7 ms·

> humans are still the smartest animal on earth obviously I think this is correct but not obvious. It could be we (I am assuming you are also human :) are just

by tocs3 3y ago

> humans are still the smartest animal on earth obviously I think this is correct but not obvious. It could be we (I am assuming you are also human :) are just the most ambitious.

nicklecompte 3y ago
Orcas are smart enough to give each other distinct names and seem to understand the concept of verbs/nouns when identifying human words[1]. They could very well be smarter than us, but they'd never dominate the planet technologically: their flippers have no evolutionary path to developing fingers and thumbs. [1] Some people point out that we've never learned orca language but they've learned ours. This is true, but it's also true that orca scientists have never kidnapped human children and intentionally tried to teach them orca language. So it's more of a poetic comparison than a scientific one.
- gregfjohnson 3y ago
  Heard the following joke a while back, seems pertinent: Gaia making a mental note: "Hmm. The jury is definitely out on whether it's a good idea to combine large fore-brains with opposable thumbs.."
- jbotz 3y ago
  Also, all the aquatic animals have one rather serious obstacle to developing an advanced/technological society: no way to make/use fire. Personally I think the only thing that really categorically distinguishes humans from other smart animals is that, the use of fire. Yeah, our language abilities are impressive too, but they may have fully developed after we already started using fire, telling stories around the campfire at night. Fire is what makes it possible for us to make use of more energy than we can physically consume; humans are best defined as the ape that mastered fire.
  - nicklecompte 3y ago
    Obviously you're not wrong about fire being a major blocking point for sea creatures[1] - hard to make metals without fire. But possibly mermaids could "cook" their food via fermentation, e.g. putting food in a sealed swim bladder, then burying it in the sand. This could fulfill the same brain calorie requirements. [1] Of course, maybe in Andromeda some sea-hackers are reading Hacker Sea-News and arguing land-based animals could never develop civilization because something-something.
    - gpderetta 3y ago
      They might be learn to make use of underground volcanoes and gas vents. Maybe too deep for marine mammals?
      - nicklecompte 3y ago
        Yeah, too deep to keep watch over I think, unless they went for air in shifts. There's also the issue that if you're on land, gravity means you don't need an airtight container to cook/smelt/etc. But underwater it would be hard to prevent things from leaking to the sea. I think mermaids could do fish kebabs over a gas vent (though they'd lose a lot of food), but they couldn't use it as a kiln.
082349872349872 3y ago
https://archive.org/details/mobot31753002909064/page/84/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/mobot31753002909064/page/84/mode... (1658) > Loqui vero eos easque posse, Iavani aiunt, sed non velle, ne ad labores cogerentur : ridicule me hercules. "Indeed, the Javanese say that [the Orang-utans] are able to speak to them, but they do not want to, lest they should be forced to labor (pull the other one it's got bells on)"
- orthoxerox 3y ago
  "For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars, and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man... for precisely the same reasons."
tombert 3y ago
I am human (at least as far as I am aware), though I guess with the advent of LLMs that's becoming less evident. It seems obvious to me, though I might be redefining "smartness" in a very human-centric way. It seems pretty clear to me that humans are the smartest in terms of analytical ability; you hear things in the media all the time like "crows are smarter than 7 year old humans", but I think that really depends on how you measure it. I am pretty sure I could teach a seven year old child that four quarters, ten dimes, twenty nickels, one hundred pennies, five dimes and ten nickels are all equal to the same amount. I don't even think that a seven year old human child would struggle with that terribly; I'm pretty sure I knew that five one-dollar bills was the same thing as a five dollar bill at that point. I don't think any other animal is capable of making those equivalencies though; I am pretty sure that a crow could not be taught this, no matter how hard you tried. Now, it's entirely possible that assigning weight to this is demonstrating bias towards human concepts; this stuff might be obvious to humans because humans invented it, and thus comparing human and non-human ability in terms of human creations might be an entirely malformed premise. I know nothing about neurology or philosophy (or really anything outside cartoon trivia), so this is just kind of "gut feelings" on my end, which I will admit that that's not very firm ground to stand on.
- simonklitj 3y ago
  Is this more of a limitation of our ability to communicate with the animals? If we could talk intelligibly with a crow, maybe we could teach it? Conversely, if our communication with a 7-year-old child were limited to the level we achieve with crows, could we teach the child and know for sure that they understand it?
  - Jensson 3y ago
    > could we teach the child and know for sure that they understand it? Yes, children aren't born knowing languages so you teach the child the language and then you can see it understands it. You don't need to share a language to teach language. We haven't been able to teach any animal language at even 4 year level, so animals at least doesn't have the same level of language intelligence as humans do.
the_cat_kittles 3y ago
i think it depends how you quantify it. seems like there are many other species that might have things worked out better than we do

by tocs3 3y ago

> humans are still the smartest animal on earth obviously I think this is correct but not obvious. It could be we (I am assuming you are also human :) are just the most ambitious.

