7 ms·

We're not the only intelligent life on earth. We cant even define intelligence or measure it meaningfully. If we accept that human children are smart, then we m

We're not the only intelligent life on earth. We cant even define intelligence or measure it meaningfully. If we accept that human children are smart, then we must accept that species at equivalent levels of cognition are as well. Elephants, crows, dolphins, octopi, chimps, orang utan are all clearly very smart, and more intelligent than a human child. Besides being biologically irrelevant, the separation between humans and animals creates this weird divide where we constantly assume that we are the only intelligent life. It feels to me a bit like thinking the earth is the center of the universe. Maybe one day we'll understand better what other minds are like and we'll understand better how we are not alone or special.

api 2y ago
IMO all life is intelligent in some way or form. Evolution itself is even intelligent in that it’s a learning system that adapts and solves problems.
- milchek 2y ago
  It’s an interesting idea. Reminds me a little of some parts of Christopher Langans CTMU theory in that everything serves to simply further develop intelligence in the universe.
  - Aerroon 2y ago
    While I'm unskilled with CTMU theory, what you mentioned could be considered a consequence of the first law of thermodynamics, right? Intelligence might decrease entropy locally, but they always increase entropy globally to do so. Ie we accelerate the natural process of increasing entropy.
    - Intralexical 2y ago
      That's the second law.
      - Aerroon 2y ago
        You're right. I thought I corrected it, but I guess I only had the thought.
- haswell 2y ago
  Evolution is just a concept/idea that describes whatever is actually happening out there. It seems evolution is emergent given the physical ingredients and laws of nature, which points to some kind of inherent intelligence in the fabric of all stuff. By observing it for long enough, it becomes apparent that the stuff is behaving in a way that can be described as evolution (this is not some kind of appeal to intelligent design). To whatever extent evolution is "intelligent" or "learning and solving problems", it is the underlying primordial stuff of existence at play. Thinking about this always blows my mind.
andewulfe 2y ago
Ted Chiang has an excellent short story on this subject, regarding the construction of the Arecibo radio telescope as told from the perspective of a parrot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Silence_(short_story) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Silence_(short_story... It's very short. Worth a quick read and a long thought.
- Blahah 2y ago
  The actual story is here: https://nautil.us/the-great-silence-237510/ https://nautil.us/the-great-silence-237510/
- tetrisgm 2y ago
  It (like the rest of his oeuvre) is a wonderful read
- theamk 2y ago
  Here is my long thought: People have been trying to talk to animals for thousands (tens of thousands?) of years, and no "animal myths" were discovered. Some researchers have dedicated their live trying to understand the animals (story mentions one of them), but still got nothing useful. I think it's fair to assume there is nothing to find there at all. And alien life is not special in that regard - if we are able to successfully contact aliens, and then many thousands of people spend a century or two interchanging the messages with them, and all this would yield same artifacts that most Earth's 5-year-old kids can produce... then people would lose interest in aliens as well, and stop building things like Arecibo.
  - guerrilla 2y ago
    > but still got nothing useful. I think it's fair to assume there is nothing to find there at all. It's a good thing people who accomplish great things don't think like that or we'd have no science at all, because for millions of years we didn't. If they did, they would have had to conclude it isn't possible to predict the future. Yet here we are, knowing why apples fall (or whatever.)
AndrewKemendo 2y ago
Fully agree in theory - especially that humans aren’t capable of defining a consistent agreed upon measure for - basically anything - let alone something as culturally amorphous as “intelligence” The problem with this line of reasoning though is that it proves too much, and has the same problem, clumping intelligence into too small of classes for the level of ethical differentiation that humans can manage. The implications of such a philosophy would upend nearly all philosophical grounding for all ethical traditions Even Rawls don’t have an avenue for a society that treats mosquitos with the same dignity that we treat human babies So yes, but also we’re stuck with this cognitive dissonance that makes humans believe that ANY human is better than all (insert behaviorally demonstrable intelligence threshold). For example: All individual humans are more important than all individual octopuses. However very few individuals are more important than thousands of octopuses. This despite knowing that Octopuses have more demonstrable intellect than most humans below a certain age and many humans of any age.
- cabbageicefruit 2y ago
  > However very few individuals are more important than thousands of octopuses What do you mean by this? Are you stating this as an opinion? Or something people generally agree upon? Or something else? I think most people, if forced to choose, would save 1 human at the expense of thousands of octopuses. Not saying this is right or wrong. Just wondering what metric you’re using to gauge importance.
  - david422 2y ago
    I think he's actually saying that humans will value a couple of humans more than thousands of octopuses, just phrased oddly.
- tetrisgm 2y ago
  What is Rawls?
- wruza 2y ago
  Idk, for me one man vs one octopus is sort of not my business. But, in a pressure-less situation with a man vs thousands of octopuses, my trolley would probably go over a man, especially if the tracks already lead to him or he has valuable gear. Call me unethical, but I find most of “ethics” human-ist as in race-ist. It is a justification algorithm for the most part rather than true ethics.
analognoise 2y ago
> more intelligent than a human child Hoover Dam. Smart, stupid. https://x.com/BrianReganComic/status/1630659105080889344 https://x.com/BrianReganComic/status/1630659105080889344
theamk 2y ago
