The difference between man and other animals is only quantitative
I started my studies in zoology and biology. Later, when I was required to study anthropology, it became clear to me that there are differences in approach between zoologists and anthropologists. A debate surrounding the "permissible human", when the zoologists claim that the "permitted" is quantitative, that is, where we think we are "better" than other animals, the advantage is quantitative. A large brain and multiple synoptic connections enable features and morphology that exaggerate the (relative) advantages in the human's favor.
Whereas the anthropologists argued that the difference is qualitative, meaning that there is something in man that they defined as a "spark" that places him in a high place above other animals. As someone with a zoological background, I got into an argument with one of the most respected anthropologists in Israel, and in an argument in which I argued that the difference is quantitative, while she argued for a long time about the invention of the same mysterious "spark".
All this happened a long time ago. In the meantime, the approaches are equal and the debate has almost disappeared except that, regardless of science, there are beliefs ("opinions") and the various religions that place man above the rest of the animals as "possessing a soul/nefesh".
In a framed article we note that when a biologist talks about soul or soul, he is referring to a set of qualities - memory, sensitivity and emotions, instinct, ability to learn, diagnosis and awareness, when more and more of the qualities are revealed to have biochemical connections, meaning again, if an animal has fewer biochemical connections than a human, then the difference is quantitative.
Between faith and science, there is an attitude among many good people according to which even many living things have a soul, even though they do not know how to define or measure the "soul", meaning to prove its existence. Today, when biology is part of anthropology studies, the debate fades in favor of zoology, that is, today it is clear to everyone that the difference between humans and other animals is only quantitative, this means that there is no "permissible human"!
Asaf
113 תגובות
Well, it's really quite unnecessary. Have a good week for everyone (Michael and his sister - Chaim too)
Tell me, don't you have something better to do, than trying to prove that Michael doesn't have a sister? After all, both the proofs and the refutations brought up so far cannot confirm or deny this assumption. This includes the IP claim that anyone can bypass, and also the consistency claim of Nadav, who himself does not use fixed openings in his messages.
But don't let me stop you from playing. My advice to Michael is simply not to continue this silly argument.
May we all have a good week,
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
A point is that you change your consistency to prove a "point" it doesn't mean anything, the question is whether people usually maintain consistency in their way of writing or not, if they do then it can perhaps strengthen (and here I am careful with the phrase confirm) the explanation Chaim is not a real person, but go check the consistency of several different people from several different websites now 🙂
It seems to me that it is possible to interpret the comma after the name as lifting to lowering... and those who understand will understand.
Nadav, do you see?
Nadav I don't have consistency either, it depends on what I ate a minute before and it's not constant either.
Nadav in exactly the same way, an experiment must be done to prove that all the Nadavs who wrote here are the same Nadav
Another thing I noticed, maybe it's just a mistake, but it's that people tend to choose a fixed way to open a reply to others, for example, I write the name and then a comma, Michael writes the name and then a colon, a period just writes the name and continues normally, etc., etc.
The thing I noticed is that Haim the fan doesn't have the same consistency in his answer, in our previous debate he wrote the name then a period and now he wrote the name then a dash, maybe it's just absurd but if you're a real being you keep these little habits, what if you're an invented being , you reinvent your character's habit every time, again I didn't check it in depth, I'm just playing with this thought
In order to disprove the theory that the specific life in question is Michael, one needs to find one experiment whose results contradict the theory, such experiments will be very difficult to find, if someone succeeds it could be interesting
Again, it is about the specific life that worships Michael, not about all the lives that exist in the world
Michael, it is sad that you do not at all understand the difference between confirm and confirm, a person who expresses himself so much and so decisively on a scientific website and does not know such a difference, it is simply ridiculous,
If the experiment was successful, it would mean that the theory was confirmed, that is, the chances increased that Chaim is Michael, and if it failed, it means that the chances did not increase and Olei is small, but this is certainly not a refutation
What will prevent a person from deleting the cookies as soon as he turns the router off and on?
That's just one of the reasons why it won't help.
There are, of course, more complex solutions such as those used to protect software against piracy - those that send to the site some identifying physical data about the computer, but it is impossible to condition the participation on the site to installing software and a certain hacking of the protection of the computer itself.
As a principle - as long as the person does not change communication provider, my solution can work, because the communication provider always recognizes the customer.
The problem is really with the migration of mobile devices from provider to provider (a problem without a doubt 🙂 )
A combination of cookies and IP will filter out most spammers' attempts
It's a nice idea but it still won't always work…
There are many who use Internet Cafe and I use my college's Internet a lot
And this is not negligible because a lot of people access the Internet through their cell phones (iPhone and the like) and so they surf through the internet provider of that area...
In general, the whole Internet thing now reminds me of the Wild West period in the USA...
Sex everywhere, you can download whatever you want, legal or illegal... break-ins, thefts and the police are powerless... apart from a few WANTED signs they don't have too much to do...
But like the Wild West, I believe this too will be resolved quickly (15 years at the most and I'm exaggerating)...
The technology needs to develop a little more and then each person will have their own place and their own way and everyone will be monitored and everything will be resolved...
That's my take anyway
At the time, in light of the many predictions that were here, I spoke with Roy about the possibilities of preventing them.
The option of a user and password came up, but anyone can open several for him, so that's a problem.
That's why I spoke with Shaula Hytner from the Internet Association and asked her if she thinks it's possible to contact an Internet provider and ask him to attach some permanent identification to the transmitters, one that is randomly generated so as not to reveal the user's identity, but remains constant for that user throughout his life.
She told me that even if it was technically possible - there is no way in the world that they would agree. She said they would justify their disagreement with privacy protection considerations.
I emphasized that it was privacy-friendly but she said that even though it was true it wouldn't change their answer.
This would have solved the problem because every change requires payment and a long bureaucracy with the supplier.
It's a shame that everything that involves protecting privacy is always blown out of proportion.
I think you mean proxy…
And yes, it was possible to block everyone... but the problem is that there are also innocent people who use it...
And Nomer also says that I am a website and I let others surf from me, so I don't take an unoccupied address but I use my own address (of the website's server) that everyone can surf from (like Google Translate for example) but there are tens of thousands of such websites
In order to avoid forgery, users use registration (with a username and password), which I think is definitely missing here...
