTRADICTION of this SPEAKS VOLUMES, well to me anyway.

The VERY 'NATURE' of being 'human' is to be UNABLE to do, accomplish, and achieve things WITHOUT "others".

The VERY REASON of being born so vulnerable and NEEDY of "others" is to HIGHLIGHT the very FACT that the VERY 'NATURE' of being a 'human being' is to care for, protect, and guide "others", ourselves. In other words, the VERY 'NATURE' of being 'human' is to LOVE 'one another' as one's Self.

This is SO, eventually, human beings will live SUCCESSFULLY in peace AND in harmony with one "another", as One.

The very 'nature' of the human being is to work together in order to create and achieve 'that' what is Truly WANTED, by ALL, which is to just create and live in 'world peace'.

Really? You must live in a totally different world from mine with a totally different species of human beings. If I were to attribute human behavior to human nature it would be the opposite of yours. I would have to go by what human beings actually do, not what I think they should do. Most of human history is a history of war, oppression, cruelty, slavery, murder, and harming others. If it were human nature to love others, why don't they?

Unlike all other animals human being's nature does not provide them with the kind of automatic behavior that assures their survival, because they must consciously choose what they do, which is why they need knowledge of how they must live if they are to live successfully. The state of the world as you see it is because most of the human race has failed to do the one thing absolutely necessary to their success as human beings, which is to learn all the possibly can.

What kind of world do you expect, if everyone in it is ignorant, incompetent, unable to do more than barely sustain their own life. How much can anyone do for anyone else if they cannot even feed and cloth themselves without victimizing someone else (like every welfare recipient).

By the way, are you SURE a child

There is nothing your life requires you can have or do without knowledge.

What 'knowledge' where 'you' born with?

Exactly what I wrote and you apparently conveniently forgot:

Except for human beings, most animals are able to do everything their natures require them to do to live successfully, often within a few hours or days of their birth. They are able to walk, run, fly or swim, perform their biological functions, find and acquire the kind of food they must eat, prepare whatever shelter they need, mate and raise their young. Human beings are born unable to do anything their nature requires them to do to live as human beings and it will take years of learning to be able to live as a human being.

There is nothing your life requires you can have or do without knowledge. When you are first born it is not your own knowledge that keeps you alive, fed, clothed, sheltered, and safe from the dangers of life, it is the knowledge of those who choose to love and nurture you, but it is still their knowledge of how to provide those things that make your young life possible. As you grow older, more and more of the things your life requires will depend on the knowledge you gain as you grow and mature. By the time you are an adult, most of how you live will depend on your own knowledge.

By the way, are you SURE a child

Without knowledge no choice would be possible.

So, BEFORE a child obtains 'linguistic knowledge' are you proposing that they ARE 'deterministic' in nature, but AFTER they obtain 'linguistic knowledge', then only then they gain the ability to choose, or in other words; have 'free will'?

I do not use the expression, "free will," because it is a loaded concept reeking of theological nonsense. Volition is that attribute that makes it possible and necessary for humans to consciously choose all their behavior which can be chosen (which is everything not controlled by the autonomic nervous system or their biology).

There is no volition before knowledge, but before knowledge a child's behavior consists almost entirely of reflexes, biological functions, and random undifferentiated behavior. No choice is possible until one is able to be conscious of alternatives.

Instead of making what I said "even simpler" what appears here now is you have added layers upon layers of explaining to do. I suggested that; the ability to learn, understand, and reason, absolutely any, and every, thing is what separates the animal 'human being' from every other animal.

That's fine.

By the way, are you SURE a child

A human being must consciously choose everything, but without knowledge of what there is to choose, what the possible consequences of any choice might be, or why one choice is preferred to another, choice is impossible.

So, to you a human baby who is born deaf and blind, and therefore has not yet obtained 'linguistic knowledge' is NOT able to choose between crawling in 'this' direction from crawling in 'that' direction, correct?

Why do you complain about my explanations but keep asking questions that require them?
Before a child can make a conscious choice, it's behavior is determined entirely by whatever impulses influence it. Not until the child is able to identify there are differences in the consequences of its behavior is it able to make choices. That is why it must have knowledge.

To you, that choice is just IMPOSSIBLE, correct?{/quote]
It's just that it's not a choice. There was no alternative. The child just did whatever it felt like, just as any other kind of animal.

By the way, are you SURE a child

Knowledge is the means to every choice and the only means to making right ones.

