What Sets Humans Apart?

[d.]

Language- we are just not starting to decypher bird, dolphin, and elephant language. Animals have that.

Tools- chimpanzees make them too.

exactly. writing is unique to humans, though it could be sorted under 'language' or even 'tools' for that matter.

 

[Yerda]

Art. Humans are the only animals that create art, and look at art. Other animals use colour for food, like those gorrillas they trained to fingerpaint. Others use colours to find a mate. But that isn't art.

Chimps and elephants both paint when given the opportunity. Personally I haven't seen any trait in humans that has no precursor or analogue elsewhere in nature.

 

[Aqualung]

By the definition of art, what you claimed it was in invalid.... I looked at 3 dictionaries. Not there.......only the definitions that I listed and the bird met.

What? Since when did I agree to use those definitions? I use "art" because I have no better word for it, so you'll pretty much have to deal with my impresice language. :no:

Children go through a set of very PREDICTABLE set of artistic steps, rewarded or not..... the bird that makes and decorates it's nest and never gets a mate continues to do so anyways....... all of those birds do so and not in a research enviornment nor being rewarded. It is predictable and it is "inherent" in that bird and not through training and rewards either.........

These birds, however, just do it to get the mate. Humans do it for the sake of doing it. One could say that getting the mate IS the reward, like the little food pebbles they probably gave the chimps. Humans just do it to do it.

 

[Aqualung]

Chimps and elephants both paint when given the oppportunity. Personally I haven't seen any trait in humans that has no precursor or analogue elsewhere in nature.

They paint, but they don't create art. (Art by my definition, which I defined earlier on.)

 

[Yerda]

Humans just do it to do it.

And you're positive of this?

 

[Sunstone]

Although writing, narrowly looked at, is indeed unique to humans, when looked at more broadly, it is clearly a form of communication, and communication is not at all unique to humans.

Perhaps one thing that is unique to humans is the creation of buildings? Or is there a clear precursor to that behavior in nest making? After all, both buildings and nests are for shelter.

 

[Aqualung]

And you're positive of this?

Absolutely 100%. Of course, some continue in their persuit of art because society has seen that they were good at it, and they can get some value out of it. Others discontinue their progress because society has deemed them bad and they don't want to continue. But that is society's influence on something that was inherent to begin with, and something that is uniquely human.

 

[Aqualung]

Perhaps one thing that is unique to humans is the creation of buildings? Or is there a clear precursor to that behavior in nest making? After all, both buildings and nests are for shelter.

Or beavers... Or trapdoor spiders (ick)... Or ants...

 

[Sunstone]

These birds, however, just do it to get the mate. Humans do it for the sake of doing it. One could say that getting the mate IS the reward, like the little food pebbles they probably gave the chimps. Humans just do it to do it.

Even assuming that is a valid distinction, what difference does motive make? If we are looking for radical differences between humans and other species, just how radical is a slight difference in motive anyway? The fact that bonobo express art seems more meaningful than why they express art.

 

[Yerda]

Absolutely 100%.

I'm not. I can't say with any certainty but I tend to opt for a genetic basis for such behaviour, and an evolutionary 'reason' for its emergence. I'd say exactly the same about animal 'art'. Artists get laid.

 

[Aqualung]

Even assuming that is a valid distinction, what difference does motive make? If we are looking for radical differences between humans and other species, just how radical is a slight difference in motive anyway? The fact that bonobo express art seems more meaningful than why they express art.

It makes a difference because of what I defined art to be - art simply for art's sake, not for the sake of having sex.

A slight difference in motive is everything, since motive was what I used to define art in the first place.

 

[Aqualung]

I'm not. I can't say with any certainty but I tend to opt for a genetic basis for such behaviour, and an evolutionary 'reason' for its emergence. I'd say exactly the same about animal 'art'. Artists get laid.

I never got laid.

 

[Comet]

What? Since when did I agree to use those definitions? I use "art" because I have no better word for it, so you'll pretty much have to deal with my impresice language. :no:


These birds, however, just do it to get the mate. Humans do it for the sake of doing it. One could say that getting the mate IS the reward, like the little food pebbles they probably gave the chimps. Humans just do it to do it.

You didn't agree to use the "agreed" upon definitions in the dictionary (3 I looked at). I listed all I found, YOURS was not in there..... thanks for the hubris

Yet, even birds that NEVER get a mate continue to do so..... never a reward. Humans do it for the sake of doing it? So to does the elephant and chimp by that definition...... they were given the opportunity! And most humans do it to express emotions (me thinks)! Emotions that animals have as well......

