Agree or disagree?
What makes us human?
This article in the British New Statesman says that what makes us human is playfulness.
Humans do silly, pointless things.
I am not so sure.
Animals don’t make machines.
Animals don’t give each other standardized tests.
Animals don’t have calendars and watches and anxiety attacks and drugs.
Animals don’t have Black Fridays.
Who says humans are smarter than animals?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Anybody who thinks that animals don’t play has not spent enough time laughing at the antics of cats, dogs, horses, or any other relatively smart domesticated or wild mammal. Most of them love playing, especially as juveniles.
Playfulness is not exclusive to humans! Many animals can be observed engaged in play. Domestic cats and dogs are the most obvious examples, but wild animals play, too.
On average, humans probably spend more time working (if you work as obtaining money, food or shelter) than most other species.
The playfulness criterion is about as a thoughtless, arbitrary condition for humanness I can imagine. (OK, I could think of worse necessary and sufficient conditions, but still). As gfbrandenburg notes, animals play and do so often. This a task for philosophers to settle, and my understanding is that we’re yet to do so; such distinctions are often arbitrary or beg the question. Come on Diane! This article is junk! Just because humans do human things doesn’t mean that the things we do make us either superior or define humanity.
Chase, it was silly. Sometimes I post things for fun. My commentary was a refutation of the article.
Lighten up, Chase!
Animals play. It is an important component of their learning.
As it is for humans.
Ann B., as I was writing, my big puppy was playing a game by herself. She was tossing a ball in the air, then chasing it. Some people play less tan she does.
For many more examples of this delightful play, see Jonathan
Balcombe’s lovely book Pleasurable Kingdom–about pleasure and play in the nonhuman animal world. The book is a delightful romp.
What differentiates humans from animals is creativity, not playfulness. Animals can eat, drink, be playful and loveable and loyal, breed or not, and die. They do not create anything new. Humans are unique in this regard. If every nation could understand that human creativity is their nation’s greatest treasure, it would be a different world, where people would be cherished, every one of them. And educating people, especially encouraging their creative capacities, would become a national mission, because who knows which child will discover the next energy source or any number of solutions to world wide problems.
“They do not create anything new.”
Tell that to the bowerbird.
exactly, Duane!
“Man is the only animal that laughs and weeps; for he is the only animal that is struck with the difference between what things are, and what they ought to be.” — William Hazlitt
How about “Man is the only animal to be so hubristic to believe that he is so uniquely different from the ‘animals'”
And to hubristically believe that “man is uniquely qualified to discern that he is so uniquely different from the animals”.
well said, Duane!
Thanks, Robert.
I think those who believe that humans are somehow separated from the “natural” world probably don’t spend much time reading and learning about it, not to mention spending time out in the woods, riverlands, farms and fields observing what goes on.
As I like to say: “Don’t bet against Ol Mother Nature, she always wins out in the end.”
Please don’t take this quote too seriously as it is supposed to be humorous and no offense was intended. It pokes fun at the foibles and follies of human nature, similar to Twain’s observation: “Man is the only animal that blushes – or needs to.”
Ha–reminds me of something I wrote in fourth grade:
Click to access human.pdf
(Yes, my handwriting was terrible–and it hasn’t improved all that much.)
Diana, that’s REALLY AWESOME! What a delight! Thanks for sharing this.
I agree, Robert! Thanks, Diana–what a bright child you were!
(And to question authority-?!)
Thank you, Robert and retiredbutmissthekids!
And thank you, Robert, for your very interesting comments below.
DIana, it as delightful! Thank you for sharing.
My GOODNESS, Diana! Someone must have nourished that strong spirit of yours, and good for them! It occurs to me that part of the probe like see with CC implementation and crazy testing is this: despite CC claims of pushing critical thinking, I see just the opposite, I deliver we’re heading down a slippery slope when the children are being so boxed-in they’re thinking. Fir this same reason, it disturbs me that social studies has taken a back burner.
It’s pretty simple folks!
DNA is the answer. Since we can only breed with other humans (at this point and time) it has to be genetic!!!
In the Scorsese production of the Documentary, Surviving Progress, it states what separates us is our ability and nature to question and ask, “Why.” If evolution is to continue and we are to survive this so-called “progress” we need to be doing a whole lot more questioning and asking WHY. http://survivingprogress.com/
Great connection! I saw that doc. The early experiment with the block demonstrates this point well; the child asked why it fell over, the animal just kept trying the same thing, never wondering why it fell over. Surviving Progress is a must see.
Even the cleverest of animals lacks syntax, and a theory of mind.