But that won't stop people from taking what Nadav accused you of...
I'm still thinking of a creative solution for this… it's interesting 🙂
The skeptic:
I assume that to allow identification as an IP address that is not occupied by anyone else, these forgers would have had to obtain address ranges from the party that controls address regulation. isn't it?
If so, can these ranges be blocked?
I find this out voluntarily for my father and I hope you don't charge me money for the consultation 🙂
By the way - I don't even know what flexibility the site has in blocking addresses, so it's just a basic exploration.
Michael Rothschild, my father:
It's stupid because if someone wants to fake an IP they can...
It's not complicated, just type in google:
ip surf
hide ip
And you will reach all kinds of websites, all you have to do is write down the website you want to browse...
(Like Google only with more options)
In order to avoid them, you need to block anyone who surfs from a proxy (there is a possibility to find out)
But then you also lose the innocent. Apart from this, there are more complicated options...
So why block the users who try to translate the site?
Although even if you want to do this it is a bit complicated work because Google uses a lot of IP (servers) and uses them according to its PREFOMANCE
By the way, Avi Blizovsky:
Pay attention to what the skeptic said. In my opinion you should block Google's IP so that people don't follow the method you described.
Thanks to the skeptic.
I knew the first option - and Nadav knew it too, but it does not allow to reach the result he accused me of, that is, work with one IP, switch to another and then return to the first.
The way with Google seems interesting and the others seem too complicated to me to try so I will believe you.
By the way, something from the field of logic:
When someone says "if X is true then it can be confirmed by such and such an experiment", this means that if the experiment fails, then X is not true (because if it were true, the experiment would succeed).
Therefore the above statement is equivalent to the statement that X can be disproved by the failure of that experiment.
Good. There are probably some who find it too complicated.
For Michael and everyone else - change IP:
First of all, there is the simplest confirmation to disconnect and reconnect to the Internet (and make sure you get an IP dynamically)…
If you don't know that you are receiving a dynamic IP and/or you don't have the strength to disconnect and connect again, it is always possible to go to GOOGLE TRANSLATOR and type the address of the site where you want to surf and here you are surfing with Google's IP...
Of course there are also more sophisticated things like all kinds of proxy software...
Google PROXY SURF
or HIDE MY IP and you will find many effective methods...
All by the way absolutely legal (why would it be pirated?)
But to the point, Nadav please come back... you understand that you made a mistake and if not then what does it matter because you didn't succeed and you won't succeed in convincing anyone else...
Please stop this shameful and stupid debate... Michael, if he continues to attack you for this nonsense, please don't answer...
Thanks
You just keep getting worse and worse in the level of your arguments, you already decide what I said, say it and act on it, sad, but I stop wasting my time debating whether a person like you, only you know the truth and you will have to live with it, I suspect and quite convinced but as always Everything has some doubt
Haha, Michael, I didn't say you could disprove another lie, I said you could confirm it
Just one more - for variety:
Pine! How could I forget that I am also Oren!
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-sciam-0004093/#comment-209666
And what do you think if it is said that you are actually a tsunami? Can be fun - can't it?
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-sciam-0004093/#comment-210377
Nadav:
The one who proved hypocrisy the whole way is precisely you.
Of course, you don't have to go far back. You said it is possible to refute, you said how, you received a refutation according to your method and you rejected the refutation you ordered.
It may be possible to impersonate another IP.
I am indeed a computer person but my field of expertise is algorithms and I also occasionally help my children when it is necessary to do something unusual on the computer.
Of course you may not accept this claim but - like the other claims you did not accept - this is also a fact.
By the way: if anyone here knows how to impersonate another IP, I ask that they tell us how to do it.
Nadav - you are welcome to ask a professional you trust (if you trust anyone at all despite the paranoia).
Simple - this is really an interesting question and although it is not related to the discussion, I would love to hear it.
Here are some more suggestions for impersonation charges:
Amichai is of course me. Can't be otherwise!
https://www.hayadan.org.il/chimps-are-smarter-then-human-2608093/#comment-244104
Of course also A. Ben-Ner:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-planet-that-shouldnt-exist-0209097/#comment-243952
And of course we were also created:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/milky-way-and-byond-0406092/#comment-223402
And of course also reads:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-sciam-0004093/#comment-210035
After all, this is pure hypocrisy, you are a computer person, you know these things, if you are capable of this kind of hypocrisy, then what will morally prevent you from adding a sympathetic comment from "Chaim"
Michael, how do you determine that an IP difference is unequivocal proof, since it is possible to send messages from another computer or with the help of a friend, is your scientific skepticism completely erased when it comes to something that concerns you?
And so you see, children, how a discussion about what is permissible for a person is turned into a discussion about those who desire his evil.
On second thought, it was clear that you would not receive any proof because my father had already provided unequivocal proof before.
Nadav:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/advantage-of-man-0209091/#comment-244396
To this should be added "Even if I said that my theory can be refuted, it only came to serve the demagogy and I did not mean it seriously"
It could also be that you use this name to hide your more extreme positions
In the first article, Haim violently attacks Ami Bachar, he tells him "You are a sick person", something you would not dare to do under your own and familiar name
In the second article Haim does not know the difference between an earth stone and a moon stone, a level of scientific knowledge that does not suit either you or your fan life
Michael, ok, I couldn't confirm it that way, Haim is a quite common name and there are chances that it is another Haim, but I am still convinced that you are using this name to strengthen yourself.
Nadav:
And that still doesn't mean I agree that he will respond to protect me.
It's easy to see that there are people who are crazy about it.
Nadav:
I do feel like I'm getting carried away with your game at Kaka, but here it is:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/faked-moon-rock-30080911/#comment-242731
https://www.hayadan.org.il/1108093/#comment-240101
There must be more.
