How are humans different with other species?

[Age]

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.

ONCE AGAIN you speak like the human being is NOT just another animal.

The 'you', referred to here, IS 'an(other) animal'.

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.

So, are you suggesting/claiming that the human being animal is the only animal with a, so called, "human mind"?

Or, are you suggesting/claiming that the human being animal is the only animal with a, so called, "mind"?

Or, are you suggesting/claiming both or something else?

If you are suggesting/claiming something else, then what is 'that' exactly?

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.

To you, either human beings are not animals, or, if they are animals, then they do not have "minds". So, which one is it?

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.

All sounds very convoluted and confusing.

Why do you propose/claim that some animals have volition, intellect, and rationality but others do not? Or, are you now proposing/claiming that human beings are not animals? You do write very contradictory.

Are you 100% absolutely sure that non human being animals do not have some degree of volition, intellect, nor rationality AT ALL?

If you are, then what support, evidence, and/or proof do you have for this sureness?

Now I can only speak for myself and others who have minds and know it.

Ah I see what is happening here. You can only, supposedly, speak for those who have the exact same view/belief that you have here, correct?

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.

This is one clear and obvious way of turning one's inability to explain what they believe is true, onto "another", as though the "other" is somehow wrong, or is doing something wrong. I am pretty sure that there would already be a label for this type of behaving/thinking/fallacy, which I am yet aware of.

[Age]

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.

But how do you KNOW that this is "true"?

You just got through claiming that it is impossible to observe the actual conscious processes of any animal, including the human being animal, yet then claim that it is not possible for non-human animals to have a concept of the past nor future.

If, as you supposedly claim, it is impossible for you to observe the actual conscious process of any other animal, then how do you supposedly KNOW what concepts they have or do not have?

Also, do some animals, besides the human being animal, gather and collect food, for the winter?

If yes, then is this not 'making plans for the future', from your perspective?

[Age]

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.

Just because human beings might be the most intelligent thing does not dismiss the fact that they can also be the most stupidest of things, at times, as well.

[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.

Just because human beings might be the most intelligent thing does not dismiss the fact that they can also be the most stupidest of things, at times, as well.

Correct! and if one is stupid for too long, well, there goes the neighborhood! The future of civilization depends on who wins the feud between intelligence and stupidity. Less intelligent animals don't have that problem since they're not stupid enough to harm themselves. Stupidity amounts to a kind of perverse intelligence.

[Age]

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.

Just because human beings might be the most intelligent thing does not dismiss the fact that they can also be the most stupidest of things, at times, as well.

Correct! and if one is stupid for too long, well, there goes the neighborhood!

Agree wholeheartedly.

The future of civilization depends on who wins the feud between intelligence and stupidity.

But is it a case of 'who' wins between intelligence and stupidity, as EVERY adult does some intelligent and some stupid things, some times?

Is it not more of a case that if adults just STOPPED doing the stupid things and only did intelligent things instead, then we ALL would 'win'?

Less intelligent animals don't have that problem since they're not stupid enough to harm themselves. Stupidity amounts to a kind of perverse intelligence.

Most of human stupidity just revolves around greed, and gaining instant gratification. Instead of just waiting patiently, and working on achieving what one Truly wants, and thus THEN receiving what one Truly desires, adults are brought up expecting to get what they want, 'now'. And, this 'expecting to get what one wants now' is growing at an exponential rate. But understanding how greed and instant gratification came into "play" and is growing exponentially explains WHY this came to be, and with this knowledge, fortunately, comes the knowledge of HOW to eradicate them completely as well, which will then save and heal the neighborhood, for good.

[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.

ONCE AGAIN you speak like the human being is NOT just another animal.

The 'you', referred to here, IS 'an(other) animal'.

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.

So, are you suggesting/claiming that the human being animal is the only animal with a, so called, "human mind"?

Or, are you suggesting/claiming that the human being animal is the only animal with a, so called, "mind"?

Or, are you suggesting/claiming both or something else?