For those who might not be in the know — we have taught (other) apes sign language, and while some (other) apes can learn a great many words, to date none of them has mastered syntax, or the skill of putting words together in a consistent order in order to create a sentence. Syntax varies from language to language (for example, the noun precedes the adjective in French, but it’s the other way around in English), but all human languages have syntax. The (other) apes never acquire syntax so where a human might state, “I am hungry, and I would like some cottage cheese now,” an (other) ape might sign, “Gimme now now food white hungry food now gimme”.
Interestingly, it seems that humans who do not learn syntax by a certain age lose the ability to do so.
A recent and interesting area of development is the discovery that the use of syntax in language, and the ability to produce “sentences”, is not limited to humans either. The first good evidence of syntax in non-humans, reported in 2006, is from the greater spot-nosed monkey (Cercopithecus nictitans) of Nigeria. This is the first evidence that some animals can take discrete units of communication, and build them up into a sequence which then carries a different meaning from the individual “words”:
The greater spot-nosed monkeys have two main alarm sounds. A sound known onomatopoeiacally as the “pyow” warns against a lurking leopard, and a coughing sound that scientists call a “hack” is used when an eagle is flying nearby.
“Observationally and experimentally we have demonstrated that this sequence [of up to three ‘pyows’ followed by up to four ‘hacks’] serves to elicit group movement… the ‘pyow-hack’ sequence means something like ‘let’s go!’ [a command telling others to move]… The implications are that primates at least may be able to ignore the usual relationship between an individual alarm call, and the meaning it might convey under certain circumstances… To our knowledge this is the first good evidence of a syntax-like natural communication system in a non-human species.”
Similar results have also recently been reported in the Campbell’s Mona Monkey
–from Wikipedia
Are you so sure? If so, how do you know that fact?
I am thinking whales, birds, other mammals such as elephants who can communicate in tones that we humans can’t hear. If we can’t discern it, does that mean it doesn’t exist?
What I would like to say is that humans have the capacity for peace. That they look out for their fellow man and are willing to share, or even sacrifice, what they have in order that everyone has the basics – food, shelter, and health care. That man takes care of the environment so that future generations can enjoy it, too. That mankind lives and respects each other in spite of their differences.
In short, that man is capable of humanity.
I know this post started out as a silly topic but now your comment brings up a serious subject, environmentalism and the green movement. I am sure you are sincere in your thought that saving the environment for future generations is the humane thing to do…and it is…however, the people who designed that concept and gave you that language have actually done so to co-opt the energies of well intentioned people into their dastardly plans for depopulation. Yes, I am going there on Black Friday when everyone is out shopping for goods made by slave labor in China. When you think of slave labor, you might think Nazis. And when you think of environmentalism, you should think Nazis because its roots lie there. The people who started the World Wildlife Fund are former Nazis and supporters of Hitler.
Prince Bernhard first became interested in the Nazis in 1934, during his last year of study at the University of Berlin. He was recruited by a member of the Nazi intelligence services, but first worked openly in the motorized SS. Bernhard went to Paris to work for the firm IG Farben, which pioneered Nazi Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht’s slave labor camp system by building concentration camps to convert coal into synthetic gasoline and rubber.
His Royal Highness Prince Bernhard, royal consort to Queen Juliana of the Netherlands and father of the current Queen Beatrix, co-founded and became the first head of the World Wildlife Fund (now the World Wide Fund for Nature) in October 1961. When the Lockheed scandal forced Prince Bernhard to resign from his most important public functions in 1971, he was replaced by Prince Philip. Prince Bernhard, like Prince Philip, whom he recruited to the eco-fascist cause, had strong roots in the Nazi movement.
The reason I cannot just let a perfectly innocent comment like yours go by is because it is useful to remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the people at the top designing and pushing for sustainable development and smart growth need people to be too afraid to speak out against it so that they can indeed carry out their hellish plans for humanity right here on earth.
HUUMMM!!
Not heard any of that before. Do you have a reference?
I was not thinking of the WWF when I made my comment. There are too many supposed philanthropic organizations which don’t pass the “smell” test. I think of Dian Fossey who was murdered because she fought against the Rwandan policy which encouraged poachers and tourists. This is definitely not a perfect world.
I also wasn’t thinking about the green movement. It would be nice if we were a little more aware of the items you just mentioned so we could make educated decisions about our own welfare and those of our fellow human beings.
And even if we are aware, that doesn’t stop the greedy from taking advantage of our desires to help others. There’s always an angle. (I just wish we all could be genuine and do what is right only because it is the right thing to do).
There are many good people out there. We need more like them.
I can add that man respects both sexes and provides an opportunity for education for both genders. No one is excluded. And there is no need for prisons, because mankind is civilized and follows reasonable laws.