Chaim: 17.6.2009 - response 56 (the first time he responds)
Michael. From the very first moment you could see that Nadav was only arguing so as not to admit a mistake. I admire your patience but glad to know that it too has an end
Chaim: September 3.9.2009, 59 - response XNUMX (the first time he responds)
Michael - I don't know why you bother to write serious responses to troublemakers who think there is no difference between man and beast. After all, even if you answered "wow" they had to respect it according to their method. In their eyes, humanity is generally a disadvantage and therefore they descend on those who symbolize it
The appeal to Michael, the location of the appearance in the debate, the overly decisive approach
If my hypothesis is correct, it can also be confirmed experimentally
He will not find an article in which Haim's response will appear, before Michael's response
By the way, Haim:
It's nice to know I have fans but you see this is the second time your comments are harmful.
In the overly sympathetic response you expressed in the debate with Higgs, you were simply wrong when you said he was talking about the same thing I was talking about. He was clearly trying to say something else.
You also saw that I pointed out exactly the differences between our claims - differences because of which I claimed that his words were unfounded. I don't know if Higgs' silence means he accepted my claims or not, but it doesn't belong here.
What I wanted was to simply ask you to think twice before you defend me because you see that I know how to defend myself.
It's true that it hurts to be under an unjustified personal attack, but I still ask that you respond only if you have something to say to the actual matter because just as the personal attack is to a person's body, so is the defense to a person's body and you saw what it did to Nadav.
I have my theory so don't confuse my brain with the facts
Father, do you really believe that the appearance of the same life at that stage of the debate in the same way, when he makes a comment eerily similar to the comment in the old debate, is arbitrary? What are the chances? No matter what you say, I am absolutely convinced that this response was created (whether directly or indirectly) by that person and you have no right to prevent me from this opinion, in general your intervention in the matter is a bit outrageous, I did not personally attack but that mysterious "life" Attacked me, please don't put yourself in the position of an older brother who checks the IP and judges and decides alone, it's not relevant at all.
point:
Enough with the nonsense.
Does the hallucination have an actual existence?
If not then why are you doing it?
But it doesn't belong. I don't think you understood the point of the article.
Michael, I think it was clear in my response that I am aware that I am a monkey in relation to these.
But according to my definition of the word hallucination, all these are delusions, a hallucination is a state in which the person thinks that any concepts in his mind have an actual existence.
Nadav, you can trust me that I know how to check. Michael's IP hasn't changed in months and it's the same IP both before and after Haim's response. In general, it seems to me that your personal attack against him was blown out of proportion. A debate is legitimate - a personal attack is not.
point:
There is something new about it.
It is true that the roots of the idea - although not the idea itself - were sown by the Pythagoreans and by Plato but this idea itself is quite new.
Marius Cohen wrote an outstanding article about it in Galileo. You should read.
It may be clear to you that Tagmark is delusional, but it is not clear to any serious person (and Tagmark himself has proven achievements that far exceed yours).
There is an abysmal difference between "getting the math too" and "getting ***only*** the math"!
The fact is that everything we come to a true understanding of is expressed in mathematics and even if we probe beneath the layer of elementary particles we cannot claim to have truly understood as long as we do not give it a mathematical expression.
In other words - our understanding is trapped within mathematics and the idea it raises is that reality itself is also nothing but mathematical.
It includes as a by-product many other ideas such as the idea of the multiple worlds and it is the only closed description offered to date for reality.
What's new about this, I remember that it was Putnam's claim that he roughly claimed that since we must accept everything that is expressed in science as constituting existence then we must also accept mathematics, because all science is based on mathematics.
And in general you have to go back as far as Pythagoras or even preceded him who said that everything is a number.
But anyone with common sense understands that all these are talking nonsense, they are hallucinating just like the religious people hallucinate God.
point:
I'm going back and attaching here a link to the article I already referred you to, which describes a philosophical approach that is gaining more and more traction among scientists, mathematicians and philosophers, which holds that everything is mathematics (yes - exactly the same kind of things you allow yourself to mistakenly claim that we create and destroy in our heads):
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0709.4024v1
Read about the author of the article here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark
Thanks for the test, father, but it's really not a problem to disconnect and connect after 3 minutes on a different IP,
And by the way, point:
I understand what science is. much more than "a little"
point:
I wonder if you really don't know you're rambling.
I never said that the world is not governed by the laws of nature.
On the contrary - I always said that he was governed by such laws and even in arguments with you I was required to do so from time to time.
The point is that you think that reduction is everything, while I know for sure (and I assume you will understand this too if you just start thinking) that since we keep coming back and saying that there are only such and such elementary particles and such and such forces we will not learn anything about the way the world functions.
The entire practice of science is the construction of theories that express the integrated behavior of all forces and particles and all you do is express and express opposition to this practice.
Your objection is counterproductive.
More than that - if it had been taken in the past, even the elementary particles and the basic forces would not have been discovered.
If you think that by going back and reminding yourself that there are only elementary particles and forces you will come to an understanding of the world - good luck to you.
Fortunately, no scientist does that.
Nadav, I checked, Michael and Chaim do not write from the same IP and their style is not similar at all.
Anyone who has a little understanding of what science is knows that the concept of science is that the world has laws of physics and no other laws. In a world where there are only laws of physics, there is no place to talk about other things that are not laws of physics as if they exist in it.
For some reason Michael you oppose this idea and in fact you are developing a kind of anti-scientific worldview in which every thinking mind has permission to create and destroy things in the universe as it sees fit.
Michael, well leave it, you are not able to make the separation between the way you think and behave and the way science is supposed to behave in order to minimize the bias, which will always exist at a certain level, in your opinion there should also be a scientific field that will have beautiful animals and ugly animals because beauty is an important matter most
As far as I'm concerned, the conversation is over, and by the way, I've already argued with you once, and even then, towards the end of the argument, there was some mysterious life who responded in time and insulted me, even in that argument, it seems suspicious to me because of the timing, but this time I'm pretty sure it's you, what are the chances of two long arguments between me and Michael In the advanced stages of the debate, a person named Haim will appear once and insult the person arguing with Michael and disappear, and three minutes later Michael will appear with another response, I am quite convinced that you are more concerned with ego than with the desire to try to have an interesting discussion
Nadav:
I didn't research the giraffe and the whole thing was just for illustration.
Did you really not understand that?
As I said - defining the main and the plain is the necessity of reality.
Even when you choose in which order to engage in research you do so.
Main and Tefal are often absolutely absolute.
It characterizes every aspect of our lives and our brain also takes pains to do it automatically.
