4 ms·
Well, I suppose there's a simple "rule of thumb" way to respond to all these "What is it like to be an X?" questions (with X defined as "non human"). So here i
by MichaelRo 3y ago
Well, I suppose there's a simple "rule of thumb" way to respond to all these "What is it like to be an X?" questions (with X defined as "non human").
So here it is: take the lowest of the lowest IQ but still functional human being, I dunno, IQ in the 40-50 range. I mean someone who's definitely not a rocket scientist but are still not mentally ill and can still tie their shoes and wipe their own a*s. You can probe for not much of "I think, therefore I am" philosophical introspection going on in their skull but they walk around, forage for food and learn to "do tricks" (work) and display signs of general intelligence like remembering where they put their TV remote or "forecasting imagination" like devise a plan to cross the street safely if not just following other people on the crosswalk.
Now take that, divide by 100 and multiply by the stupidest of the stupidest retarded level of human idiocy one can imagine and voila: you get a bat.
Another round of downsizing and you're at crab level. Does this answer your question? :)
- asQuirreL 3y agoI'm not sure if this is a serious suggestion or not, but I don't think trying to measure intelligence gives a full picture of consciousness. I can't know for sure but I also don't believe that if a living being is assessed to be less intelligent, that it feels less or is in some way less conscious. I guess this all speaks to a troubling line of thought that justifies treating other beings as lesser for being less intelligent. Be kind to each other, and the bats, and the crabs, then let's talk about consciousness.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- MichaelRo 3y agoI was 100% sure, heck figuratively speaking I was even more certain that my very serious and slightly unconventional opinion will get me downvoted. You see, the world is dominated by imbeciles who feel threatened of anything that's not regurgitated platitude and the HN crowd apart from not being that statistically different from "the world" as much as they'd like to believe, it's also "trigger happy". More or less I adhere to Neil deGrasse Tyson's opinion that plants are live beings too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh_3gH7l6Dw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh_3gH7l6Dw Intelligence and consciousness seem quite plausibly interrelated based on observed samples across the animal world, like there's more intelligent behavior displayed by magpies (who appear to pass the mirror test) than say crocodiles. And since with all it's flaws, we humans have the IQ scale to try quantify our species and within this IQ we observe that the high IQ seems to be generally more capable of intelligent behavior than the very low tail, I don't see why we couldn't use it as a rough extrapolator. Why limit IQ scale to only humans and not extend it across animal world? Would it be a linear or log-scale (I'd bet on log). Having an universal scale would certainly require it re-imagined it at least to some degree since you can't ask a fish to solve systems of differential equations, at least not in Leibniz notation. What tests would apply universally? That's a good question not just comparing humans with crocodiles but even addressing the complaints that IQ tests tend to favor people who can access a formal education. Like an Amazon forest tribe or the Sentinelese surely have never taken formal school lessons but are very capable of intelligent behavior and statistics says some of them would be very smart. How do you measure that? But nooo. Show the idiots a smart dilemma and them monkeys start throwing their feces at you (i.e. downvote).
- pixl97 3y agoComparison is the theft of joy. Without understanding what smarter is, how can you feel dumb?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]