It's not a question of integrity, and I'm sorry I insinuated that. You don't think something is a definitive proof that someone else does, and the line is drawn there because you consider it to be arbitrary. It's just differing perceptions I guess? I mean, this isn't a thread for moral relativism or anything (and I'm not advocating it, either), but even if there are moral truths of some kind, how do you go about proving them to people?
Well, I'm not suggesting that I, personally, have to be convinced by an argument for it to be valid, simply that it should be coherent and reasonable. Observing that certain delineations are arbitrary- or, at least, will be arbitrary until they are established to have a more objective basis- doesn't imply that all arguments are arbitrary.
Well, I mean, why have a thread if a perfectly good line of inquiry is rejected on the grounds that it might be too intellectually challenging for Internet fools like ourselves to handle?
I simply meant that the facts are not clear in regards to the particular issue of Great Ape language, so it's not an effective argument to pursue. That doesn't, however, imply that it is the only possible argument, or that other lines of argument are rendered hopeless by discussion- Perfection's points about meta-thought, for example, seem to invite some further exploration.
And I think your setting it at an arbitrarily low point as to enforce your own.
I'm not sure that the presence of sentience is an arbitrary delineation; perhaps my reasons for selecting it may be, but I feel that I have explained them in some detail elsewhere. (I assume this is the "low point" which you reference, given that I have made no particular arguments of my own in this thread.)
Humans are advanced enough to be able to go to space and leave the planet. I dont know how much more exceptional you need to get.
"Exceptional" in the sense of being objectively and fundamentally distinct from all other life-forms, not in simply being unique.
Not if your going to equate using a stick to eat ants with complex engineering problems. You may as well say we arent exceptional because we are a carbon based lifeform like all the rest.
I'm not "equating" the two, simply observing that they exist as two points on a continuum. One could certainly argue that the intentional working of tools, rather than merely using existing objects as tools, represents some basic distinction, but one would have to take into account that such habits greatly pre-date modern man, and that it is possible for certain animals to be trained in such tool-working. (Incidentally, this suggests another line of argument- that human culture is cumulative, while that of other animals (noting that some animals do indeed posses culture) is not. But, again, where do we draw the line between modern man and our chimp-like ancestors?)
And I'm not arguing for non-exception, because that is the presume default; this thread is for those in favour of a particular proposition, the exceptionalness of humans, to argue a case for it, not for too vaguely defined sides to clash.
Errrrr. Huh?
White Europeans developed technology far in advance of what any other culture achieved independently. This could be, as it historically was, used as "evidence" for the superiority of Europeans. That, to me, suggests a certain flaw in the presentation of such an argument without appropriate elaboration.