To me, EVERY human being has 'free will' AND IS 'deterministic', by 'nature'. This is ALL pre-determined by the past experiences. Adult human beings are FREE to choose whatever they like, BUT, they can ONLY choose from the thoughts within the head. The pre-existing thoughts is 'knowledge', and this knowledge is depended upon, or determined by, the past experiences of that body.

But knowledge being the means to every choice and the only means to making the right ones has not much at all to do with the fact that it could be argued animals, if not all animals, have some sort of 'knowledge'.

I really don't care if you believe that, but it is very dangerous. You choose what you do, and claiming any other than your choice determines what you do does not relieve you of the responsibility for your choices or the consequences of them. Nothing makes you do anything but your own conscious choice.

The rest is just the same questions asked in different fashion. I have no idea why so many people despise knowledge, but it is obvious you do. If I could encourage people to do what could truly benefit them and make their lives worth living, there is one thing I would do if I could, so all human beings could truly live together in peace and mutual benefit to one another, it would be to instill an insatiable desire for knowledge in everyone. Ignorance is like a darkness that prevents every individual affected with it from seeing what is possible and right, and being able to achieve it. Why do so many people want to promote darkness and the inevitable evil that results from it?

[Skepdick]

All of what I mean by knowledge must be held by means of language. It is also referred to as intellectual knowledge. There is no other kind of knowledge.

So you don't know how to ride a bicycle? I sure never learned that "by means of language"

[RCSaunders]

I do not doubt your experiences, if you say you have them.

Yet, your characterizations/explanations do not describe them. And then you say...

Experience of reality is all I'm interested in, and if that's a limitation, I'm delighted to be so limited. The general name for that limitation is sanity.

So, you're saying that your experience of reality is the sane experience. That's how you characterize and justify your limited views. If you don't see something, it doesn't exist or it's not sane? It could be said that your limited viewpoint is insane.

Can you honestly not even imagine that there is more than what you see and utilize, and it is sane?

Why would the Universe be so small that you can know its extent?

What makes you think there is any limit at all to my universe. Just because I do not jumble it all together like some undifferentiated mass, does not mean it excludes anything. The universe includes both the sane and insane. Sanity is discerning the difference.

[Age]

By the way, when you use the phrase 'linguistic knowledge' do you mean anything more than just language, itself?

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?

It is also referred to as intellectual knowledge. There is no other kind of knowledge.

So, to you, 'knowledge' is also referred to as 'intellectual knowledge', and that there is NO other kind of knowledge at all, correct?

If this is correct, then whenever you add a word before the 'knowledge' word, like for example, the 'linguistic' word, then really all you are saying and meaning is just 'knowledge' anyway, correct?

If no, then what are you trying to say, and mean?

So, again, is it just the knowledge learned through any particular 'language', which you are referring to here?

Yes, any language (not to be confused with meaningless grunts and signs such as those animals make).

Do not forget that 'you' are just an animal also, which just makes meaningless grunts and signs as well, to other animals.

Are you aware that those, to you, so called, "meaningless grunts and signs", that other animals have and use are NOT necessarily meaningless to them at all?

They, in fact, could be sharing very meaningful messages, to them, by means of their language.

Do you have any actual support for you claim that; "Human beings are the only organisms that can have and must have knowledge."

By the way, are you SURE a child KNOWS what the 'I' IS when they ask, for example, "May 'I' have a cookie?"

Unless a child is simply reciting a phrase it has been taught to repeat (like reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag, which almost no child understands--fortunately) I'm certain the child is using the word, "I," to indicate himself as the desired recipient of the cookie, else he would have said, "may my sister have a cookie," for example, if it was for someone else. Of course he knows what the work, "I," means.

So, this infers that you also KNOW what the 'I' means correct?

If this is correct, then what EXACTLY does the 'I' mean in that question; 'Who am 'I'?'

And, 'Who, actually, is the 'I'?'

If you are SURE children KNOW what the 'I' means, then WHY have adults NOT YET been able to answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?", properly and correct, even after this question has been around for thousands of years if not for centuries?

No one has that problem until some damn philosopher or academic has got a hold of him and screwed up his mind. If you use the word, "I," and do not know what you mean by the word, if you do not know what your own identity is, that is a personal psychological problem. It is not a deep philosophical problem, it is a kind self-induced existentialist psychosis.