If you are suggesting/claiming something else, then what is 'that' exactly?

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.

To you, either human beings are not animals, or, if they are animals, then they do not have "minds". So, which one is it?

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.

All sounds very convoluted and confusing.

Why do you propose/claim that some animals have volition, intellect, and rationality but others do not? Or, are you now proposing/claiming that human beings are not animals? You do write very contradictory.

Are you 100% absolutely sure that non human being animals do not have some degree of volition, intellect, nor rationality AT ALL?

If you are, then what support, evidence, and/or proof do you have for this sureness?

Now I can only speak for myself and others who have minds and know it.

Ah I see what is happening here. You can only, supposedly, speak for those who have the exact same view/belief that you have here, correct?

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.

This is one clear and obvious way of turning one's inability to explain what they believe is true, onto "another", as though the "other" is somehow wrong, or is doing something wrong. I am pretty sure that there would already be a label for this type of behaving/thinking/fallacy, which I am yet aware of.

For goodness sakes, you don't have to agree with me about anything. I'm only explaining what I know and how I know it, not trying to convince you or anyone else to change what you think. I'm even interested in what you believe because I'm always ready learn new things, but I'm not interested in a debate, because there is nothing to win.

[RCSaunders]

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.

But how do you KNOW that this is "true"?

How can you not know it. Certainly you know that the word, "concept," in epistemology refers to that which is verbally identified, which requires a verbal language. Since no animal has a verbal language, no animal can have any concept, much less concepts of past or future.

By verbal language I do not mean disconnected grunts, whines, barks, and other animal vocalizations, I mean actual human language. From, "Epistemology, Concepts:"

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.

That doesn't have to be your understanding of concepts, but it is mine. Obviously I'm going to explain things in terms of what I know, not what someone else thinks, but I have no objection to anyone else thinking differently. I'm only explaining what I mean.

[RCSaunders]

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

I do not prefer to refer to human being as just, "animals," because in common language the term is used to imply something vicious or uncivilized about someone. (He's worse than animal.) Sorry for that linguistic nicety.

However I am careful to use the phrase, non-human animals when referring other animals to them use the word organisms when referring to all living things, plants, animals, and human being.

Of course human beings are animalia. They are also chordates, mammals, primates, and haplorhines.
Human beings are also organisms which includes the plants and procaryotes. If you are going to accuse me of denying human beings are animals because I don't use that term, you'll have to accuse me of denying human beings are alive, because I don't generally refer to them as organisms.

What is the 'mind'?

What is the 'human mind'?

There are only human minds. The mind is what differentiates human beings from all other organisms.

In spite of the fact that I doubt the ingenuousness of your question, if you really want to know what the mind is, I've already addressed that question: "What Is The Mind?"

[Age]

It is unique in the fact that you have one, and the animals don't.

ONCE AGAIN you speak like the human being is NOT just another animal.

The 'you', referred to here, IS 'an(other) animal'.

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.

So, are you suggesting/claiming that the human being animal is the only animal with a, so called, "human mind"?

Or, are you suggesting/claiming that the human being animal is the only animal with a, so called, "mind"?

Or, are you suggesting/claiming both or something else?

If you are suggesting/claiming something else, then what is 'that' exactly?

Animals do not have minds.

To you, either human beings are not animals, or, if they are animals, then they do not have "minds". So, which one is it?

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.

All sounds very convoluted and confusing.

Why do you propose/claim that some animals have volition, intellect, and rationality but others do not? Or, are you now proposing/claiming that human beings are not animals? You do write very contradictory.

Are you 100% absolutely sure that non human being animals do not have some degree of volition, intellect, nor rationality AT ALL?

If you are, then what support, evidence, and/or proof do you have for this sureness?

Now I can only speak for myself and others who have minds and know it.

Ah I see what is happening here. You can only, supposedly, speak for those who have the exact same view/belief that you have here, correct?

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.

