Animal Intelligence by GinoBiffaroni

They might also enjoy Firefly ;)

Okay, you got me, but anyone who has an actual sea lion human brain comparison, please share. I know you've already identified the animals above.

Interesting, not surprising. A fairly random comment at the end: There's little connection between Sea Lions and Primates. Virtually none. Their last common ancestor IIRC was some form of salamander-sized weasel about 300 million years ago.

Evolution is a tricky business and can happen very rapidly.. The precursors to humans aren't automatically intelligent because we are.

If you track sea lions back, eventually I suspect you'll find some kind of dog, which is also not surprising, but then again, if you take a species like dogs, and look at the deviation of breeds of that species, you'll find intelligence ranging from that of a low functioning human, down to what would be sub-par for an average insect, and that's all within one species. Other species show similar though not as pronounced deviations. Obviously the variance in dogs was created by human meddling.

There is another factor often not considered when we measure intelligence: Behavior. Behavior is at least partly genetic, and can vastly influence results from any test. Dolphins are highly intelligent, but a large part of why we're interested in them is that they are interested in us.

Consider cats. Admittedly, a much lower standard deviation of intelligence as dogs, but a very similar average intelligence. Yet cats will not, in general, do tricks, learn words, and assist humans in work. Cats really aren't all that interested in us, without getting into a cat person vs dog person debate, I think we can agree, the behavior of cats is very different from dogs, characteristically, despite a similar brain size and a common ancestory, etc.

Now consider early humans. I've been following this research for a while, and the early conclusions about neanderthals and cromagnons were based on things such as "one is smarter than the other" or "on exterminated the other" neither of which turned out to be true. We continued to the point where we could identify a very deep divide between neanderthals and cromagnons, genetically, and despite similar size and ability, they probably didn't share much in the way of common ancestors among modern humans.

Then archaeologists started to divy up civilizations of the pre-stone age world into "neanderthal" and "cromagnon" civilizations. Recently, this model too has fallen apart.

This left us with this rather disturbing dataset:

1. All pre-stone age civilizations are cromagnon
2. Neanderthals and cromagnons are roughly of equal intelligence
3. neanderthals and cromagnons are essentially unrelated.*
3. Neanderthals and cromagnons were both more intelligent than are modern humans

* Their common ancestor had a brain mass about 1/2 of either.

All of this happened in less than a million years.

Okay, that said, leaving humans, whom you know, to me, represent "just another animal"

What does that say? I'm going to hazard a guess that it implies that "civilization making behavior" is independent of intelligence. A minor amount of evolution can move from the hyper civilized species like ant and bees, to their loner, yet still relatively intelligent cousins, wasps.

Going back to intelligence of pinnipeds.

For a great demonstration of pinniped intelligence, I recommend an Adam Sandler movie called "50 First Dates."

Anyone who has relative data re: pinnipeds vs cetaceans, please post, I wasn't able to find anything. Lack of human interest ing pinnipeds alas. But of course, given what we know about man and dog, intelligence variations, certainly there's huge room for variation in both families.

A couple other things to note here:

We already know cetaceans have long term memory, which is not surprising either, and that dolphins have names, often derivative of their parents names, and of course, a fairly advanced language.

Cuttlefish, who are a squid, have a highly advanced language. Squids in general are very interested in one another, but not very interested in us. Octopi, although a close relative, are not very social, though on all accounts also highly intelligent

What does all of this say other than we're not alone, we just don't know how to talk to our neighbors, or that we don't really need to look to outer space for alien intelligence, we have plenty right here on Earth, and maybe we should stop eating them and try talking. Of course, for that to happen, we might need to stop beating our fellow humans over the head with largest available stick until they temporarily recognize us as boss.

Oh, any signs of human intelligence, post those as well ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 3, 2010 9:20 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I spent a lot of time with marine mammals during my years of volunteering at Marine Mammal Center and Marineworld, mostly pinnipeds but some dolphins, and I can tell you both are smart in their ways. But that's just subjective observation, not scientific fact.

Okay, need to start with your terminology, ‘cuz not all may be familiar with it. There are four species of marine mammals: “Cetacean” refers to whales, dolphins and porpoises. “Pinniped” refers to walruses, “eared” seals—sea lions, fur seals—and “true” and earless seals—walruses, harbor seals, elephant seals. The other two are sirenians (manatees and dugongs), and sea otters.

In general, the way “WE” define intelligence, the ranking is

Langur: 98%
Mink 95%
Ferret 90%
Bottlenose dolphin 87o%
Rhesus Monkey 86%
Cat 70%
Rat 60%
Squirrel 60%

Quote:
What does all of this say other than we're not alone, we just don't know how to talk to our neighbors, or that we don't really need to look to outer space for alien intelligence, we have plenty right here on Earth, and maybe we should stop eating them and try talking. Of course, for that to happen, we might need to stop beating our fellow humans over the head with largest available stick until they temporarily recognize us as boss.

Right on. As well as

Quote:
humans, whom you know, to me, represent "just another animal"

That’s why I’m always saying we’re a “strange little species”, as I consider us one species of many on this planet—the value of each being subjective, to me.

