Any thoughts on why humans differ so much from other species in terms of intelligence?

(February 16, 2013 at 6:05 am)Meylis Wrote: Any thoughts on why humans differ so much from other species in terms of intelligence?

We have wars.
As a result the genus homo has become our own predator and prey.
A little pet theory of mine for which I have zilch evidence.

(February 16, 2013 at 6:11 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(February 16, 2013 at 6:05 am)Meylis Wrote: Any thoughts on why humans differ so much from other species in terms of intelligence?

We have wars.
As a result the genus homo has become our own predator and prey.
A little pet theory of mine for which I have zilch evidence.

I believe homo sapiens is the only species existing currently which is capable of symbolic thought. Feel free to correct me.

Chimps (and maybe some other great apes, I dunno) are capable of learning some words/signs (arbitrary symbols) or symbols.

(February 16, 2013 at 6:19 am)Justtristo Wrote: I believe homo sapiens is the only species existing currently which is capable of symbolic thought. Feel free to correct me.

I think there's a lot of human arrogance that dismisses animal intelligence. Primates have been taught pretty large vocabularies of hand signals. Animals have specific calls for specific dangers, that seems symbolic. Even insects communicate in quite complicated ways its just none of the popular journals will accept their submissions.

I'd first have to question the assumption that they do differ that significantly. There are some theories that the great increases in the size and topography of the human brain occurred as a result of their facilitating a range of social behaviors (language being the most obvious). I would suggest, along the lines of those theories, that we are not so much more intelligent than other species as individuals as we are, collectively, more effective as a group of social animals, than other species are. Things like the transmission of culture and knowledge through example and explicit teaching (originally from adult to child) allow the consolidation of advances in knowledge in a way that is not open to other species. (Other species, like chimpanzees, can learn by the example of others, but humans learn in a completely different way. Humans are the only species which makes a point of intentionally presenting examples to another [teaching] in order to create the conditions for learning. Other animals copy behaviors, but the behaviors that are open to them to copy are largely selected by accident and chance, rather than the intentional act of a caregiver. Another example is pointing [as with one's finger]. Humans understand this gesture, dogs understand it, but chimpanzees do not. Is this just an arbitrary species difference, or does it suggest that we [and dogs] are capable of understanding indirect reference in a way that other species are not?) Language is of course the supreme example of an intelligent and synergistic social technology. We don't have to lead another to the food a mile away, we can just tell them. We don't have to draw a bunch of triangles to illustrate a geometric idea, we can describe it in words. And we don't have to teach our children everything by example; they can learn words and propositions instead. And once language becomes writing, the ability to consolidate and transmit knowledge takes a quantum leap. The invention of writing is probably why the bulk of civilized existence is co-extensive with the existence of written language.

So, no, I rather doubt the initial premise that humans are in fact distinctly intelligent. Most humans contribute little in the way of intelligent achievement that isn't facilitated by culture and learning, and often the result of somebody else's thinking. As Newton said, if he has seen so far, it is because he has stood on the shoulders of giants. The rest of us are more like a pile of midgets, standing on each other's toes. Individuals contribute little; but our social behaviors allow us to accomplish a lot.

The group is intelligent as a whole; the species is more capable as a whole, because of these social behaviors; the individual human animal itself, though, is not that great a leap.

(There's an additional fact which I won't go into, but small improvements in global intelligence likely yield greater effects on overall functioning. The reason is because utilization of knowledge is a process having many steps, from efficiency in acquisition, to effectiveness in evaluating what to absorb and what to ignore, to efficiency and availability in recall, to greater effectiveness in synthesizing, reconciling and comparing information. Because a "global intelligence" makes each of these processes more effective, the overall result is more effective than whatever incrementally greater general intelligence the person has. So in effect, a person (or species) with slightly greater intelligence is able to make great gains because they are able to spend the same incremental difference at multiple points in the process. They get more bang for the buck because they're able to spend that same buck multiple times.)

I'm with apo, we ain't as clever as we like to think we are.

Large brain size, dolphins aren't really that far from us and may have some kind of a language for communication, they appartently have names for each other. Great apes can be taught human language on a par with a three year child, they can't speak but can be taught sign language, they can also paint and laugh at jokes and play Pac-Man. So I think it's a difference of degree rather than kind

I don't think we are that distinct from other mammals, actually..

Do people really think that we are not intellectually distinct? The largest vocabulary that an non-human primate has been able to learn is 3,000 words. Where as the average human vocabulary is around 60,000. The maximum human vocabulary is probably around a million words. So any attempt to make some comparison just based on language falls well short. I honestly don't understand how this viewpoint comes about. It's a weird sort of specisist guilt or something.

Human beings have developed technology capable of destroying the world. We've developed philosophy, mathematics, literature. The best an animal has managed is modifying a stick to better eat termites. Do you honestly think we aren't intellectually distinct?

Why we've developed larger intellect is just an evolutionary path. It's no more 'miraculous' than peregrine falcons being the fastest species and asking why. It's helped us to survive and breed.