4 ms·

>...would you really call one of them "inferior" to the other? I think I would consider the dog brain to be generally inferior, sufficiently so that I would si

by tetrep 10y ago

>...would you really call one of them "inferior" to the other? I think I would consider the dog brain to be generally inferior, sufficiently so that I would simply label it as inferior. With sufficient general intelligence, you can delegate tasks that your brain is inadequate to accomplish to technology (or possibly other entities, like dogs!), something dogs cannot do and something that makes the human brain clearly superior. You can argue against human brain superiority without access to technology, but then we're comparing the two in more specific scenarios. Without any particular constraints, the human brain has sufficiently superior general intelligence to make it superior overall.

gumby 10y ago
You have a solipsistic view: you consider the human brain "superior" because it's good at things you want to do. That simply says it's better for humans. That doesn't mean a dog, whale, elephant or nematode wants to do those things. In fact the "superior" human brain would be useless for a nematode since that brain has support for organs (i.e. peripherals) the nematode doesn't have and requires a lot of energy and other resources the nematode also doesn't have access to. And the mass of nematodes far exceeds the mass of humans on this planet, so who's more successful? Humans are simply more successful at being human and nematodes at being nematoda. You wouldn't argue that an i7 would be "superior" in a phone (much less an A9 in a laptop!!) so why is the human brain unequivocally better than all others? I revel in my human brain and would not want to be an animal without opposable manipulators. But hell, seals and narwals have senses I do not and, Asimov aside, I am sorry I'll never know what those feel like.
- Fjolsvith 10y ago
  But, the human brain _is_ better than an i7 or A9!
  - ericd 10y ago
    Not in a math competition.
- krick 10y ago
  It's called "anthropocentric" not "solipsistic". Solipsism has nothing to do with it. But except of terminology, I agree with you. I would even go as far as saying, that there's nothing that makes humans objectively "smarter" (not to mention "better") than rocks: it's just that the range of possible actions rocks are to perform is much more narrow than that of humans, and contains just one item — laying around. Which, I might add, rocks are executing much more perfectly than humans are typically performing actions they are to perform.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  While value judgment of any sort requires perspective I don't think it's wrong to prefer our own. Rejecting all value judgements of any sort would simply leave us without anything to converse about. I think the kind of things people can do have more value than the sort of things a dog can do and further that it's only the dogs limitations that prevent us from appreciating it. Our abilities are nearly a superset of theirs. Finally survival beyond the scope of your biosphere ultimately requires intelligence of the human sort and that is certainly worth something.
  - tmptmp 10y ago
    >>While value judgment of any sort requires perspective I don't think it's wrong to prefer our own. Rejecting all value judgements of any sort would simply leave us without anything to converse about. You have raised a very important point. Sadly I can't upvote it more than once. Nowadays the political correctness is forcing people to shun from passing on any sort of such judgments. In fact, it has sort of become politically incorrect to call dogs and other animal species to be intellectually inferior to human beings. [1] Please correct me if I am wrong. >>Finally survival beyond the scope of your biosphere ultimately requires intelligence of the human sort and that is certainly worth something. Thanks for pointing this out. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  A lot of animals have brains that are cheaper than human brains, in terms of size and food. But usually when we're talking about what's better, we exclude budget. By those terms, the human brain is vastly superior to almost all others. Just like an i7 crushes every little embedded processor out there. Being superior and being more optimized for a niche are not the same thing.

by tetrep 10y ago

gumby 10y ago

You have a solipsistic view: you consider the human brain "superior" because it's good at things you want to do. That simply says it's better for humans. That doesn't mean a dog, whale, elephant or nematode wants to do those things. In fact the "superior" human brain would be useless for a nematode since that brain has support for organs (i.e. peripherals) the nematode doesn't have and requires a lot of energy and other resources the nematode also doesn't have access to. And the mass of nematodes far exceeds the mass of humans on this planet, so who's more successful? Humans are simply more successful at being human and nematodes at being nematoda. You wouldn't argue that an i7 would be "superior" in a phone (much less an A9 in a laptop!!) so why is the human brain unequivocally better than all others? I revel in my human brain and would not want to be an animal without opposable manipulators. But hell, seals and narwals have senses I do not and, Asimov aside, I am sorry I'll never know what those feel like.

Fjolsvith 10y ago
But, the human brain _is_ better than an i7 or A9!
- ericd 10y ago
  Not in a math competition.
krick 10y ago
It's called "anthropocentric" not "solipsistic". Solipsism has nothing to do with it. But except of terminology, I agree with you. I would even go as far as saying, that there's nothing that makes humans objectively "smarter" (not to mention "better") than rocks: it's just that the range of possible actions rocks are to perform is much more narrow than that of humans, and contains just one item — laying around. Which, I might add, rocks are executing much more perfectly than humans are typically performing actions they are to perform.
michaelmrose 10y ago
While value judgment of any sort requires perspective I don't think it's wrong to prefer our own. Rejecting all value judgements of any sort would simply leave us without anything to converse about. I think the kind of things people can do have more value than the sort of things a dog can do and further that it's only the dogs limitations that prevent us from appreciating it. Our abilities are nearly a superset of theirs. Finally survival beyond the scope of your biosphere ultimately requires intelligence of the human sort and that is certainly worth something.
- tmptmp 10y ago
  >>While value judgment of any sort requires perspective I don't think it's wrong to prefer our own. Rejecting all value judgements of any sort would simply leave us without anything to converse about. You have raised a very important point. Sadly I can't upvote it more than once. Nowadays the political correctness is forcing people to shun from passing on any sort of such judgments. In fact, it has sort of become politically incorrect to call dogs and other animal species to be intellectually inferior to human beings. [1] Please correct me if I am wrong. >>Finally survival beyond the scope of your biosphere ultimately requires intelligence of the human sort and that is certainly worth something. Thanks for pointing this out. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
Dylan16807 10y ago
A lot of animals have brains that are cheaper than human brains, in terms of size and food. But usually when we're talking about what's better, we exclude budget. By those terms, the human brain is vastly superior to almost all others. Just like an i7 crushes every little embedded processor out there. Being superior and being more optimized for a niche are not the same thing.