Quote:
Conclusions about the nature and magnitude of dolphin intelligence have not yet been reached. There are many different species of dolphin and generalizations can be easily misapplied. There are only a select few cetacean species that have been tested and live up to the ideal of dolphin intelligence

I would modify that to say “OUR” ideal… Because we measure everything by ourselves, unless a scientist takes into account an animal’s intelligence WITHIN ITS OWN ENVIRONMENT, we’ll never get it right. Many animals are more intelligent than they’re given credit for, because we only measure intelligence by our standards

As to cetacean v. pinniped intelligence, there's lots of information on cetaceans:

Quote:
Some research shows that dolphins are able to recognise self by mirror and understand concepts such as more or less in term of numerical continuity (but not necessarily count). Dolphins have also been recently discovered to be capable of discriminating between numbers. However, the same researcher suggested that "It may involve mimicry, he said, as dolphins are unsurpassed in imitative abilities among nonhuman animals."

Moreover, a commonly used definition of intelligence is "the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience." This definition is separate from social/communicative traits or the ability to learn tricks (which can be done through conditioning), which many laymen confuse with animal intelligence.

Many scientists now tend to rank dolphins about the level of elephants in "intelligence" tests and say that dolphins haven't shown any unusual talent with problem solving compared with the other animals classed with very high intelligence.

Macphail in his "Brain and intelligence in vertebrates" compared data from studies regarding learning set formation of animals. The result show that dolphin is indeed skilled at problem solving but not the most adept and nowhere as "intelligent" as human.

My disagreement with a number of those remarks is obvious. A few things they note which might be interpreted (by us) as intelligence:

Quote:
Dolphins are known to engage in complex play behaviour, which includes such things as producing stable underwater toroidal air-core vortex rings or "bubble rings. The dolphin will often then examine its creation visually and with sonar. They also appear to enjoy biting the vortex-rings they've created, so that they burst into many separate normal bubbles and then rise quickly to the surface....There have been instances in captivity of various species of dolphin and porpoise helping and interacting across species. One interesting example is of a dolphin helping in the birth of another species by using its mouth to pull the infant out of the birth canal....Aside from having exhibited the ability to learn complex tricks, dolphins have also demonstrated the ability to produce creative responses.....At the Institute for Marine Mammal Studies in Mississippi, it has also been observed that the resident dolphins seem to show an awareness of the future. The dolphins are trained to keep their own tank clean by retrieving rubbish and bringing it to a keeper, to be rewarded with a fish. However, one dolphin, named Kelly, has apparently learned a way to get more fish, by hoarding the trash under a rock at the bottom of the pool and bringing it up one small piece at a time....As of 2005, scientists have observed limited groups of bottlenose dolphins around the Australian Pacific using a basic tool. When searching for food on the sea floor, many of these dolphins were seen tearing off pieces of sponge and wrapping them around their "bottle nose" to prevent abrasions.

I can’t find anything really valid on pinniped intelligence...I can find things on behavior, self-awareness, language, etc., but nothing specifically relating to intelligence. There’s no question to me that they’re not as smart as cetaceans, but within that framework, I don’t know anything from personal experience about their intelligence per se. They seemed smart enough to figure things out, be sneaky, have long memories, but none of these relate to intelligence directly.

It’s pretty obvious humans are far more interested in the intelligence of cetaceans than of pinnipeds, as DT said. The few things I could find were

Quote:
Seals can identify a single star in the night sky and navigate by it, scientists have discovered....

It goes into more depth: http://planktonforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6989&p=62516

I know some pinnipeds have long memories, as we had one in the early days of Marine Mammal Center who returned a couple of times years and years after his rehabilitation--free food, I'm sure!

I know Dr. Lilly was at Marineworld at the same time I was working there, and h was working specifically with two of our sea lions. But I can’t find where he published anything on their intelligence, dammit. I'd love it if anyone could find anything really good on pinniped intelligence.

As to relative human "intelligence" [/snark], I'll leave that to others.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 3, 2010 11:42 AM

Niki

Intelligence is a subjective measurement. While I believe that there are overwhelming trends, such as creatures with larger brains, in particular, a larger number of synaptic connections, are more intelligent than those with few, the ability to form connections, learn, problems solve, abstract, and communicate all enter into a function intelligence, esp. when dealing with group populations. Individually an ant is less intelligent than I am, but collectively, an ant colony is potentially more intelligent. But it's a mistake to assume an individual ant to be unintelligent. They're fairly sophisticated.

That said, interesting stuff. I've seen a number of rankings and they have different ordinals, but similar relative ranks.

I would say there's no doubt that there are "animals smarter than humans" on almost every measuring stick you choose, but humans have a substantial advantage: Written language.

This acts as a form of inherited memory, and is undoubtedly a behavioral trait that other animals who conceptualize thoughts in visual form would be capable of. Given a higher problem solving rank, a vastly higher communicative rate, and an innate visual language, some squids could easily surpass humans, given the necessity of tools, and a longer life expectancy. Here's where intervention is potentially dangerous. While a lot of this sort of thing is inevitable, from "consumer animals" such as dogs with a human life expectancy to theme park/military animals (airlift some velociraptors into the arena of combat) I think though it's far more likely that we'll create disaster in the form of some GMO disease, I can't rule out the possibility that we might invent Cthulhu, which wouldn't be all that difficult, relatively speaking.

Sure, this is science fiction, but this is an SF forum.

Next, "There are four species of marine mammals"

Not to nitpick, thanks for the info, my post contained a lot of random errors as well, I think you meant families, or superfamilies, etc. obviously, I assumed that if people didn't know, they had google. I read there was some question as to the relation of otters with pinnipeds. IIRC, Otter was a weasel and not a dog, and this was a matter of some question, also the use of the term "dog" which is likely not to refer to our current dog, but to a dog, about 40 million years ago, but not necessarily a member of the current dog chain, but a co-dog niche holder of a double jointed nature, related to some modern dog-like being which might have been the hyena, and now I have hit a fuzzy part that I'll need to refresh.

