The Exclusivity of Man in Religion

In almost every religion in the world man is said to possess inherent qualities that seperate it from animals and bring it closer to God.

In Judaism it is man's ability to create language that makes it so.

In Christianity I suppose it is the notion that God is humanoid.

What is it though? What are your thoughts?

With the exception of language, I'd argue most, if not all, qualities possessed by humans are seen in the animal kingdom, though in a matter of degrees.

I thought the Christian notion was that God imbued man with an eternal soul?

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all come from the exact same route so they're not really good examples from "every religion". I don't think Buddhists give special position to humans, there's a koan that suggests everything has the Buddha-nature. Hindus place cows above us or something.

Traditionally the separating aspect is the soul, language, tool making, fire or agriculture.

Originally posted by MitzvahMan
In almost every religion in the world man is said to possess inherent qualities that seperate it from animals and bring it closer to God.

In Judaism it is man's ability to create language that makes it so.

In Christianity I suppose it is the notion that God is humanoid.

What is it though? What are your thoughts?

Humans are not special. All living and non-living things are equal when it comes to Buddha Hood.

All living being directly experience the ten worlds, and all non-living things indirectly experience the ten worlds. The tenth world of Buddha Hood is common though out the universe. The Mystic Law is universal, and there are no exceptions.

This sounds like Daniel Quinn: Humans (of our culture) are convinced that they are *special* somehow and therefore above animals. This same peculiarity also leads to problems with crime etc.: because we are not 'better' enough then our laws are ineffective. He ends up calling our legal system a Utopian failure and redefining the story of Genesis as the advent of agriculture, and the story of Cain and Abel (based upon the original tellers) the subjugation of traditional tribes at the hand of agriculturalists. He (naturally) is a lot more convincing than I can be in one run on sentence but that is the gist of it. (Plus some extra details: his take on the OT is largely periphery to his message.)

Man's ability is math.

Other other things we do, sadness, using the Earth to grow things, fighting, killing, etc. animals do that to.

I have read about animals doing math.

When an animal can rationalize what a square root is, or carry the 1, then I'll change my tune. 😉

Originally posted by dadudemon
Man's ability is math.

Other other things we do, sadness, using the Earth to grow things, fighting, killing, etc. animals do that to.

I have read about animals doing math.

When an animal can rationalize what a square root is, or carry the 1, then I'll change my tune. 😉

I have to agree the ability to do math is new and unique. However, it maybe natural for a life form to evolve to that point. It just didn't happen before now, here. I would bet that there are other worlds in the universe were intelligent being can do math.

human beings are more intelligent than animals, the cerebral cortex is the latest step in "evolution" (pertaining to brains anyway) and we've got the biggest one. evolution is about survival of the fittest and look whose fvcking over the competition these days: that's right, us.

our brain gives us all sorts of advantages. but speaking in terms of evolution, it helps us adapt better than any animal. that's why we're all over the world and the dominant speicy where ever we go. we're top of the food chain for a reason.

Yeah but I think what we're looking at here is whether we have anything that animals simply don't have at all, not whether we have more advanced versions of things they have.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Traditionally the separating aspect is the soul, language, tool making, fire or agriculture.

The soul aside, all of those, with the exception of language maybe, are more an example of "culture" rather than specific "things" that separate man from animal. We also have computers, cars, electronics, etc, but those all might indicate another underlying principal of the human mind.

One of the things that does make us human is our ability to imitate. Not mimic, but to see someone's action, and be able to ascertain the meaning behind why they are performing said action. So, I could watch you turn on a light switch with your foot because your arms are full, I would not think that I needed to copy the motor action of flipping the switch with my toe, but would understand that the light is turned on by the switch, which you are trying to hit. Few animals outside of the greater primates have this ability.

I tend to believe this, plus an innate drive to imitate others, mixed with some joint attention, underlie most cultural developments. Agriculture and to some extent fire might be different, because they fundamentally changed the nature of human life, but the concept is the same, and it is hard to claim agriculture as a human phenomenon when some cultures (largely destroyed by more technologically advanced cultures) never developed sustainable agriculture, and many that did, simply imitated a practice developed in the fertile crescent.

Language becomes more difficult, because it, imho, does go beyond simply taking advantage of our joint attention/mirror neuron systems, and the brain actually has to use a statistical probability of sound patterns to decipher what such verbal symbols mean, and how to generate meaning from those sounds. I believe language probably evolved from our ancestor's imitation system, and might be best described as innate, passive, involuntary imitation on steroids, though even then, I would consider language special enough not to claim it to be entirely a cultural imitation, and consider it a separate part of the human condition. Other cultural things, like fire, agriculture, or tools, seem, to me, to represent our imitative ability, which is far and above any other animal, though, other primates do share the ability to pass along items of culture.

