Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Great Ape Personhood

Page 1 of 4 [ 60 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Are the great apes intelligent/sentient enough to be considered people?
Poll ended at 10 Sep 2010, 10:55 pm
yes 50%  50%  [ 11 ]
no 50%  50%  [ 11 ]
Total votes : 22

ChrisVulcan
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 361
Location: United States

31 Aug 2010, 10:55 pm

Call from the judges. Should the great apes be considered persons or not? Discuss...


_________________
Well, I was on my way to this gay gypsy bar mitzvah for the disabled when I suddenly thought, "Gosh, the Third Reich's a bit rubbish. I think I'll kill the Fuhrer." Who's with me?

Watch Doctor Who!


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

31 Aug 2010, 11:42 pm

The difference between people and animals is a certain degree of intelligence, which allows tool-making and language use. It is not a minor difference either.

Groups of deaf human children invent fully functional sign languages among themselves if they are not exposed to another sign language. Other animals can't even come close to something like this.

Neanderthals, which came closer than any living non-human primate does today, didn't leave any record of symbolic thought -- and they built huts, made fires, and had a pretty advanced stone tool technology.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Arizona

01 Sep 2010, 12:26 am

only humans are people



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

01 Sep 2010, 12:36 am

Ancalagon wrote:
The difference between people and animals is a certain degree of intelligence, which allows tool-making and language use. It is not a minor difference either.

Groups of deaf human children invent fully functional sign languages among themselves if they are not exposed to another sign language. Other animals can't even come close to something like this.

Neanderthals, which came closer than any living non-human primate does today, didn't leave any record of symbolic thought -- and they built huts, made fires, and had a pretty advanced stone tool technology.


There is current re-evaluation of Neanderthal capabilities and some founded speculation the there might have been interbreeding between Neanderthals and Cromagnons. There is much to be discovered about Neanderthals and their culture and why and how they died out.



Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

01 Sep 2010, 1:56 am

Ancalagon wrote:
The difference between people and animals is a certain degree of intelligence, which allows tool-making and language use. It is not a minor difference either.

Groups of deaf human children invent fully functional sign languages among themselves if they are not exposed to another sign language. Other animals can't even come close to something like this.

Neanderthals, which came closer than any living non-human primate does today, didn't leave any record of symbolic thought -- and they built huts, made fires, and had a pretty advanced stone tool technology.


Chimpanzees do use tools:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT4WiMrzByg[/youtube]

And given that Neaderthals have genes associated with speech, your point is rendered debunked.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Sep 2010, 6:36 am

ChrisVulcan wrote:
Call from the judges. Should the great apes be considered persons or not? Discuss...


Clearly apes, bonobos, orangatans, baboons and gorillas are sentient, but none of them have highly level abstract mental operations. Clever yes. People no. I think elephants are closer to being people than are chimpanzees.

ruveyn



Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

01 Sep 2010, 6:52 am

The word person refers specifically to humans, so no.

However, that's not to say that apes aren't intelligent compared to humans. We're mostly the same DNA, and there is no "difference between humans and animals", us humans are animals, and lousy ones too.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

01 Sep 2010, 8:08 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
The difference between people and animals is a certain degree of intelligence, which allows tool-making and language use. It is not a minor difference either.

Groups of deaf human children invent fully functional sign languages among themselves if they are not exposed to another sign language. Other animals can't even come close to something like this.

Neanderthals, which came closer than any living non-human primate does today, didn't leave any record of symbolic thought -- and they built huts, made fires, and had a pretty advanced stone tool technology.


Chimpanzees do use tools:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT4WiMrzByg[/youtube]

And given that Neaderthals have genes associated with speech, your point is rendered debunked.


NOOOOOO!! !! ! NOT THE BUSH BABIES!! !! !! !!

I can't bear the thought of another animal being cold hearted, calculating, baby-killing monsters. They must be hunted to extinction.



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

01 Sep 2010, 10:29 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
And given that Neaderthals have genes associated with speech, your point is rendered debunked.

Do you have a reference for this? And no, the point isn't debunked, if Neanderthals were nearly as intelligent as humans, that says absolutely nothing about the Great Apes living today.

@ruveyn: Why elephants?

@Sand: Certainly there could have been interbreeding with Neanderthals. Still, the complete lack of evidence of symbolic thought is pretty persuasive to me.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

01 Sep 2010, 10:45 am

Ancalagon wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
And given that Neaderthals have genes associated with speech, your point is rendered debunked.

Do you have a reference for this? And no, the point isn't debunked, if Neanderthals were nearly as intelligent as humans, that says absolutely nothing about the Great Apes living today.

@ruveyn: Why elephants?

@Sand: Certainly there could have been interbreeding with Neanderthals. Still, the complete lack of evidence of symbolic thought is pretty persuasive to me.


I wonder what degree of symbolic thought Cromagnons had when they co-existed with Neanderthals.



danandlouie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Age: 79
Gender: Male
Posts: 796
Location: rainbow bridge

01 Sep 2010, 2:04 pm

well geeeeez.....please do not compare other animals to human animals. do you like to start wars vulcan, is that it?

OH YEAH........WHERE IS MY VEYRON??????????????

how's this? apes are to humans as eagles are to mosquitoes. apt analogy, i do think.



TeaEarlGreyHot
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 28,982
Location: California

01 Sep 2010, 2:07 pm

No. The great apes are unable to form a society.


_________________
Still looking for that blue jean baby queen, prettiest girl I've ever seen.


skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

01 Sep 2010, 2:43 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
The difference between people and animals is a certain degree of intelligence, which allows tool-making and language use. It is not a minor difference either.

Groups of deaf human children invent fully functional sign languages among themselves if they are not exposed to another sign language. Other animals can't even come close to something like this.

Neanderthals, which came closer than any living non-human primate does today, didn't leave any record of symbolic thought -- and they built huts, made fires, and had a pretty advanced stone tool technology.


Chimpanzees do use tools:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT4WiMrzByg[/youtube]

And given that Neaderthals have genes associated with speech, your point is rendered debunked.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DoWdHOtlrk[/youtube]

Octopuses use tools, too. They also show adaptability.

http://io9.com/5626679/three-arguments- ... ephalopods


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Sep 2010, 3:22 pm

Elephants appear to mourn their dead, not only immediately but upon seeing their remains later on (bodies and bones).

The is a very people-like display which is why I consider elephants closer to being people than chimpanzees.

ruveyn



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,677
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

01 Sep 2010, 3:33 pm

Asp-Z wrote:
The word person refers specifically to humans, so no.

However, that's not to say that apes aren't intelligent compared to humans. We're mostly the same DNA, and there is no "difference between humans and animals", us humans are animals, and lousy ones too.


The word person is not necessarily equivalent to human. For instance, in the past, women, slaves etc, did not have full legal protection as persons.

ruveyn wrote:
Elephants appear to mourn their dead, not only immediately but upon seeing their remains later on (bodies and bones).

The is a very people-like display which is why I consider elephants closer to being people than chimpanzees.

ruveyn


Another possibility for non-human personhood could be dolphins.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

01 Sep 2010, 3:36 pm

Jono wrote:

Another possibility for non-human personhood could be dolphins.


I agree. The Ceteceans (whales, orcas, dolphins and porpoises) appear to be rather intelligent. Intelligence of a self-aware sort is a necessary (but not sufficient) characteristic of personhood.

ruveyn