Are humans so special and divine as depicted in religious doctrine? Or are humans and their brains built to function and reason similar to that of all higher order mammals and animals? The question itself is not new, indeed it has been discussed by philosophers throughout time. Even in our present period many seem to enjoy the subject, especially as we try to figure out exactly how the human mind works and thus relate that with the inner workings and reasoning abilities of animals.

Recently in an online think tank this subject came up and was explored by a couple of members. It was reasoned that perhaps the conclusions we reach from a scientific perspective are our own worst enemy in finding the reality to the answers we seek. One think tank member stated: Under the circumstances, when the topic of human, animal reasoning comes up, I noticed a great deal of people show limitations to literary boundaries during there arguments. What I mean is, if we "as humans" create a linguistic determination and classification of an item, we often find ourselves modeling our arguments and figures by this definition. for example: We eat, sleep and breath, therefore we are animals. (very simplified)

I totally agree with your comments. For example:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Negotiating-on-Common-Ground&id=73083

http://ezinearticles.com/?Why-All-the-Debate-on-Lift-and-the-Principles-of-Flight&id=70230

Now then for a human mind to really work to its best ability it must go past the brainwashing of education and forced learning. This in my opinion is because humans too readily accept these limitations of literary boundaries or definitional arguments. Some others say that without them we could not think beyond, as we would be scattered in thought and too random to stay focused. Yet, if all things are inter-connected and since humans have large brains and can keep track of it, then why not encircle an issue rather than confining thought into a box. Thus the comments about thinking outside the box or definitional confines which are defined by others and too easily accepted by minds willing to be confined, as if you accept to think in the box as a follower you have indeed made a choice, albeit a bad one. If this is your comment you are correct as humans do that way too often and fail to often see the forest for the trees. And the think tanker takes this one step further and asks the question in this next statement; . . .our own literary definitions often bind or restrict our reasoning abilities when evaluating abstract problems.

In fact this maybe our biggest hang up to finding the answers we seek in this realm; well that along with the religious enculturation, which is force-fed into our society, which is also keeping us from considering such things. What do you think about this issue or do you dare? If so, consider this in 2006.