Have you ever given your mind to the question of how we identify people by their caricature?
After all, an accurate picture of one square centimeter of their facial skin has much more information!
The reason for this is of course - that the painter knew how to separate the main from the bland.
This.
As far as I'm concerned, this conversation is over.
Eddie:
Here's the link:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/birth-of-language-1110084/
Michael Rothschild,
Give a link to the article on 'the language'.
Chaim, the point is not what I think, but what I think science should define or not define, from my personal point of view, it is clear that there is a difference between man and beast
Michael, the main and the trivial are not absolute and should be avoided as much as possible from defining them unnecessarily,
What is considered a more essential feature of a giraffe in your opinion, its long neck or its height?
Nadav:
Oops!
So now it is no longer chauvinism in favor of the person but in favor of qualities?
In my eyes, the distinction between main and trivial is legitimate and is even a necessity of reality.
Michael - I don't know why you bother to write serious responses to troublemakers who think there is no difference between man and beast. After all, even if you answered "wow" they had to respect it according to their method. In their eyes, humanity is generally a disadvantage and therefore they descend on those who symbolize it
Michael, let's continue with this logic, since every animal has an "essential" feature or features that distinguish it from other animals and also some non-"essential" features that distinguish it from other animals, is it true that science striving for objectivity will decide which of them is who? Isn't it better to simply define as many different features as possible and describe the difference in the most free form of bias? After all, the choice of the giraffe's long neck as the most essential difference in this organism is due to the fact that it is the most noticeable feature to the viewer, and maybe tomorrow it will turn out that the giraffe has a very special stomach and it will become the different essential feature? The scientist should identify as many unique features as possible, describe them, understand them, but absolutely not decide that they are absolutely essential
Nadav:
Almost every animal has a collection of features that can most be said to make it what it is - the features that make it the most unique.
People can have different opinions on the matter but I think that the combination of the size, the ears, the trunk and the memory are the essential differences between the elephant sea and other animals.
The essential difference between the giraffe and other animals is perhaps the height and especially the length of the neck.
The bat has some very interesting essential properties, the most important of which, in my opinion, is its ability to "see" through its ears (and even though it is active "vision" - that is, one that is similar in a certain sense to an animal with eyes also having a flashlight in its forehead).
In general, I am not an expert in zoology and it would be difficult for me to create a list of the features that constitute essential differences that distinguish animal X from the rest of the animals but the page here is short even for what I myself can write.
I have already told you that the word essential does not have the chauvinistic essence you are looking for and I still stand by that (not even in the word principled or quality or, to do you a favor with your statements as well - basic).
I also told you - back at the beginning of things - that if you are looking for chauvinism, you can find it much more easily in the word "allowed".
I also added that there is nothing wrong with chauvinism as long as it is known what kind of chauvinism it is.
Michael,
How is the difference between humans and animals fundamentally different from the difference between animals and themselves?
Nadav:
It turns out that there is no limit to arrogance and you still try to tell me what I think.
So I said a gradual process and when I wrote you the millionth response (come on - go count and find another inaccuracy!) I didn't remember and wrote a change and didn't repeat the word process.
In terms of the subject we are talking about, these exchanges of words have no meaning, but of course you will not miss the opportunity to accuse me of changing meanings that did not exist and were not created.
Michael, you just constantly change and adapt the meanings of the things you say to what is convenient for you at that moment, after all in your article you said "gradual process" and not "gradual changes" why do you constantly change what you say, a process is a series of changes that lead to something specific A change is only one change, suddenly you elegantly replace the word process with the word changes, why?
Keep convincing yourself that you are right, I have no problem with that, but just answer me this simple question
How is the difference between humans and animals fundamentally different from the difference between animals and themselves?
Nadav:
My conclusion regarding you is that you simply do not know Hebrew.
Gradual change is a term whose function is to explain that the change is not a big and sudden change. Capish?
It has no direction. Even if you try to get caught up in the word "stairs" that can be related to it, even though that's not what I was thinking about when I wrote the things, the stairs can both go up and down.
The funniest thing about the whole thing is that you try to tell me what I think and still allow yourself to argue with me about things even after I explained to you that you are completely missing the point.
Is there no limit to arrogance? Do you really believe you know better than me what I think?
You do this on every possible level - both in the directional meaning that you bestow on a sentence that is completely directionless, and in that you repeat and preach to me that the monkey is no less good than man - as if I ever claimed that there is some absolute sense in which man is good.
It seems to me that you simply can't find the right things to accuse me of, but your urge to attack me is unconquerable, so you attribute things to me that I didn't say and I don't think in order to attack them.
Michael, I am also tired of your sentence
"Evolution, as we know today, is a gradual process based on mutations..." The pair of words "gradual process" indicates movement in a certain direction, this is not the evolution described by scientists today according to my understanding, we no longer talk about a gradual process or development in any direction that he is only talking about a process of genetic changes that living things go through and if by luck this or that change allows them to survive then the change is duplicated, that's all the change does not have to have any direction, in such evolution man is no different as he is from a monkey or an amoeba, and man can also degenerate tomorrow and come back to be an amoeba (although unlikely)
If I can't get it across to you then maybe the words of GBS Holden will do
"The change from monkey to man is likely to be seen as a change for the worse in the eyes of the monkey. A monkey is certainly a satisfactory animal. But he (man) may not appear to be an improvement even in the eyes of an angel. Compared to the monkey who is a creature whose way of life is quite improved, modern man will appear to be a rational type only To a partial extent and therefore a rather damaged creature"*.
Nadav:
You just tire me out.
When you claimed without any substantiation (or with completely unfounded substantiation) that I have a logical failure in understanding evolution, were you trying to tell me what you are saying now?
Regarding the essential difference and the difference in principle and the qualitative difference - you are the one who does not understand and I am tired of trying to explain to you.
If dozens of examples of the use of these words that do not even have the possibility to dream of a rating do not convince you that there is no rating in these words, nothing will convince you (unless you are convinced and you simply refuse to let go of ego considerations).
Each reader will judge according to the arguments he has read and decide what his personal opinion is.