Okay, so then this would infer that 'you' (whoever that is) would have absolutely NO problem at all in telling 'us' (whoever 'we' are) 'Who am 'I'?', correct?

If yes, then will 'you' tell 'us'?

I would suggest that other animals besides the human animal might well have a language, and thus a 'linguistic knowledge'. For example, when a baby lion 'whimpers', then an mother lion might know that its baby is 'hungry' and thus wants to be 'fed'. Therefore, a type of 'linguistic knowledge' is passed between them. Or, when a playful lion is playing with a sleeping father lion and the elder lion 'roars', then the younger lion might know that it is time to 'stop' doing what it is doing. Therefore, more 'knowledge' being passed from one animal onto another one of its species, through their 'language', or their 'linguistic knowledge'.

But, you may have a completely different definition of the term 'linguistic knowledge', which supports your belief that ONLY human beings have 'linguistic knowledge'. I await for your definition.

The whole answer would require my entire epistemology. If you are truly interested, and only as an introduction, see my article on this site, "Epistemology, Concepts," which introduces the nature of concepts by which all knowledge is held. The following is from the introductory notes to that article:

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.

If we are only talking about knowledge in reference to human beings ONLY, then, OBVIOUSLY, the word 'knowledge' refers to on the kind of knowledge possible to human beings.

I would have thought this 'would go, without saying', as they say.

By the way, your first seven words are contradictory to me in that, so called, "article" of yours. So, until this is CLARIFIED and CLEARED up, then I will NOT be able to understand the rest of what you wrote as proficient as I could.

Language is a system of symbols called words which stand for concepts.

Okay.

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.

If you say so.

Knowing a language means being able to think, read, write, ask questions, and understand verbal explanations in that language.

Okay, and if you do not understand a 'verbal explanation in that language', then by your "logic" here that then infers or means that you do not yet 'know that language', correct?

In your example, "... when a baby lion 'whimpers', then a mother lion might know that its baby is 'hungry' and thus wants to be 'fed,' the mother lion may respond to the baby's cries but that is an instinctive reacition, part of its automatic pattern of behavior, requiring no knowledge.

On who's part? The mother or the baby?

Which one is "reacting on its automatic pattern of behavior"?

And, how do you KNOW this?

I'm sure the mother lion has no idea why it reacts as it does, it only does it because it is how its nature makes it behave.

This could be said for human beings as well.

Most of the ones I know do NOT know WHY they react nor behave the way they do. They just do it, and 'try to" "justify" WHY they do it.

I'm sure the mother lion cannot think, "oh, the baby is crying, it must be hungry, I better feed it,"

How are you SURE of this?

By the way I am pretty sure that lions of any gender nor age think using english words nor in the english language as well. Nor, in fact, any of the other countless human being languages either.

But how do you KNOW mother lions do NOT think in their own, lion, language, "My baby is hungry now I better give it a feed"?

but a human mother has to learn what a baby's crying means,

Since WHEN did the human being animal, supposedly, HAVE TO learn what a baby's crying means BEFORE they reacted, or behaved in a particular way?

Why would have the human being animal have been created differently and in this way?

Obviously this could NOT have been a part of evolution because that would mean that language/knowledge evolved BEFORE the human animal did. Or, are you suggesting some thing else here?

and for those who do, even how to nurse their child, because they have no inbuilt atuomatic pattern of behavior.

This seems to contradict evolution in every way, shape, and form.

So, who was the FIRST 'one' who started teaching these behaviors to human beings.

And, I think you will find there is a LOT of evidence that human beings HAVE, so called, "inbuilt automatic pattern of behavior", like for example; crying when hungry or when uncomfortable. Or, can human babies only do this behavior AFTER they have "learned" this behavior?

Also, and by the way, how did human beings survive and evolve before when they did NOT have this 'kind of knowledge'?

Or do you think, or believe, that when human beings came into Existence that they also 'instantly' came with 'kind of knowledge', at the moment when they 'instantly' came into Existence?

No human being is born with any knowledge.

I agree wholeheartedly that NO human being is born, or is prior to birth, with thoughts, which is where the knowledge being talked about here is held, by means of language.

But, what will be soon 'learned' is that there is an actual type of knowledge that is inbuilt, or deeply ingrained, within human beings', themselves, which is, in the days of when this is being written, just NOT YET consciously known. It is a knowledge, which is yet to be learned, and thus known.

