Difference Between Human And Insect

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Deleted member 839659, Apr 23, 2015.

  1. Don't the things we do have as much meaning as the things insects do?
     
  2. No. 
     
    While insects are complex in their own natural way, human beings possess far more sophisticated brains and thus process far more sophisticated data.   There is no insect Einstein, Mozart, Nietzsche, Oppenheimer.  
     
    As a result of a superior brain, we are able to transcend our natural environments and affect our surroundings in far more beautiful, and far more  terrible ways than insects ever could.   We can build a Burj Khalifa, and we can drop a nuke, or enough nukes to end the planet and everything on it,  including insects.

    Insects matter and have sophistication and complexity of their own for sure, but in a blow for blow comparison to mankind, we win hands down.

     
     
  3. Nihilism much?
     
  4. Well, we are studying ants to further improve our network systems.

    It seems ants have been communicating in code for millions upon millions of years.

    Our Internet will improve greatly with their system of communication.

    They also want to study how ants travel efficiently, helping us greatly improve traffic.

    It seems they want to imply that ants are not individual organisms but all the hive is 1 organism. Strange to think about.

    Humans are starting to act like ants.

    They also know how to make room coolers, heaters, humidifiers, dryer rooms etc, all with a micro brain.

    If ants became the next bipedal type apex predator, I'd say they would look like the creatures from the alien vs predator series.
     
  5.  
    Yeah man.. ants are like the insect version of humans. They do a lot more stuff too.. like build boats, bridges, they farm fungus and raise cattle (aphids), and they even take slaves and even wage seemingly pointless wars on each other.. but their communication is done more so through chemicals than code, unless you look at everything as a type of code on the atomic/subatomic level.
     
  6. Yes but the chemicals ARE the code!
    That's not important though, it's the program that researchers are interested about, we already know they use scents.
     
  7. Honestly I'd say most insects make decisions on a more puritanical level than most humans. Seeing that most things insects do are for direct survival, I'd say the things they due are usually more important.

    Although, just the simple fact that we are giving this much thought to it holds great importance too.
     
  8. saying they just communicate with chemicals is like saying humans just communicate with noises.

    I'm sure there are some complicated chemical codes they use as "language"

    -yuri
     
  9.  
    Not that I want to rehash stuff.. but remember a bit ago when I said you like to take what someone said and twist it inside your head (doesn't mean you do it consciously) and then argue against the twisted version that YOU created? This is a perfect example.. because I never said "just".. I said "more so" and they don't mean the same thing. What I said would be like saying that humans communicate more so with noises.. meaning they can communicate other ways, it's just that the do so more often with noises. Every once and awhile, you would benefit when reading something if you took a second to ask yourself "am I reading this how it is supposed to be read?" rather than automatically assuming you are correct in all that you do.
     
    That said.. ants communicate with chemicals, feeling, body language, and sounds. If there is any sort of coded communication.. it would be within those forms of established communication. We already know that ants can release a variety of chemicals.. and can do so at once. If an ant finds food.. and a threat at the same time, that can be chemically communicated to other ants. It really wouldn't surprise me if we found out that ants that communicate with each other by tapping their antennae have different taps with different meanings. I never once mentioned language.. but I agree, that would be a language in itself. Pretty much all forms of communication can be considered a language.. but what I said is still true, ants communicate more so through chemicals that any other form.
     
  10. #10 левша, Apr 25, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2015
    would we really wipe out all insects?.. Theyve been around forever. I doubt we could destroy all of them.. Nature may be able to beat man kind. Doesnt have to be pretty.. To support this, arthropoda is the biggest phylum i believe. Joined with crustaceans and insects, are there any others out of curiosity?.. It gets more complicated
    If we were talking of microorganisms it would be without question nature could beat humans, like the ones in water to out live the dinosaurs and many other extinctions.. Neil Tyson went on about it


    :smoking:
     
  11. How do you know? There could be a little Antstein, Mozant.


    Sent from my iPhone using Grasscity Forum
     
  12. Oppantheimer?
     
  13. #13 Oni~, Apr 26, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2015
    We are talking insects, not nature as a whole.   Oceans and tectonic plate movement, for example, can wipe us out absolutely, meteors...