By the way, Nadav, I'm interested on another level - do you also care about the lives of animals and are you a vegetarian like me or do you only fight for their dignity (even though, as mentioned, their dignity was not harmed by the things that were said).
point:
I told you. This is a debate I no longer take part in.
Live in a world where there are only four powers and let me quietly try to understand the real world where there are also complex things.
Michael what's the connection?
I said that the phenomena in nature that can be said to be differentiated in principle are phenomena that arise from different forces, such as the phenomenon of fire (the electric force), and the phenomenon of the sun (the strong force). These are phenomena that look the same but with a fundamental difference between them. Is something unclear here?
And that's it, from a scientific point of view there are only 4 qualities between phenomena.
The fact that our brain invents patterns and recognizes different patterns does not make the patterns fundamentally separable, and if you don't accept this in terms of language as well, then everyone will agree that everything is arbitrary.
Amoeba = amoeba
In order to say that humans are fundamentally different from animals, it is necessary to show that the differences between them and other animals are fundamentally different from the differences between other animals and themselves, the ability to "symbolize" as you call it only shows that a type A animal has a complex algorithm with different functions than a type B animal ', you put a human being in variable A and the other animals in variable B, but you can also put Kibbash in variable A and Amba in variable B
Michael, maybe you'll see you
Does the fact that you have more complex algorithms than an amoeba make me an essentially different animal than an amoeba?
If the answer is yes then all animals are essentially different from each other and if this is so then the meaning is stolen from the term "essential" because if they all differ from each other essentially then they are all simply different from each other and that's it
Michael, you are missing the whole idea of what I want to say, it seems to me that you simply do not understand, I am not claiming that it is forbidden to use the words, essential, basic, qualitative, etc. I am only claiming that using them to explain differences between types of organisms is problematic And away from objectivity, why is it hard for you to accept this?
Since a monkey has 10 algorithms that do X and a human has 105 algorithms that do Y, and the Amba has 4 algorithms that do Z, this does not mean that there is a "substantial" difference between them, why is the ability to "symbolize" superior to the ability to recognize the image for example, beyond the fact that it is a more complex algorithm , there is no "essential" difference in it, only a difference in complexity
point:
I stopped referring to this nonsense.
For you there is nothing.
It is beyond me why - again according to you - in a world where there is nothing - there is still an argument between us.
Eddie:
I think I clarified the answer to your question in the article about the language.
There are differences between algorithms and these in my eyes are fundamental differences.
As soon as the matter of the symbol enters the algorithm, it changes fundamentally compared to the algorithm that was before it.
Just as once the subject of image recognition enters the algorithm, it changes fundamentally compared to what was before.
The identification of the images is a very essential matter.
The recognition of the images from a greater distance is a quantitative matter.
Nadav:
The argument is not circular at all.
It is clear that the fundamental change started from something.
This something, in my opinion, is the ability to "symbolize" or any other essential component of language (note! Here too I use the word essential without hierarchy. There are essential things that distinguish language from the ability to recognize images and I mean such an essential component).
This something could not be the language itself - and I explained why.
I showed why the "symbol" thing could have been the same thing and how language could derive from it.
In short - no circle!
Nor was I talking about language improving the survival of the human race.
This is true, but it has nothing to do with the birth of the language.
In general, the birth of traits is not related to the survival of the species.
They are "born" as a random mutation in a single individual and determined by natural selection if they give this individual an advantage - until they become the property of many.
So it can turn out that the survival of the species - the trait is beneficial - as in the case of language, or harmful.
In the second case, one of two things will happen - either the species will be destroyed, in the end, or a stable equilibrium will be created in it between the carriers of the trait and those who do not carry it (see the value of tendency to delinquency).
So much for the article about the language.
I have no mistake - neither fundamental nor otherwise (by the way: is "fundamental" a word that is allowed to be used? It is not similar to "fundamental" or "essential"?) in understanding evolution.
It seems to me that your tendency to attribute mistakes to me stems from your mistakes in reading comprehension.
As you said, I wrote "evolution, as we know today, is a gradual process based on mutations that survive and spread...".
This is a correct claim that has nothing to do with the trend in evolution.
I ask you to examine yourself and tell me if you think something is incorrect in the above claim.
If you don't find anything wrong with it - it is evidence that you also have (according to you) the same "basic mistake".
It's really funny that you stick basic mistakes at me without any basis and then use them to bash me without having anything to do with the essential part of the discussion.
Note that I used the word substantial again.
Again without any connotation of hierarchy.
A debate has essential features - for example the existence of disagreement, for example the expression of reasoned opinions. These features separate it from, for example, a musical. There is no hierarchy here.
Debate has immaterial qualities that stem from the fact that those engaged in it are human beings, such as the fact that sometimes spitting is done while talking or the fact that someone resorts to slandering the opposing side when they have no real argument.
Eddie, you wrote beautifully, this is definitely a matter of personal belief regarding the essence of the "is", you believe in a transcendent reality beyond the layer of physical reality and that is definitely your right, there is an extensive network of philosophies and opinions about this and all of them cannot be completely refuted or proven, the debate Mine with Michael is more about the role of science in the world
Michael, I read your article and it is very interesting and there may be something in what you say in that it is the ability to invent language that improved the survival of the human race, but this is a bit of a circular claim, you are actually saying that the ability that brought about the improvement of man's ability to think better is... the ability of The person to think better, because the ability to invent a language comes from the increased thinking ability
Beyond that, I'm afraid that you have a fundamental mistake in understanding evolution as I understand it to be accepted today, you write...
Evolution, as we know today, is a gradual process based on mutations that survive and spread...
It seems to me that you are stuck in the basic thinking in which evolution is a process that has a direction and a gradual progress, while all the evidence and thinkers considered in the field today, such as Gold for example, think that this is not so, there is no ladder, no hierarchy, and there is not necessarily a gradual progress, in the past there were already very complex creatures that became extinct while simpler creatures were They survived and humans are not fundamentally different from animals in this sense
That's why I wrote at the beginning that the author of the article is killing himself in the very mention of the concept of the soul.
Michael scientifically there are 4 forces in nature and these are the only fundamental differences that can be scientifically discussed. Everything else is a hallucination and nothing more. Unless someone comes and says that there is a soul (which is not related to the 4 forces in nature) then he will indeed answer the definition that he presents a fundamental/essential difference.
