I've seen a lot of people claim that humans are just as intelligent as animals.
exactly what IS intelligence and how do we measure it?
exactly what IS intelligence and how do we measure it?
What do you think separates humans from other animals?
- Thread starter CulixCupric
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Good question. You do have to remember we are animals though. Unique animals but animals all the same.
Animals show compassion
know the difference between right and wrong
mourn
think logically
do things for fun
can learn
talk (just because their language isnt as sophisticated as ours it doesnt mean it doesnt happen)
if there is a difference its incredibly slight but there is one thing iv never seen an animal do and thats laugh. If anyone could explain that to me or give me an example of an animal that laughs at things it finds amusing please let me know!
Animals show compassion
know the difference between right and wrong
mourn
think logically
do things for fun
can learn
talk (just because their language isnt as sophisticated as ours it doesnt mean it doesnt happen)
if there is a difference its incredibly slight but there is one thing iv never seen an animal do and thats laugh. If anyone could explain that to me or give me an example of an animal that laughs at things it finds amusing please let me know!
It's not like humans evolve particularly quickly, it takes us rather long to achieve maturity and we don't have much chldren compared to many other species, but we compensate with social behaviour and taking care of our offspring.BathorysGraveland said:
Something like insects or bacteria will adapt and evolve much quicker.
But we happened to specialise in intelligence and making tools, and the social structures and culture, which has led to us having a wide ecological impact.
Define 'natural flow of life'.JesterRaiin said:
'Natural' is really one of those words that get thrown around a lot with very poor definition, and often with values tacked on that don't make much sense.
Also, do you suppose other animals value 'natural' things more? My cat seems rather content in napping next to the radiator and getting her factory-processed food carried in front of her whenever she wants.
Laughter is a part of the way humans interact socially with one another. Other social animals do as well, a dog wagging it's tail is a rather similar message.Kirkby said:
If you mean something that sounds the same, hyenas have cries that sound like human laughter, but they mean something different for those species.
EDIT:
It seems our close relatives do have some kind of laughter at least:
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/the-evolution-of-laughter/
Not very much. In terms of intelligence, we're probably at the top, but other species are probably closer than we think. And intelligence is poorly defined anyway. We're very social creatures, but so are many other animals.
I think it's mostly just lucky accidents in evolution - intelligence, sociality - grouped together that make the features that arguably separate us, like changing our environment. We have a long way to go before we become fully civilised/removed from the animal kingdom.
I think it's mostly just lucky accidents in evolution - intelligence, sociality - grouped together that make the features that arguably separate us, like changing our environment. We have a long way to go before we become fully civilised/removed from the animal kingdom.
1. True. However, i fail to see any pragmatism in let's say bubblegums, iOS games, or one million different coughing syrups, toothpastes (each and every suggested by MOST dentist globally) and such. We have plenty of such stuff. Nice and shiny, but not needed.volX said:
2. I hope i'm wrong regarding silence of universe. I really hope. However facts are facts, we have nothing more than hopes and theories. Time will tell. Until then your argument is as good as mine. (Also, but that's outside of this thread - i'm counting for scientific breakthrough that will make "normal" space travel obsolete. Wormholes, interstellar gates, hyperspace and such).
3. Not every animal behaves like viruses and parasites, so there's no need for human (if one believes that mankind is part of animal kingdom) to act like parasite.
- Very true. Still, this life supporting stage still means pretty vast amount of time.Joccaren said:
- This is an argument that works both for and against what i said. It really comes down to interpretation and, well, i guess i'm one of those that see glass half-empty, not half-full.
Outside of this thread : If i may suggest, i'd like both of you, fellow Espcapists, to think about possibilities when discussing alien civilizations. Intelligent life evolving in complete different environment should be capable of producing different science, walk different paths.
They don't have to invest into rocketery and build spaceships, but instead harness the power of teleportation. They may be capable of traveling outside of what we consider time-space and distances may mean nothing for them. Concept of war could be completely "alien" to them and while we kill ourselves over some laughable matters, they could rush into galaxy to plant seeds of life wherever they can just because so. We're products of our history and it is violent, bloody, primitive story full of betrayals, murders - aliens aren't "obliged" to commit our crimes.
