|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 07/06/2007 : 13:40:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Dave, we must compare man with and without sapience. I contend that man without would probably not exist any longer. |
Upon what evidence would you make such a contention, seeing that chimps still exist after the same amount of time?| Man without sapience would be an inferior species on most scales in comparison to most other species. |
Inferior in what way? There is no objective "best" species. Man can't breathe underwater, making us inferior to every fish. We can't fly, making us inferior to birds. We get crushed by elephants, and outrun by cheetahs. Hurricanes regularly kill us, we tend to not regrow lost body parts, and fires don't help our seeds germinate. On most scales, we are inferior to some other species already.
I suspect I know what your objection will be, but does tool use require sapience?
|
Nope.
What I'd like to know is by what criteria a species is labled as "inferior?" And in response, I'll put forth the noble cockroach, who was here long before we, and will doubtless bid us a tearful farwell as we, one of it's best meal tickets, shuffle off into extinction. The cockroach, now that is an ongoing, evoultionary success story.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/06/2007 : 14:06:47 [Permalink]
|
Dave said:
| Upon what evidence would you make such a contention, seeing that chimps still exist after the same amount of time? |
Chimps are superior to non sapient man as far as physical attributes are concerned.
The totality of a creature determines its relative success in the game of continuing its species. If you take away the birds wings, or the fishes ability to pull oxygen from water, they become vastly inferior to species that do not lose a major trait. This is the same with mans sapience.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 14:14:50 [Permalink]
|
Filthy asked:
| What I'd like to know is by what criteria a species is labled as "inferior?" |
I am speaking of a comparison to itself with and without a particular major trait.
Now, I will take this incomplete creature (i.e bird without wings, man without sapients) and compare it in the context of competition in the environment.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 15:06:26 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps we are just full of ourselves.
Interestingly, the word “sapience” was coined to show that we are in fact separate from the rest of the animale kingdom and a product of special creation.
See: Sapience
And then there is this from the same article:
While precise definitions of sapience vary, it is agreed that most humans (unless intellectually incapacitated) possess some measure of it. However, psychological research aimed at defining and measuring wisdom suggests that the capacity for good judgment varies widely in form and strength. It is an open question if humans are, as a species, particularly sapient in terms of making wise, long-term, maximum benefit for the maximum number decisions. It is also open to question if numerous other animals have some kind of sapience, even if in lower levels. |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 15:10:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Filthy asked:
| What I'd like to know is by what criteria a species is labled as "inferior?" |
I am speaking of a comparison to itself with and without a particular major trait.
Now, I will take this incomplete creature (i.e bird without wings, man without sapients) and compare it in the context of competition in the environment.
|
Huh? Bird without wings? What bird and what man without sapience? What the hell are you talkng about?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 15:22:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Filthy asked:
| What I'd like to know is by what criteria a species is labled as "inferior?" |
I am speaking of a comparison to itself with and without a particular major trait.
Now, I will take this incomplete creature (i.e bird without wings, man without sapients) and compare it in the context of competition in the environment.
|
Huh? Bird without wings? What bird and what man without sapience? What the hell are you talkng about?
|
This discussion evolved from your quote here:
| Man differs from other animals only in sapience. It has yet to be shown that sapience has any long-term, species survival value. And reading history, and observing current events, I strongly suspect that it has none. |
Than a discussion on the relative superiority of species in different contexts.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 15:26:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Perhaps we are just full of ourselves.
Interestingly, the word “sapience” was coined to show that we are in fact separate from the rest of the animale kingdom and a product of special creation.
See: Sapience
And then there is this from the same article:
While precise definitions of sapience vary, it is agreed that most humans (unless intellectually incapacitated) possess some measure of it. However, psychological research aimed at defining and measuring wisdom suggests that the capacity for good judgment varies widely in form and strength. It is an open question if humans are, as a species, particularly sapient in terms of making wise, long-term, maximum benefit for the maximum number decisions. It is also open to question if numerous other animals have some kind of sapience, even if in lower levels. |
|
How would you define this trait: contemplation and choice based on stimuli as opposed to only reaction to stimuli?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2007 : 17:07:26 [Permalink]
|
Jerome:
How would you define this trait: contemplation and choice based on stimuli as opposed to only reaction to stimuli? |
I'm not going to bother to define it. For all we know dolphins are way more contemplative than we are. We know other animals use, and more importantly make tools. Some of them are fairly sophisticated. We know that we are clever, possibly the most clever animal, but how wise are we?
Sapience is too nebulous a term for me to deal with. At one time we believed humans had special traits, like tool use, that made us unique, only to find other toolmakers and users who were not us. Our kind of language may be unique to us, but we are by no means the only animal that communicates with its own kind. In fact, there are a lot of traits that we once believed were unique to us only to learn that some other animals have those traits too.
For some reason I am reminded of a line from the movie “Paper Moon.” To paraphrase:
“ I don't know what it is, but if we have it, it can't be good.”
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
"What is your personal meaning of life?"