Michael Rothschild,
I agree that there is a fundamental difference between the mental abilities of man and the mental abilities of animals (including the more mentally developed ones). I also believe that there are fundamental differences between the abilities of animals among themselves, and that beyond distinct degrees, even in the physical world there are - beyond purely quantitative differences - also fundamental differences between different manifestations of matter and between different types of applicability. The concept that sees all beings that have an ontological existence in reality as 'the same' and that the differences between them are 'more or less the same' is in my opinion a mistake, compared to the modern physical worldview and research (and it is easy to demonstrate this at the smallest particle level, but not only at the level this) and easy material in the fields of biology and the study of mental phenomena. Personally, I believe that reality contains another layer, beyond the physical layer that we are familiar with and that can be physically measured by means based on this physics, and the difference between it and the physical level should undoubtedly be substantial. We have an old debate about that, and this is not the point I want to focus on in this response.)
If I understood you correctly, the claim is that the essential difference is reflected in different 'principles of action'. Among the 'minds'. According to you, the difference is at the material level, in the form of different 'algorithms'.
The above-mentioned formulations, with all the matter they arouse, still remain vague, and it will be useful for those who are waiting to elaborate and clarify them.
Therefore, regardless of Nadav's argument with you:
How do you define the aforementioned 'principles of action'? What different algorithms are you talking about? And how do you articulate the difference between them?
Nadav:
In my opinion, you are the demagogue.
The difference is fundamental and there is nothing wrong with the word.
In any case, it seems to me that the discussion has degenerated into pointless babble and I am abandoning it.
A:
Your argument is really but really weak...
But what does it belong to?
From the point of view of science, humans are ordinary organisms, with high complexity and many abilities, that complexity is not an objective advantage or disadvantage and does not constitute any "fundamental" difference
Michael, don't be a demagogue, what's wrong with science that claims there is X difference between horses and humans that allows humans to be interested in science and not to define that difference as "essential" "principled" or "qualitative" and to give humans the advantage that
A:
I agree with you.
Why does it belong?
Nadav:
I would disagree because there is a difference.
The fundamental differences are not subjective. A difference is a difference is a difference and a principle is a principle and it has nothing to do with the subject.
If you want to encourage a type of science that will not understand that there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals and that you will not be able to conclude, for example, that it is only of interest to humans and there is little point in trying to interest horses in it, then I really cannot help you.
Michael, would you agree with me that there is no fundamental difference between a car and a computer at the atomic level?
So why do you refuse to expand this logic and say that there is no fundamental difference between humans and animals at the evolutionary level, obviously there are many fundamental differences but they are subjective and do not belong to the scientific work of studying the animal world
A person who justifies the killing of an animal only on the basis of mental superiority actually justifies in the same breath the killing of babies and the mentally retarded.
There is no "moral logic" in eating animals, it is a violent, murderous and shocking phenomenon that developed out of a reality of scarcity and has no "moral" place in an energy-rich culture.
-Vegetarianism saves lives-
Asaf:
Pull the logic in your words a little further and you will come to the conclusion that man is allowed on the stone - there is none.
Therefore, for example, in a stoning incident, it is simply a collision between the two and there is nothing wrong with that.
Nadav:
I see that you also have no problem with chauvinism when you specify the point of reference.
On this point we have an agreement.
The dispute (if you are not yet convinced) is on two points.
One is that in my opinion there is no hierarchy in phrases like "qualitative difference", "substantial difference" "fundamental difference" and in your opinion, for some reason, there is a hierarchy in them.
The second is that there are things that are so self-evident that there is no need to mention them, and that whenever you talk about terms like "good", "bad" and the like, it is clear that the scale of attribution is the person - as long as it is not stated otherwise.
You, for some reason, think that the words "in relation to the person" should always be added to every such expression.
Nadav:
I have no logical fallacy.
I just saw that it was difficult to explain to you, so I took an extreme example.
Do you agree that there is a fundamental difference between a car and a computer program?
If so - you must admit that there is no hierarchical interest in the phrase "fundamental difference".
How many times will I have to chew your things?!
If you accept the above, you should also understand that the use of this term when discussing the differences between animals and humans - it also does not express anything hierarchical.
The fact that you do not draw this conclusion is your logical fallacy - not mine!
What is a fundamental difference?
It is a difference arising from different operating principles.
There is such a difference between the animal brain and the human brain.
Obviously, if you get down to the details, you can point to a lot in common, and if you go into the details until you don't see the forest, you can say that everything is in common.
This is exactly the same as saying that in the end - both a car and computer programming are made up of atoms and obey the laws of physics. At this level - everything is the same.
In my opinion, the fundamental difference is that excess mental capacity - a capacity that is based on different algorithms and not on "more of the same".
In my opinion, this is a matter of principle (and in this context - Assaf will forgive me - but it really doesn't matter what the author of the article meant because it seems to me that the discussion has its own "life" and that's a good thing. I have already poured many words here on the concept of the supernatural soul and I think that there are qualitative differences in the world although there are no supernatural souls in it).
In my opinion, this claim is completely objective and free of any chauvinism.
And again - as mentioned - there is nothing wrong with chauvinism as long as it is not hidden.
A description based on overt chauvinism is completely objective.
Haim, let's say that cosmic radiation washes over the earth tomorrow and destroys all humans, the only survivors are the cockroaches that have the ability to survive against radiation, will you even then claim that humans are allowed, after all in one second the ability to survive radiation becomes "quality" and the most important for a living creature While the collection of human traits will not help us as such, this, again, is a matter of reference point, in terms of science, man is simply a very complex organism whose complexity allows him to perform a very large variety of actions, this is where it ends, is it allowed, or not, this is a subjective interpretation
How is "permitted man not"?
And even according to the quantitative argument, this sentence is not true. According to the Hegelian thesis, quantity becomes quality. And the person is allowed...there is and there is.
And "good" "bad" "better" "inferior" etc. should not be in a scientist's lexicon, but instead he indicates the point of reference from which things are "good", "bad", etc. and qualifies it
Michael, the point is not that I want to cancel the point of reference at all, but only to point it out, something you don't do when you determine certain differences between humans and animals as "quality" differences or "fundamental" differences in terms of evolution, there is no "fundamental" difference between a simple organism with few abilities and a complex organism with a million abilities.