My point is : i may be wrong, but you both think about possible aliens as about ourselves, and there's no need to do so.
Also, if i may interest you in this masterpiece : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C5%82os_pana it's one of best studies (at least known to me) regarding possible contact between Mankind and alien civilization. Rather hard to comprehend, there's no action per se, but logic, conclussions makes it worth reading.
Certainly.Lieju said:
I'm aware about "flow of life" not being universally defined. I'm using it as a simplification only. As i understand it (and this is definition made "ad hoc", without heavy thinking mind you, so expect no great discovery here), living part of planet (also animal kingdom) is governed by very simple, yet vast system of actions and reactions. It's void of ethics, morality, love and compssion, yet it's pure and ellegant. I guess it's based on simple pragmatism and instincts. As long as alive things adhere to its "rules", there's natural status quo mantained.
We, people, change this status quo, we try to grasp as much as we can, without giving anything in exchange. We try to prolong our life, we try to separate us from nature, enclose in boxes of glass and plastic, therefore we can't be considered part of "flow of life" (and by extension - animal kingdom) anymore.
As for animals and "values". Pragmatism. Cat may be happy with easy food and warmth, but won't evolve into some intelligent Kilrathi because of that. We did - instead of sitting happily in our caves we invented universities, concepts of salary, taxes and licence agreements. Joke is on us i guess. :|
Intelligence. Our only natural weapon is our brain. We don't have claws, sharp pointy teeth, venom, exoskeletons, armour and nor are we amphibious.
It's thanks to our brains that we have come as far as we have, in my opinion.
That is the ONLY thing that differentiates us with animals. We still haven't shed our animalistic instincts despite all our wisdom and knowledge.
It's thanks to our brains that we have come as far as we have, in my opinion.
That is the ONLY thing that differentiates us with animals. We still haven't shed our animalistic instincts despite all our wisdom and knowledge.
You are seriously claiming animals don't feel lonely, hungry, attached to their offspring, happy, content, angry, scared, horny?Tenno said:
True, something like a spider is not going to have much of emotions (and even still I'd argue they can feel scared or hungry, realise that to some extent and act on it), but more social animals we are talking, more they are like us.
Something like a parent's attachment to their child, or a person's love for their partner are very biological things, and certainly present in species that take care of their young or form partnerships.
Elephants mourn their dead. Animals can be afaid (don't forget that fear is also an emotion)Tenno said:
I haven't seen anyone say that animals are as intelligent as humans. What has been said is that intelligence is a caracterisic that both humans and animals have. It's just that humans have more of it.Combustion Kevin said:
Mate, that's nothing special. We aren't the only species in the world to make tools. The only ones to make tools of such complexity, sure, but at one point in our evolution we too used tools at the same basic level as other species. There's nothing stopping those same species developing to the same point as we have except time. Give them time, and I'm sure other simians will eventually reach the point where they can build rockets as well. Other species beyond that suffer from the issue of having bodies shaped in such a way that they can't effectively manipulate objects to the same extent that we do. That, there, is your reason why other animals haven't reached the same technological level as ourselves. In the whole of the history of life on this Earth, humans are arguably the most intelligent species to develop with the means to capitalise on that intelligence in the form of tools. That is the only difference between a human and any other animal.TestECull said:Here's some proof for you:
Why are we the ones that did that? We're by no means the first creatures on this planet with opposable thumbs, not by several million years. We're not the only species on this planet physically capable of designing, building and operating that, nor are we the first.
You want more proof? Watch the Apollo 11 launch. There's your proof. Don't want to accept that? Look at the computer you're using to post this. Look at your car. Look out your window...fuck, look at the blooming window itself. EVERYTHING you see around you exists because of human creativity. Not animal creativity. Everything around you, everything from the Saturn V rocket I posted to the clothes on your back, all of it exists because humans are more creative than any other species on this planet. The proof is literally draped over your shoulders waiting for you to accept it.
All these signs of human progress that you're throwing at me, none of these big examples existed a century ago. Human history is a lot longer than a century. Homo Sapiens is supposedly, what, 250,000 years old? The smallest fraction of a percentage of our history has been spent with your proof. Go back more than ten thousand years (still less than 1% of our species' history), and we're only marginally more developed than our closest relatives amongst the apes. By your reasoning, it seems as if humans would have had nothing to differentiate themselves from animals then, but genetically speaking we're still the same species.