This is one clear and obvious way of turning one's inability to explain what they believe is true, onto "another", as though the "other" is somehow wrong, or is doing something wrong. I am pretty sure that there would already be a label for this type of behaving/thinking/fallacy, which I am yet aware of.

For goodness sakes, you don't have to agree with me about anything.

I NEVER thought that I had to.

I'm only explaining what I know and how I know it,

What you are saying is just what you think, or believe, you know.

And, I do not recall you explaining HOW you "know" it.

Also, by not answering my clarifying questions, you are NOT explaining how you know, what you think you know.

not trying to convince you or anyone else to change what you think.

Okay. I also am not trying to convince any one of any thing. I do not even want to convince any one of any thing. I just suggest that if some one is going to make a claim then it is better that they have at least some thing to back up and support their claim BEFORE they make the claim, itself.

I also would like to be challenged on what I claim and asked clarifying questions in regards to what I say BEFORE any assumptions are made.

I'm even interested in what you believe because I'm always ready learn new things, but I'm not interested in a debate, because there is nothing to win.

How many times do I have to repeat, I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY THING, before this most simple of sayings becomes understood?

I would have to believe some thing BEFORE you could even become interested in what I believe.
I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY THING.
Therefore, there is NOTHING for you to be even interested in here.

If you REALLY want to learn new things, then learn that I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY THING, first.

Once you learn this, then, hopefully, you will learn that I also DO NOT DO DEBATE.

[Age]

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.

But how do you KNOW that this is "true"?

How can you not know it. Certainly you know that the word, "concept," in epistemology refers to that which is verbally identified, which requires a verbal language.

And certainly you know that EVERY word, in epistemology refers to that which is verbally identified, which requires a verbal language, correct?

Since no animal has a verbal language, no animal can have any concept, much less concepts of past or future.

Once again, you are portraying that human beings are NOT an animal. If, as you claim here, "no animal has a verbal language", then this would mean that human beings do not have a verbal language.

Now, I am NOT aware of any other animal, other than the human being animal, that has a verbal language which can be understood by human beings, except of course for some birds.

Also, besides the human being animal there might be other animals which have 'concepts' of past and/or of future, but just not in the myriad of countless verbal languages that human beings have used.

By verbal language I do not mean disconnected grunts, whines, barks, and other animal vocalizations, I mean actual human language. From, "Epistemology, Concepts:"

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.

We have gone through this already, and I have provided my responses already.

Also, WHY do you always refer things here back to "in epistemology"? If, and when, we are referring to the non human animals I find it pointless to talk about 'that', which only human beings have.

This thread asked the question; "How are humans different with other species?"

Our discussion came about because you said; "human beings are the only organisms that can have and must have knowledge." You already cleared this up saying that when you say 'knowledge' here you just mean 'epistemological knowledge', which is just something that only human beings can have anyway. So that has been resolved.

That doesn't have to be your understanding of concepts, but it is mine. Obviously I'm going to explain things in terms of what I know, not what someone else thinks, but I have no objection to anyone else thinking differently. I'm only explaining what I mean.

Okay. So, once again, what you are essentially saying is human beings are different from all the other animals because the languages, and knowledge, which other animals have and use are not yet fully understandable by human beings, correct?

[Age]

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

I do not prefer to refer to human being as just, "animals," because in common language the term is used to imply something vicious or uncivilized about someone. (He's worse than animal.) Sorry for that linguistic nicety.

But WHY is what is thee actual Truth of things used, by 'you', human beings, to imply something vicious or uncivilized about someone?

How could what is essentially thee Truth be logically used to convey a message, which is essentially untrue?

Who would even accept an untruth as being true, anyway? And, who, besides a child, would even let what is obviously completely untrue affect them anyway?

Also, you do NOT 'have to' refer to human beings as just "animals". But it helps EVERY one if, and when, you speak thee Truth only.

However I am careful to use the phrase, non-human animals when referring other animals to them use the word organisms when referring to all living things, plants, animals, and human being.

