3 ms·

I'm not saying that difference is called anything in particular but I can expect wildly different results from interacting with a city than I can from a mound o

I'm not saying that difference is called anything in particular but I can expect wildly different results from interacting with a city than I can from a mound of coral or a termite nest. Don't be so disingenuous with these ideas of abstract equivalence. Yes humans are arrogant sods but there is some sort of reason or reasons (that are likely not to be purely environmental) that have resulted in this outcome where we're having a conversion via electricity across the planet instead spending most our lives trying to roll a breadcrumb around never having a chance to know one another. Something about this gig is different isn't it? Are you genuinely asserting that if we could take the brain of a (insert whatever animal you're considering) and put it in a human shell you wouldn't be able to tell the difference? That's extremely bold.

CNJ7654 9y ago
It sounds like you're confusing conciousness with intelligence, which are two separate concepts entirely
hutzlibu 9y ago
> Are you genuinely asserting that if we could take the brain of a (insert whatever animal you're considering) and put it in a human shell you wouldn't be able to tell the difference? That's extremely bold. He never said that. So don't be surprised if people downvote you, if you use that kind of manipulative arguing.
- Quarrelsome 9y ago
  so what is the argument beyond "humans so arrogant and humdrum"? I'm trying to frame where we are by finding out what we are arguing and what we aren't, if we're not there then where are we? That's not manipulative I'm just trying to fix us to specific points so we can progress. Lets not forget that the parent comment I'm answering is the pithy: > > We are the only mammal with consciousness > Uh huh. Our parent is an unfaithful sarcastic position so I don't see why that gets a pass yet my attempts to solidify the argument justifies this negativity.
  - robotresearcher 9y ago
    I've devoted my professional life to understanding how animals work. It's been the most interesting and challenging topic to study that I can imagine. Science and art knows a lot about what animals do, and a little about how they do it. Your opening statement > We are the only mammal with consciousness is rather controversial, and has been for at least a couple of thousand years. Whether it's true or not is one of the great questions humanity has ever considered. We aren't even sure whether the question is meaningful. Everyone sort of understands what it's getting at, but there is no definition of consciousness that is widely agreed upon. As comments by others have said, for almost all human behaviours once considered exclusive to humans we have found animal behaviours that look very similar. So, my faithful commentary on your blithely confident statement that ignores the existence of any debate on this topic is: uh huh.
    - Quarrelsome 9y ago
      > We are the only mammal with consciousness I NEVER SAID THAT. Look at the user names ya plonk. I was calling YOU out for just responding "uh-huh" when you could have actually broken it down for the OP. But you didn't, you wanted to have fun so you did but with the wrong fucking person. Dick.

CNJ7654 9y ago

It sounds like you're confusing conciousness with intelligence, which are two separate concepts entirely

hutzlibu 9y ago

> Are you genuinely asserting that if we could take the brain of a (insert whatever animal you're considering) and put it in a human shell you wouldn't be able to tell the difference? That's extremely bold. He never said that. So don't be surprised if people downvote you, if you use that kind of manipulative arguing.

Quarrelsome 9y ago
so what is the argument beyond "humans so arrogant and humdrum"? I'm trying to frame where we are by finding out what we are arguing and what we aren't, if we're not there then where are we? That's not manipulative I'm just trying to fix us to specific points so we can progress. Lets not forget that the parent comment I'm answering is the pithy: > > We are the only mammal with consciousness > Uh huh. Our parent is an unfaithful sarcastic position so I don't see why that gets a pass yet my attempts to solidify the argument justifies this negativity.
- robotresearcher 9y ago
  I've devoted my professional life to understanding how animals work. It's been the most interesting and challenging topic to study that I can imagine. Science and art knows a lot about what animals do, and a little about how they do it. Your opening statement > We are the only mammal with consciousness is rather controversial, and has been for at least a couple of thousand years. Whether it's true or not is one of the great questions humanity has ever considered. We aren't even sure whether the question is meaningful. Everyone sort of understands what it's getting at, but there is no definition of consciousness that is widely agreed upon. As comments by others have said, for almost all human behaviours once considered exclusive to humans we have found animal behaviours that look very similar. So, my faithful commentary on your blithely confident statement that ignores the existence of any debate on this topic is: uh huh.
  - Quarrelsome 9y ago
    > We are the only mammal with consciousness I NEVER SAID THAT. Look at the user names ya plonk. I was calling YOU out for just responding "uh-huh" when you could have actually broken it down for the OP. But you didn't, you wanted to have fun so you did but with the wrong fucking person. Dick.