But I try not to put an absolute on intelligence rankings, as the studies are often less than scientific, like the one above. The human animal isn't as smart as it thinks it is: A sea lion can figure out a relatively simple task like Like:Like identification pretty quickly, as could a less sophisticated dog. In fact, given that a dog can abstract from knowing toys such as "red car" "blue truck" to then when asked for "red truck" pick it out from myriad other equally unfamiliar toys, because it recognizes the separate qualities of color and shape (yes, this is a real study, and I am aware that it contradicts the idea that dogs don't see color. Dogs do see color, but not the way we do, as their eyes are not as complex.)

From the various studies I've read, there's little separation in intelligence between the cetacean and human mind from our study, but I would feel comfortable with a human inferiority based on a synaptic count. I would put serious question to the murine/feline ranking more than any other, as murines seem to test consistently higher than felines, though again, admittedly, with a huge standard deviation. Cetaceans, it should be noted also possess a tremendous standard deviation, much larger than humans, though nowhere near as large as murines or canines. The human deviation is of course disturbing, covering 1/2 the ground of the primate deviation.

Skipping the whole question of whether the human/simian murine evolutionary derivation skews our view in the mouse's favor, or whether this makes us rodents, suffice it to say they do win the brain to bodyweight ratio by a huge margin. That said, there are a number of other areas of "intelligence" that may not be properly measured:

How quickly can you solve a logical problem? Less quickly than a mouse, more than likely.

How long a trail of instructions can you follow to get to a destination? Probably less than a butterfly or caterpillar.

How many different variables can you keep in your head at once? More than a spider, or octopus?

Now we're hitting the really grey area of grey matter. How many variables can a dolphin handle, how complex a situation, how quickly can they walk through logical steps towards a solution with zero starting information.

How about ourselves? To what degree, when testing our own abilities, do we account for the amount of training, written learning, and accumulated information that we've absorbed actually becomes critical to our decision making? Would a human in an informational void be a match for these species?

We make test that are often constructed with common concepts and cognitive and linguistic ideas to our own world view, not just that which is innate to human nature, but that which is native to our current culture "rubbish" and "bin" are abstract concepts that humans are very familiar with, as are "car" "truck" "red" and "blue" but they are potentially meaningless to a dog.

You alluded to some that would really put a crimp on our ability to measure: We have only limited concepts of "undertow" "eddy" and other forms of aquatic current and flow. Are dolphins limited to those we can recognize and describe, or are their minds simultaneously tracking hundreds of flow variables that we don't even have words for?

The mouse mind is fairly easy for me to comprehend. It's very similar to the human mind, only, to use a computer analogy: There's less ram, but the processor speed is about 10 times as high. This makes the mouse the candle that burns faster, brighter, and I would never think that a flat out contest between some of the higher functioning murine species against humans of the same age would give us any kind of chance at all.

Again, what would happen if the M-Prize crowd extends mouse life expectancy, say, to human length?

I could make some obvious predictions: Mice would probably experience a chimp-like "plateau" of development. Still, collectively, a mouse colony would represent a rapid competitive computational force. Given slight more maleable materials and perhaps opposable thumbs, not a difficult engineering trick, these longer lived mice would probably have the capacity to develop an advanced civilization.. if they were so inclined.

And we would have to hope that they weren't, because if they were, that development would happen at radical speed.

Again, for a second to ants. A rough glance over the evolution of formic civilization over the last two centuries provides an image so radical it's almost doomsday level. One has to assume, with a 400 million year history or so, accounting, sure, for some fairly radical evolution, that ants must be caught in a boom-bust cycle of civilization that reaches its zenith and falls into utter decay and may have done so thousands to millions of times.

This reflects again back on us, with some evidence that humans are in a similar cycle, with only some indication that each cycle hits a higher peak than the last.

Any comparative projection would tend towards Clifford D. Simak's City, at least to some extent, but skipping that for the moment, I'll just leave with this sobering thought:

Given human civilization peaks with a rough interval long term of 25-50,000 years, if human civilization were to head into decline today, and we were to return a few dozen millennia later, not a single trace of our civilization would remain. I think I've worked this one out correctly: 25,000 years is sufficient time for the grass growing in Central Park to eat all of Manhattan.

It wouldn't help any that the collapsing civilization, if it didn't destroy itself in war, would salvage every piece of its former creations for raw materials...

Just a thought. Sorry for the digression. I'm the first to concede that the city under the back steps is more advanced than the town in which I live, so I can't really put anything outside the realm of possibility.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 3, 2010 6:50 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Sorry, DT, didn't read all of it, just skimmed. Too long, and didn't get far past the idea that there are animals smarter than humans. You know I don't buy that, so we can just agree to disagree.

I believe there are animals pretty damned smart WITHIN THEIR ENVIRONMENT, and that of course makes measuring intelligence by our standards impossible, but I maintain that there's no animal more intelligent than human beings.

Yes, I used the wrong word when saying "species". My fault. Should have been "suborder". As to pinnipeds, whatever their ancestry, sea otters are pinnipeds. Scientists will always be revising their definitions, but for now, pinniped is defined as "any of a suborder (Pinnipedia) of aquatic carnivorous mammals (as a seal or walrus) with all four limbs modified into flippers", which is sea otters.

As to "such as creatures with larger brains, in particular", I've found numerous sources which say that the size of the brain, even with respect to the animal itself in some cases, is not necessarily an indication of intelligence. I agree with you about the logic of the number of synaptic connections, however.

Just my opinion, but I don't think you can classify "intelligence" by rating groups of critters, I believe it can only be looked at as specific to individuals to be valid.

From what I see, it appears that you are counting environmental factors (which can be potentially genetic memory) in considering intelligence. As I said, we can't accurately measure intelligence because our measurement is subjective, but I don't hold that "environmental" smarts are the same thing as pure intelligence. That's a debatable issue, of course, but that's the side of the fence I fall on.

To me, a human in a void can't be specifically compared to an animal in a void (because many are "taught" by parent animals, and there's genetic and environmental intelligence, too, again) in my opinion; I believe we EVOLVED to be taught, not needing instinctive intelligence as animals do. That's our environment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 3, 2010 6:59 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I maintain that there's no animal more intelligent than human beings.

You've obviously never driven in rush hour.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 4:25 AM

I'm forced to agree with Chris.

As for reclassification, yes, I agree taxonomy is inconsistent, and loses accuracy as we learn more. I wouldn't quibble about any any other word than species.

Note I made the same error, I said "species of dog." Dog is a species of canine but there is only one species of dog. I meant "breed of dog."

Sure, animals are taught by their parents, but one shouldn't assume that just because animals combine education, ritual, logic and instinct that humans don't do the same. Since humans are animals, much of what we think of as intelligence is merely the expression of same.

I'd have to say if you are looking at intelligence as the application of logic, than humans, as a species, fall short.

A few notable examples:

Our last president occasionally had a thought-like stirring in what was left of his brain, after making the logical choice, okay, engaging in the ritualistic behavior of consuming a lifetime of toxins. But such subthought never led him to action.

Our new president, while infinitely brighter than the last repeats stock fragments of the english language strung together on end until the result is meaningless.

Sure, at least there are words there, but does he ever say anything, and if so, is it ever related to what he does, or does he surround himself with his own (in this case chicago schooler and clintonistas,) just as his predecessor did, and then follow the same pattern of behavior which is perhaps on continuation of ritual.

Given that, watch the ebb and flow of the masses in support of, and opposed to, this president or the last, and again you will find well over 90% ritualistic behavior emulating that of their parents, and much of the remainder, that of their teachers or preachers, to simply call to arms to support team blue or team red and to smash the other team, for little more than the sake of doing so while clinging to meaningless soundbites as excuses for unthought ritualistic behavior.

As I see it, it's hard to see the difference between this mass flocking and countering of "support" and "opposition" among humans as among termites.

I made the point earlier that a human, with a brain one million times the size of a termite has evolved a political system that if anything is less complex.

Likewise, a pyramid builder labors for wages in almost the identical manner to that which a member of an ant colony does, neither as slaves, but paid employees, yet the only evolution we've made is to bury this concept so that we can labor ourselves into debt instead of towards a free standing economy, which is to say that for all practical purposes (or porpoises) we have devolved from a system of ants back to termites.

There's little in our modern medical lexicon that was not written 4500 years ago in the journal of Imhotep, which would indicate that our doctors to are simply following ritual, to say nothing of our lawyers.

I don't see the application of higher logic across the human spectrum. Perhaps there is the odd porpoise who looks around and criticizes the decline of his civilization and the decay of his language to go largely ignored by the fish chasing flocks, unaware that their ranks are being controlled and diminished, as would not really happen to a frog slowly boiling. (Nice analogy, but really, he hops out of the pot at some point.)

But will we? The supreme intelligence of the human species? Will we ever hop out of the pot?

If we strip away all of civilization as little more than a ritualistic farce, and were to pit the mind of a human to a problem solving task head to head with a dolphin or octopus, the engineering side of me is inclined to favor the one with the more extensive synapsis.

If we use not a caveman, but an educates and civilized modern man, I'm not convinced that he would be more than a match for a caterpillar.

Oh, and I do mean that literally.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 7:23 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Chris, absofrigginlootely! Living on the only corridor going North from SF, you can bet I understand!

BUT, to put it in wider terms, how many animals would even be capable of so many micro-decisions and manipulations required to maneuver a car through rush hour, while thinking on many levels, being angry at other drivers, worrying about work, planning a route, and all the subconscious things humans do while acting like idiots?

DT, I maintain that your reasoning is too simplistic. You aren't taking into account that human brains work on more levels than animals; you're leaving out the subconscious, judgment and self-awareness, among other things. Our thinking is all too often driven by HOW we reason, our subconscious messages and prejudices, the way we think, the multiplicity of levels, etc.

As to

Quote:
Sure, animals are taught by their parents, but one shouldn't assume that just because animals combine education, ritual, logic and instinct that humans don't do the same

, I tried to cover that by using the word "environment". Our environment includes all those things, but is much more complex; I was attempting to say that we don't NEED the same inate "intelligence", if you will, of animals, because our environment and evolution has put us where we don't need to be born with the skills other animals are, or deal with simple intelligence the way you are classifying it. We have evolved in an environment where babies can be helpless and are taught as they go along.

"Intelligence", as we use the word, encompasses the ability to think, reason, go BEYOND our initial environment to deal with complex concepts. Animals don't, pure and simple. They have evolved slowly in comparison to us; their intelligence is geared toward survival, mating, etc. The only way you could compare the two was if we remained at the caveman level, or slightly beyond it as animal intelligence has evolved since those times as well, but no further.