Your example regarding the car clarifies your fallacy, it's not the difference between a car and a computer program, it's the difference between a car with a type A engine and a car with a type B engine, you differentiate man from other living creatures by the same features that allow you to make this differentiation, But science should strive for objectivity, as much as possible, therefore, in my opinion, a scientist should refrain from this differentiation, one should not talk about the quality of the difference between A and B, nor about whether it is a more or less fundamental difference, but simply describe the difference in the most comprehensive way possible to try to understand him and leave the interpretation to my faith and personal opinion.
Before the respondents sail away to the hidden seas, a number of clarifications:
When I wrote a quantitative difference, I meant the difference(s) created in the course of evolution, because of biochemical links, the development and activation of various genes, etc., all differences that can be measured and identified physically, chemically, etc., measurable, therefore quantitative.
The best example of this is the differences between us and the (other) apes,
And for that there are new revelations
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/08/31/gr.095026.109.abstract
which reinforce the assumption of a quantitative difference,
By qualitative difference I meant the same "extra soul" in different beliefs, the same "spark" that anthropologists (in the past) were looking for, or if you will, the breath of the Creator into the lump of mud.
Or in other words the same "soul",
something mysterious, artillery lacking physical properties (not measurable),
And again, as I wrote when biologists talk about a soul, they mean a set of properties whose physical/biochemical origin is becoming increasingly clear, properties that can be measured and identified, certainly not the result of a "creator's breath",
Therefore, since I do not claim that the quantitative difference places man above other animals,
And since there is no quality difference... Man is not allowed!
Nadav:
Not true.
There is a fundamental difference between a computer program and a car.
What is chauvinistic here?
Besides - I already told you that if you want to talk about chauvinism (which is not the subject of the discussion) then:
1. You could quietly get caught up in the word "permitted" (in "permitted by the person")
2. No one claimed that there is no human chauvinism
3. No one should apologize for this either, because one always chooses a certain point of view, but it is natural for people to choose the person as a point of reference. That's why I raised you already in previous comments about your intention to cancel the words "good", "bad", "better" and "inferior" which no matter how you use them - there will always be some kind of "chauvinism" in them (if not human, then other)
In fact, when you say that there is a "fundamental" difference between humans and animals, you are actually putting this particular difference above the differences between the different animals and themselves, and this is human chauvinism in its full glory
Nadav:
tired me
I actually explained why the difference is fundamental in a special article that I pointed to in my first response (7) in this discussion.
I repeat and ask you, do you intend to remove the words "quality", "substantial", "principled" and the like from the dictionary?
If not: when do you think it is permissible to use them?
Michael, you claim that it is not about any hierarchical scale and you are trying to change words to hide its existence, the matter is very simple, if you state that there is some "fundamental" "substantial" "qualitative" difference, you must qualify it by explaining why it is "fundamental" "Essential" etc. Even a difference between a big cow and a small cow can be essential in some cases.
And the answer would be given if the question were correct...
If you mean that our brain is special from other brains in a drastic way - this is a mistake, it is quite similar to some brains in nature...
If you ask why we are the smartest - then something must be the smartest, right? You can consider yourself lucky…
And if the question asked is not related to one of my answers, then formulate it here and we'll see if maybe an answer will be given 🙂
The question arises why only in humans the brain developed as it did.
Nadav:
I would like to clarify something else:
If you want to talk about human "chauvinism" - you have no reason to care about the word "quality".
The word "allowed" definitely has a connotation of advantage.
The discussion, admittedly, is not about her and the use of the word "quality" is irrelevant.
In general, if you had written the things about the word "permitted" - at least there would not have been a mistake in the interpretation of the words, but then there would have been a different kind of mistake.
Are you going to remove the words "good", "bad", "better", "inferior" and the like from the dictionary?
By doing so, you will only harm the communication between people and will not be of any use.
It is clear from the outset that our entire perception of the meaning of these words stems from our being human. It's totally legit. Just as from my personal side, it is legitimate to say "I" and mean myself and not you.
Anyway, that's not the point of the debate here.
The debate here is about the question of whether the difference between man and beast is one of quantity or of quality.
My answer - as I mentioned - is that the difference is qualitative.
You can find a quantitative difference between a big cow and a small cow.
If the difference between "qualitative difference" and "quantitative difference" is only quantitative, what have we done?
In my opinion, a qualitative difference between A and B is that the essence of A is different from the essence of B.
You cannot learn about essence from functions. It is possible that A and B are different essences but with the same functions. (I mean the subject of the types of souls, the soul that nourishes, feels, speaks, etc.)
This is how they tried to explain it in the past.
Of course I think this whole train of thought is nonsense and a big delusion.
Nadav:
You still don't get it.
This is not about any hierarchical scale.
I am constantly trying to find the word that will make you relate to the subject.
Is the word "principled" acceptable to you?
Birth, illness, old age and death apply to everyone in the material world without exception.
As long as the industry of murder and exploitation continues for the pleasure of the senses of the creatures who pretend to be human beings, they will also continue to experience suffering, exploitation, cruelty
And the wars will continue and there will be no real peace here!!
The real problem is that they don't teach true and eternal spiritual knowledge - bhakti yoga the science of yoga and self-realization - the Bhagavad-Gita and
Shrimed Bhagavatam and the Vedas and more and more..
which constitute the ancient knowledge of spiritual science - which indeed originates in India, but it is intended for all of humanity!
and the books of A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada!! (Srilla Prabhupada)
Everything else without spiritual knowledge is mainly 'maya' - an illusion.. (the deceptive and deceptive energy of the material world..)
"The path to redemption and liberation in our time:
"The same perfection that was achieved in the Satya age through mystic yoga, in the Treta age through various sacrificial rites, and in the Dvapara age by worshiping God in the temple, can be achieved in Kali-yuga simply by constantly repeating the names of God." (Shrimad-Bhagavatam 12.3.52) According to the Vedas, the world moves through four cyclical periods, the last of which is the Kali period, the period of increasing selfishness and weakening of spirituality in man.
