> > You're also forgetting that a slang word for what I am is "code monkey!" 
> > 
> > The difference IS abstract language. The foundational root of *everything* we know and do begins with language. Without symbolic abstraction, we're chimps.
> 
> It is a difference, but abstract language doesn't explain Shakespeare or dhw and his writings. All those monkeys typing away don't get one important word of a sonnet.-You're talking past me again. -Shakespeare is possible *only* because of abstract language, and our creative use of it. Creativity is nothing special: See something you've seen before, and apply it in a different circumstance. Language provides the bed to create culture, which then provides us with the means of memory and innovation. -Have you ever wondered why science is iterative?

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"

MATT: The difference IS abstract language. The foundational root of "everything" we know and do begins with language. Without symbolic abstraction, we're chimps.-DAVID: It is a difference, but abstract language doesn't explain Shakespeare or dhw and his writings. All those monkeys typing away don't get one important word of a sonnet.-I am deeply flattered by being bracketed with the divine Shakespeare, and therefore hesitate to ruin my image by joining in this dispute between you mere mortals. However, duty calls.-The basic discussion is about whether humans are different from other animals "in kind or degree". The distinction is clearly of great importance to a theist who believes that humans are God's chosen species. We have to be different to merit such a status. For a deist who believes in an impersonal God, and for an atheist who believes in no God, the subject will presumably elicit a shrug of the shoulders ... who cares? For an agnostic like me, who doesn't know whether there is or isn't a God, it only carries weight in relation to the mystery of consciousness, which helps to keep all avenues open, and so that is the line I would like to follow.-I believe in common descent ... that is to say, all species have sprung from earlier species. I do not believe that humans magically sprang from nowhere (and I know David doesn't either). Consequently, I view humans as a species of animal, and although over the millennia we have increasingly disguised our animal nature with the cloak of civilization, we remain inextricably tied to the basic animal requirements of reproduction, survival, the need for food, protection against the environment and against our enemies, training for life etc. Our hospitals, houses, department stores, war machines, schools etc. are all sophisticated extensions of these basic needs. -What sets us apart from other animals is the level of our awareness. I don't think this was caused by language. I think language is its product. Just as we find technology to solve material problems, we find sounds to solve problems of communication. Whether changes in the biological machinery (vocal chords, larynx, tongue etc.) preceded or led to this facility (mutations permitting progress, or body adapting to new requirements) we don't know, because none of us understand the mechanisms of adaptation and innovation. This awareness has clearly taken us into regions far beyond the scope of our fellow animals. We don't just examine our environment in order to survive physically, but we do so in order to find out about ourselves, our origins, our nature. Birds sing to attract a mate or convey a message, cubs play hunting games to prepare for the real thing ... their actions serve practical purposes. We do the same in our sophisticated way, but we also sing for the sake of the song, and we play for the sake of the excitement. And so I see all our actions as extensions of our animal selves ... extensions that our extra layers of consciousness have taken to technological, philosophical, artistic levels that are so distant from their original source that we no longer even see them as extensions. And so I would conclude, with almost Shakespearian comprehensiveness, impartiality and profundity, that human consciousness is different from that of other animals by such a degree that some people might even consider it to be different in kind.