We evolved because we had curiosity and went far beyond survival, procreation, etc. Some animals have to a degree, but nothing like to the degree humans have.

I'm not sure if I'm being clear, but the idea I'm trying to put across is that humans are much more complex than animals; to judge them by the same terms is fallacious. We have gone so far beyond solving the simple problems you offer that to put us in the same category isn't possible. We have to make a million decisions a minute sometimes; we are victims of our subconscious, the "stuff" we carried from childhood, the experiences we have had, the requirements of us by our complex society, the judgments we have made in the past. Do you get what I'm trying to say, or am I doing it so badly?

The examples you give of Presidents has little to do with "intelligence". Sure, we judge them as stupid, but that's compared to other humans and our own judgments; the workings of all our brains are impacted by many different intentions, inputs, and all the things I listed above. Obfuscation is used to the point where you can't really KNOW what a person thinks a lot of the time...that's self-awareness, need for peer approval, driving forces, manipulation, desire to attain power, etc., etc. Many, much more complicated things than what the animals you compare us to deal with.

To say our medicine and the law haven't become more complex than in ancient times is simplistic; there's just no way you can compare all the abilities and complexities that modern medicine makes possible to those times! You'd have to present a very cogent argument as to the ability of those times to do the things modern medicine, science, etc., can do today. You can't.

It seems to me what you're doing is comparing apples to oranges. Even those things which SEEM simple to many of us are in actuality far more complex. Actions and decisions which seem stupid to us may well be so, but the complexity of how they're arrived is enormous, and makes for bad decisions, ahd has little to do with "intelligence".

Are you truly saying Stephen Hawkings' brain is no more 'intelligent' than that of a termite? Do you see what I'm trying to say? The mere fact is our own judgments about others' intelligence are subjective, viewed through our OWN veil of complexity; ritual plays a big part in the larger aspects like politics, military, etc., but attempting to compare us to animals just isn't possible.

I get that you do, and that you judge us as less intelligent than animals, but I maintain that this is because of your view, and ignores many, many complex aspects of human intelligence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 7:55 AM

Pinnipeds have longer memories than I do. <_<

I think it's about time us humans got off our high horse. I've been outsmarted plenty of times by animals we don't rank high by our own standards of intelligence, and I don't think it's necessarily that my intelligence is subpar (I hope), but rather that non-human animals are equally capable of craftiness and problem solving in their own right.

The only difference I see any more is personality, and that isn't a generalization that you can really apply across an entire species. Some dogs are devious and independent, some cats are languid and dependent, the general stereotype is that it's the other way around, but both are methods of problem solving in their own way. If an animal loses a toy and wants to retrieve it, looking at you and "asking" you to get for them it is just as valid as them getting it themselves.

Quote:
DT, I maintain that your reasoning is too simplistic. You aren't taking into account that human brains work on more levels than animals; you're leaving out the subconscious, judgment and self-awareness, among other things. Our thinking is all too often driven by HOW we reason, our subconscious messages and prejudices, the way we think, the multiplicity of levels, etc.

I think you're assuming that animals can't do these things. Animals dream, and therefore must have a subconscious, and also can act on intuition if confronted by something they aren't familiar with. Animals judge, and possibly better than humans, watch a cat gauging the distance of a jump, or a marine animal adjusting for streamflow, or birds. And self awareness, do you mean to tell me that animals don't feel, or that they aren't aware of their mortality? It's not evolutionarily viable for them to not be. What do you think instinct IS? Do you think animals don't have prejudice? Generally (because even here there are exceptions), what does a deer think about a wolf, or a cat about a dog?

We (humans and animals) just do things differently. The learned instincts and judgments of a person who has taught themselves how to read and navigate traffic while controlling an automobile is not very different from a bird learning to fly, to control muscular contraction, the rhythm of wingbeats, and read airflow and thermals.

If a child is having difficulty getting into a fridge, do you help them because you think they don't have the necessary physical attributes to do so (in their case height and motor skills, digits capable of fine manipulation and building in the case of animals), or do you help them because you think they aren't intelligent enough to figure out how to work the refrigerator door?

Technology-wise animals are lagging, but I'm not so sure if that's an absence of intelligence more than it is an excess of wisdom. Perhaps, and by all means consider the equivalent corollary I'm proposing here, perhaps animals simply don't NEED all this technology that we have now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 9:09 AM

Niki,

I think we've made our cases and are not about to agree.

Of course I agree with Byte here, that was not a difficult call.

Specifically: a) I said humans collectively, not Dr. Hawking specifically. b) I would not Dr. Hawking to a termite, or any human, I was comparing our degradation of our labor and political systems. I noted that the human brain is one million times that of a termite. c) Dr. Hawking is working on an extensive body of pre-written text which he is analyzing mathematically and logically. We can't assume that the world's smartest squid, given the same background to work with might not be able to do an equal job.

Byte

Interesting points on animal levels of consciousness. Dogs dream, even have nightmares. If anyone has been watching Dollhouse, the latest ep. "The Attic" deal with the mind as a problem solving machine. Dream research I've done indicates that this is the case, and indeed, why we dream. Ergo, it logically follows that if dogs have dreams and nightmares, they are caught in the same unconscious worst case scenario problem solving loop which can only exist to serve the development of their higher subconscious and conscious development.

Given that, it's logical to assume that such development in the more mentally advanced descendents/relatives of dogs, perhaps more advanced than ourselves on a pure synaptic level, have the same capacity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 9:46 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Nope, I didn't explain it right, dammit.