Which age of human child do you mean? I could argue even bugs are "more intelligent" than 1 week old baby - at least they can eat and run away from danger. If we re-define "intelligence" as "smarter than a human baby", then this word covers most animals (and probably some plants too) and becomes useless. When doing species comparison, I think it only makes sense to compare adults to each other, and perhaps even "average" or "75th percentile" adults.
- tetrisgm 2y ago
  My point is that we don't frame animal intelligence as something comparable with humans or somewhat close. I'm not trying to create a leaderboard of intelligence. I think we should consider other species as capable of intelligence, and treat it with the same dignity we give to children.
  - theamk 2y ago
    Every species, including worms and ants? Because they are surely smarter than 1-week old human baby, they can eat and move. We don't treat children well because of their intelligence - otherwise, no one would care about newborns. We care about them because they are of the same species as us. As for "dignity", I am not 100% sure what you mean, but in humans it comes directly with being able to function as a member of the society. For example, someone who cannot navigate city (be it because they are young or because of their developmental difficulties) will not be free to wander wherever they want.
  - filoeleven 2y ago
    In (at least) one of Iain Banks’ Culture books, he says that technological progress is not a ladder, but a rock face. The tech which a species develops depends a lot on the conditions of their evolution, and encountering wildly different techs that seem miraculous or incomprehensible to one’s own species is fairly common. I think of “intelligence” in a similar vein. We can recognize it when it’s close enough in proximity to the path we humans have taken. The further away another species is from that, the less we are able to recognize/judge their level of intelligence. I like this metaphor because it emphasizes the limits of our own abilities to understand vey foreign things. That’s not to say that we could never get better at it, but there will almost certainly always be more outside of our circle of understanding than inside it. I’m also reminded of the drunk searching for his house key beneath a street light. It’s not where he dropped the key, but he’s searching there because “that’s where the light is.”
AlbertCory 2y ago
Hear. I really believe that, when people ask if some organism is "intelligent" or "conscious" (answer is usually No), they're just asking how similar it is to a human. Intelligence or consciousness is not a Thing; it's just a set of behaviors that have proven adaptive to some species. Crows have somewhat more of those behaviors than we'd thought. By way of example, many animals have much better smell than we do because that is adaptive for them, and it's not quite as much of an advantage for us. As for what kind of "consciousness" they have -- they have what they need. We can't know what it's like to be a bat, because we're not bats. It's probably not like being a flying human with sonar, but we'll never know.
- gnz11 2y ago
  > Intelligence or consciousness is not a Thing; it's just a set of behaviors that have proven adaptive to some species This just reduces consciousness down to the "easy problem" and ignores the "hard problem" though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousnes...
  - AlbertCory 2y ago
    let's see: I've met exactly one of those (Dennett) so I'll go with him. How's that for insight? > The existence of the hard problem is disputed. It has been accepted by some philosophers of mind such as Joseph Levine,[10] Colin McGinn,[11] and Ned Block[12] and cognitive neuroscientists such as Francisco Varela,[13] Giulio Tononi,[14][15] and Christof Koch.[14][15] On the other hand, its existence is denied by other philosophers of mind, such as Daniel Dennett,[16] Massimo Pigliucci,[17] Thomas Metzinger, Patricia Churchland,[18] and Keith Frankish,[19] and by cognitive neuroscientists such as Stanislas Dehaene,[20] Bernard Baars,[21] Anil Seth,[22] and Antonio Damasio.[23] Generally if you solve the easy problem you have a better idea of what's left and whether it's worth effort. So let's just go with that for now.
known 2y ago
[dead]
evanmoran 2y ago
I like the sentiment, but human children who are 2 completely dominate all known animal intelligence. They can speak in sentences and use tools in complex ways. There may be studies that show a raven might use a stick to help it find food. Well, a two year old will carry a stool halfway across the house to reach the scissors that will open a bag of veggie straws :) At 3 they can recognize letters _easily_ and start learning how to read. At 4 they can with a bit of practice learn the piece moves of chess and start strategizing. Animals can definitely be intelligent, and we should learn more about them and how they perceive the world, but when you play with a 2.5 year old for five minute there is no doubt that humanity is beyond special.
- _huayra_ 2y ago
  The real separation (and is something that comes long after 2 years of age in humans) is the ability to observe one's thoughts. I totally get that dolphins and elephants and many "big brain" mammals can have social structures, long memories, and the ability to pass down behaviors directly (e.g. "here's how you hunt fish effectively" may not be in dolphin genes, but they do a damn good job of it, or also the "fads" of orcas like the "salmon hat" or, more recently, attacking sailboats). The absolutely blistering pace a child can learn at, though, is indeed quite a sight to behold.
  - deberon 2y ago
    In the time it took me to learn a new programming language, my kid learned how to be a whole entire human being. Including free thought and autocorrect mode. I don’t know what makes us special in the animal kingdom, but watching that happen certainly feels special. Do whales feel the same way about their young?
    - hungie 2y ago
      Whales almost certainly do not feel the same way. They feel like whales about their young. That's not to discount whales: that feeling may be profound and emotional for them. But it's probably alien to the human experience.
stubish 2y ago
Scientists need evidence, rather than just assume intelligence because 'it is obvious', or that other species think the way we do. So just because we see a crow using tools, we should not assume that they learn from their parents and experiment and play and refine just like a human. Because it turns out they don't, and we have learned new things about them, and because of these differences, ourselves. So I don't think it that these silly scientists are surprised animals are intelligent. Why waste your life researching animal intelligence if you think your efforts will be pointless? Who in this century actually believes that all animals are unintelligent? The only arguments are to what degree and which species, and maybe quibbling about what that word actually means. But I don't think anyone has demonstrated equivalent to human child levels of cognition yet, with any species. We can teach a child words and grammar and communicate complex and abstract and even imaginary thoughts, and that is just the very beginning. A human child is so incredibly smart it can develop into a human adult. Other species are very different, and claiming equivalence is comparing apples to oranges. We see intelligence in such alien organisms as an octopus or a hive of bees, and the more we learn, in many ways we are understanding that we actually are alone and special. It seems more and more likely that if we are ever going to interact with another species as peers, the first is going to be a species of our own creation, and not dolphins or cockatoos.
wruza 2y ago
That this “animals no conscious” is default feels like a sort of all-anthropic religion. I don’t get how one imagines being an animal and… it just exists as an automaton? And for some reason exactly humans are all conscious/intelligent, even brain damaged (in literal sense). I bet “those looking like me are very special” is somewhere in our genes, playing an obsolete role competing with other humanoid groups.
- randallsquared 2y ago
  One can imagine being a thermostat, or a car. The question of what it is like to be a bat skips the hard problem.
- devbent 2y ago
  > I don’t get how one imagines being an animal and… it just exists as an automaton? And for some reason exactly humans are all conscious/intelligent, So far evidence points to the simpler solution that all living creatures are automatons and that there is no mechanism by which self determinism can exist. Wide acceptance of such a belief would pretty much ruin society so it is best if we all just go on pretending we are masters of our own destiny.
colordrops 2y ago
I don't understand how we could possibly think we are at the top. There are, what, several million species of animal we are aware of, so statistically, we are likely at the middle of the curve. We just aren't aware (or barely aware) of the millions of species more advanced than us, similar to how ants and mosquitos have no idea of our existence. This idea of the universe and the round earth must be an extremely narrow view of reality similar to the entire universe of pond water some microbe lives in. More advanced beings perhaps live in higher dimensional spaces far more complex than our experience. Maybe this is what people encounter when they smoke DMT.
zvmaz 2y ago
> Besides being biologically irrelevant, the separation between humans and animals creates this weird divide where we constantly assume that we are the only intelligent life. It feels to me a bit like thinking the earth is the center of the universe. Maybe one day we'll understand better what other minds are like and we'll understand better how we are not alone or special. Hopefully one day we will stop eating them, too.
- devbent 2y ago
  On one hand, eating another intelligent being seems to be an obvious moral wrong. On the other hand, many of the creatures we eat will happily eat us if given a chance.
- mjan22640 2y ago
  All eukaryotes except plants eat other life.
  - zvmaz 2y ago
    No all "life" eat other sentient "life".
speedchess 2y ago
> We're not the only intelligent life on earth. We cant even define intelligence or measure it meaningfully. If we can't define or measure intelligence meaningfully, how can you even claim we are 'intelligent' to begin with? > Elephants, crows, dolphins, octopi, chimps, orang utan are all clearly very smart The have levels of intelligence, but they are clearly not very smart. You couldn't even teach them the multiplication table or the basics of number theory. > and more intelligent than a human child. No species you listed is smarter than a human child. > Besides being biologically irrelevant, the separation between humans and animals creates this weird divide where we constantly assume that we are the only intelligent life. At the very least, we know that mammals with brains have some level of intelligence. Nobody claims humans are the only 'intelligent' life on earth. The claim is we are the most intelligent. And probably the only creatures intelligent enough to ponder about death, mortality, identity and soul. > Maybe one day we'll understand better what other minds are like and we'll understand better how we are not alone or special. Or maybe elephants, crows, dolphins, octopi, chimps, orangutans will better understand what other minds are like and they'll better understand how they are not alone or special? After all, they are 'very smart' according to you.
- tetrisgm 2y ago
  I think your statements are written in a very confident manner that comes across as trying to win, but this is a nuanced question. > how can you even claim we are 'intelligent' to begin with? because I can claim it. You're focusing on semantics and attacking the fact that a set definitions can't be done. I think debating the nature of whether semantics maps to a valid conceptualization is probably not very productive. > they are clearly not very smart Maybe in your opinion. They seem to surprise experts. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120078/Natasha-chimp-genius-stuns-scientists-human-like-levels-intelligence.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120078/Nata... > The claim is we are the most intelligent No one in this thread has introduced this notion or tried to debate it. > probably the only creatures intelligent enough to ponder about death I would invite you to draw your own conclusions from this video, taken from Spy in the Wild. It shows monkeys processing the death of another monkey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaIH5tLmC8U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaIH5tLmC8U > After all, they are 'very smart' according to you Why the dismissiveness? It comes across as just trying to win rather than having a genuine discussion. The question is a valid thing to contemplate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10093641/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10093641/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7471122/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7471122/
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

