People should be taught in school that humans are not that smart, and that there are many comparable species in intelligence.
People should be taught in school that humans are not that smart, and that there are many comparable species in intelligence.
This opinion is based on reading people's thoughts on the internet and remembering what I was taught in my own time in school (where they essentially stumbled into teaching that humans were some kind of 'peak' of the evolutionary process)
I think people have waaaaayyyy too much faith in human intelligence and it's leading to the destruction of the world.
1- People keep thinking a scientist or a 'rich entrepreneur' is going to come up with some magic bullet to save the world, if we taught more about how other animals have tools, language, larger and older and more complex brain structures than us - People might realize it's similar to believing that dolphin will arise from the sea with some idea to stop climate change
2- we keep participating in these systems that have been created under the assumption that we are 'making progress'. I would argue that the minority of human invention represents real progress.
3- It leads to undervaluing the earth and taking it for granted. We worship ourselves as gods (literally). Almost everything you have wasn't invented by humans. It was the result of billions of years of selective design. Yet we teach as if things we harvest from nature were 'invented' by humans. In reality, we often have no way to produce or even of conceive of these things without a natural example.
Thanks for reading
You're viewing a single thread.
Humans have a large range when it comes to intelligence. Saying the average raven is comparable to human child is a fair statment but I don't see any other animal making monuments and going to space. I don't disagree with your points only the title. Issues come from people not educated properly. Which I could argue is systemic. Eventually we may be able to do the things we see in sci-fi but I doubt any other animal will anytime soon.
I agree.
I donât see any other animal making monuments and going to space
But these are weird ( and biased) ways to measure intelligence. I could also say I don't see other species besides Cephalopods with a body-wide distributed brain network that can reform it's entire body to mimic in a few seconds, not to mention regularly escape from entirely alien containment measures.
Even the mention of 'doing things we see in sci-fi' is weirdly human centric. Like dinosaurs lived on the earth for billions of years. How bout we accomplish that? There was a book that explored this idea that species are obsessed with themselves by Dan Quinn called 'Ishmael'. The whole book isn't really about that theme but it's got an allegory about jellyfish that explores it.
edit: this is getting downvotes so let me ask another way:
- if 'accomplishing the things we see in sci fi' (like say, going to Mars) results in the extinction of the human species shortly after, do you think the remaining species on the planet will remember humans as 'smart' or 'obsessed with vehicles/exploration to the point of self-destruction'? If you could float above the remains of the civilization and make a judgement, would you think it was worth it?
No animal shows anywhere near the range of neuroplasticity of humans. Humans can exist comfortably on almost all biospheres on earth and even space thanks to the technology we developed. Including the technology of language which features the word intelligence which we use for the way we grow and adapt. That's what we use our brains for and what we specialize in. We don't use our brains for sonar the way bats do, but that isn't intelligence.
Does that make humans inherently superior or give us the right to render the planet uninhabitable? No, of course not, and animals are smarter than many people give them credit for. But calling animal intelligence comparable to that of humans simply isn't accurate.
Other animals have language
Edit: when I tried to research the nueroplasticity claim I didn't see the answer you're giving. I saw sources claiming many animals have this and that rats have shown more nueroplasticity than humans
Other animals communicate. Language involves syntax and grammar which only humans are capable of. That also has nothing to do with the fact that intelligence is a human word to describe humanlike capacity.
And it's not like dolphins could learn whale language. Animal communication is very basic compared to ours.
I think it's undeniable that we're the most intelligent and capable species on the planet and not just because of apposable thumbs. Maybe some of the smartest animals are smarter than the dumbest humans, but we have a huge range.
No other brain works the way ours does, other primates and some dolphins/whales come close with their ingenuity and stuff but obviously millions of years behind us.
Yeah this is the attitude I think is harmful. You essentially have no evidence of your claims but you just strongly feel superior to other species.
'Animal communication is very basic compared to ours' is just a blatantly false statement. We know there are named individuals, dialect, syntaxes in other species. I think some humans are just ignorant of these things, which is the opposite of intelligence
Also none of you seem to consider the extra communication abilities many animals possess around scent a mark AGAINST humans. We may use the most complex vocal language to compensate for our total lack of smell communication
Suzuki and his colleagues found that whale songs convey less than one bit of information per second. By comparison, humans speaking English generate 10 bits of information for each word spoken
I understand some animals, especially mammals like whales, dolphins, and primates have complex languages. But ours is still more advanced. They just have no reason for their language to become more complex when all they need to do is eat and mate.
Animal communication is very basic compared to ours' is just a blatantly false statement.
It's not, it's proven in the study you linked.
And as for smell, I would consider that an ability/skill, not intelligence. Monkeys aren't smarter than us because they can climb trees faster than us, dolphins aren't smarter than us because they're more adapted to swimming. Even cats aren't smarter than us based on their faster reaction speeds. Intelligence relies on brain power.
This is the double standard I have a problem with;
Human has ability = we attribute it to intelligence.
Animal has ability = we attribute it to their physiological form.
Human's ability to use intelligence is also attributable to our evolved survival strategy ie our physiological form. Why is using our brains proof of skilled intelligence but an animal using their nose ISN'T? To me you have reduced intelligence to a reductive measurement that is biased towards humans.
