What makes homo sapiens "human"?

Actually, given that Homo neanderthalensis may have some kind of religious thinking [they burying their dead & adorning with them flowers for example] I wouldn't count a shared imaginary world as unique to H. sapiens.Of course, this can go further. Who can say that Homo erectus individuals didn't have a shared imagination about how a proper flake-knife should be? Or whether baboons do not have some kind of common ideology within their troops?

Andya,Point taken on neanderthal and possibily erectus. As they are extinct the point maybe a bit moot. I'll draw a line or at least a grey transition zone at other primates though. Chimps and gorilla have been shown to acquire language but I don't know how abstract their conceptualizations are. I am basing my speculation on language being in some way a basis or prerequiste for imagination.This was an idea that came to me as I read this thread and so it is speculation.lfen

Hey Ifen,I would agree that it is likely that drastic, shared imaginary worlds are unique to the Homo genus.Somewhere buried early in the thread is my qualification that I'm not looking for differences in degree, but qualitative differences. In other words, "flying an airplane" may be unique to humans, but in my mind this falls under tool use and therefore is not unique to humans, though obviously more complex than a hammer and anvil.So, if you accept this qualification, we need to ask if any other animal 'shares imagination'. I personally believe animals can imagine in a simple sense, one reason for this belief is accounts of primates in captivity - one chimp in particular has been reported to paint representations of objects (such as a 'bird') not in view, and then name them using sign language. This points to the possibility that the chimp imagined the bird while painting it, then named it. Such claims/conclusions are often called anthropomorphic and anecdotal, and I concede there are problems with interpretation (for example, was the painting random, but produced something that looked like a bird, and so the chimp signed 'bird' afterwords...)There are many simple questions we simply don't have the insight to ask properly - for example, what are whales, dolphins, apes, etc. communicating? When chimps organize a hunting party with each member having a specific role, are the parameters of the hunt preconceived/hypothetical and therefore a "shared imagining"?Part of this points to our lack of ability to share in the worlds, imagined or otherwise, of other animals. Until we are able to share, I'm not sure we'll be able to realize if animals have "shared imaginings" or not.Good speculation, though; definitely along the right lines, I think...

Sas,Gotcha, it is a matter of degree and homo sap is pretty drastic.Do you know this book A WANDERING GOD: a study in nomadic spirituality by Morris Berman? Interesting speculation of the differences that the settled agarian lifestyle brought to humans. A thoughtful read.lfen

A dim memory is coming back from when I used to watch television, like 10 years ago? Some show did have a grey parrot and they were using a test involving shapes of different colors. And my memory is extremely hazy on this. I recall it had a lovely feminine soft voice not what I expected a parrot to sound like. I was pretty amazed. Does anyone know anything about that bird? Seems like it was a woman who taught it to speak. The cue might have been something like "what is green and large" and the parrot would look over the objects and say "triangle" if it was the green large shape.I remembering being very impressed. I can't say how well controlled the study was to rule out subliminal cueing though.lfen

Crash,I should have read through the thread first! That is the bird. And that Docter, what a voice they both have!lfen

A few observations to throw into the pot.Homo Habilis had language of some kind, as evidenced by the existance of Wernike's Area and Broca's Area in endocasts.Koko the gorilla has evidenced a very broad vocabulary and a very high capacity for understanding. However, she is unable to master more than basic grammar (2-3 word constructions of the noun-verb/noun-verb-noun variety). In a blind assessment she scored about the same level as a 3-4 year old human child. Her emotional and abstract capacity is quite high.Koko is not the only pongid that has given such results. There is no reason to deny that at least the great apes (with which we share a common ancestor) do not have incipient language capability. Watch koko in action. She initiates conversations, responds appropriately, plays with words, etc. She is using language. Is it human level? No, but it's damn close.

The differences between us and apes or any animals is the most striking difference in the world.
The essence of man clearly is our soul,spirit, and mind.
Just one angle here.
Unlike animals people are motivated by love, hate,pity,envy,pride, genoristy,awareness of right and wrong and rebelling against what one believes. On and on.
While animals have none ot these motives.
They have defined lines of food search, mating, and thats it.
What animal ever acted out of pride. yes they must protect their position but only for survival. Horses will prance tom please and dogs want to play but no animal ever has hated. Or loved.
All the difference in the world.
Rob

Unless of course one does not believe the soul and spirit exist. Also one must also accept that something called a essence also exist. Plato and Aristotle in addition to many early theologians such as Thomas Aquinas believed in essences, but we have come along way in the past 3 to 2 thousand years. What are people if not highly intelligent animals?
Also some other animals can exibit love, shame, genoristy, awarness of right and wrong. My own dog is capable of all those things.
My dog knows the difference between right and wrong. He shares his food with other dogs, he shows guilt and shame when he is caught doing something he knows he should not. He expresses love, he expresses joy, happiness. How is it humans have the monopoly on all these traits?

It was asked for differences between people and creatures.
Its a cop out to say we are just more intelligent. Well thats the difference. And the difference is not in the mind but the thoughts of our hearts.A deeper thinking.I know animals like dogs show what we call human emotions however pride and right and wrong are not thier thing. Their thinking they have done something wrong comes from our commandments and not thier own world view. A dog would act shamed if you told it not to scratch and it did. They are not just dumber they have no foundation of free will and morality. And I would say they have no pride which drives mankind. They live only to survive and would never commit suicide.
Our surviving is a small part of our motives.
Rob

Spend ten minutes around a cat and tell me that animals have no concept of free will or pride.In that vein, if I leave a bag of cat food on the kitchen table, my cat will jump up on the table when I'm out of the room, tear into it, and gorge herself silly. She waits until I'm not there, because she knows she's not supposed to. If I catch her, she'll try and act like she hasn't done anything.She knows she'll be punished with a spray bottle if she's caught, but she sees nothing wrong with eating food that's on the table. In other words, she has her own moral system that simply doesn't jive with mine.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Or - it has no moral system but rather the instinct to eat, to survive. Whereas a human can willfully starve.

If this were the case, she would have no problem with slitting my throat while I slept, and eating me.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 10-08-2004 03:06 PM

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

I recommend you with shredded duck.Ofcourse - cats have been known to eat dead bodies - yet my cat is not stupid enough (I admitt) - to try and kill me in my sleep. However, cats see us as other cats, and want harmony in the group they are with.

Of course they do. But they're visibly able to develop affection for other creatures, put that affection above immediate impulse.Even apart from extremes of killing me in my sleep, I'm one of about three people in the world that she'll tolerate picking her up. She hates being picked up. She flips out and scratches when most people do it. (Including my roommate, so it's not a simple harmony-with-the-group thing.)She's clearly annoyed when I do it, but she just kind of huffs and accepts it.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer