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

Define intelligent.

I rather disagree with Apo about whether our accomplishments are attributable largely to a set of hardwired social instincts, and most of us individually accomplish little that is intelligent beyond what is taught to us.

I think if put to task, a group of humans starting from scratch will spontanously and more rapidly home in on a wider range of clever, non-specifically-instictive actions to address the need to eat than any other animal.

Not necessarily bow and arrows from nothing - that probably does take incremental improvement and social transmission, but things like observing habits of animals, rapid trail and errors, etc.

That's my idea of raw individual intelligence - the generalized ability to efficiently utilize trials to detect and avoid errors and to very quickly home in on efficient solution to survival problems. I think we are rather better provided for in this at birth than any other animal that comes to mind.

What is your definition of Intelligence?

Somehow I have the idea that art is the behaviour that really distincts us from any other species.

(February 16, 2013 at 1:23 pm)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote: Somehow I have the idea that art is the behaviour that really distincts us from any other species.

Art in itself is not intelligence. It might be argued that art is a necesary (?) secondary result of wiring and developmenal firmware underpinning intelligence, sort of like play. So art might be an indicator of intelligence.

(February 16, 2013 at 12:50 pm)Chuck 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?

Define intelligent.

I rather disagree with Apo about whether our accomplishments are attributable largely to a set of hardwired social instincts, and most of us individually accomplish little that is intelligent beyond what is taught to us.

I think if put to task, a group of humans starting from scratch will spontanously and more rapidly home in on a wider range of clever, non-specifically-instictive actions to address the need to eat than any other animal.

Wikipedia: Animal Cognition Wrote:Reasoning and problem solving

Closely related to tool use is the study of reasoning and problem solving. It has been observed that the manner in which chimpanzees solve problems, such as that of retrieving bananas positioned out of reach, is not through trial-and-error. Instead, they were observed to proceed in a manner that was "unwaveringly purposeful."

It is clear that animals of quite a range of species are capable of solving a range of problems that are argued to involve abstract reasoning; modern research has tended to show that the performances of Wolfgang Köhler's chimpanzees, who could achieve spontaneous solutions to problems without training, were by no means unique to that species, and that apparently similar behavior can be found in animals usually thought of as much less intelligent, if appropriate training is given. Causal reasoning has also been observed in rooks and New Caledonian crows.

I might take your position more seriously if you weren't a) straw manning my position, b) had some actual evidence beyond your gut, and c) weren't just pulling shit out of your ass.

The simple fact is that we have almost no example of human behavior in the absence of learning and social processes (Victor of Aveyron and Genie, the prototypical cases of so-called feral children do not make particularly suitable subjects for resolving the question; however the experience of deaf children prior to institutionalized education of the deaf might [c. 364 B.C. - Aristotle asserted that "Deaf are born incapable to reason"]). (ETA: A comparative study between first and third world subjects is another possibility; it's worth noting that to lack education, or be ignorant, is commonly regarded as severe a deficit as lacking intelligence.)

Wikipedia: Feral Child Wrote:Feral children lack the basic social skills that are normally learned in the process of enculturation. For example, they may be unable to learn to use a toilet, have trouble learning to walk upright and display a complete lack of interest in the human activity around them. They often seem mentally impaired and have almost insurmountable trouble learning a human language. The impaired ability to learn a formal language after having been isolated for so many years is often attributed to the existence of a critical period for language learning, and taken as evidence in favor of the critical period hypothesis.

It's unclear in the case of feral children whether the intellectual deficits are due to lack of learning or due to lack of mental development as a result of impoverished learning environments. Having watched some of the footage of Genie, there appears to be a general brightness to her (she was known to be particularly adept at communicating her wants to others) but surprisingly little in the way of conventional intelligence, as she needed constant care throughout the documented portion of her life. I can't help wondering offhand whether, if we shoved Chuck out in an uninhabited section of the Amazon, to compete with the native, roving bands of monkeys, whether his supposed greater intelligence would enable him to survive.

Regardless, there are several competing explanations or potentiators in the history of human evolution to which is normally ascribed the selective pressures which resulted in our larger brains, and the specific topographical features. Among these are bipedalism, language, climactic instability, manual dexterity (opposable thumbs), and just a general adaptationist "more is better" explanation (which has serious shortcomings, as it doesn't explain why we have big brains, and say cheetahs don't). Of these, only climactic instability seems reliably suitable as a selection pressure resulting in generalized increase in intelligence. The back side of this is that there are animals with similar intelligence ratios (body to brain size) who haven't become "intelligent" in the way that we have. Regardless, if you are arguing that humanity is distinct, it would seem that the null hypothesis is that humanity is, perhaps modestly improved, but not in any sense distinct; if correct, then the notion that humans are distinctly intelligent bears the burden of proof, and I've yet to see any put on the table. (Beyond the rather insipid, "Lookee what I can do. Shiny!")

(February 16, 2013 at 6:41 am)The Magic Pudding Wrote: 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.

Primates have language in the same way dolphins are fish. Yes, dolphins live in the ocean, but they are mammals. Yes, primates can use sign (GSL is ASL altered to be able to sign with gorilla hands), but they have an extremely limited vocabulary. Unfortunately, I have to say that a lot of the research on gorillas and sign has been a bit inflated by the media. They are using some language, but it's no where near as sophisticated as human language (of which there is nothing else like it on Earth). A communication systems is not the same as a language, either. All of this may fall under a casual definition or language, but not a more academic one. It suffers from a similar problem as the word 'theory'.

(February 16, 2013 at 2:41 pm)apophenia Wrote: Regardless, there are several competing explanations or potentiators in the history of human evolution to which is normally ascribed the selective pressures which resulted in our larger brains, and the specific topographical features. Among these are bipedalism, language, climactic instability, manual dexterity (opposable thumbs), and just a general adaptationist "more is better" explanation (which has serious shortcomings, as it doesn't explain why we have big brains, and say cheetahs don't). Of these, only climactic instability seems reliably suitable as a selection pressure resulting in generalized increase in intelligence. The back side of this is that there are animals with similar intelligence ratios (body to brain size) who haven't become "intelligent" in the way that we have. Regardless, if you are arguing that humanity is distinct, it would seem that the null hypothesis is that humanity is, perhaps modestly improved, but not in any sense distinct; if correct, then the notion that humans are distinctly intelligent bears the burden of proof, and I've yet to see any put on the table. (Beyond the rather insipid, "Lookee what I can do. Shiny!")

In regards to feral children: Yes humans can be brought down to the basic skills of an animal, but the reverse is simply not true. No animal can be brought up to the skill set of a human. Sure, animals can learn a comparatively small vocabulary of words, but try to teach one to read.

As for your dismissal of 'lookee what I can do.' Human accomplishments and abilities should far far exceed the burden of proof for greater intelligence. Almost any human being, baring genetic deformity, is capable of learning algebra. No animals are.

(February 16, 2013 at 3:18 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Almost any human being, baring genetic deformity, is capable of learning algebra. No animals are.

And you would know this how exactly?

(February 16, 2013 at 1:23 pm)Dee Dee Ramone Wrote: Somehow I have the idea that art is the behaviour that really distincts us from any other species.

That's a fair enough point, you have different cultures and such as well.

I think humans developed greater intelligence do to their loss of a fur coat. The fight to maintain body temperature in a cold environment requires high intelligence to be successful, more so than just food.

Making clothes, shelters, and fire, are very challenging, even to us today.