nicklecompte 3y ago

Orcas are smart enough to give each other distinct names and seem to understand the concept of verbs/nouns when identifying human words[1]. They could very well be smarter than us, but they'd never dominate the planet technologically: their flippers have no evolutionary path to developing fingers and thumbs. [1] Some people point out that we've never learned orca language but they've learned ours. This is true, but it's also true that orca scientists have never kidnapped human children and intentionally tried to teach them orca language. So it's more of a poetic comparison than a scientific one.

gregfjohnson 3y ago
Heard the following joke a while back, seems pertinent: Gaia making a mental note: "Hmm. The jury is definitely out on whether it's a good idea to combine large fore-brains with opposable thumbs.."
jbotz 3y ago
Also, all the aquatic animals have one rather serious obstacle to developing an advanced/technological society: no way to make/use fire. Personally I think the only thing that really categorically distinguishes humans from other smart animals is that, the use of fire. Yeah, our language abilities are impressive too, but they may have fully developed after we already started using fire, telling stories around the campfire at night. Fire is what makes it possible for us to make use of more energy than we can physically consume; humans are best defined as the ape that mastered fire.
- nicklecompte 3y ago
  Obviously you're not wrong about fire being a major blocking point for sea creatures[1] - hard to make metals without fire. But possibly mermaids could "cook" their food via fermentation, e.g. putting food in a sealed swim bladder, then burying it in the sand. This could fulfill the same brain calorie requirements. [1] Of course, maybe in Andromeda some sea-hackers are reading Hacker Sea-News and arguing land-based animals could never develop civilization because something-something.
  - gpderetta 3y ago
    They might be learn to make use of underground volcanoes and gas vents. Maybe too deep for marine mammals?
    - nicklecompte 3y ago
      Yeah, too deep to keep watch over I think, unless they went for air in shifts. There's also the issue that if you're on land, gravity means you don't need an airtight container to cook/smelt/etc. But underwater it would be hard to prevent things from leaking to the sea. I think mermaids could do fish kebabs over a gas vent (though they'd lose a lot of food), but they couldn't use it as a kiln.

082349872349872 3y ago

https://archive.org/details/mobot31753002909064/page/84/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/mobot31753002909064/page/84/mode... (1658) > Loqui vero eos easque posse, Iavani aiunt, sed non velle, ne ad labores cogerentur : ridicule me hercules. "Indeed, the Javanese say that [the Orang-utans] are able to speak to them, but they do not want to, lest they should be forced to labor (pull the other one it's got bells on)"

orthoxerox 3y ago
"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars, and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man... for precisely the same reasons."

tombert 3y ago

I am human (at least as far as I am aware), though I guess with the advent of LLMs that's becoming less evident. It seems obvious to me, though I might be redefining "smartness" in a very human-centric way. It seems pretty clear to me that humans are the smartest in terms of analytical ability; you hear things in the media all the time like "crows are smarter than 7 year old humans", but I think that really depends on how you measure it. I am pretty sure I could teach a seven year old child that four quarters, ten dimes, twenty nickels, one hundred pennies, five dimes and ten nickels are all equal to the same amount. I don't even think that a seven year old human child would struggle with that terribly; I'm pretty sure I knew that five one-dollar bills was the same thing as a five dollar bill at that point. I don't think any other animal is capable of making those equivalencies though; I am pretty sure that a crow could not be taught this, no matter how hard you tried. Now, it's entirely possible that assigning weight to this is demonstrating bias towards human concepts; this stuff might be obvious to humans because humans invented it, and thus comparing human and non-human ability in terms of human creations might be an entirely malformed premise. I know nothing about neurology or philosophy (or really anything outside cartoon trivia), so this is just kind of "gut feelings" on my end, which I will admit that that's not very firm ground to stand on.

simonklitj 3y ago
Is this more of a limitation of our ability to communicate with the animals? If we could talk intelligibly with a crow, maybe we could teach it? Conversely, if our communication with a 7-year-old child were limited to the level we achieve with crows, could we teach the child and know for sure that they understand it?
- Jensson 3y ago
  > could we teach the child and know for sure that they understand it? Yes, children aren't born knowing languages so you teach the child the language and then you can see it understands it. You don't need to share a language to teach language. We haven't been able to teach any animal language at even 4 year level, so animals at least doesn't have the same level of language intelligence as humans do.

the_cat_kittles 3y ago

i think it depends how you quantify it. seems like there are many other species that might have things worked out better than we do