Byte:

Quote:
Animals dream, and therefore must have a subconscious, and also can act on intuition if confronted by something they aren't familiar with. Animals judge, and possibly better than humans, watch a cat gauging the distance of a jump, or a marine animal adjusting for streamflow, or birds. And self awareness, do you mean to tell me that animals don't feel, or that they aren't aware of their mortality? It's not evolutionarily viable for them to not be. What do you think instinct IS? Do you think animals don't have prejudice? Generally (because even here there are exceptions), what does a deer think about a wolf, or a cat about a dog?

Okay, By "subconscious", I meant the many layers of subconscious people have, including childhood memories, past decisions, subconscious beliefs about ourselves. By "judging", I meant judging other people, other people's reactions, judging from bias, judging ourselves, all as part of how we think, and lots more. Never meant to say some animals aren't self-aware, I meant self-awareness on many levels, who we are, what our position is in society, our self-worth, etc., etc. Awareness of mortality is instinctive in animals; humans ponder it, wonder about a heaven, etc. Prejudice is a different thing from what you described; a deer fears a wolf because he's a predator; same with cats and dogs--and like cats and dogs, some animals figure out how to DEAL with other animals, but prejudice? No, I don't believe that; HEIRARCHY within communities, I buy. But one dog does not judge a yellow cat differently than a black cat...INDIVIDUAL cats, yes, because of experience, but not prejudice.

Intelligence: : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : REASON: the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria c : mental acuteness : SHREWDNESS (and) the act of understanding : COMPREHENSION

Wisdom: 1 a : accumulated philosophic or scientific learning : KNOWLEDGE b : ability to discern inner qualities and relationships : INSIGHT c : good sense : JUDGMENT

Two different things. While I grant that many animals have intelligence, never denied it, to me the difference I suppose is "quality and quantity" (richness?). I don't believe animals have the curiosity, imagination, or self-awareness mankind does. Within their own environments, yes, but they haven't the concept of things without substance, such as "God", philosophy, art, or the universe and earth's place in it, the ability to debate and discuss--a million things man contemplates which animals don't.

With regard to quantity and quality, also, I don't believe pinnipeds have the quality or quantity of memory you do...am I getting close? Certainly animals don't need the technology and complexity of the world we have made, but neither did WE. We could have gone on existing as cavemen, within that environment, but we didn't.

I'm not saying our technology and how we've changed our environment is necessarily BETTER, just more complex and indicative of a more complex brain.

I wouldn't want to go on living as a caveman or most animals, fighting for survival (I mean EXISTENCE, not quality of life), searching out food, being limited in my ability to contemplate things. I don't think any animal would choose to, either, if they could conceptualize it. I'm not saying animals aren't intelligent, and I'm not saying that in general we don't recognize how intelligent they are, just that I don't believe they possess as much inate intelligence as man.

We can debate it forever, but better we agree to disagree, as DT said. As far as I'm concerned, the mere fact that we're discussing this abstract is example enough of mankind's more complex brain and ability to discuss complexities. The fact that DT can compare the "degradation of our labor and political systems" is, again, proof enough.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 10:24 AM

I suppose, though this was a pretty quick agree to disagree. *left out*

Just one more thing, then, if I could. Feel free to respond to this, I'll let you have the last word.

Quote:
I don't believe animals have the curiosity, imagination, or self-awareness mankind does. Within their own environments, yes, but they haven't the concept of things without substance, such as "God", philosophy, art, or the universe and earth's place in it, the ability to debate and discuss--a million things man contemplates which animals don't.

Apparently we've lived around very different animals. But, for the record, you've conceded that (some?) animals must be aware of death. That is an abstract concept. I've seen animals marvel at human technology much as you do; to them, it probably even seems mystic, like magic or the works of gods. Curiosity killed the cat, you know. I've also seen them bask in sunbeams and look out over a nice view, and I'm humble enough to think that they probably are getting the same enjoyment out of it that I do.

I think you're underestimating animals, and I also think that the arguments you're making are a bit anthropogenic.

But I also want to be clear. I actually like technology, and the pursuit of progress and knowledge is a noble one. But common sense about use (or over use) of technology is vital. And while I don't think humans are the greatest thing to ever appear on this Earth, I also don't think we're all bad. I think we have our place in the world, and once we find it, we'll be at peace.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 10:45 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I just said agree to disagree because it seems to me that our beliefs are opposite enough that further debate would be useless, that's all. I said the same to DT, and since nobody else has joined in who might be convinced or who agrees with me, going on seems fruitless. We're not "communicating" I think, in our different concepts.

No "some" about it, I know animals sense death. But it's on an instinctive level, I don't believe they contemplate it, it's repercussions or what's after it (if anything), it's just survival and eventually acceptance. I've seen it and I fully accept it. I don't think they "understand" it, or why would my dog bring me one of my rabbits that it's killed and lay it at my feet, puzzled? Why does an animal who is around the death of another look for it later, not realizing it's dead? On and on..."conceptualizing" is what I'm talking about, thinking about the intangible.

To me, basking in sunbeams and gazing out at things isn't a sign of intelligence per se. It's enjoyment, and I think most, if not all, higher animals can enjoy things for their own sake. I don't believe that true of termites, caterpillars or ants, which DT compares us to. I just don't see them contemplating it, considering how a forest is grown or what impact wiping out the rainforest might have on their lives, for example, or even that there are other places than where they live.