But you have NOT been to careful at all, especially considering how many times I have actually pointed out that you are NOT expressing your phrases properly and correctly, nor 'carefully'.

Of course human beings are animalia. They are also chordates, mammals, primates, and haplorhines.
Human beings are also organisms which includes the plants and procaryotes. If you are going to accuse me of denying human beings are animals because I don't use that term, you'll have to accuse me of denying human beings are alive, because I don't generally refer to them as organisms.

But I am NOT 'accusing' you of anything. I am just pointing out how you are writing like human beings are not animals. I just point this out to you because I would always like to have the way I wrongly write pointed out to me, as well.

Now, just because you write in a particular way does NOT mean that that is what you actually mean, nor meant. Only 'you' can clarify what you actually mean, or meant.

What is the 'mind'?

What is the 'human mind'?

There are only human minds. The mind is what differentiates human beings from all other organisms.

If I recall correctly, what else I also asked you here for clarification was; Are these mind thing/s unique to each and every human being or only to human beings, themselves?

In spite of the fact that I doubt the ingenuousness of your question, if you really want to know what the mind is, I've already addressed that question: "What Is The Mind?"

But WHY would you doubt the ingenuousness of ANY of my questions?

If people want to say things and/or make claims, then I sincerely and genuinely want to know what they are actually saying, proposing, and actually MEANING.

By the way what you wrote in that link is just plain WRONG.

[RCSaunders]

Okay. So, once again, what you are essentially saying is human beings are different from all the other animals because the languages, and knowledge, which other animals have and use are not yet fully understandable by human beings, correct?

No!

[RCSaunders]

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

I do not prefer to refer to human being as just, "animals," because in common language the term is used to imply something vicious or uncivilized about someone. (He's worse than animal.) Sorry for that linguistic nicety.

But WHY is what is thee actual Truth of things used, by 'you', human beings, to imply something vicious or uncivilized about someone?

How could what is essentially thee Truth be logically used to convey a message, which is essentially untrue?

Who would even accept an untruth as being true, anyway? And, who, besides a child, would even let what is obviously completely untrue affect them anyway?

Also, you do NOT 'have to' refer to human beings as just "animals". But it helps EVERY one if, and when, you speak thee Truth only.

However I am careful to use the phrase, non-human animals when referring other animals to them use the word organisms when referring to all living things, plants, animals, and human being.

But you have NOT been to careful at all, especially considering how many times I have actually pointed out that you are NOT expressing your phrases properly and correctly, nor 'carefully'.

Of course human beings are animalia. They are also chordates, mammals, primates, and haplorhines.
Human beings are also organisms which includes the plants and procaryotes. If you are going to accuse me of denying human beings are animals because I don't use that term, you'll have to accuse me of denying human beings are alive, because I don't generally refer to them as organisms.

But I am NOT 'accusing' you of anything. I am just pointing out how you are writing like human beings are not animals. I just point this out to you because I would always like to have the way I wrongly write pointed out to me, as well.

Now, just because you write in a particular way does NOT mean that that is what you actually mean, nor meant. Only 'you' can clarify what you actually mean, or meant.

What is the 'mind'?

What is the 'human mind'?

There are only human minds. The mind is what differentiates human beings from all other organisms.

If I recall correctly, what else I also asked you here for clarification was; Are these mind thing/s unique to each and every human being or only to human beings, themselves?

In spite of the fact that I doubt the ingenuousness of your question, if you really want to know what the mind is, I've already addressed that question: "What Is The Mind?"

But WHY would you doubt the ingenuousness of ANY of my questions?

If people want to say things and/or make claims, then I sincerely and genuinely want to know what they are actually saying, proposing, and actually MEANING.

By the way what you wrote in that link is just plain WRONG.

I don't suppose you'd care to explain what's wrong with it.

[Dubious]

But is it a case of 'who' wins between intelligence and stupidity, as EVERY adult does some intelligent and some stupid things, some times?
Is it not more of a case that if adults just STOPPED doing the stupid things and only did intelligent things instead, then we ALL would 'win'?

