Why are animals considered less developed than human?

[Nivsch]

I mean, I know why we think that about them, but it isn't the truth in my opinion.

I think there is no reason animals are less developed in any sense than human. Maybe only in their planning ablility, but even this is a difficult question.

Given that ants for examples are behave in a very rigid system of laws and common goals, and groups of birds etc. They can even develope to decent levels on the spiral.

We just dont understand their language. 

Edited November 1, 2019 by Nivsch

[Andrewww]

We are self-biased. We as humans value certain things more than other animals.

Maybe if the average person was more surrounded with a wide array of animals often we'd learn from them more, probably get more vegetarians that way too.

[Ananta]

@Nivsch They don't have an ego aka they aren't body/mind "identified" with being a cat, dog, whatever. 

[SerpaeTetra]

5 hours ago, Nivsch said:

I mean, I know why we think that about them, but it isn't the truth in my opinion.

I think there is no reason animals are less developed in any sense than human. Maybe only in their planning ablility, but even this is a difficult question.

Given that ants for examples are behave in a very rigid system of laws and common goals, and groups of birds etc. They can even develope to decent levels on the spiral.

We just dont understand their language. 

I think you are 100% right.  No way we could do the many thousands of different things that other animals could do, yet we put our abilities above theirs.  Just self-biased.  Humans need to gel together more,  before the mass of people realize what you are saying. 

[Nivsch]

5 hours ago, Anna1 said:

@Nivsch They don't have an ego aka they aren't body/mind "identified" with being a cat, dog, whatever. 

And how do you know this is the case?

Edited November 2, 2019 by Nivsch

[Hello from Russia]

5 hours ago, Anna1 said:

@Nivsch They don't have an ego aka they aren't body/mind "identified" with being a cat, dog, whatever. 

How do you know that? From the outside it seems like they identify A LOT with their bodyminds

[Ananta]

Ok, let's even look at the human baby. There is no ego at birth. Its developed. There's a change in the eyes of a child when ego takes hold... 

Animals simply don't develop anything more than a simplistic rudimentary sense of self for survival and in that sense I would call them "programs". A dog behaves like a dog, cat behaves like a cat, etc. 

[Ananta]

Also, "animals are not plagued by the usual thought/emotional patterns that limit humans: guilt, shame, regret, lack of self-esteem, to name a few. Animals have no power to analyze or think other than in terms of their desires. Therefore animals do not interpret their environment; they do not evaluate the things that happen to them, in them and around them. Animals act purely by “instinct" " 

 

Shingworld.com

[Nivsch]

1 hour ago, Anna1 said:

Ok, let's even look at the human baby. There is no ego at birth. Its developed. There's a change in the eyes of a child when ego takes hold... 

Animals simply don't develop anything more than a simplistic rudimentary sense of self for survival and in that sense I would call them "programs". A dog behaves like a dog, cat behaves like a cat, etc. 

But the question again is - how can we know that this is the case?

Maybe 50% chance that this is not the case.

Human are also behave like a human from the cat's perspective.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Nivsch

[Ananta]

1 hour ago, Nivsch said:

But the question again is - how can we know that this is the case?

Animals accept reality as it is, they dont worry and feel incomplete, leading to chasing objects like humans with an intellect do.

But, believe what you'd like.

[Nickyy]

The only difference I can see between an animal and a human is the level of ability to solve problems.

Animals don't have the intellect to conceptualise the complex systems we have evolved over time. 

 

[Ananta]

5 minutes ago, Nickyy said:

Animals don't have the intellect to conceptualise the complex systems

And therefore can not do Self- inquiry and realize their true nature, which is my point actually.

[Anton Rogachevski]

Animals are much less harmful to mama earth than we are, so in that sense we are thousands of years behind.

[Nivsch]

2 hours ago, Nickyy said:

The only difference I can see between an animal and a human is the level of ability to solve problems.

Animals don't have the intellect to conceptualise the complex systems we have evolved over time. 

 

Same question again. From what source do you know that?

Edited November 2, 2019 by Nivsch

[Nivsch]

55 minutes ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Animals are much less harmful to mama earth than we are, so in that sense we are thousands of years behind.

???

[Nickyy]

18 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

 

2 hours ago, Anna1 said:

 

 

16 hours ago, Anna1 said:

@Nivsch They don't have an ego aka they aren't body/mind "identified" with being a cat, dog, whatever. 

Watching them . Animals did not develop civilization, humans did. Specifically homo sapiens

 

[Nickyy]

1 hour ago, Anton Rogachevski said:

Animals are much less harmful to mama earth than we are, so in that sense we are thousands of years behind.

19 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

Same question again. From what source do you know that?

So, you claim that development can be measured by the degree of harm a species causes?

I don't think that's true, because humans aren't actually in touch with their nature. So you're judging humans unfairly. 

Personal development work will show you what it means to actually be human. 

[Forestluv]

@Nivsch Because the human ego wants to control the narrative. Of course the human ego will place itself as the most sacred, the most important and the most developed. For example, humans grant themselves a “right to life” and deny all other life forms a “right to life”. 
Humans like to define “development” as things like the ability to use tools, reason, self awareness. Yet dismiss other forms of development / abilities like collective consciousness in wolf packs and starling murmurs. 
Or consider human constructs of “enlightenment”. Isn’t it interesting how enlightenment constructs are relative to humans? These constructs are created and exclusive to humans. Non-human entities are excluded. I see many humans flock to “enlightened” humans to learn about human constructs of enlightenment. So much talk about which humans are most enlightened. . . Yet much rarer do I see a human allow a tree to be their teacher of enlightenment. This would require trans-human consciousness.

It’s like taking a group of kids to an ice cream parlor and asking “OK, who wants to have ice cream first?”. Of course they will all scream “ME!!”.

[Key Elements]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

@Nivsch Yet much rarer do I see a human allow a tree to be their teacher of enlightenment. 

This auspicious flower could be a pointer of awakening/enlightenment:

It's native of the Himalayas. The Hindus call it Brahma Kamal Flower. Brahma = God of all the Gods, creator of all. This is who you become one with. If this flower blooms in a certain way on you, and it's very rare, this is a strong indication of something.

It's a similar reaction to seeing ox's tail.

You'll be like, "oh wow! I can't believe that really happened."

[Key Elements]