8 ms·

>And yet, somehow Humans are in a completely different category than all other life. Lol no we are not. We share 98 percent of our DNA with various simians. We

>And yet, somehow Humans are in a completely different category than all other life. Lol no we are not. We share 98 percent of our DNA with various simians. We share 97 percent of our DNA with mice. Are we the only species to communicate? No. Are we the only species to communicate symbolically? No. Great Apes use hand gestures. Are we the only species to recognize themselves? No. Plenty of animals do. In fact, even wasps can perform facial recognition on members of their species. Are we the only species to use technology? No. Corvids and apes use tools all the time. Are we the only species to develop culture? No. Simians teach their young various customs, some of which (such as the washing of food by macaques in Japan [http://alfre.dk/monkeys-washing-potatoes/] http://alfre.dk/monkeys-washing-potatoes/]) are local to the group. Are we the smartest species? Monkeys have been able to naturally memorize a sequence of numbers after looking at it for fractions of a second. It took dedicated teams of research scientists several practice sessions to even come close to the performance of a so-called "lesser animal". Humans are exceptional (I honestly would just say lucky), but are we truly in a different category? Highly recommend the book "Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are?" by Frans de Waal.

zeroer 10y ago
Recursive grammar.
- milquetoastaf 10y ago
  Being able to live six years without food. Humans can't even come close to that, yet a tiny tick can outlast the so-called smartest species on earth. See, species tit-for-tat is easy. What's your point?
  - zeroer 10y ago
    Yea, point taken, but recursive grammar is a prerequisite for arbitrary cognition or computation.
ams6110 10y ago
Biology notwithstanding, no other species has deliberately transformed its environment and improved it longevity and standard of living like humans have. Not even slightly.
- milquetoastaf 10y ago
  Animals transform their environments all the time, deliberately (I don't get why people act as if animals don't do deliberate things?). What of the great honey fungus in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, a living organism whose size is measured in miles - it deliberately transformed its environment in a way we, the species Aristotle put at the top, can barely even comprehend. The difference is in degree, not of kind.
  - JumpCrisscross 10y ago
    > The difference is in degree, not of kind Everything is a difference of degree. At a certain point, a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind. There is a difference of kind between a fungus altering its environment through enzymes it produces from its genetic programming and people inventing steam engines.
    - mcbits 10y ago
      I think written language is our primary difference. Prehistoric wild humans had spoken language for hundreds of thousands of years, but we didn't have the explosion of "intelligence" until the advent of written language ~5,000 years ago. Or in more general terms, we have the ability to use our environment as a durable supplemental memory. This is what I would look for in assessing whether another species has the potential for human-like intelligence.
      - milquetoastaf 10y ago
        >Or in more general terms, we have the ability to use our environment as a durable supplemental memory. You mean like how some species of nut-hiding birds can hide over 20,000 nuts in distinct locations comprising several square miles of territory and then recall precisely where they are when necessary?
scythe 10y ago
My answer to this is simple: we have Turing machines. Somehow, our communications are Turing-complete, whereas other species's aren't. (I make no assumption as to why we have Turing machines, but note that implementing one usually requires some work)
- milquetoastaf 10y ago
  Your answer is as simple as it is unsatisfactory and arbitrary. Humans have turing machines, sure. But we have yet to truly translate an animal language (though we do know they exist) so your point is rather moot. My point isn't that humans aren't amazing, it's that we perhaps think too highly of ourselves in relation to our incredible relatives.
  - kpil 10y ago
    I don't think you can 'translate' animal languages. There is nothing to translate, basically. We can get a good grip of the meaning of their sounds though, if we spend some time listening, but there is no deeper meaning hidden that we can not access.
    - LoSboccacc 10y ago
      Experiment on dolphins showed they can explain each other what trick to perform. Can't find the exact experiment but trainer showed the trick to one dolphin and rewarded the pair only when the other dolphin perormed the same trick
hyperpallium 10y ago
You can argue for their intelligence, but they can't argue for yours.
- milquetoastaf 10y ago
  Is argumentation and rhetoric the basis of intelligence?
JetSetWilly 10y ago
We share 50% of our DNA with a banana. That doesn't mean that a banana has all these incredible human characteristics. Stats about "percentage of DNA shared" are meaningless. A very small change in DNA can produce very large changes in the organism - ones fundamental to its nature.
- milquetoastaf 10y ago
  It's the fact that we share the DNA with such diverse amounts of life that matters. You argue that humankind is fundamentally different and exceptional than all other life is to reinforce the hierarchy set forth by Aristotle and offers an outdated pyramidal view of the biosphere. The more we share, the more in common we seem to have. You can't tell me it's meaningless, that's just completely ignoring decades of scientific research.
danmaz74 10y ago
See sorites paradox.

zeroer 10y ago

Recursive grammar.

milquetoastaf 10y ago
Being able to live six years without food. Humans can't even come close to that, yet a tiny tick can outlast the so-called smartest species on earth. See, species tit-for-tat is easy. What's your point?
- zeroer 10y ago
  Yea, point taken, but recursive grammar is a prerequisite for arbitrary cognition or computation.

ams6110 10y ago

Biology notwithstanding, no other species has deliberately transformed its environment and improved it longevity and standard of living like humans have. Not even slightly.

milquetoastaf 10y ago
Animals transform their environments all the time, deliberately (I don't get why people act as if animals don't do deliberate things?). What of the great honey fungus in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, a living organism whose size is measured in miles - it deliberately transformed its environment in a way we, the species Aristotle put at the top, can barely even comprehend. The difference is in degree, not of kind.
- JumpCrisscross 10y ago
  > The difference is in degree, not of kind Everything is a difference of degree. At a certain point, a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind. There is a difference of kind between a fungus altering its environment through enzymes it produces from its genetic programming and people inventing steam engines.
  - mcbits 10y ago
    I think written language is our primary difference. Prehistoric wild humans had spoken language for hundreds of thousands of years, but we didn't have the explosion of "intelligence" until the advent of written language ~5,000 years ago. Or in more general terms, we have the ability to use our environment as a durable supplemental memory. This is what I would look for in assessing whether another species has the potential for human-like intelligence.
    - milquetoastaf 10y ago
      >Or in more general terms, we have the ability to use our environment as a durable supplemental memory. You mean like how some species of nut-hiding birds can hide over 20,000 nuts in distinct locations comprising several square miles of territory and then recall precisely where they are when necessary?

scythe 10y ago

My answer to this is simple: we have Turing machines. Somehow, our communications are Turing-complete, whereas other species's aren't. (I make no assumption as to why we have Turing machines, but note that implementing one usually requires some work)

milquetoastaf 10y ago
Your answer is as simple as it is unsatisfactory and arbitrary. Humans have turing machines, sure. But we have yet to truly translate an animal language (though we do know they exist) so your point is rather moot. My point isn't that humans aren't amazing, it's that we perhaps think too highly of ourselves in relation to our incredible relatives.
- kpil 10y ago
  I don't think you can 'translate' animal languages. There is nothing to translate, basically. We can get a good grip of the meaning of their sounds though, if we spend some time listening, but there is no deeper meaning hidden that we can not access.
  - LoSboccacc 10y ago
    Experiment on dolphins showed they can explain each other what trick to perform. Can't find the exact experiment but trainer showed the trick to one dolphin and rewarded the pair only when the other dolphin perormed the same trick

hyperpallium 10y ago

You can argue for their intelligence, but they can't argue for yours.

milquetoastaf 10y ago
Is argumentation and rhetoric the basis of intelligence?

JetSetWilly 10y ago

We share 50% of our DNA with a banana. That doesn't mean that a banana has all these incredible human characteristics. Stats about "percentage of DNA shared" are meaningless. A very small change in DNA can produce very large changes in the organism - ones fundamental to its nature.

milquetoastaf 10y ago
It's the fact that we share the DNA with such diverse amounts of life that matters. You argue that humankind is fundamentally different and exceptional than all other life is to reinforce the hierarchy set forth by Aristotle and offers an outdated pyramidal view of the biosphere. The more we share, the more in common we seem to have. You can't tell me it's meaningless, that's just completely ignoring decades of scientific research.

danmaz74 10y ago

See sorites paradox.