Animals derive knowledge about the world from their sense. That other animals can smell disease or sense magnetic forces and we CANT should humble us, but we see it as some meaningless outdated ability we have grown past while worshiping every tool we create.
Because it's not intelligence. Our apposable thumbs aren't an indicator of intelligence, what we decide, with our brains, to do with those thumbs is intelligence. Just like brain size isn't an indicator, sperm whales have the largest brain on the planet yet we are better at applying ours. And a crow's brain is smaller than a child but it's commenly understood they're smarter than a 4 year old.
Dog's use of their nose are signs of intelligence but not the nose in and of itself. It shows that they're intelligent, but clearly not more so than humans, who still have more complex relationships, language, learning ability, etc. The smelling of diseases isn't intelligence, they don't learn it, they can just do it. It's a natural evolved ability, like better hearing. Animals and humans using their brains to learn is a measure of intelligence and it's faster than evolution. It's not like we couldn't use smell to communicate if we had the ability.
I never said anything other than intelligence is meaningless, but in this case, it's largely meaningless as a measure of intelligence past the comparitivly simple form of communication smell is used as. I'm not saying animals are unintelligent, we're just more intelligent. It's more like;
Human has ability = what we do with it is a measure of intelligence.
Animal has ability = what they do with it is a measure of intelligence and we'd do more with it if we had the ability, because our intelligence makes us more curious and inventive. Most animals are content with the natural order, if humans could smell disease we'd use it to advance our medicine.
Its just so reductive and I couldn't disagree more. We learn how to use our tools by emulating nature.
Example: Humans and dolphins use sonar, but dolphins use it better (we are learning from their example): https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180531102742.htm
If your idea is true, humans would immediately be 'smarter' at using sonar than dolphins the second we gained the ability to do it.
But shocker, the animal that's been using it for millions of years has learned better ways to do it. And we get better by copying them. And without them, we (and our ability to use sonar) would be lessened forever.
Most animals are content with the natural order
WTF haha, there's no way for anyone to know that.
This strikes me as an example of as in/ought fallacy in that you assuming because most animals living on the planet in a sustainable manner are doing so because they want to, and not for any of a million other reasons up to and including that the species who don't live sustainably simply go fucking extinct.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060322175201.htm
We have known for quite some time that whales have language with syntax, in fact we now know they have regional dialects as well
You are proving my point this should be taught in school more, here you are under the impression humans are unique in this regard
...although the authors do not claim that humpback whale songs meet the linguistic rigor necessary for a true language.
Despite the "human-like" use of hierarchical syntax to communicate, Suzuki and his colleagues found that whale songs convey less than one bit of information per second. By comparison, humans speaking English generate 10 bits of information for each word spoken. "Although whale song is nothing like human language, I wouldn't be surprised if some marine mammals have the ability to communicate in a complex way.
Did you even read the article you submitted? I get it, you like animals.I like animals, even humans, some of them. But you're comparing other animals to humans at the things that humans are demonstratively best at. Its like saying that cattle are sometimes faster at running than cheetahs and maybe we've been defining "fast" or "run" wrong. If you move the goal post far enough apart and select the outliers you can find examples of anything, but you've proved nothing.
"Although whale song is nothing like human language, I wouldnât be surprised if some marine mammals have the ability to communicate in a complex way.
Are you the same person who claimed they didn't have syntax at all or someone different? Why claim that when they don't have syntax, and then move goalposts to bits of information?
https://www.uw360.asia/the-difference-between-human-and-cetacean-brains/ Are you aware cetaceans have more lobes in their brain than humans ?
This extra lobe of tissue has something to do with processing emotions, but also something to do with thinking that we humans just donât have.
This unique evolution of the cetaceanâs entire limbic system, which is a combination of multiple structures in the brain that deal with emotions and the formation of memories, suggests that cetaceans have the ability to process more complex thoughts and emotions than humans. Since the system is so large in cetaceans, and the unique paralimbic lobe merges with the cortex, it is believed that the lobe may create a mixture of both emotional and cognitive thinking.
Humans are always comparing animals TO OURSELVES and when they fall short we consider ourselves better, but we don't do the comparison the other way and subtract points from ourselves when we fail against animals.
I think this is my overall point and why our estimation of ourselves and other life on earth is so flawed.
Lol I mean it is an unpopular opinion you would think people upvote the ones they dislike. No one is disagreeing that other animals are infact integeligent. What people disagree is the level of intelligence and how to measure it. The path to destruction due to blatant incompetence may just be a step to something better like we saw during the industrial revolution. Humans are not the only species to shape and use resources but it is more apparent (at least at the higher end intellect) that we can reflect on our actions and adjust. Humans are moving toward renewable sources and more eco friendly practices but it just does not feel fast enough. Humans as a species in its current state only existed for like 10K years and permanently effected the planet in that time. No other species has even done that. Good or bad we left our mark which proves a higher level of intelligence in the a short time we have been around. To answer your question, I do think it is worth it if we can get to the point of sustainability outside earth. Anything short of that would make it a complete waste of the potential we were given because any species that would have the ability to judge us for our failure would have achieved that goal. I know I do when I play Stellaris :). Plus failures are always good lessons on what not to do for them. I wish our predecessors where better but now we have to make the difference. Thanks grandpa. Let's blame on the lead.