AS FOR THE WRITING- I quick replied about DNA and RNA........ all they do is "write"

 

[Sunstone]

It makes a difference because of what I defined art to be - art simply for art's sake, not for the sake of having sex.

A slight difference in motive is everything, since motive was what I used to define art in the first place.

Well, if you want to come up with your own definitions of art, then of course, what is there to prevent anyone else from coming up with their own unique definitions of art? For instance, I might define art to include any kind of swimming. By that definition, art is something accomplished not only by humans, but by most animals in one form or another. Who is to say one definition of art is superior to the other?

A second difficulty with your attempt to distinquish between humans an other animals on the basis whether they create art for arts sake might be methodological: Precisely how do we know the true motives of animals that create art? Do we have a machine yet that reads their motives? Can we ask them what their motives are? Or are we really merely speculating about their motives? If the latter, then we could just as easily speculate that they create art for arts sake as we could speculate they don't.

But why look at motives at all? What is it about motives that is important in a discussion of how humans differ from other animals? Isn't behavior more important than motive for the behavior?

 

[Aqualung]

You didn't agree to use the "agreed" upon definitions in the dictionary (3 I looked at). I listed all I found, YOURS was not in there..... thanks for the hubris

"MINE" was not in there because I was not debating those defintions. I was using a definition which webster or whoever obviously did not think was a real definition, but which I couldn't think of any better word to use to express it, so which I defined for you. Considering that I am the one who says art is the only thing humans have that other animals don't, and considering that I am only one who knows what I mean by art (except now you do, too, because I defined it) I'm still failing to see where your beloved dictionary comes into play.

Yet, even birds that NEVER get a mate continue to do so..... never a reward.

yet they are doing it in anticipation of the reward.

Humans do it for the sake of doing it? So to does the elephant and chimp by that definition...... they were given the opportunity!

And why did they do it? Because it was there. They were fiddling around. They didn't sit down and think, Hmmm, I'm going to try to create something that looks like this, and then do it, simply for the sake of doing it. Elephants and chimps are given something that they never encounter in their real environment, so they fiddle around with it.

And most humans do it to express emotions (me thinks)! Emotions that animals have as well......

Well, me don't thinks.

 

[Aqualung]

Well, if you want to come up with your own definitions of art, then of course, what is there to prevent anyone else from coming up with their own unique definitions of art?

But then, if they come up with their own definition of art, the premise no longer stands. It's like saying, "I ate raisin bran for breakfast. You know, that cereal with bran flakes and raisins that Kelloggs makes..." And then you say, "Well, I think raisin bran is water." Then, I didn't eat raisin bran for breakfast, but I still ate that cereal made of bran flakes and raisins. I defined what art was. You can say "that's not art" but the definition of what I used still stands, no matter what you want to call it.

Who is to say one definition of art is superior to the other?

It's not superior. But it was the definition I had in mind when I said "only humans create art."

But why look at motives at all?

Didn't I say this before? (Answer, Yes!)

 

[Ody]

All i can tell is that we have better cognitive abilities.

 

[Sunstone]

But then, if they come up with their own definition of art, the premise no longer stands. It's like saying, "I ate raisin bran for breakfast. You know, that cereal with bran flakes and raisins that Kelloggs makes..." And then you say, "Well, I think raisin bran is water." Then, I didn't eat raisin bran for breakfast, but I still ate that cereal made of bran flakes and raisins. I defined what art was. You can say "that's not art" but the definition of what I used still stands, no matter what you want to call it.

It seems to me that if we can't agree on a common definition of art, it is pointless to debate this matter of whether art significantly distinguishes us from other animals. So, I'm dropping out of this aspect of the debate. We just disagree and I'll leave it at that.

 

[Aqualung]

It seems to me that if we can't agree on a common definition of art, it is pointless to debate this matter of whether art significantly distinguishes us from other animals. So, I'm dropping out of this aspect of the debate. We just disagree and I'll leave it at that.

Indeed it is pointless, since what I meant by art is apparantly not something you even want to consider. It seems you were getting all wrapped up in the word itself, rather than the definition behind it, but if you're done, I don't mind.

 

[Flappycat]

I have been sitting here reading a bunch of different threads. I got to thinking...... What is it that sets humans apart from everything else on Earth?????????

I debated many points with myself and eventually only came up with one answer:

HUBRIS

Your thoughts?

Nope. They can do that.

We've got the bomb, though.