api 2y ago

IMO all life is intelligent in some way or form. Evolution itself is even intelligent in that it’s a learning system that adapts and solves problems.

milchek 2y ago
It’s an interesting idea. Reminds me a little of some parts of Christopher Langans CTMU theory in that everything serves to simply further develop intelligence in the universe.
- Aerroon 2y ago
  While I'm unskilled with CTMU theory, what you mentioned could be considered a consequence of the first law of thermodynamics, right? Intelligence might decrease entropy locally, but they always increase entropy globally to do so. Ie we accelerate the natural process of increasing entropy.
  - Intralexical 2y ago
    That's the second law.
    - Aerroon 2y ago
      You're right. I thought I corrected it, but I guess I only had the thought.
haswell 2y ago
Evolution is just a concept/idea that describes whatever is actually happening out there. It seems evolution is emergent given the physical ingredients and laws of nature, which points to some kind of inherent intelligence in the fabric of all stuff. By observing it for long enough, it becomes apparent that the stuff is behaving in a way that can be described as evolution (this is not some kind of appeal to intelligent design). To whatever extent evolution is "intelligent" or "learning and solving problems", it is the underlying primordial stuff of existence at play. Thinking about this always blows my mind.

andewulfe 2y ago

Ted Chiang has an excellent short story on this subject, regarding the construction of the Arecibo radio telescope as told from the perspective of a parrot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Silence_(short_story) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Silence_(short_story... It's very short. Worth a quick read and a long thought.

Blahah 2y ago
The actual story is here: https://nautil.us/the-great-silence-237510/ https://nautil.us/the-great-silence-237510/
tetrisgm 2y ago
It (like the rest of his oeuvre) is a wonderful read
theamk 2y ago
Here is my long thought: People have been trying to talk to animals for thousands (tens of thousands?) of years, and no "animal myths" were discovered. Some researchers have dedicated their live trying to understand the animals (story mentions one of them), but still got nothing useful. I think it's fair to assume there is nothing to find there at all. And alien life is not special in that regard - if we are able to successfully contact aliens, and then many thousands of people spend a century or two interchanging the messages with them, and all this would yield same artifacts that most Earth's 5-year-old kids can produce... then people would lose interest in aliens as well, and stop building things like Arecibo.
- guerrilla 2y ago
  > but still got nothing useful. I think it's fair to assume there is nothing to find there at all. It's a good thing people who accomplish great things don't think like that or we'd have no science at all, because for millions of years we didn't. If they did, they would have had to conclude it isn't possible to predict the future. Yet here we are, knowing why apples fall (or whatever.)

AndrewKemendo 2y ago

Fully agree in theory - especially that humans aren’t capable of defining a consistent agreed upon measure for - basically anything - let alone something as culturally amorphous as “intelligence” The problem with this line of reasoning though is that it proves too much, and has the same problem, clumping intelligence into too small of classes for the level of ethical differentiation that humans can manage. The implications of such a philosophy would upend nearly all philosophical grounding for all ethical traditions Even Rawls don’t have an avenue for a society that treats mosquitos with the same dignity that we treat human babies So yes, but also we’re stuck with this cognitive dissonance that makes humans believe that ANY human is better than all (insert behaviorally demonstrable intelligence threshold). For example: All individual humans are more important than all individual octopuses. However very few individuals are more important than thousands of octopuses. This despite knowing that Octopuses have more demonstrable intellect than most humans below a certain age and many humans of any age.

cabbageicefruit 2y ago
> However very few individuals are more important than thousands of octopuses What do you mean by this? Are you stating this as an opinion? Or something people generally agree upon? Or something else? I think most people, if forced to choose, would save 1 human at the expense of thousands of octopuses. Not saying this is right or wrong. Just wondering what metric you’re using to gauge importance.
- david422 2y ago
  I think he's actually saying that humans will value a couple of humans more than thousands of octopuses, just phrased oddly.
tetrisgm 2y ago
What is Rawls?
wruza 2y ago
Idk, for me one man vs one octopus is sort of not my business. But, in a pressure-less situation with a man vs thousands of octopuses, my trolley would probably go over a man, especially if the tracks already lead to him or he has valuable gear. Call me unethical, but I find most of “ethics” human-ist as in race-ist. It is a justification algorithm for the most part rather than true ethics.

analognoise 2y ago

> more intelligent than a human child Hoover Dam. Smart, stupid. https://x.com/BrianReganComic/status/1630659105080889344 https://x.com/BrianReganComic/status/1630659105080889344

theamk 2y ago

Which age of human child do you mean? I could argue even bugs are "more intelligent" than 1 week old baby - at least they can eat and run away from danger. If we re-define "intelligence" as "smarter than a human baby", then this word covers most animals (and probably some plants too) and becomes useless. When doing species comparison, I think it only makes sense to compare adults to each other, and perhaps even "average" or "75th percentile" adults.

tetrisgm 2y ago
My point is that we don't frame animal intelligence as something comparable with humans or somewhat close. I'm not trying to create a leaderboard of intelligence. I think we should consider other species as capable of intelligence, and treat it with the same dignity we give to children.
- theamk 2y ago
  Every species, including worms and ants? Because they are surely smarter than 1-week old human baby, they can eat and move. We don't treat children well because of their intelligence - otherwise, no one would care about newborns. We care about them because they are of the same species as us. As for "dignity", I am not 100% sure what you mean, but in humans it comes directly with being able to function as a member of the society. For example, someone who cannot navigate city (be it because they are young or because of their developmental difficulties) will not be free to wander wherever they want.
- filoeleven 2y ago
  In (at least) one of Iain Banks’ Culture books, he says that technological progress is not a ladder, but a rock face. The tech which a species develops depends a lot on the conditions of their evolution, and encountering wildly different techs that seem miraculous or incomprehensible to one’s own species is fairly common. I think of “intelligence” in a similar vein. We can recognize it when it’s close enough in proximity to the path we humans have taken. The further away another species is from that, the less we are able to recognize/judge their level of intelligence. I like this metaphor because it emphasizes the limits of our own abilities to understand vey foreign things. That’s not to say that we could never get better at it, but there will almost certainly always be more outside of our circle of understanding than inside it. I’m also reminded of the drunk searching for his house key beneath a street light. It’s not where he dropped the key, but he’s searching there because “that’s where the light is.”

AlbertCory 2y ago

Hear. I really believe that, when people ask if some organism is "intelligent" or "conscious" (answer is usually No), they're just asking how similar it is to a human. Intelligence or consciousness is not a Thing; it's just a set of behaviors that have proven adaptive to some species. Crows have somewhat more of those behaviors than we'd thought. By way of example, many animals have much better smell than we do because that is adaptive for them, and it's not quite as much of an advantage for us. As for what kind of "consciousness" they have -- they have what they need. We can't know what it's like to be a bat, because we're not bats. It's probably not like being a flying human with sonar, but we'll never know.

gnz11 2y ago
> Intelligence or consciousness is not a Thing; it's just a set of behaviors that have proven adaptive to some species This just reduces consciousness down to the "easy problem" and ignores the "hard problem" though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousnes...
- AlbertCory 2y ago
  let's see: I've met exactly one of those (Dennett) so I'll go with him. How's that for insight? > The existence of the hard problem is disputed. It has been accepted by some philosophers of mind such as Joseph Levine,[10] Colin McGinn,[11] and Ned Block[12] and cognitive neuroscientists such as Francisco Varela,[13] Giulio Tononi,[14][15] and Christof Koch.[14][15] On the other hand, its existence is denied by other philosophers of mind, such as Daniel Dennett,[16] Massimo Pigliucci,[17] Thomas Metzinger, Patricia Churchland,[18] and Keith Frankish,[19] and by cognitive neuroscientists such as Stanislas Dehaene,[20] Bernard Baars,[21] Anil Seth,[22] and Antonio Damasio.[23] Generally if you solve the easy problem you have a better idea of what's left and whether it's worth effort. So let's just go with that for now.

known 2y ago

[dead]

evanmoran 2y ago

I like the sentiment, but human children who are 2 completely dominate all known animal intelligence. They can speak in sentences and use tools in complex ways. There may be studies that show a raven might use a stick to help it find food. Well, a two year old will carry a stool halfway across the house to reach the scissors that will open a bag of veggie straws :) At 3 they can recognize letters _easily_ and start learning how to read. At 4 they can with a bit of practice learn the piece moves of chess and start strategizing. Animals can definitely be intelligent, and we should learn more about them and how they perceive the world, but when you play with a 2.5 year old for five minute there is no doubt that humanity is beyond special.

_huayra_ 2y ago
The real separation (and is something that comes long after 2 years of age in humans) is the ability to observe one's thoughts. I totally get that dolphins and elephants and many "big brain" mammals can have social structures, long memories, and the ability to pass down behaviors directly (e.g. "here's how you hunt fish effectively" may not be in dolphin genes, but they do a damn good job of it, or also the "fads" of orcas like the "salmon hat" or, more recently, attacking sailboats). The absolutely blistering pace a child can learn at, though, is indeed quite a sight to behold.
- deberon 2y ago
  In the time it took me to learn a new programming language, my kid learned how to be a whole entire human being. Including free thought and autocorrect mode. I don’t know what makes us special in the animal kingdom, but watching that happen certainly feels special. Do whales feel the same way about their young?
  - hungie 2y ago
    Whales almost certainly do not feel the same way. They feel like whales about their young. That's not to discount whales: that feeling may be profound and emotional for them. But it's probably alien to the human experience.

stubish 2y ago

Scientists need evidence, rather than just assume intelligence because 'it is obvious', or that other species think the way we do. So just because we see a crow using tools, we should not assume that they learn from their parents and experiment and play and refine just like a human. Because it turns out they don't, and we have learned new things about them, and because of these differences, ourselves. So I don't think it that these silly scientists are surprised animals are intelligent. Why waste your life researching animal intelligence if you think your efforts will be pointless? Who in this century actually believes that all animals are unintelligent? The only arguments are to what degree and which species, and maybe quibbling about what that word actually means. But I don't think anyone has demonstrated equivalent to human child levels of cognition yet, with any species. We can teach a child words and grammar and communicate complex and abstract and even imaginary thoughts, and that is just the very beginning. A human child is so incredibly smart it can develop into a human adult. Other species are very different, and claiming equivalence is comparing apples to oranges. We see intelligence in such alien organisms as an octopus or a hive of bees, and the more we learn, in many ways we are understanding that we actually are alone and special. It seems more and more likely that if we are ever going to interact with another species as peers, the first is going to be a species of our own creation, and not dolphins or cockatoos.