Humans use symbols, not only to understand the concrete world but to understand other symbols as well. Animals can use images (even a symbol as a concrete image) to understand only the concrete world.

Originally posted by Mindship
Humans use symbols, not only to understand the concrete world but to understand other symbols as well. Animals can use images (even a symbol as a concrete image) to understand only the concrete world.

are we talking about real world only, or does what we have taught animals in captivity count?

Originally posted by inimalist
are we talking about real world only, or does what we have taught animals in captivity count?

It could also be that in teaching animals human stuff, this is, in a sense, a "raising of their consciousness," perhaps akin to a meditation master guiding a beginner in how to interpret the meditation experience, particularly in improving quality of life. It's not something humans normally experience and use, but we can be taught to do so.

Originally posted by Mindship
The real world, certainly. As for what we've taught animals...I still don't think there's a conceptual understanding of symbols, just a more sophisticated mechanical understanding.

obviously, there are levels of understanding, but symbols about abstract symbols might not be exclusively human. Sounds to communicate emotional states, agreement or other such things could be considered as very primitive "abstract" cognitive abilities.

What makes language unique from all other forms of communication is sort of half its symbolic nature, but the other half is the usage of patterned audio signals that are infinitely generative. There is really no end to the number of proper sentences that can be created using the rules of language, whereas most animal symbolic communication is highly limited and structured.

Originally posted by Mindship
It could also be that in teaching animals human stuff, this is, in a sense, a "raising of their consciousness," perhaps akin to a meditation master guiding a beginner in how to interpret the meditation experience, particularly in improving quality of life. It's not something humans normally experience and use, but we can be taught to do so.

or like riding a bike, or other such skills that need to be trained over time.

One important issue about what we have trained animals for is that, while we have even given them some of the ability to generate novel linguistic signals, even after decades, it pales in comparison to what a toddler will learn effortlessly in 2 years of life. The skills that are available to animals are not the same that are available to us as far as language is concerned. I think it is unlike culture. Our language is more than just an overly complex form of animal like communication, whereas I can see the passing of culture as something like that.

lol...given I don't believe in human consciousness, "raising animal consciousness to approach human consciousness" seems like alchemy, and, well...

...

ya, alchemy 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
obviously, there are levels of understanding, but symbols about abstract symbols might not be exclusively human. Sounds to communicate emotional states, agreement or other such things could be considered as very primitive "abstract" cognitive abilities.

What makes language unique from all other forms of communication is sort of half its symbolic nature, but the other half is the usage of patterned audio signals that are infinitely generative. There is really no end to the number of proper sentences that can be created using the rules of language, whereas most animal symbolic communication is highly limited and structured.

or like riding a bike, or other such skills that need to be trained over time.

One important issue about what we have trained animals for is that, while we have even given them some of the ability to generate novel linguistic signals, even after decades, it pales in comparison to what a toddler will learn effortlessly in 2 years of life. The skills that are available to animals are not the same that are available to us as far as language is concerned. I think it is unlike culture. Our language is more than just an overly complex form of animal like communication, whereas I can see the passing of culture as something like that.

lol...given I don't believe in human consciousness, "raising animal consciousness to approach human consciousness" seems like alchemy, and, well...

...

ya, alchemy 🙂

As far as "consciousness" goes...that's why I put it in quotes. 😉

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Judaism, Christianity and Islam all come from the exact same route so they're not really good examples from "every religion". I don't think Buddhists give special position to humans, there's a koan that suggests everything has the Buddha-nature. Hindus place cows above us or something.

Traditionally the separating aspect is the soul, language, tool making, fire or agriculture.

I think Hindus see cows as mothers, ( or something to that effect ) and therefore it is a sin to kill it. Not above a human, but equal to it, or thereabouts.

...is my understanding, although could be wrong.

cows are nothing but a sacred animal to hindus because one of their gods used ride on it. the concept is really no different than how certain animals were sacred to greek gods etc.
they don't think of it as a mother. "matta" (mother) is a word used as respect for females and not literally meant as mother.

btw, doesn't lobotomy pretty much return you the animal that we once were i.e. without conscience?

no

i was under the impression that it did. wasn't the whole point of that whole scenario with Phinias Gage? the frontal lobe has been associated with morality so why not?