Ooo, goodie, you came up with a word I had to look up! "anthropogenic"-of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature *anthropogenic pollutants*. I'm not sure that applies, at least as I'm thinking about it, I'm thinking more, as I said, about complexity of intelligence and ability to grasp concepts, disagree, discuss, debate, contemplate the nature of things and self.

And lest I be misunderstood, I CERTAINLY don't believe we're the best thing since sliced bread! Higher intelligence isn't necessarily a good thing in a species, we've shown that all too well. All my life I've firmly held that if my death could bring about the death of ALL humans everywhere, it would be worth it, as I think the world might well be better off without us. That doesn't change that I think we're less "intelligent" than animals. In fact, thinking about it, the fact that I can conceptualize the problems mankind has created and imagine that the world would be better off without us is another example.

How many animals actually "wish", I wonder? Yes, an animal can desire a food or a mate or something they can't attain, but how many actually conceptualize "wishing", which is different from "desiring"?

You and DT have a different opinion from mine, that's all...I recognize the intelligence of animals, the sometimes stupidity of humans, but don't buy that we're not as intelligent.

Simple example...possums roll over and play dead when threatened; that does no good with an oncoming car; they've been around cars for centuries, why haven't possums as a species figured out which "enemies" that works with and which not? There are at least as many examples of animal stupidity as there are of human stupidity, if you want to look at it that way. Ants can't find home if individually moved, they can't recognize different surroundings and "think" about how to traverse them back to home. Bees can, it's part of their nature; different animals are "smart" about different things, but "smart" in general?

JMHO

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 10:53 AM

Byte,

I think we can continue to discuss the topic, just, correct me if I'm wrong, Niki has taken something resembling the classical academic/intellectual position, and we've taken a more iconoclastic side.

If this were likened to a theological discussion, then Niki is the orthodox defending the canon, and we're denying the divinity of the chosen, in this case, the human race, while not taking it as inferior, not granting it a special place. This is more analogous to the those who deny the divinity of Christ, but uphold Christ as prophetic, allowing for the relative comparison and inclusion of other prophets into the equality of divinity.

In non-abstract, I'd suggest that all that we are capable of, some animals are theoretically inevitably capable of as well, mentally, and given the proper tools, such as written language, this would prove itself. I would not be astonished if this happened in our lifetimes, and that from the sci-fi POV it would be the first step in alien communication to be able to converse and debate with animals such as a squid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 11:05 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Just a note, 'cuz I notice it often; it SEEMS as if you have a pretty strong prejudice against anything "academic", DT. No offense intended, just an observation. I'm glad you said "something resembling", tho' I'd have preferred "something akin", because I've stated repeatedly that I think animals are smarter than we give them credit for, yes? I don't buy the orthodox position (which I don't see as the "intellectual" or "academic"); the orthodox position is that we're the best and brightest, period.

Quote:
Niki is the orthodox defending the canon, and we're denying the divinity of the chosen, in this case, the human race, while not taking it as inferior, not granting it a special place

Okay, leaving aside my hatred of organized religion, which might cause ME to express my own prejudices. You have very specifically taken it as inferior, repeatedly. You haven't stated that human intelligence is equal to that of animals, you've said it's less. Nitpicking here.

You believe

Quote:
I'd suggest that all that we are capable of, some animals are theoretically inevitably capable of as well, mentally, and given the proper tools, such as written language, this would prove itself.

I believe that if that were the case, there would be less gap between our intellect and that of some other animal or animals. If you're talking merely "evolution", that's different; I conceded that SOME animals, given enough time to evolve, might well reach the same intelligence level as man. I just don't believe any of them have come close yet. The big leap is ability to contemplate, to imagine, and be able to work on multiple levels of thought at once. Not work on multiple levels of instinct, I grant that one (bird, etc.), but multiple levels of actual contemplation.

I wish others would chime in with their opinions as well, would be interestig to hear other views.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 11:44 AM

Yeah, that should have been "anthropocentric." Sorry about that. I got it right the first time, but it was then lost to the flurry of edits that typifies my style.

I'm not willing to say less than or greater than or even equal. Only different.

If your death could somehow bring about the death of all people, people who had committed no crime but for being human, then I would work my hardest, give up my own life, to keep you ALIVE.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 1:21 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Innocent animals are raised and slaughtered every day for our consumption. In most cases, the way they are raised...well,

. If we weren't around, that wouldn't happen. And yes, I know they're bred for human consumption, but those that WERE born without us would have a life that...well, see above.

As far as less or greater than, I agree. It is "intelligence", not worth, that we have been debating. As far as anthropocentric--and damn, I already KNEW tht one (1 : considering human beings as the most significant entity of the universe 2: interpreting or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences), I disagree with the first, as I don't consider us the most significant by far. I guess #2 could be considered accurate, but I really don't think I'm judging by human values when it comes to pure intelligence. I believe qualitatively, we are more intelligent...not better, just of higher intelligence.

I don't think man has been good for this place, and the old "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody sees it" argument doesn't hold for me. The earth is/was gorgeous; nature had a good balance working; if we were gone it would revert. If we were gone IN TIME, anyway. Mankind has an incredibly totally self-centered, short-term view and it's led to unconscionable destruction. Even supposedly "innocent" people contribute to it. It's just how I feel and have felt all my life, nothing more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 1:55 PM

You're talking to the board vegan, you know.

Really, we don't HAVE to eat meat, and if we had some smarter management of our natural areas, coexistence would not be impossible.

