Animal Minds (Animals)

by dhw, Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 14:19 (4690 days ago) @ David Turell

Dhw: I must stress that I am equating the basic instincts, not the intellectual, aesthetic, scientific or philosophical capacity!-DAVID: And that is fine, but it is bypassing the points I have made over the years. I am not discussing animals as organisms with certain physical and mental qualities. I am looking at humans as possessing an infinitely more complex brain with extraordinary capacities. That brain is different in kind, not degree from bats, buffaloes, whales, dolphins, apes, chimps, corvids, etc. Same basic instincts, yes. Aesthetic capacities, infinitely enormous in the human brain. Compare the lower animals from us? You should know better. There is no real comparison, except at the simple levels you describe, we inherit the same basic comparisons. Again, that is tiny portion of what we humans are. -It's clear that the dialogue between us is actually a pair of monologues! I'm using the topic to shed light on a number of subjects, including our own animal nature, our insensitivity to other animals, and the origin of evil (which may itself lead to speculation on the nature of a possible God). For you, what matters is the differences between us and other animals. I have repeatedly acknowledged these, as in the comment at the beginning of this post. But within the narrower confines of the discussion you want to have (different in kind, not degree) there are still points on which we disagree, and they will lead eventually to a question. First, though, the points themselves:-I do not agree that the basic animal instincts are a tiny portion of what we humans are. On the contrary, I believe they are a huge portion of what we are, and are fundamental to our existence and our behaviour. Can you honestly claim that sex, family life, social relationships, education, home, the need for food, protection against climate, other species and our own species are "tiny" matters? I am arguing that much of our remarkable intelligence is devoted precisely to coping with the same problems faced by our fellow animals, although that very intelligence has in some cases exacerbated rather than eased the difficulties. -DAVID: And that brain is contained in a body which is much more capable of intricate activity than our closest relatives. Put a chimp at bat in cricket. Any doubt as to the outcome? Even with training, if that is possible. There are so many ways in which we differ.-I regard this as a minor matter, but since it illustrates difference, let me point out that I can't fly, live under water, swing from branch to branch or climb a vertical pole at breakneck speed, walk across the ceiling, or hear/smell the world around me with anything like the degree of perceptiveness available, say, to my neighbour's dog. By "intricate" activity, perhaps you are referring to the flexibility of the hand. Fair enough. But I would argue that the "difference" of the human body ... as opposed to the brain ... makes it more capable than that of other animals only in some fields, but not in others.
 
The question that really intrigues me, however, is exactly WHY it is so important to you to establish that humans are different in kind from other animals. You believe that evolution happened ... in other words, that we are directly descended from other animals. You acknowledge, though you minimalize, the common ground between us and them. You use terms like "more complex" and "more capable" ... both of which are comparatives, and hence terms of degree and not of kind. So why does the question of kind v. degree actually matter?