What is so special about us?!?

[Edwardo Piet]

Thanks for the thorough reply Pip.

---

Absolutely, if Humans are 'special' then by proxy all other living things are also special in their own way. I think a big part of this debate is semantics, may be special is the wrong word...? The other option is that neither humans nor other life are special, but either way it is all encompassing, yes.

---

I agree with the above hidden.

---

See, this is where I think I have misrepresented my point in words. When I say that I think Humans are 'special' or better 'unique' I do not mean to make any judgment of value. Humans are not at all more special than anything else. Certainly not that humans are better or worse in any aspect, that is a different conversation. Just that humans have a unique ability of cognition that may be demonstrated in a (possible) different self awareness amongst other earthly examples. But objective, no value. No better or worse.

---

I agree with the above hidden.

But the only way it can be judged is objectively, I think. Humans are different than other animals, and some animals are different than other animals.

Yes.

I think the point that we are not unique is the point that nothing else is unique, is the point that there is no difference between say a cat and a rhinoceros, and there is.

I meant unique with a positive connotation. I'm saying that we are no more or less unique than anything else, and if any of that is to be considered unique, in positive, "special" sense - it must be the same for us and all species. Because otherwise - by what criterion do we judge? I am a nihilist when it comes to all objective values. I have my own personal, subjective values, but I don't believe in objective ones. The factual, scientific differences between different species that we define as "unique" indeed is an objective sense of unique that I can't argue with.

Humans are unique only in as much as we are different, and us being a different thing than a squirrel or a toaster is pretty solid. Humans are unique because to be called humans they have to be something definable and real.

I agree we are unique in the same sense that a squirrel or a toaster is.

You're completley right, that is an argument one shouldn't make, and I am trying not to make it. This isn't about more special, there is no more special. I am saying that humans are unique, and not at all that we are better or worse than any comparison because of it.

I agree..... I just think that if everything is unique then that isn't really a very moving fact - it's stating the obvious and shouldn't be extrapolating into something untrue. Not accusing you of it - I'm looking for room for agreement here actually.

But at this focus everything is meaningless. If values and objective observation of differences are both meaningless, than that skepticism (or nihilism) goes both ways. If thinking we are special is meaningless, than thinking we are not special is also meaningless. So the answer becomes; if it produces an improvement in quality of life and causes others no harm, why the fuck not?

I agree.... that is my utilitarian perspective too.

Same as belief in god. It can't be proven. It can't be unproven. So we are left to decide on more pragmatic grounds. And please don't come back with the whole 'you can live a lie if you want' thing anyone, because this is based on the theory that both thinking we are and are not special are meaningless, so one is no better than the other. There is no truth is this subjective world, so you can't ever be on the wrong side of it.

I agree that if more good than bad comes from believing in God, even if it is untrue, then it's better to believe. Then there's the matter of if there are exceptions - it's different for different people, etc.

I am of the perspective that I value the truth and I don't know, and am yet to know of, any evidence of God's existence. I think false beliefs, delusions, themselves can be harmful and I just like to have a healthy habit of respecting the truth. Not all false beliefs, not all delusions, are harmful - look at placebos. So I make my own judgement that overall as a general rule that it would be better if people didn't believe in God because I consider it a false belief and I think false beliefs on the whole are bad. However - then comes in the matter of weighing up all the good and bad that religion does in the world. I think religion certainly has done, and can do, a lot of bad - but there are also no doubt, good that can come about. I am currently reading Breaking the Spell by Daniel Dennett - it's all about what should be done about religion, considering it from a naturalistic perspective. Dennett does not want to get rid of all of religion - he only wants to get rid of the toxic kinds of religion..... such as fundamentalists, absolutists, or whatever. He believes that any religion that can withstand the scrutiny of 'Comparative Religion' as a subjective being taught in schools, and thrive - deserves to thrive. This is a book I am so far finding interesting... and I am questioning whether religion would necessarily be better if it just went, or whether not all of it is toxic. Some of it is though certainly - some ideologies are dangerous, whether political, religious, or whatever.

See, another thing we disagree on. I respect you very much, and hate to argue, but I can't help myself. There will be no quote unquote scientific facts or theories of specialness you are left to see. You're a grown man, you should know by now whether or not you think humans are special or unique, and not be holding out for the publication of some test on it.

I'm agreeing with you that there is no scientific evidence of any objective values of specialness, or uniqueness. Or anything else for that matter at least I, believe. But I do not state it as impossible because I'm an agnostic on all matters - I can't claim absolute knowledge - I do not have the mind of God. I cannot know that something is 100% certain, that something is absolutely impossible, etc..

I am almost certain that, indeed, there never will nor never can be any evidence for objective values of any kind. My mind is always open though - I hope it is not so open my brain drops out but it is always open and least a tiny bit on all matters... I am always open to possibility however improbable. I do not believe that anything is absolutely impossible - I'm always open to possibility.

How would you even "scientifically" test what is clearly philosophy? It is far too big picture to be tested in a laboratory. You already know enough about the world to make your own opinion, just always be willing to hear more information as it comes up...

I agree with you. I don't deny the possibility but I'm certainly on your side on the matter that science can't test philosophical values.

Science can held us once we've first made a philosophical assumption. If we assume that we don't like pain or dying, then we then realize that feeding ourselves poison wouldn't be a very good thing to do. Likewise, once we decide, philosophically, that pain is on the whole worse than well-being (at least in the long run - if pain produces more pleasure, happiness, well-being in the long run, it may indeed be worth it) - we can then scientifically study what tends to on the whole lead to more well-being and less pain and suffering. It wouldn't be perfect but perfect is a rather unrealistic - impossible in my mind - goal for this imperfect world.

Science can take off with philosophy when it comes to ethics... but there must always be a philosophical assumption to begin with first, indeed.

More like complex language, ability to create high art, the pieces of cognition that as of now are uniquely human. Culture in a broad stroke, yes. The question is not at all how are they more special. They are not more special. The uniqueness (so may variants of that terrible word) is objective and any thought of evaluating it is disregarded for this point.

I agree

But this is again mixing science and philosophy, bad partners.

See above if you wanna know my thoughts on that matter I reckon.

The debate is eternal because these things cannot be 'scientifically' proven.

I cannot absolutely know that and neither can you, but basically yes I of course agree. Science is for science.

The debate will always be a debate, we will never learn anything beyond what we already know that will make it undeniable that we are either unique or not.

As above, I basically agree yes. I do not claim absolute knowledge however.

It is a debate, this is why I love calling philosophy 'the Great Conversation'. It never ends. You can't win or lose a philosophical argument. Because it exists in the world you described of full subjectivity.

I love philosophy too. And it's about coming up with better and better questions

I would venture to say that the uniqueness of humans is a scientific fact, in a sense.

Hmmm... what sense would that be? I would say that if you mean the fact we interpret the science that's done and see all the differences as "unique" then sure. But I don't think our interpretation of the facts and the facts themselves are the same thing exactly because - the facts of our differences are still the same whether we interpret that difference as "uniqueness" or not - it ultimately depends on the connotations of "uniqueness" perhaps. What is the difference between simply "difference" and "uniqueness" - and where do we draw the line?

Would you take the other side of that debate? That humans are not unique, that they are somehow exactly the same as everything else?

No we're different but.... I'm not sure on the uniqueness question because is it meant to be taken to mean the same as "difference" or not? See above

Remember that I am not saying more special, there is not such thing as more special in this case.

I agree basically I am nihilistic in respect to all values other than subjective ones.

I quite appreciate the time you took, and look forward to you response.

thanks,
-Pip

No problem

EvF