Man, the Hairless Ape

What makes humans different than non-human animals? We clearly have much in common with the great apes; I’ll use them as a counterpoint.

There’s definitely evidence that apes can make fairly long term plans, but humans invest in 401(k)s, train years for the olympics, etc. This is a difference in degree and not kind, just like many other ape/human differences. It makes me wonder, are humans just supercharged simians? Human exceptionalism would demand a difference in kind.

There are a few “difference in kind” attributes of humans of which I’m aware: the ability to purposefully teach, to direct the development of the surrounding environment, and many more. All the examples which come to mind seem to relate to imagining a certain end and controlling variables in order to bring it about. This seems to be the key trait which the great apes lack.

So does this mean that manipulation in service of imagination (let’s call it imagulation!) is the great delineator? Do all ideas of human exceptionalism hinge on this ability?

It’s interesting to think on how this could relate to the idea of man being created in God’s image. Certainly “imagulation” is something deeply associated with God. I really am trying to give evolution a fair shake, to try and avoid bias in my exploration of naturalistic origin explanations, but these sorts of observations make it very difficult. I can easily understand an imagulating creator making imagulating beings, but environmentally-directed mutations don’t seem to be a likely imparter of such an ability. Maybe someone can explain? Help!

UPDATE 5/25/08: I recently came across this page on the Great Ape trust website. None of the videos surprised me very much, as they all seemed like behavior I’d seen before and could easily label as behavioral conditioning. All the videos, that is, until I saw the “novel sentences” video where a bonobo, Kanzi, displays behavior that I could only describe as “imagulating”! I’m officially placing an extra tally mark in the “Evolution” column.

This actually quite surprised and delighted me; what an amazing thing to see! Philosophically however, I’m not quite sure how to group the “differences in kind” between great apes and humans anymore. If anyone out there has an idea as to what the through-line may be, I’d be excited to hear it.

Calling Lucy Lowe!

Well Lucy, if you’re reading this, feel free to comment with a few examples of some of the more “awkward” Bible texts of which you’re aware, and your positions on them. It will be interesting to explore, consensus or not.

Back to Keith

Sometimes when I get an idea in my head, I can’t seem to stop thinking about it.  So, all these months later, I now have new insight into the “Thought Experiment” referenced a few posts back: I now think my first response to Keith is actually more solid than I originally thought. 

I basically said that if indeed those who would hurt a child fell into some sort of sleep just before the act, the Argument from Morality would be even stronger than it is, and I think it is one of the strongest arguments for supernaturalism and God as things are.  Only the most uncomfortable of rhetorical acrobatics could explain such a sleep in any non-supernatural way (although I’m sure some would try, perhaps postulating that natural selection selected the mechanism in order to preserve the genes in the children).  True free will requires choice, and if the alternative to believing in God isn’t somewhat reasonable, there really is no true choice but to believe in Him. In a similar way, Marshall “Why Does God Hate Amputees” Brain doesn’t think through what it would mean for practically all amputees to grow back their limbs after receiving prayer.  Suddenly, God would no longer be an option, but a requirement. 

There are two counters to this line of reasoning I’d like to tackle: 

1. God supposedly revealed Himself to people in the Bible, yet they still had choice
   a. However, He often only revealed Himself after a person had already become set in their path
   b. When (a) was not the case (i.e. Adam and Eve), a somewhat reasonable counter-choice against God was presented (”you will not surely die, God doesn’t want to you to become powerful like Him”, etc.)
   c. Further, the only cases I know of either (a) or (b) involve God working out the plan of salvation, and He seems to be pretty quiet in history otherwise 

2. If God allows for a world which is set up to create a seemingly reasonable alternative to Him, “God” is an unfalsifiable idea, since any proof against His existence could be swept under the umbrella of His allowing free will (somewhat along the lines of a young-earth creationist saying the world was created with apparent age).
   a. If God didn’t break into history, I would allow for that.  But since He did, and left behind numerous bits of falsifiable archeological/historical/textual evidence, this is a moot point.

Humanity: Kickin’ mammal butt, taking names

I’ve been thinking: if evolution is true, why is it that humans are so far advanced past even the most advanced mammals in intelligence?  There’s no great buildings erected by simians, or photorealistic art created by whales, or exponentially increasing medicinal breakthroughs helmed by dogs.  If all mammals share a common ancestor, we would expect to see a roughly similar level of intelligence development among them all.  There are certainly some non-human mammals who are smarter than others, but nowhere near the order of magnitude between humans and the most advanced mammalians.

One could argue that a whale has hugely more advanced intelligence than a paramecium, but I don’t think it’s a fair comparison.  A paramecium hardly has resources for intelligence, but whale and elephant brains are huge compared to ours.  Many scientists believe brain size can be a decently accurate indicator of intelligence, so what’s up with these lazy beasts?

One could also argue that our fine motor skills allow us to better express our intelligence, but it wouldn’t be too hard for an elephant to utilize their trunks to make intelligible markings on the ground indicating a language of some sort, or markings indicating abstract mathematical reasoning.  Could it be that these creatures are so beyond us that we just don’t comprehend the subtleties of their grand superiority?  I doubt it; I’m no Einstein by any stretch of the imagination, but I can appreciate his transcendent intelligence.

Any time I try to put on an evolutionary perspective, I find myself thinking: if this is true, why do I perceive beauty in a sunset, or feel gratitude, or desire meaning and autonomy?  You won’t see much discussion of these sorts of questions in Talk Origins and similar evolution apology sites.  I wonder why?

quiet, easy to dismiss

quiet, easy to dismiss

heaving with beauty, torrid raw hunger of life

squeezed into the tip of a point

forgotten, abused for convenience

overwhelming, simply bypassed

hard-won satisfaction with disease

still overwhelming, pivoting

remembered.

expanding point, enveloping, inviting, becoming

aching awe, blinding pure fury love

quiet,  set inside like a wall  

Mad No Longer

After taking several months to ponder the last post, I feel I’ve come to somewhat of a conclusion: If a human’s possible moral freedom is limited even in the slightest way, humanity in general is wronged deeply, not unlike how human life in general is cheapened by a single murder. Possible moral freedom should be thought of as that freedom which exists inside the necessary limits of the physical world (as humans are physical) and of social/cultural behavior firewalls (as humans are social creatures).

Moral freedom is connected deeply to who we foundationally are, for much of our humanity comes from our ability to make moral choices.  Accordingly, there is no such thing as unnecessary evil.  For humans to exist as we know them, evil must exist, from minor to horrific levels.

After surveying the various views, this one seems to be the most resonant with reality.  Nonetheless, thinking through it all has really made me fall in love with God’s subtlety, respectfulness, and grandeur all the more.