34 ms·

> we defined intelligence as traits that only we possess There's also an article on HN right now about Dolphins proving to be intelligent beings [1]. It says:

> we defined intelligence as traits that only we possess There's also an article on HN right now about Dolphins proving to be intelligent beings [1]. It says: Our research has provided an answer to an age-old question highlighted by Dr Jill Tarter of the SETI Institute, ‘Are we alone?’ We can now unequivocally answer, ‘no.’ SETI’s search for non-human intelligence in outer spacehas been found right here on earth in the graceful form of dolphins. I laughed to think that HUMAN'S analysis of whether a dolphin is intelligent is whether WE can understand their language. Using that logic, it seems my dog is more intelligent than me: He can understand some of my language as well as his own, whereas I can only understand my own. -- [1] http://wakeup-world.com//2011/11/28/the-discovery-of-dolphin-language/ http://wakeup-world.com//2011/11/28/the-discovery-of-dolphin...

idonthack 15y ago
>I laughed to think that HUMAN'S analysis of whether a dolphin is intelligent is whether WE can understand their language. >Using that logic, it seems my dog is more intelligent than me: He can understand some of my language as well as his own, whereas I can only understand my own. That's a false equivalence, as well as untrue. It takes intentional effort on our part for a dog to learn even a small subset of our vocabulary. When dogs learn our language, they only learn the few words that we make an effort to teach them, and these typically correspond directly to an action we demand of them in exchange for a reward. Dogs cannot pass this knowledge amongst themselves, each dog has to be taught by a human individually. Dogs have made no specific effort to teach me, at least none that they managed to make recognizable to me, yet I can tell when they are excited, hurt, angry, &c, but mostly because a subset of body language and vocal attitude are instinctive or socially universal to most mammals (shouting and sharp poses convey aggression, for example). I believe I understand more dog body language than dogs understand human body language. There is no human equivalent of a wagging tail, yet I understand that. There is no dog equivalent of a pointing finger, and they do not understand it: dogs will look at your finger instead of where you point.
colanderman 15y ago
I laughed to think that HUMAN'S analysis of whether a dolphin is intelligent is whether WE can understand their language. Using that logic, it seems my dog is more intelligent than me: He can understand some of my language as well as his own, whereas I can only understand my own. I agree with your sentiment but your logic is backward. Substitute dog for dolphin in your first sentence: [a] HUMAN'S analysis of whether a dog is intelligent is whether WE can understand their language. Since you cannot (by your own admission) understand your dog's language, by the logic of that statement, the dog would not be intelligent.
- jerfelix 15y ago
  Therefore, I am not intelligent because I can't get my logic correct. :-) Actually, I was hoping to slip that one by you guys, because I knew there was something wrong with it. The point I should have made was that the species that understands less language (us) is considered more intelligent by humans than the one that understands more language (dog). This seems screwed up. Taken to an extreme, there could be a theoretical species that can communicate among its own kind and understand every other species' communication, and we'd consider it unintelligent because WE can't understand them. That sort of logic makes US seem pretty unintelligent.

idonthack 15y ago

>I laughed to think that HUMAN'S analysis of whether a dolphin is intelligent is whether WE can understand their language. >Using that logic, it seems my dog is more intelligent than me: He can understand some of my language as well as his own, whereas I can only understand my own. That's a false equivalence, as well as untrue. It takes intentional effort on our part for a dog to learn even a small subset of our vocabulary. When dogs learn our language, they only learn the few words that we make an effort to teach them, and these typically correspond directly to an action we demand of them in exchange for a reward. Dogs cannot pass this knowledge amongst themselves, each dog has to be taught by a human individually. Dogs have made no specific effort to teach me, at least none that they managed to make recognizable to me, yet I can tell when they are excited, hurt, angry, &c, but mostly because a subset of body language and vocal attitude are instinctive or socially universal to most mammals (shouting and sharp poses convey aggression, for example). I believe I understand more dog body language than dogs understand human body language. There is no human equivalent of a wagging tail, yet I understand that. There is no dog equivalent of a pointing finger, and they do not understand it: dogs will look at your finger instead of where you point.

colanderman 15y ago

I laughed to think that HUMAN'S analysis of whether a dolphin is intelligent is whether WE can understand their language. Using that logic, it seems my dog is more intelligent than me: He can understand some of my language as well as his own, whereas I can only understand my own. I agree with your sentiment but your logic is backward. Substitute dog for dolphin in your first sentence: [a] HUMAN'S analysis of whether a dog is intelligent is whether WE can understand their language. Since you cannot (by your own admission) understand your dog's language, by the logic of that statement, the dog would not be intelligent.

jerfelix 15y ago
Therefore, I am not intelligent because I can't get my logic correct. :-) Actually, I was hoping to slip that one by you guys, because I knew there was something wrong with it. The point I should have made was that the species that understands less language (us) is considered more intelligent by humans than the one that understands more language (dog). This seems screwed up. Taken to an extreme, there could be a theoretical species that can communicate among its own kind and understand every other species' communication, and we'd consider it unintelligent because WE can't understand them. That sort of logic makes US seem pretty unintelligent.