I was making the assumption of stupidity as operating on a collective not individual basis because it's true, no matter how smart one is, amassing an inventory of stupidities during life is a given. These only affect you and yours. But as public domain defect which never seems to correct itself it's influence on the planet and everything living on it has ramifications in the process of becoming deadly. By "neighborhood" I meant the planet.

Most of human stupidity just revolves around greed, and gaining instant gratification. Instead of just waiting patiently, and working on achieving what one Truly wants, and thus THEN receiving what one Truly desires, adults are brought up expecting to get what they want, 'now'. And, this 'expecting to get what one wants now' is growing at an exponential rate. But understanding how greed and instant gratification came into "play" and is growing exponentially explains WHY this came to be, and with this knowledge, fortunately, comes the knowledge of HOW to eradicate them completely as well, which will then save and heal the neighborhood, for good.

I don't think the damage inflicted across the board can ever be made retroactive or eradicated. In fact climate scientists have already stated as much. The main reason for our downward spiral is that the expediences of economics trump the requirements and maintenance of the environment in every way. The stark stupidity embedded in the system we have is that in the process we're vastly short-changing the future for affluence in the present which is expected to keep growing per annum. At the same time prosperity affects only a few compared to the number of people living. The "principles" of economics are meant to operate like a cancer. Its consequences are visible across the neighborhood.

[Age]

I do not prefer to refer to human being as just, "animals," because in common language the term is used to imply something vicious or uncivilized about someone. (He's worse than animal.) Sorry for that linguistic nicety.

But WHY is what is thee actual Truth of things used, by 'you', human beings, to imply something vicious or uncivilized about someone?

How could what is essentially thee Truth be logically used to convey a message, which is essentially untrue?

Who would even accept an untruth as being true, anyway? And, who, besides a child, would even let what is obviously completely untrue affect them anyway?

Also, you do NOT 'have to' refer to human beings as just "animals". But it helps EVERY one if, and when, you speak thee Truth only.

However I am careful to use the phrase, non-human animals when referring other animals to them use the word organisms when referring to all living things, plants, animals, and human being.

But you have NOT been to careful at all, especially considering how many times I have actually pointed out that you are NOT expressing your phrases properly and correctly, nor 'carefully'.

Of course human beings are animalia. They are also chordates, mammals, primates, and haplorhines.
Human beings are also organisms which includes the plants and procaryotes. If you are going to accuse me of denying human beings are animals because I don't use that term, you'll have to accuse me of denying human beings are alive, because I don't generally refer to them as organisms.

But I am NOT 'accusing' you of anything. I am just pointing out how you are writing like human beings are not animals. I just point this out to you because I would always like to have the way I wrongly write pointed out to me, as well.

Now, just because you write in a particular way does NOT mean that that is what you actually mean, nor meant. Only 'you' can clarify what you actually mean, or meant.

There are only human minds. The mind is what differentiates human beings from all other organisms.

If I recall correctly, what else I also asked you here for clarification was; Are these mind thing/s unique to each and every human being or only to human beings, themselves?

In spite of the fact that I doubt the ingenuousness of your question, if you really want to know what the mind is, I've already addressed that question: "What Is The Mind?"

But WHY would you doubt the ingenuousness of ANY of my questions?

If people want to say things and/or make claims, then I sincerely and genuinely want to know what they are actually saying, proposing, and actually MEANING.

By the way what you wrote in that link is just plain WRONG.

I don't suppose you'd care to explain what's wrong with it.

WHY do you NOT suppose this?

WHY would you presuppose such a thing?

Your understanding of 'mind' does not have to be my understanding, and vice-versa. Yours is yours and mine is mine. Obviously I am going to observe things in terms of what I know, and from a Truly OPEN perspective, and not in what someone else thinks, but I have no objection to any one thinking differently. I am only saying what I mean.