wruza 2y ago

That this “animals no conscious” is default feels like a sort of all-anthropic religion. I don’t get how one imagines being an animal and… it just exists as an automaton? And for some reason exactly humans are all conscious/intelligent, even brain damaged (in literal sense). I bet “those looking like me are very special” is somewhere in our genes, playing an obsolete role competing with other humanoid groups.

randallsquared 2y ago
One can imagine being a thermostat, or a car. The question of what it is like to be a bat skips the hard problem.
devbent 2y ago
> I don’t get how one imagines being an animal and… it just exists as an automaton? And for some reason exactly humans are all conscious/intelligent, So far evidence points to the simpler solution that all living creatures are automatons and that there is no mechanism by which self determinism can exist. Wide acceptance of such a belief would pretty much ruin society so it is best if we all just go on pretending we are masters of our own destiny.

colordrops 2y ago

I don't understand how we could possibly think we are at the top. There are, what, several million species of animal we are aware of, so statistically, we are likely at the middle of the curve. We just aren't aware (or barely aware) of the millions of species more advanced than us, similar to how ants and mosquitos have no idea of our existence. This idea of the universe and the round earth must be an extremely narrow view of reality similar to the entire universe of pond water some microbe lives in. More advanced beings perhaps live in higher dimensional spaces far more complex than our experience. Maybe this is what people encounter when they smoke DMT.

zvmaz 2y ago

> Besides being biologically irrelevant, the separation between humans and animals creates this weird divide where we constantly assume that we are the only intelligent life. It feels to me a bit like thinking the earth is the center of the universe. Maybe one day we'll understand better what other minds are like and we'll understand better how we are not alone or special. Hopefully one day we will stop eating them, too.

devbent 2y ago
On one hand, eating another intelligent being seems to be an obvious moral wrong. On the other hand, many of the creatures we eat will happily eat us if given a chance.
mjan22640 2y ago
All eukaryotes except plants eat other life.
- zvmaz 2y ago
  No all "life" eat other sentient "life".

speedchess 2y ago

> We're not the only intelligent life on earth. We cant even define intelligence or measure it meaningfully. If we can't define or measure intelligence meaningfully, how can you even claim we are 'intelligent' to begin with? > Elephants, crows, dolphins, octopi, chimps, orang utan are all clearly very smart The have levels of intelligence, but they are clearly not very smart. You couldn't even teach them the multiplication table or the basics of number theory. > and more intelligent than a human child. No species you listed is smarter than a human child. > Besides being biologically irrelevant, the separation between humans and animals creates this weird divide where we constantly assume that we are the only intelligent life. At the very least, we know that mammals with brains have some level of intelligence. Nobody claims humans are the only 'intelligent' life on earth. The claim is we are the most intelligent. And probably the only creatures intelligent enough to ponder about death, mortality, identity and soul. > Maybe one day we'll understand better what other minds are like and we'll understand better how we are not alone or special. Or maybe elephants, crows, dolphins, octopi, chimps, orangutans will better understand what other minds are like and they'll better understand how they are not alone or special? After all, they are 'very smart' according to you.

tetrisgm 2y ago
I think your statements are written in a very confident manner that comes across as trying to win, but this is a nuanced question. > how can you even claim we are 'intelligent' to begin with? because I can claim it. You're focusing on semantics and attacking the fact that a set definitions can't be done. I think debating the nature of whether semantics maps to a valid conceptualization is probably not very productive. > they are clearly not very smart Maybe in your opinion. They seem to surprise experts. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120078/Natasha-chimp-genius-stuns-scientists-human-like-levels-intelligence.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120078/Nata... > The claim is we are the most intelligent No one in this thread has introduced this notion or tried to debate it. > probably the only creatures intelligent enough to ponder about death I would invite you to draw your own conclusions from this video, taken from Spy in the Wild. It shows monkeys processing the death of another monkey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaIH5tLmC8U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaIH5tLmC8U > After all, they are 'very smart' according to you Why the dismissiveness? It comes across as just trying to win rather than having a genuine discussion. The question is a valid thing to contemplate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10093641/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10093641/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7471122/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7471122/

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]