    One of the main things the roach is famous for is its ability to survive a nuclear holocaust.    Considering how many nukes are on Earth right now we may already have the potential to devastate the planet to such an extent that not even they would have any sort of habitat to live in, if they weren't all obliterated in the initial blasts.    If the last few decades are any indication, then within the next few decades, should mankind continue to evolve, you will witness far more powerful weapons being created.     If today's nukes are not enough to completely fubar the surface of the planet then believe tomorrow's will.   Mankind can already, or very soon will be able to end the planet and everything living on it.

    Also there is no forum where insects are discussing whether their actions matter more or ours  [​IMG]
     
  14. #14 левша, Apr 26, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2015
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6H0E77TdYnY
    i still disagree. i think life does indeed have a chance, for now.
    lethal dose of fallout about 500 roentgens
    tardigrade can survive up to about 570,000
     
  15. Lol,     see the part of my post about up and coming weaponry.   We will be able to dissolve the planet as a whole here very soon.  It doesn't matter what can survive under what conditions when the planet as a whole is gone.   Think Death Star type destruction, but launched from the planet's surface.  For you younger kids, think Genki Dama.   (Goku's spirit bomb for those who don't watch anime properly ;)  )      The argument that can be made then is what atoms off the original planet would survive, but again, it wouldn't be insects. 

    Also, the question is what matters more, what we do or what they do, not who can survive what.  I was listing our ability to destroy the planet as one of the indicators of how our actions carry more weight.   
     
  16. #16 левша, Apr 26, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 26, 2015
    lol, see my post
    3 lines
    i said 'for now'
    we were dissolving the earth by the time we were polluting
    Oni, 'who is they'?
    that we can destroy the surface of the earth is of no surprise to anyone really but in my opinion which may vary from person to person it is interesting who can survive when we cant.
    im not trying to be so technical bud, i was just stating that there is something that i think will continue living after we die out.
    intelligent people have been making things that only brought trouble for a long time...
     
  17. #17 Dryice, Apr 28, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 28, 2015
     
    Basically, the only issue is the insect doesn't consider what they do as meaningful or meaningless that whole concept is completely absent. So now that we obviously have added the idea of meaning to things it's left to us to sort out what's meaningful or meaningless. I'm more nihilistic so I think the idea of a defined and strict meaning is a hokum. So personally, I really don't see much difference between the functions of a human and an insect, but obviously other people look at it differently.
     
    On the other hand, you can look at us being one of the rare species on this planet that's aware of its existence and what it's doing... and perhaps the Earth needs something like us to play god and keep everything in order (obviously that's not working out well so far, but I think we'll come to grips with what we're doing not long from now). So perhaps our awareness and responsibility to keep everything kosher on Earth is more 'meaningful' than anything an insect does.
     
    Again it depends on what angle you come from.
     
  18. I think the primary difference is size, and the kill ratio. Can you imagine how many of the little shits you've killed, and they have yet to kill you?

    In all seriousness, if you assume there is meaning, then I would say insects are doing what they are supposed to do, as are we. As dumb as worms are, they sure do a good job keeping our soil aerated, birds fed, etc, so they are meaningful to me.

    If there is no meaning, what is the question?
     
  19. \n"Human thought is unique. All other animals think in varying levels of complexity but it is always as a memory of past experience applied to the present. There is no abstraction and no real planning for the future aside from instinct. 
    A deer hears a rustle in the bushes. She has heard these rustles before and her memory tells her, and her instinct tells her – DANGER. So she runs until the danger is past. 
    Stimulus → Memory + Instinct → Action. 
    Humans on the other hand have symbolic thought based upon language. This is a product of our evolution. It is produced in our very highly evolved cerebral cortex. For us it is rustle in the bushes, memory of past rushes, analysis based upon experience, then action. We hear the rustle and do not react instinctively. We analyze it, think about it and then react. So, we may identify that particular kind of rustle as just the wind.
    Stimulus → Memory + Instinct → Abstract Thought → Action"
    \nWe are very different from insects (and various other animals) indeed. This quote showing the likeness and differences in a thought process light.
     
  20. I was watching a documentary about this.

    They had an ape stand up blocks. Then they gave a slightly off balance one to the ape.

    Then they did the same experiment with a human child.

    The ape sees that the block doesn't stand up. It tries again a few times, then gives up. This one isn't working.

    The human however, investigates the block. "Why isn't this standing up like the others"

    This revealed a.fundamental.difference between man and animal

    -yuri
     

Share This Page