I'm not trying to argue that humans aren't intelligent. Clearly, we are one of the smartest species living on this planet (hard to tell if we're the smartest, since only a tiny fraction of the Earth's living creatures have had the ability to create tools, which seems to be how you judge intelligence). This doesn't make us any more than particularly smart beasts. We're lucky as a species that we hit a perfect storm, so to speak, of intelligence and the ability to capitalise upon it. But that doesn't change us in any way from being animals, and honestly, I can't see why we wouldn't want to be animals. All the things humans prize, loyalty, intelligence, strength, can be seen in most of the more advanced animals on this planet. All the things humans despise can likewise be seen. We're not different. We've just had a spot of luck when it came to our evolution.
I'm going to go with language. It's been theorized the Neanderthals were actually a lot smarter than us in terms of sheer mental power, but they didn't have as complex language centre or vocal chords (can't remember which).
To those who'd say "but birds sing and ants have pheromones", well, yes. But these aren't really a language, are they? Pheromones are pretty much equivalent to us seeing a colour. For example, a block of the colour red might be associated with socialism for you, but it's hardly the communist manifesto, is it? Bird song's a lot more precise in terms of a language, but most birds aren't smart enough to use it. Crows though, are theorized to have some sort of language, so we aren't as unique as you'd think when in that regard.
To those who'd say "but birds sing and ants have pheromones", well, yes. But these aren't really a language, are they? Pheromones are pretty much equivalent to us seeing a colour. For example, a block of the colour red might be associated with socialism for you, but it's hardly the communist manifesto, is it? Bird song's a lot more precise in terms of a language, but most birds aren't smart enough to use it. Crows though, are theorized to have some sort of language, so we aren't as unique as you'd think when in that regard.
I read an interestig article recently that said the basic difference between how humans and animals think is sentience - and in that author's opinion, the reason we have sentience is becuase we have language. Without language, even an intelligent person would only be able to think in terms of their current physiological state and concepts such as past and future would be impossible. Words and language allow us to concretise abstract concepts.
I also think that a lot of the intelligence and human-like personality that people ascribe to their pets is just anthro-projection. Sure, animals display a range of behaviours and a corresponding range of emotions, but any deeper thought processes are in the eye of the beholder. Damn Disney has a lot to answer for.
I also think that a lot of the intelligence and human-like personality that people ascribe to their pets is just anthro-projection. Sure, animals display a range of behaviours and a corresponding range of emotions, but any deeper thought processes are in the eye of the beholder. Damn Disney has a lot to answer for.
1) We are smarter than most of if not all other animals. Screw you dolphins you cant operate tools with flippers.
2) We are the only species of which the females have fully developed breasts at all times post puberty and not just after having given birth like other animals. Thank you sexual selection.
2) We are the only species of which the females have fully developed breasts at all times post puberty and not just after having given birth like other animals. Thank you sexual selection.
Quite honestly I don't like this question. Physically, as proven, we're not different at all. It's our ability of cognitive thought(which we're not actually meant to value in the way we've been doing, not saying it's a bad thing though) that's really unique compared to most other species alive today.
Out culture and all that jazz is of course very different as well, but we still, really, have about the same basic principles as most other more complex societies.
Gah, I don't really give a damn to be frank. Humans are animals, not all animals are humans, all animals differ, all individuals differ, etc etc etc.
Out culture and all that jazz is of course very different as well, but we still, really, have about the same basic principles as most other more complex societies.
Gah, I don't really give a damn to be frank. Humans are animals, not all animals are humans, all animals differ, all individuals differ, etc etc etc.
Animals have language. Have you never heard of Koko? How about the dozens of other primates that we taught sign language to, who can and do use it to communicate to each other and their handlers.Batou667 said:
Beavers, ants, termites and hermit crabs disagree. Oh also correct me if I'm wrong but birds nests don't just magically form in nature for the specific purpose of making life easy for birds. Instead birds you know, collect resources from around and then build them, to you know modify their environments to be liveable for them. The them again being every bird that has ever existed.Zenthunder said:
