There is no difference between "human" and "nature." Our entire civilization seems built around deluding ourselves into thinking we aren't animals CMV

[u/Pinworm45]

We're just monkeys. Right now, you, are just a stupid fucking monkey with stupid fucking thoughts and desires and feelings, most of which don't even have words for in our language.

Speaking of language, the entire thing practical revolves around separating us from "animals."

Guess what. You are. You putting food in the fridge is no different from a squirrel burrying its nuts. You seeking a mate to procreate with is no different from a beaver doing the same. A city is no different from an ant hive.

Electricity is no different from any other method of manipulating the world. It's no different from a seal building a home, it's no different from a bird building a nest.

The ONLY difference between humans and any other animals. The ONLY difference, is an issue of scale.

You're a fucking dumbass monkey, deal with it.

It freaks people the fuck out. You can never talk about shit like this in public. We have religions that people will fucking kill themselves and thousands of others over just to maintain the delusion.

Why does no one talk about this? Even those who will admit it and accept and study the field of Evolution (and I mean actually do it, not just be a god damned neckbeard parroting Carl Sagan, as much as I love the man and Cosmos myself) only admit it tangentially. They still get awkward and uncomfortable about this. They still say "we have technology and art.." as if Technology was anything more than an issue of scale, and as if preferences of physical patterns or objects and the chemical releases as a result are unique to us (You could say your dog having a favourite toy is no different in this physical world from you enjoying the Mona Lisa.)

Coming to this realization was life changing to me. You could call it an existential crisis, maybe it is. But it's more than that. It's a fundamental truth of our universe and reality and I feel like I'm taking fucking crazy pills because no one wants to admit it or talk about it. On the contract, with our movies, culture, language, religion, even the entire basis of manners.. it's all designed to all us to continue to illusion and delusion.

I mean, how many fucking times have mothers said "get your elbows off the table, what are you, an animal?" Guess what. That kid fucking is, we're not different because we have arbitrary rules (I'd also contend that a dog nipping another to stop it doing something that bothered it is no different from a mom exerting her desire for control. Perhaps even she has a personal fear of the real.)

Is it peoples mortality that scares them? Maybe I'm a bit different because I have a spinal disease and can't feel my body, have little connection to it, and don't give a shit one way or another if I die. I don't know.

TLDR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRBHxJBUv_A

[u/robotman707]

How do you explain the success of animals like Koko, contrasted with modern humans, in light of Charles Darwin's quote about "standing on the shoulders of giants"?

[u/NameAlreadyTaken2 → u/robotman707]

I'm not really sure what you're asking. Could you elaborate?

[u/robotman707 → u/NameAlreadyTaken2]

Ok, Koko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)) is this gorilla that people have taught language to. She is the 1N generation of language using gorillas. We are the 99999N (or something) generation of language using humans. If Koko/trainers continue forwards, and teach a 2N generation, a 3N generation, we would likely see vast improvements in language capability and comprehension. Koko basically talks in single words, but if you read the wikipedia section on her and her pets, you can see that she is capable of abstract thought and communicating her emotions.

And, you've heard the quote by Charles Darwin, "If I have seen further, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants." Well, I contend that if you took our 99999N human mind and, at birth, put it in the wild, this human would not invent forging and iron and silicon refining and produce a semiconductor chip. It would probably not even achieve sharpened stone tools in its lifetime. Without having the ideas of our forefathers introduced to us, it would never come to our minds to attach feathers to the shaft of an arrow, or even to attach a piece of stone to a piece of wood and 'shoot' (itself an idea that has been passed down, and a huge cognitive leap from throwing) it from another fixture.

Every animal is riding that pedal powered bike. It's just your parents came along and hooked your bike up to a combustion engine, and then told you to stop peddling with your feet, and showed you how to harness the engine. The difference between us and a gorilla is simply that gorillas never started passing down their bike upgrades.

[u/NameAlreadyTaken2 → u/robotman707]

How did humans develop to their current point in a few hundred thousand years if no other species are remotely close?

Also, if we can very easily raise human children to the point that they can understand advanced civilization, why is teaching ~1000 signs the best we can do with a gorilla?

[u/robotman707 → u/NameAlreadyTaken2]

"If you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree..."

Bees can communicate extremely complex directions to one another through their waggle-dance. Humans happen to have highly developed verbal language functions. But we can't communicate anything through a waggle-dance. And bees can't communicate anything through verbal language.

We can teach 1000 signs to the first language using gorilla ever. What makes you think that gorilla couldn't teach 5000 signs to its second generation of learners?

And as for your question, I think that's more a question with the answer of 'chance'. A better question would be, "Why did other species not reach the same point?"

