6 ms·

"We are perhaps the only intelligence species that exists or have existed on earth." Citation needed. Tool use, language, and many other "human" features have b

by yaur 13y ago

"We are perhaps the only intelligence species that exists or have existed on earth." Citation needed. Tool use, language, and many other "human" features have been observed in nature. What is definitely true is that humans are the only species that we are able to reliably communicate with. Note that while snakes and elephants are physically incapable of using tools, doing so doesn't necessarily require hands (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlh0cS2tf24 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlh0cS2tf24).

frade33 13y ago
by intelligence i meant, reaching to mars, moon. even a dog is pretty intelligent, so is chimp. but as we know, chimp haven't invented a wheel or bicycle as yet, at their own.
- CocaKoala 13y ago
  If you're setting the bar for intelligence at "reaching the moon", then aren't you saying that there were no intelligent species on the planet at all until July 21st, 1969? You need to set your terms much more clearly before there can really be a discussion. It seems like you're trying to say that invention is a hallmark of intelligence; well, how do you define invention? Is it just taking an object and using it for a purpose other than it's natural one? Crows do that; there are documented incidents of crows using sticks as tools to solve puzzles. Crows were flying before humans were; by your own logic, that seems to indicate that crows are actually smarter than we are.
  - frade33 13y ago
    So you are saying chimps or dogs can make their own space shuttle let's say in next 50,000 years? or for that matter any other species of animal.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      Yes, of course -- there's nothing special about humans that sets us apart from other animals except a few accidents of evolution. In the right circumstances, any other animal could take our place. But not in 50,000 years, more time would likely be required.
    - CocaKoala 13y ago
      I'm confused; first you said that reaching the moon was a hallmark for intelligence, and now you're saying that reaching the moon within the next 50,000 years is a hallmark for intelligence? If we find life in another solar system, are you going to deem them not intelligent because they haven't reached our moon? The point that I'm trying to make here is that you're setting a very arbitrary flag in the sand when you say "Everything to the right is intelligent, everything to the left is not". You need to define your terms much much more clearly and unambiguously; you need to point to specific attributes that humans display which no other animals display and say "This is the mark by which I judge us intelligent". Saying "Well we got to the moon" doesn't do it, because obviously we were intelligent long before we got to the moon. And if we were intelligent long before we got to the moon, by what right do you have to say a chimp or a dog isn't intelligent until they do? Maybe chimps just don't care; maybe dogs are afraid of heights.
      - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
        Silly; chimps and dogs haven't a fraction of the concentration, mental modeling nor communications skills needed. That part is unambiguous. Those things are often measured as part of measuring intelligence in humans. Ergo, chimps and dogs are not as intelligent as humans, by far.
        CocaKoala 13y ago
        Sure; I'm not arguing that they are. If you say that chimps and dogs fail to display specific attributes that humans do (e.g. concentration at a certain level, mental modeling, sufficiently advanced communication skills), I won't argue with you because my knowledge of BCS isn't high enough for me to participate at a meaningful level. But the OP didn't do that; he said that dogs and chimps aren't intelligent because they haven't gone to the moon and until he starts defining his terms in the same clearcut way that you have, it's impossible to really discuss the point he's trying to make. edit: Also, the original point the OP made wasn't "Dogs and chimps are not as intelligent as humans", the point was "Humans are the only intelligent species on the planet". And while you can make an argument to say that dogs and chimps are not as intelligent as humans, I would contest your saying that dogs and chimps do not display intelligence, full stop. And I would further contest (as I've been doing) the statement that the boundary for intelligence vs. however you'd describe a vacuum of intelligence is the arbitrary point of landing on the moon, or even being within 50,000 years of doing so.
Someone 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals#Elephants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals#Elephants, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110819-elephant-eureka-aha-moment-zoo-intelligence-science-plos/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110819-eleph... I also wouldn't call snakes physically incapable of using tools.

by yaur 13y ago

frade33 13y ago

by intelligence i meant, reaching to mars, moon. even a dog is pretty intelligent, so is chimp. but as we know, chimp haven't invented a wheel or bicycle as yet, at their own.

CocaKoala 13y ago
If you're setting the bar for intelligence at "reaching the moon", then aren't you saying that there were no intelligent species on the planet at all until July 21st, 1969? You need to set your terms much more clearly before there can really be a discussion. It seems like you're trying to say that invention is a hallmark of intelligence; well, how do you define invention? Is it just taking an object and using it for a purpose other than it's natural one? Crows do that; there are documented incidents of crows using sticks as tools to solve puzzles. Crows were flying before humans were; by your own logic, that seems to indicate that crows are actually smarter than we are.
- frade33 13y ago
  So you are saying chimps or dogs can make their own space shuttle let's say in next 50,000 years? or for that matter any other species of animal.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    Yes, of course -- there's nothing special about humans that sets us apart from other animals except a few accidents of evolution. In the right circumstances, any other animal could take our place. But not in 50,000 years, more time would likely be required.
  - CocaKoala 13y ago
    I'm confused; first you said that reaching the moon was a hallmark for intelligence, and now you're saying that reaching the moon within the next 50,000 years is a hallmark for intelligence? If we find life in another solar system, are you going to deem them not intelligent because they haven't reached our moon? The point that I'm trying to make here is that you're setting a very arbitrary flag in the sand when you say "Everything to the right is intelligent, everything to the left is not". You need to define your terms much much more clearly and unambiguously; you need to point to specific attributes that humans display which no other animals display and say "This is the mark by which I judge us intelligent". Saying "Well we got to the moon" doesn't do it, because obviously we were intelligent long before we got to the moon. And if we were intelligent long before we got to the moon, by what right do you have to say a chimp or a dog isn't intelligent until they do? Maybe chimps just don't care; maybe dogs are afraid of heights.
    - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
      Silly; chimps and dogs haven't a fraction of the concentration, mental modeling nor communications skills needed. That part is unambiguous. Those things are often measured as part of measuring intelligence in humans. Ergo, chimps and dogs are not as intelligent as humans, by far.
      - CocaKoala 13y ago
        Sure; I'm not arguing that they are. If you say that chimps and dogs fail to display specific attributes that humans do (e.g. concentration at a certain level, mental modeling, sufficiently advanced communication skills), I won't argue with you because my knowledge of BCS isn't high enough for me to participate at a meaningful level. But the OP didn't do that; he said that dogs and chimps aren't intelligent because they haven't gone to the moon and until he starts defining his terms in the same clearcut way that you have, it's impossible to really discuss the point he's trying to make. edit: Also, the original point the OP made wasn't "Dogs and chimps are not as intelligent as humans", the point was "Humans are the only intelligent species on the planet". And while you can make an argument to say that dogs and chimps are not as intelligent as humans, I would contest your saying that dogs and chimps do not display intelligence, full stop. And I would further contest (as I've been doing) the statement that the boundary for intelligence vs. however you'd describe a vacuum of intelligence is the arbitrary point of landing on the moon, or even being within 50,000 years of doing so.

Someone 13y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals#Elephants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals#Elephants, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110819-elephant-eureka-aha-moment-zoo-intelligence-science-plos/ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110819-eleph... I also wouldn't call snakes physically incapable of using tools.