Señor Swacker: animals have engendered some of the best observations by Mark Twain. A few choice examples.
Apropos of your comments of 8:42 and 8:47 PM:
“It is just like man’s vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.”
And then there are the edubullies who are learning daily, ruefully, that they should never have ganged up on the owner of this blog:
“It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog.”
According to the usual unconfirmed rumors, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan scolded his staff for not reminding him of this pertinent axiom before he made his “white suburban moms” remark:
“A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way.”
Of course, when you have “no regrets” you don’t RHEEeally care too much about reflecting on the foolishness of telling lies in public [I took my students from the 13th percentile to the 90th!] and then admitting that you can’t prove it no way no how:
“Don’t tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don’t tell them where they know the fish.”
When former CEO of TeachForAwhiles, er, TeachForAmerica, Wendy Kopp, smartly saluted a “study” that proved that TFAers added big achievement gains compared to “traditional” teachers, Gary Rubinstein showed on his blog that simply turning up the volume don’t make it so:
“Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she laid an asteroid.”
Then there’s “America’s Most Trusted Educator” (honest! it’s on his website in big letters, and big letters don’t lie!) Dr. Steve Perry, who would benefit [but not profit] from the maxim:
“Man is the only animal that blushes – or needs to.”
But just what do edufrauds and educowards pay heed to? They seem to have misunderstood the following as an admonition to go for all the $tudent $ucce$$ they can get:
“Man is the only animal that can be skinned more than once.” [Jimmy Durante]
$1 billion and counting—iPads anyone?
😡
Great quotes, KTA, woven as usual by you in a fun and informative narrative! Thanks!!
Last I heard, humans (members of the species Homo ignorans) belonged to the kingdom of Animalia. The members of the other animal tribes with which we share this planet are, clearly, possessed of consciousness and clearly behave in ways consistent with having very clear ideas about the minds of other animals with which they interact. theory of mind is an ancient evolutionary inheritance, well attested throughout the Animalia because knowing what the other guy is thinking has enormous survival value.
The great lesson of evolution is CONTINUITY WITH VARIATION. We share this planet with trillions of other subjective universes, with many kinds of minds with varied ways of being. The hubris of Homo ignorans is breathtaking. A human has 3.5 million olfactory cells. A beagle has 3 BILLION. He or she inhabits a world VASTLY DIFFERENT from our own. The beagle has perceptual access that WE DO NOT HAVE. What do we know of the syntax of beagle olfactory knowledge? And. of course, the lesson to be learned from the different perceptual accesses and cognitive capacities of other creatures is that we are hip to only a VERY SMALL PART of what is going on in the world around us. MUCH OF IT IS NOT CURRENTLY ACCESSIBLE TO US, we can conclude, because EVERY CREATURE has some particular, limited access and some particular, limited, set of cognitive capacities. There are brine shrimp that have VISUAL access to a much greater part of the electromagnetic spectrum than we do and that see exponentially more discrete colors. What is THAT like? We simply do not know.
A Spanish explorer who visited the Cherokee village of Tanasi (from which we get the name Tennessee) wrote in his journal that there was no evidence of religion among the “savages” because he saw no temples and met no priests. But to the Cherokee, the entire world was a temple, and everyone was a priest. People make the same mistake with regard to other animals that this explorer did with regard to the Cherokee. In their hubris, in their anthropocentricism, some people imagine that human ways of making sense are THE ONLY WAYS AND THE MODEL AGAINST WHICH ALL OTHER CREATURES ARE TO BE JUDGED. That’s idiotic. Such people, who view other animals in this way, are like those who used to imagine that the entire universe was built around, circled around, us.
A beagle maps the world with smell. A sperm whale uses echolocation. And the sound waves the whale sends out partially penetrate other bodies (plants, animals), so that the whale “sees” not only surfaces but ALL THE WAY THROUGH things. What is it like to be a sperm whale, possessed of a brain the size of a bean bag chair, that sees the world all the way through? I can no more imagine this than I can picture 11-dimensional objects in my mind. What is it like to be a bat? Nagel asked? It is like something. Of that there is no sane question.
Just as evolution created MANY means of locomotion, from cilia and flagellae to legs and wings, so it created MANY, MANY types of consciousness. It is likely, as evolutionary biologists Simona Ginsberg and Eva Jablonka have argued, that consciousness is VERY ancient–that it emerged in the pre-Cambrian.
