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.
this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
31 points (66.7% liked)
Unpopular Opinion
6326 readers
10 users here now
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I agree.
I don’t 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.
Obviously not immediately, I never said that. If we had the ability to use sonar for the same amount of time, we'd be better at it and we soon will be better at it in less time than evolution allowed because our creativity and intelligence lets us advance faster than evolution.
Does the fact we learned how to use sonar without the natural evolved ability prove that we're smarter?
Maybe content was the wrong word, animals just don't care about advancing technology or growing. Most animals only care about reproduction, that's their lives goal. Salmon literally spend their entire lives, growing up, leaving home, going back home to mate, and dies.
I'm not sure what your point is anymore, are you still campainging that animals are smarter than us? Because they're not, they may be better at filling certain niches, but our niche is literally being smart. There are intelligent species but none have come close to what we can achieve with our brains. We sacrificed primate stretch and agility for higher brain power.
Maybe content was the wrong word, animals just don’t care about advancing technology or growing.
My last point is that you literally can't know what animals care about, and its weird you keep asserting you do. I think you mean that evolution selects based on reproduction, and thats true for humans as well. So do humans only care about reproduction? If so, then we can say they are exactly equal to animals.
Yes, a lot of humanity only cares about reproduction. But we've also elevated ourselves to creat art, science, music, etc.
I can't know for sure what animals care about, but I can make an educated guess based on evidence and observations. Most animals haven't got past the "find food, survive, reproduce" mindset - at least not much more than that, maybe add entertainment to pass the time. There's documentation of dolphins getting high recreationally.
Pretty much, some animals have other have a slightly varied goal set, but none are able to do anything close to our achievements. Which are mostly based around intelligence as we're not physically gifted.
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 wouldn’t 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 don’t have.
This unique evolution of the cetacean’s 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.
Dolphins actually do have a top plan to stop climate change. Unfortunately, they don't have appendages capable of carrying out the take over of earth and destroying all humans.
I like to think the first step would be to trying minor attacks to gauge the speed of humans fighting back. Such as sending a larger species to attack an important commerical tradeline. Sort of like if orcas started attacking ships in a place luke the gibralter strait. Starting with small sail boats eventually moving to sink larger vessels eventually crippling world trade by blockade.
Why would they bother when they can just fly off into space back to their home planet? Of course they'll likely thank us for all the fish before they leave, but as humans don't speak dolphin it'll just look like a surprisingly sophisticated attempt to do a double backwards somersault through a hoop while whistling the Star Spangled Banner.
Individually, we are above average. But our advantage over other animals is language x technology. We are able to collect knowledge, preserve it and pass it down to our descendents. This body of knowledge spanning 10,000 years is the reason for our supremacy. We are a proto-hive mind.
Other animals pass down cultural knowledge
Not to the same degree, show me the animal with internet storage or books.
Again humans are biased towards methods that use artifacts/tools.
If you're a whale underwater your whalesong is as good as the internet, but whatever its not a physical object and its a totally sustainable method that doesn't require harvesting half the planet so WE DGAF, doesn't count!
Whale song is not as good as the internet, and we're biased toward tools because the jump from word-of-mouth to written information was a colossal paradigm shift. "On the shoulders of giants" is only possible because we aren't bound just by our living memory and traditional stories. Cultural knowledge aint shit compared to cuneiform tablets.
I just want to pick you peoples brains at this point.
- Humans have had internet for less than 100 years, whales have had sonar and whale song for millions of years, allowing communication and thought sharing over spaces humans weren't capable of.
- So then, were whales smarter than humans up until the moment we gained internet?
- Internet can easily be taken away from you leaving you weak and helpless, whales can't be separated from their internet.
Human survival strategy is very min/max glass cannon right now - we are dependent on complex, unsustainable, rapidly degrading systems for survival yet feel superior to other animals for those very same systems. Seems profoundly dumb to me in a way we fail to see because we are so obsessed with our intellect.
As I said in another comment, maybe it can be said 'we are most intellectual' species but its in a kind of rain man way where we lose other necessary wisdom about how to survive long term on the planet.
Your argument makes no sense because humans have been passing down oral history for ages too before the internet and writing. It was literally one person's job to memorize everything and then teach it to the next "history holder." That's why we have such shit record keeping before we invented books. And why ballads and songs were also used to help memorization.