All knowledge must be discovered or learned from those who have discovered it.

This may well be true, including the knowledge that I am talking about and unwittingly uncovered.

EVERY animal has the 'inbuilt automatic pattern of behavior' to keep surviving, and it is this knowledge of right and wrong, which only human beings can and will be able to share, by means of language, and which will lead human beings to creating, and living in, a Truly peaceful 'world', which means 'to live successfully'?

I am not absolutely certain there was a, "first human being," but if there was, I have no more idea how that first human acquired knowledge than you do about where the first human being found a mate.

I am NOT sure AT ALL what this has to do with my question, which was and still is;
How did human beings survive and evolve before when they did NOT have this 'kind of knowledge'?

Also, are you aware that human beings ARE 'an animal'?

If yes, or no, then saying things like; " Humans have 'this', but animals do not need 'this' and cannot have 'this' ", is contradictory, absurd, and nonsensical?

Different animals cannot have different characteristics and still be animals? I see nothing wrong with referring to all other animals, in general, as animals, and specific animals, like humans or antelope, as having attributes animals in general do not have.

A nice ATTEMPT at deflection, but it does NOT work on me.

I think you will find that what I have consistently referred to non-human animals as, "other animals," or "all animals except for human beings." If you find I have referred to the other animals otherwise I'd like to know. I'll correct it.

This is what you ACTUALLY wrote, which triggered me to ask you the clarifying question that I did. You wrote:
It is that kind of knowledge that human beings cannot live without, but animals do not need and cannot have.

What can be CLEARLY SEEN is; this is NOT what you think you have "consistently referred to".

If you had left the actual quote of yours, which is the one that I was replying to, then, what you think will be found, can be CLEARLY SEEN will NOT BE.

And, if this gets corrected or now, then we will WAIT and SEE.

See the next quote, it's "except for human beings," isn't it?

The NEXT quote says that. BUT, the ACTUAL quote, which I was ACTUALLY replying to, did NOT say that, as it ACTUALLY said what it did say, which is WHY I asked you that very specific and ACTUAL CLARIFYING question.

Except for human beings, most animals are able to do everything their natures require them to do to live successfully, often within a few hours or days of their birth.

BUT, to me, human beings also are able to EVERY thing their nature requires them to do to live successfully. If this did not occur, then human beings would be doing what is UN-natural.

Human being are NOT 'unnatural', 'above nature', NOR 'beyond nature'. Absolutely EVERY thing human beings do IS 'natural'.

Although, at times, this OBVIOUSLY appears to be completely and utterly NOT True, WRONG, and INCORRECT.

They are able to walk, run, fly or swim, perform their biological functions, find and acquire the kind of food they must eat, prepare whatever shelter they need, mate and raise their young. Human beings are born unable to do anything their nature requires them to do to live as human beings and it will take years of learning to be able to live as a human being.

The CONTRADICTION of this SPEAKS VOLUMES, well to me anyway.

The VERY 'NATURE' of being 'human' is to be UNABLE to do, accomplish, and achieve things WITHOUT "others".

The VERY REASON of being born so vulnerable and NEEDY of "others" is to HIGHLIGHT the very FACT that the VERY 'NATURE' of being a 'human being' is to care for, protect, and guide "others", ourselves. In other words, the VERY 'NATURE' of being 'human' is to LOVE 'one another' as one's Self.

This is SO, eventually, human beings will live SUCCESSFULLY in peace AND in harmony with one "another", as One.

The very 'nature' of the human being is to work together in order to create and achieve 'that' what is Truly WANTED, by ALL, which is to just create and live in 'world peace'.

Really?

Yes.

You must live in a totally different world from mine with a totally different species of human beings.

This all depends on EXACTLY how we want to look at and see things.

This can be argued against AND argued for.

But first we will need to know how you are defining the words 'you', 'must' 'world', 'mine', and 'human beings' here BEFORE I tell 'you' what thee actual Truth IS.

If I were to attribute human behavior to human nature it would be the opposite of yours.

But where, how, and what have I, supposedly, "attributed human 'behavior' to human nature", which you say you would attribute in the opposite?

See, you have NOT YET learned how I define words, so you do NOT YET KNOW how I attribute 'what' to 'what'. For starters you have CLEARLY completely and utterly misconstrued and misinterpreted my view of human behavior, which then distorts the rest.

I would have to go by what human beings actually do, not what I think they should do.