Even by our own anthropocentric standards, other animals have amazing intellectual capabilities. Pigs can be taught to play video games and, according to a standard textbook on pig husbandry, have “the cognitive capacity of a three-year-old human child.” Pig mothers sing to their babies as they suckle them. Pigs pass the mirror test for self-awareness. They identify one another by “name.” They are better at a lot of perceptual discrimination and memory tasks than we are. We share 92 percent of our DNA on them, and they share so many bodily and mental systems with us that they are commonly abused for vivisection. So, there’s lots of continuity. But there is also lots of variation. We share the planet with many ALIEN intelligences–other animal intelligences–about which we have only begun to have a shadow of a clue thanks to recent research in cognitive ethology. Fortunately, we are beginning to overthrow the old prejudices and to recognize that other animals have ways of being, that they are subjectivities, like us in ways and not like us in ways, but subjectivities nonetheless. Measuring the cognitive capacities of a crow BY HUMAN STANDARDS is a lot like trying to measure human grief with a yardstick. We’re applying the wrong tools. Much of what people have to say about other animals is like a fish saying that a cheetah is not good at locomotion because he or she doesn’t like to swim.
BTW, my post is NOT in response to Diane’s playful post, above, but to some of the condescending comments made, above, about other animal intelligences.
TAGrO!
(Who can figure that one out?)
Black Friday seems to me a sign that we are reaching this point:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nadir-of-western-civilization-to-be-reached-this-f,2812/
From the article: “”If our calculations are correct, this complete erosion of all that is enlightened and unique will reach absolute rock bottom on the afternoon of Sept. 25, 2009.”
Added Riordan, “It is scientifically impossible for civilization to sink any lower than it will this Friday.”
Once again, scientists predicting the future of human folly have gotten it wrong (Arne Duncan being just one egregious example)!
(yes, I know it’s an Onion piece.) But still saying. . . . . .
There are well over a million animal species, we have only found nine species, other than ourselves, that can recognize themselves in a mirror. We ten appear to have a consciousness of self.
But our species may stand alone when, Whitman like, we “look up in perfect silence, at the stars.” We all have seen animals play. But none of us have seen animals stand in awe of existence itself.
In those moments of awe and “perfect silence,” perhaps we serve as mirrors, allowing Ultimate Reality to become aware of itself.
Wise words or platitudinous pontificating? What do you think?
.
“But none of us have seen animals stand in awe of existence itself.”
We probably have but since we are lesser creatures we could not discern that that was happening.
Thanks for the feedback. I wonder if you are correct, thanks for sharing,
Michael
Thanks. BTW, the idea is not my own. I picked it up from some sharp cookies. But they don’t disagree with you.
“The universe as we know it is a joint product of the observer and the observed.”
― Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
John Wheeler, the “physicist’s physicist,” proposes that we live in a “participatory universe,” a universe that depends on conscious observers for its existence.
And Carl Sagan said that “we are the eyes and ears of the cosmos.
If I drop the bit about the superiority of man over animals, which they never suggest, are you good with the thought that we live in an observer dependent universe?
Absolutely, Michael!!! And THAT is a VERY important insight. Each of us has a particular cognitive apparatus. That apparatus gives us access to some PART of what is going on, but not to all of it, AND that access is not direct. Donald Hoffman, one of the leading experts on the cognitive psychology of perception, puts it this way: Think of a computer interface. You look at your computer screen and see file folders and a trash can and whatever. Now, of course, those aren’t the reality. The reality behind these icons is ENTIRELY different. The operating system of the computer turns electrical signals representing 1’s and 0’s into those. Our cognitive apparatus is an operating system. It delivers up to us perceptual experiences that are an INTERFACE with a reality not directly perceived.
And that’s just ONE possible interface. Furthermore, we can CHANGE our interface via prostheses–radio telescopes, eyeglasses, etc. There are going to be VERY dramatic developments in that area soon–including remote presence and superhuman perceptual abilities–resulting from the use of direct brain-computer interfaces. We already have systems that allow blind people to see light and dark via electrodes in the brain that connect to cameras worn as glasses.
Platitudinous Pontificating no doubt!
It happens to be very convenient for people to imagine that other animals do not have subjective experience–that they are automatons, despite the enormous amounts of evidence to the contrary–e.g., trillions of examples of behaviors just like those that humans have that in humans are accompanied by subjective states but in other animals are supposed, magically, not to be so accompanied. It’s very convenient if you are in the business of routinely kidnapping, enslaving, torturing, and murdering these other creatures to imagine that they are just THINGS to which none of that matters.
I confess I haven’t read the article, I am off playing, however if it says that we are human because we play and animals do not one need only come watch my barn cats, my dog, my longhorn cattle. Animals play.
I have stated many times: man is the only animal with the intellect to destroy the only home we have but may well not have the intelligence not to do so.
Ah the beauty of creation stories.
The garden no more.
What makes us human is we know we are naked.
“What makes us human is we know we are naked.”
Interesting.