In the Vedas it is said: "In this period of Kali, characterized by quarrels and hypocrisy, the only way to salvation is to return and call God by His names. There is no other way, there is no other way, there is no other way." (Chaitanya Charitamratha Odi 17.21)
"My dear king, although Kali-yuga is full of faults, there is one good virtue in it: simply by chanting the Hare Krishna Maha-mantra, one can be freed from material bondage and ascend to the kingdom of God." (Shrimad-Bhagavatam 12.3.51) "
Mahatma Gandhi: "I feel that spiritual progress requires at a certain point that we stop killing our fellow creatures for the sake of satisfying our physical needs."
"...Non-violence towards humans would allow killing and harming dangerous animals - this is an evil and satanic philosophy. The hostility towards animals is very widespread today, and therefore the unfortunate productions are in constant anxiety and human society is forced to pay for it - in the form of ceaseless wars, cold or hot, between people private or between nations.."
Michael, I don't know which article you are referring to when you say so blatantly that I am wrong, but I referred to it
Whereas the anthropologists argued that the difference is qualitative, meaning that there is something in man that they defined as a "spark" that places him in a high place above other animals
But even if your semantics is essential, one must ask, essential to whom? Substantial why?
Let's take your beautiful example regarding the computer software, apparently the software A*B is more efficient than a series of addition operations, but if I define that the particular computer processor running the software has a calculation ability a thousand times faster in an addition operation than in a multiplication operation, moreover the multiplication operation makes it difficult and drains the energy of his battery tragically, will A*B charge more efficiently even now? The attempt to rank the qualities of animals in a hierarchical scale of "quality" or "essence" is problematic.
Mushik:
I didn't quite understand what you wanted.
Did someone suggest ignoring genetic modifications?
Did someone say not to look at the differences?
After all, the topic of discussion is the differences!
Sometimes even a certain threshold amount can be a critical mass that will cause a change.
Apart from that, it is hard to ignore the fact that there are genetic changes in the transition between species and certainly between families that provide completely different capabilities.
Therefore, you have to look at human abilities compared to other productions.
Nadav:
You are wrong:
When we talk about "quality" here, there is no connotation of better or less quality.
A better term for the question under discussion (one that wouldn't confuse you) is "is the difference quantitative or substantive"
In my opinion, the problem that raises the debate here is a problem of basic definitions, what is "quality"? Is a "quality" animal an animal with higher survival? Or an animal that manages to thrive more in its life? Or maybe exist in perfect harmony with the surrounding nature? There are those (I am not among them) who would argue that a life that is dying of grass is a more "quality" life than a human being tormented by the torments of reason, "quality" is a terribly subjective concept and not only that but also that we are trying to define the quality of those tools here (i.e. the brain, or human thinking) when using these tools themselves, a paradoxical experience, obviously we will think that rational thinking is more "quality", because we think about it in a "rational" way, I think Einstein once said, that it is impossible to solve problems using the same level of awareness and perception that created them To begin with, and this is the point here regarding the attempt to define the "quality" of man versus animals
Yigal G.:
I completely disagree with your words and you can read the reasons for this in my article "The first word".
This brings me to Assaf's words about the difference between "quality" and "quantity".
What does this difference mean?
Is there no more matter in an elephant's brain than in a human brain?
Doesn't a computer program that calculates A*B by a series of concatenation operations execute more commands than a program that does it properly?
Surely the difference is qualitative!
Raul, animals do communicate and even talk. Chimpanzees were taught sign language and they even invented new concepts in this language. (See the links here: http://he.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22%D7%A9%D7%A4%D7%AA+%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D%22%2B%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%A0%D7%96%D7%94&fulltext=Search&ns0=1) The big difference between humans and animals in the matter of speech is the sophisticated voice box that developed in humans and enabled the development of speech as we know it. In this sense, animals will not be able to learn to speak in a time frame that will not allow them to develop a suitable voice box (unless they are genetically engineered...)
Point, soul is a concept whose main meanings are religious, and even in humans it is not possible to prove its existence (like many things in religions).
my people An enriching response.
Another pointless article from the creator of Dr. Rosenthal. Why are you bothering us with your personal opinions on a website that is supposed to bring ideas, opinions and current research?
By the way, Dr. Rosenthal makes a very common mistake in using the phrase "man is permitted": many want to say that man is different from the beast, so they say "man is permitted from the beast" so to speak as a wise biblical quote. The original quote is:
Because the case of the human race and the case of the beast, and one case for them - this quantity is indeed this death, and one spirit for all; And the man is allowed from the beast, because everything is vanity. (Ecclesiastes: XNUMX).
Meaning, there is no difference between man and beast. This is biblical nonsense designed to humiliate man's status and keep him as one of the beasts within the flock of God and religion.
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
"Between faith and science there is an attitude"
There are approaches of all kinds and all types. Just an example, there is an attitude that says a white elephant is a sacred animal, or a cow is a god... In short, the argument that there is an attitude is effectively meaningless.
Regarding the human advantage, at the end of your words you mentioned that there is an attitude that animals have a soul. In this sentence you unwittingly shot yourself down, because you actually agree that the soul is an advantage, only you comment that there are approaches that say that other animals also have a soul, which is scientifically meaningless because it is not possible to measure a soul in other animals.
The writer's claim does not lead anywhere and is flawed. The question must be broken down into two questions:
A. What is the difference between humans and other animals in terms of abilities - behavioral, cognitive, etc. Only this can be debated endlessly, but maybe the debate can get somewhere and maybe we'll learn something from it.
B. The second question is, after we received an answer that there is a significant and measurable difference in the answer to the previous question - what is the cause of the difference. It is certainly reasonable to me that the quantity is the cause of the difference, as the degree of material density and temperature differentiates between states of aggregation, atomic number differentiates between elements. The two questions are independent but the writer confused them, I think because of his views.
What are the chances that animals will learn to talk?
This means that animals have evolved
An example is cats that live for years with humans who talk to them
Why don't they learn to speak?
And what if we can teach monkeys to talk so what?
So then we will include them in human rights
We need a dividing line here
I don't think we should turn vegetables
On the other hand, the environment should be respected and not raped
Again we need a dividing line here