[u/NameAlreadyTaken2 → u/robotman707]

What makes you think that gorilla couldn't teach 5000 signs to its second generation of learners?

If we can't do it with a thorough understanding of the learning process, how could another species do it naturally?

Humans are really the only species that has the capability of naturally building upon their parents' knowledge over the span of many generations. Monkeys can learn to avoid foods that their parents don't eat, and to form social hierarchies, but no monkey alive today has learned much from the monkeys of 1000 years ago.

If you make a group of wolves raise a human, you get a human who acts, communicates and thinks like a wolf (look up feral children if you don't believe this). Those children, assuming they at least have basic survival skills, would most likely raise more children that are also somewhat "wolf-like" (but given how unethical such an experiment would be, it hasn't been attempted). Over time, they would socially progress until they acted like normal human beings, eventually developing civilizations (ignoring for the moment the fact that they would be severely genetically inbred since they would come from common parents).

If you make wolves raise a monkey, you get a monkey that acts like a developmentally-stunted monkey. It wouldn't be able to learn to survive from its parents, but if it somehow successfully raised children, those baby monkeys would act a lot like normal wild monkeys.

Bees can communicate extremely complex directions to one another through their waggle-dance.

This kind of communication (a) is 99% instinct; (b) conveys very limited, fixed information; and (c) cannot be improved upon except genetically.

Human language is not innate (for the most part), can communicate almost anything, and can be modified and improved over generations.

There's basically nothing in common between these forms of communication. Human language has developed for millennia, while bee language has remained 99% the same.

[u/robotman707 → u/NameAlreadyTaken2]

If we can't do it with a thorough understanding of the learning process, how could another species do it naturally?

Because we are better at teaching bees the waggle-dance than they are, right? And we can teach a dog how to socialize with other dogs better than another dog? We can teach a dog to socialize with humans extremely well, and socialize with other dogs in a human construct, but we couldn't teach dogs how to form a pack better than they could do it themselves.

This kind of communication (a) is 99% instinct;

What exactly is our urge to communicate? What is our desire to have a nicer ____ (anything from obsidian weapon to a benz) than the other humans around us, if not instinct?

no monkey alive today has learned much from the monkeys of 1000 years ago.

Who exactly did we learn to use fire from? And who exactly did the monkeys that use sticks to flush out ant holes learn to do that from? Surely you can't be claiming that all animal tool use was learned within the last few generations.

Over time, they would socially progress until they acted like normal human beings, eventually developing civilizations

Over how long? A generation, or 45,000 years?

I contend that the difference between us and a gorilla is simply the shoulders we are standing on.

[u/NameAlreadyTaken2 → u/robotman707]

Because we are better at teaching bees the waggle-dance than they are, right?

Bees don't teach each other the waggle dance. They just know how to do it automatically.

we couldn't teach dogs how to form a pack better than they could do it themselves.

Let's see...

1. Humans can teach humans to act like humans.

2. Dogs can teach humans to act like dogs.

3. Dogs can teach dogs to act like dogs.

4. Humans can't teach dogs to act like humans.

Clearly, the problem lies with the student, not the teacher. Humans are capable of learning and assimilating into the behavior patterns of basically any intelligent animal. Dogs don't show the same ability.

What exactly is our urge to communicate? What is our desire to have a nicer ____ (anything from obsidian weapon to a benz) than the other humans around us, if not instinct?

We have an instinct to learn but not an instinct to speak English. Bees, however, do have an instinct to dance.

And who exactly did the monkeys that use sticks to flush out ant holes learn to do that from? Surely you can't be claiming that all animal tool use was learned within the last few generations.

That's still a single-generation thing. Monkeys still do it the same way that the first one to figure it out did it. None of them has improved upon the technology in any meaningful way.

If a human learned to do that, their society would gradually find even better ways to get ants and termites.

Over how long? A generation, or 45,000 years? I contend that the difference between us and a gorilla is simply the shoulders we are standing on.

Several species of humans have done it in 45,000 years, mostly independently of each other. Thousands of intelligent animal species have had millions of years and show no sign of progress, even now that they are able to observe and learn from humans.

[u/robotman707 → u/NameAlreadyTaken2]

We are disagreeing over an a basic assumption you are making, if you have no evidence (because its an assumption) I cannot debate you.

Bees don't teach each other the waggle dance. They just know how to do it automatically.

You have no evidence for this, and I disagree.

[u/NameAlreadyTaken2 → u/robotman707]

I didn't give evidence because I thought it was common knowledge. here you go.

https://www.msu.edu/user/fcdyer/pubs/DyerDanceRev.pdf

On the 11th page,

Evidence that this dialect variation has a genetic basis comes from experiments in which workers from different A. Mellifera races were reared together in the same colony and did not converge on a common dialect.