Well I have NEVER gone by what I think 'you', human beings, 'should' do. So, what you said here has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 'me'.

Most of human history is a history of war, oppression, cruelty, slavery, murder, and harming others.

I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY that the more studied and looked at human beings, up to the days of when this is being written, have a history of war, oppression, cruelty, slavery, murder, and harming "others".

If it were human nature to love others, why don't they?

Are you suggesting that you do NOT love "another"?

If yes, then WHY do you NOT love "others"?

But if no, then do you ONLY love "others" because you learned to?

Are you suggesting that 'your', human, nature is to hate "others"?

Unlike all other animals human being's nature does not provide them with the kind of automatic behavior that assures their survival, because they must consciously choose what they do, which is why they need knowledge of how they must live if they are to live successfully.

How does a new born baby 'consciously' 'choose' what they do?

If you REALLY WANT to delve into this FULLY, in order to discover and/or learn thee actual Truth, then you NEED to be prepared to. So, do you REALLY WANT to look into this as far as possible, or, do you believe that you ALREADY KNOW what the truth is and you are happy to remain with that?

Also, stating things like: "How they 'must' live", in reference to human beings, can be seen as a very; "This is how I think human beings 'should' live" mentality or attitude.

The state of the world as you see it is because most of the human race has failed to do the one thing absolutely necessary to their success as human beings, which is to learn all the possibly can.

There is an infinite Universe and infinite lifetime laying before 'you', human beings. How do you expect human beings at any point along that eternal lifetime to obtain and learn ALL they possibly can.

If the speed of human beings ability to learn and understand new and more things is NOT fast enough for you, at the time of when this is being written,
then I am NOT sure that you will ever be happy or satisfied with human beings ability or success at any particular point in their lifetime.

First things first. Human beings have HAD TO learn ALL of the WRONG, which they have, at the times of when this is being written, for a very specific reason. Once they learn and "reason", or "justify", ALL of the WRONG doing, which ALL adults do, which causes their downfall, then they will get to a specific point of being on their "last legs", as they say, then, and ONLY THEN, human beings, collectively, will begin to SEE that A CHANGE is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, and then, and ONLY THEN, will they then BEGIN THE CHANGE, for the better, which then leads on to the learning of ALL they possibly can in order to live successfully, that is; in 'world peace'.

You OBVIOUSLY do NOT YET KNOW ALL that you possibly can. So, WHY do you EXPECT "others" to?

Things happen for a reason, and there is a process that is needed to occur BEFORE 'living successfully' or 'world peace' can begin to take shape.

By the way there is NO rush, as the WRONG which is being learned over thousands upon thousands of years can be quickly overruled by the RIGHT within just a generation or two. This is because what IS RIGHT is the natural part of Nature, Itself, which is OBVIOUSLY the inbuilt and ingrained Knowledge with the human being. Whereas, what is WRONG is just the knowledge learned along the way by the species human being.

See, just as the human species came into being, through evolution, from other species, so to will the human species leave, and evolve into the next stage of evolutionary line.

What kind of world do you expect, if everyone in it is ignorant, incompetent, unable to do more than barely sustain their own life.

I expect you will HAVE the actual 'world' that you are living in now, when this is being written.

How much can anyone do for anyone else if they cannot even feed and cloth themselves without victimizing someone else (like every welfare recipient).

What do 'clothes', 'welfare', and/or 'welfare recipients' have to do with 'living successfully or 'world peace'?

It is BECAUSE 'you', people, continually WANT more 'money' that there are 'victims'.

'Greed' or the 'love-of-money' is the third root to ALL of your "problems" or issues that you have in that 'world', in the days of when this is being written.

There is nothing your life requires you can have or do without knowledge.

What 'knowledge' where 'you' born with?

Exactly what I wrote and you apparently conveniently forgot:

But there is nothing in this next quote of yours, which ANSWERS the question: What 'knowledge' were 'you' born with?

Except for human beings, most animals are able to do everything their natures require them to do to live successfully, often within a few hours or days of their birth. They are able to walk, run, fly or swim, perform their biological functions, find and acquire the kind of food they must eat, prepare whatever shelter they need, mate and raise their young. Human beings are born unable to do anything their nature requires them to do to live as human beings and it will take years of learning to be able to live as a human being.