However to a lesser extent books, but definitely the internet is far beyond a basic data aggregator. It allows instant communication across the entire world akin to telepathy, seemingly endless space for knowledge good or bad, entertainment, business enabling/generating, allows you to 1 way communicate with the dead by reading wisdom from some person 1,000 of years ago. You keep saying "well humans have a tool bias", yeah no kidding because the tools we make LITERALLY CHANGE THE WORLD, for good or bad. I believe it was the phantom menace who so aptly put it, "the ability to communicate doesn't make you intelligent."
okay why doesnt the oral histories of other species count? They seem to pass down tradition and behavior for just as long, and we cannot observe their inner beliefs about more than that. So why are you assuming only humans do it?
Cetaceans have a structure in their brain that we don't have that MIGHT allow them to experience life as a group. That is different than internet but not WORSE just because it doesnt require an external tool. Why are you obesssed with a way of being that 'CHANGES THE WORLD' so that you go extinct?
We'll agree that our 'tool intelligence' doesn't make us wise at least
You're the one arguing animals are smarter because they passed down history orally. Yes some of humanity's tools have impacted the environment but we also have the capability to save not only ourselves but literally every other species. No single animal ever comes close to this. Period. Call it a god or savior complex, fine, but the truth remains humans are the only species we have ever encountered in the known universe with that kind of power and potential.
As to your evidence of cetaceans, I'm not sure that matters considering it's all hypothetical unproven. You're trying to weigh something that we can actually confirm against abstract conjuncture like they're on the same level. I might be a millionaire some day, does that mean I should spend like I am one now?
we also have the capability to save not only ourselves but literally every other species
yet to be shown. We assume we can turn this around
Until we're all dead, its the truth.
Disagree. We're by far the most intelligent species on the planet, but this is kind of like the AI problem - being intelligent doesn't make us benevolent or immune to screwed up incentives, and it doesn't automatically solve all coordination problems.
I might agree we are 'intelligent without being wise' but then I would say that THAT should be taught.
Currently we function as the equivalent of the neighborhood mad scientist. Obsessed with their own ideas but actively destroying everything and everyone including themselves. Smart not wise.
Agreed. Human intelligence is way over valued. i feel much of this thinking has roots in exceptionalism.
Good points. It is always good to keep and educate the ideas in context. Humans are the most intelligent species based on the ability to change the environment to suit us. Human intelligence have made us extremely adaptable to extreme environments as well.
That does not mean we're the best at surviving on an evolutionary time scale. Many species have us beat at that.
I think you are mixing up biologics with lack of cultuure. It would be far better to teach critical thinking (which they already do or at least did with me) so that kids learn to diferentiate dumb arguments with good ones. And they already do that in the liguistic class, (whatever is your countrys language) specially when they start teaching about news and the scientific method. But ill give you points for the fact that this is an unpopular opinion.
I think you are mixing up biologics with lack of culture.
Can you expand on what you mean by this? What does a biologic mean in this context and who lacks culture? Here's the definition of biologics I know of
FWIW I don't enjoy being contrarian on this and I'm open to smoothing my opinion. Agreed that critical thinking is a crucial skill and more important than this
I mean that you are atributing an issue about people being dumb and having dumb opinions to the fact that they are humans in a biological sence and that humans as whole is dumber and therefore other species are smart just because humans can have dumb opinions. In my book that makes no sense and makes me think that its mixing up two diferent fields. Thats all.
oh okay, I'd disagree with that take but fair. I think most humans are generally unaware they are getting dumber though, and possibly from the pollution of all that 'amazing tool creation'. A lot of the progress man made as before, we've been resting on our laurels lately and offloading mental tasks to technology and our species may be dumbing down
Well now you are just changing the subject.
But if whe dont question the validity of iq tests (and for the sake of this discusion we wont) then yes, the average has whent down ever since and polution and lead wather may be the initial cause for bad functioning brains since lead in the wather pipes has definetly been correlated with rise of crimes according to this.
What animal specie is the peak if not humans? Not saying humans are anywhere near the far end of the intelligence spectrum but as far as we know we're still the most intelligent and special thing in the universe.
Yeah I think I might also have a problem with the lack of understanding on evolution. You are not more evolved than other species.
Evolution does not have a peak and it a constantly ongoing process. You can say that some things are more successful than others but you need a metric to measure by, there is no overall 'peak evolved' thing and in fact that statement makes no sense.
Other animals on earth make up more biomass. Other animals on earth have lived longer than humans. Other animals on earth have more complex DNA. Other animals on earth have bigger bodies. Other animals on earth have bigger brains.
We simply choose to look at tool use and ability to terraform because we are good at those things
At this point, I would rather work with an orangutan than another human on a project because of how much I end up being the one doing all the work.
view more: next ›