There is nothing your life requires you can have or do without knowledge. When you are first born it is not your own knowledge that keeps you alive, fed, clothed, sheltered, and safe from the dangers of life, it is the knowledge of those who choose to love and nurture you, but it is still their knowledge of how to provide those things that make your young life possible. As you grow older, more and more of the things your life requires will depend on the knowledge you gain as you grow and mature. By the time you are an adult, most of how you live will depend on your own knowledge.

Without knowledge no choice would be possible.

So, BEFORE a child obtains 'linguistic knowledge' are you proposing that they ARE 'deterministic' in nature, but AFTER they obtain 'linguistic knowledge', then only then they gain the ability to choose, or in other words; have 'free will'?

I do not use the expression, "free will," because it is a loaded concept reeking of theological nonsense.

If this is what you BELIEVE is true, then it MUST BE true, correct?

Volition is that attribute that makes it possible and necessary for humans to consciously choose all their behavior which can be chosen (which is everything not controlled by the autonomic nervous system or their biology).

There is no volition before knowledge, but before knowledge a child's behavior consists almost entirely of reflexes, biological functions, and random undifferentiated behavior. No choice is possible until one is able to be conscious of alternatives.

Is the relatively newly born human baby conscious of alternatives to say, for example, roll one way other than the other way?

Also, WHY do you believe that only the human being animal is conscious of alternatives, and thus only they have choice?

And, are you even AWARE that what you eventually want to end up arguing for is NEVER going to be achieved in the way that you are going about here, which, by the way, you are going this way solely because of the knowledge, which you have learned, and gained along the way'?

Instead of making what I said "even simpler" what appears here now is you have added layers upon layers of explaining to do. I suggested that; the ability to learn, understand, and reason, absolutely any, and every, thing is what separates the animal 'human being' from every other animal.

That's fine.

Okay. If it is fine for you to ADD layers upon layers of explaining, where NONE is needed, then so be it. But, I just wonder; Are you prepared to explain ALL of what you NEED to?

By the way, are you SURE a child

A human being must consciously choose everything, but without knowledge of what there is to choose, what the possible consequences of any choice might be, or why one choice is preferred to another, choice is impossible.

So, to you a human baby who is born deaf and blind, and therefore has not yet obtained 'linguistic knowledge' is NOT able to choose between crawling in 'this' direction from crawling in 'that' direction, correct?

Why do you complain about my explanations but keep asking questions that require them?

Because I ALREADY KNOW what thee outcome WILL BE, and IS, and therefore I am just CLARIFYING if you are on the same RIGHT projectory.

Also, WHY did you make some ASSUMPTION that I "complain" about your explanations? Me asking you to explain your views or beliefs is NOT necessarily me complaining at all about your previous explanation, view, nor belief. I am just curious to SEE what you actually HAVE and KNOW.

If 'you', or any "other" 'one', wants to CLAIM some thing, then as I say; I suggest that BEFORE you make a claim that you, at least, have some thing, which backs up and supports your claim.

By the way, your question here only detracted from the very fact that you still did NOT answer my CLARIFYING question.

Before a child can make a conscious choice, it's behavior is determined entirely by whatever impulses influence it. Not until the child is able to identify there are differences in the consequences of its behavior is it able to make choices. That is why it must have knowledge.

ALL of this can be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY explained, and understood, through just two words; 'reaction' and 'behavior'. These two distinguish between whether learned knowledge has been obtained or not.

Also, and by the way, 'learned knowledge' is distinct from Knowing or Knowledge.

But there is a far bit more that NEEDS to be learned and understood, BEFORE this gets FULLY understood.

To you, that choice is just IMPOSSIBLE, correct?

It's just that it's not a choice. There was no alternative.

But there was. In fact there may be countless other alternatives. Unless of course you believe in determinism, wholeheartedly.

The child just did whatever it felt like, just as any other kind of animal.

Okay.

So, when EXACTLY does this just like any other kind of 'animal', human child, miraculously turn into the ONLY 'organism', the human being, which CAN HAVE and also 'MUST HAVE' 'knowledge', which you claim is; How human beings are different with other species?

To me, EVERY human being has 'free will' AND IS 'deterministic', by 'nature'. This is ALL pre-determined by the past experiences. Adult human beings are FREE to choose whatever they like, BUT, they can ONLY choose from the thoughts within the head. The pre-existing thoughts is 'knowledge', and this knowledge is depended upon, or determined by, the past experiences of that body.

But knowledge being the means to every choice and the only means to making the right ones has not much at all to do with the fact that it could be argued animals, if not all animals, have some sort of 'knowledge'.

I really don't care if you believe that, but it is very dangerous.

But I do NOT believe 'that'.

Also, what is 'that', which you think or believe I believe? And, how is 'it', supposedly, "very dangerous"?

You choose what you do,

I think this is a given.

and claiming any other than your choice determines what you do does not relieve you of the responsibility for your choices or the consequences of them. Nothing makes you do anything but your own conscious choice.

Okay, if you say so, but what has any of this got to do with your claim that the human being is the ONLY organism that 'can have' and 'MUST HAVE' knowledge?

By the way, how do you KNOW when you have made the, so called, "right" choice?

The rest is just the same questions asked in different fashion.

Okay, this is what you think.

I have no idea why so many people despise knowledge, but it is obvious you do.

I do NOT know of ANY one who "despises" knowledge, which includes 'me'. So, WHY did you make this ASSUMPTION and then 'jump to the conclusion' that it could even be true, let alone that it is actually true?

If I could encourage people to do what could truly benefit them and make their lives worth living, there is one thing I would do if I could, so all human beings could truly live together in peace and mutual benefit to one another, it would be to instill an insatiable desire for knowledge in everyone.

But this 'insatiable desire for knowledge' is ALREADY within EVERY human being.

EVERY human being is born with this 'insatiable desire', which, by the way, is just having the love-of-learning, or the love-of-becoming wiser, which is WHY I say EVERY human being is born a naturally True philosopher. Being born with an 'insatiable desire for knowledge' or just with the 'love-of-wisdom' sadly though can all to quickly diminish, and become left completely unnoticed and unrecognized. Although the 'desire for knowledge' is ALWAYS there within is just gets overruled or over trodden and just forgotten about. But, this is just because of how the amazing brain and the Mind actually work, which when FULLY understood, explains HOW and WHY the 'insatiable desire for knowledge' becomes replaced.

What WILL BECOME CLEARLY SEEN and NOTICED, from your own writings, is just HOW the 'insatiable desire for knowledge', within 'you', was ALSO forgotten/ignored AND replaced, just like what has happened to EVERY other adult human being, in the days of when this is being written.

Ignorance is like a darkness that prevents every individual affected with it from seeing what is possible and right, and being able to achieve it.

Okay. But OBVIOUSLY EVERY one is ignorant of 'that' what they do NOT YET KNOW.

You write the above as though there is some thing WRONG with being 'ignorant'.

Obviously 'you', "rcsaunders", can NOT YET see what is possible and right also, and so you are NOT YET able to achieving 'it' as well. Unless of course this is not true and you are just holding back from sharing this 'knowledge' with us?

EVERY human being is born in PURE 'ignorance' of learned knowledge. For example, if you do NOT YET KNOW the answer to the question:
'What is the answer to the question; What is the solution, which will solve ALL of our problems?', then you OBVIOUSLY are ignorant of HOW can you YET solve ALL of your problems.

Why do so many people want to promote darkness and the inevitable evil that results from it?

Well you have CERTAINLY twisted and completely distorted what I have actually been saying, and meaning, and have created a completely 'darkened' perspective of the view and the light, which I was trying to shine here.

Maybe if you just read what I actually write, and STOP assuming or thinking that I am saying some thing else, then you might gain a much bigger and brighter perspective of what I am actually conveying?

We will just have to wait and SEE.

[Belinda]

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.

[RCSaunders]

By the way, when you use the phrase 'linguistic knowledge' do you mean anything more than just language, itself?

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

When you use the word knowledge it does not mean what I mean by knowledge. You don't have to use what I mean. It is not possible for any non-human animal to have epistemological knowledge. If you had read my article, "Epistemology, Concepts," which I referred to, you would have known that and not asked me what I meant. 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. 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.

[RCSaunders]

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.

[Belinda]

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.

[RCSaunders]

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.

No animal can make that argument. What makes it possible for you to make it is your unique human mind. 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.

[Belinda]

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

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?

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

[surreptitious57]

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

[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" ? 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?

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.

[RCSaunders]

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

No animal can make that argument. What makes it possible for you to make it is your unique human mind. 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.

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.

[Belinda]

No animal can make that argument. What makes it possible for you to make it is your unique human mind. 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.

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.

[surreptitious57]

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