Unfortunately, I don't think you realize this, but any argument about the lesser intelligence of a certain entity is always, ALWAYS a justification, and either a hidden or unintentional assertion of superiority. Think about the "studies" that Nazis did about racial intelligence. Because of the "measured" lesser intelligence, Nazis felt like they could safely consider other races less than human, and treat them however they liked. They also saw themselves as the stewards of the lesser races.

I know, I know, bringing up the Nazis in an internet argument is automatic failure. But I'm not accusing you of being a Nazi, I'm asking you to consider your position and whether that position could be exploited.

You don't like how we treat animals we raise for consumption? Then how about laboratory animals? And how about people used as laboratory animals in Nazi camps? How about how people perceived slaves in 18th century America? And why do you think people can feel okay about eating animals?

There's a bias about the superiority of humans, and a motivation for this bias to be perpetuated (the meat industry). You don't even seem to realize you have this bias, and you certainly don't want to claim that humans are superior, but when I read what you're saying here, that's how it reads to me. Praise for humans, the non-humans do not hold a candle to us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 2:01 PM

Here, another example. If I were to say that I didn't have BETTER intelligence than you, but HIGHER intelligence, would you still be offended? Well, first you would likely assert that this is NOT true, because it's not, but you would see this as an assertion of my superiority over you, wouldn't you? Especially in this medium, where intelligence or lack thereof is either praised or ignored. This is no different in the real world, high intelligence as we measure it clearly tends towards dominance.

But is this justifiable? Maybe you aren't saying outright that humans are better, but this enables those with the positions who DO think so. We're on top, and some people look around and say, this is right, this is natural, we are god's chosen rulers of this Earth. I'm saying that position is wrong, and even more, breathtakingly unethical and disrespectful to the other lifeforms on Earth, and that you should be careful about taking any stance that supports them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 2:22 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Mmmmm, we're not having a meeting of the minds at all. It seems to me that YOU are reading what I am writing from a bias, that higher intelligence means superiority. I don't happen to believe that, in fact I STRONGLY don't believe that. I don't think I'm biased, I'm approaching intelligence purely from a qualitative and quantitative point of view. I certainly do NOT think we're superior because we have higher intelligence, in fact I think quite the opposite in many ways...we've misused that intelligence badly. I far more admire a dolphin's use of its intelligence than I do most humans'.

Quote:
if we had some smarter management of our natural areas, coexistence would not be impossible

We don't, but we can work toward it. Congrats on being a vegan, by the way; I rarely eat red meat, but I haven't "gotten there" yet. Animals can't even conceive of not hunting their natural prey, again, about conception of abstracts and intangibles. That humans don't take the next step is certainly stupidity, for many reasons, but some humans DO, and humans are capable of it, and maybe someday we'll put to work some of the things that make it possible. I don't know.

Your paragraph about how I feel about laboratory animals (regarding which I've engaged in protests, used my graphic abilities to spread the word about, use a detergent that doesn't do animal testing and don't use makeup) is a perfect example of why I feel that if my death wiped out all mankind, I'd die happy. Of course I abhor all those things, but there are an equal number of good things human cognition have made possible, so it's a moot point to me.

Quote:
If I were to say that I didn't have BETTER intelligence than you, but HIGHER intelligence, would you still be offended?

No, actually I wouldn't. Just as one example, we bipolars are more often of higher IQ than "the average bear", yet our functioning in society is poorer by far. Our EQ isn't as high, and many of us hide behind our "IQ" just as you described.

I happen to not be one of them; I appreciate having a good mind, but I know its limitations. I've always admired my ex-ranger friend Paula. I score higher than her on IQ tests, yet while I was wandering around letting life lead me by the nose, she put herself through college, went on to fight to be a ranger (she was one of the first female park rangers) and now has been able to retire early, build their own home, and travel. She has BETTER intelligence than me, but I have a HIGHER IQ. She's the more successful person, by far.

So no, I think there's some miscommunication and some assumption going on. I don't fit a preconceived pattern, and I don't find it superior that humans are more intelligent, I just believe our brains are more complex and more able to deal with abstracts and imagination.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 2:33 PM

Niki, I'm not trying to put you in a box here, I'm warning you away from what I think are dangerous assumptions that our SOCIETY makes. I know that you don't believe in lab animals from what you've said in other discussions, and I'm reasonably sure this isn't the first time I've heard you say that you'd die if it could save the Earth for the animals, so you do not fit the box of people who say "we are god's chosen rulers of this Earth." Which is why I'm pointing out the pitfalls of the assertion of higher intelligence. I'm pointing out who benefits. It's not animals, and we're not going to be able to help them if we can't get the general population of humans to feel some rudimentary amount of respect for them.

Quote:
So no, I think there's some miscommunication and some assumption going on. I don't fit a preconceived pattern, and I don't find it superior that humans are more intelligent, I just believe our brains are more complex and more able to deal with abstracts and imagination.

Though, honestly, I read that and cannot comprehend how this is NOT an assertion of superiority. Maybe this is a perception/upbringing thing. My family is kind of upper middle class, and my parents tried to raise me with a disdain for the poor and feeble-minded. They were mostly unsuccessful, and I defeated those parts of me that they corrupted long ago, but it's possible that the emphasis they put on schooling instilled in me a belief that intelligence DOES equal superiority. I no longer apply this to people, but I haven't quite conquered the abstract concept yet.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 3:04 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Maybe you nailed it in your last paragraph, I can't know, but what I wrote was not an indication of superiority, to me. For example, I would say that dolphins, wolves, river otters, some whales and many more species are FAR more beautiful than people. Also that dolphins and river otters have a much more wonderful grasp of "play" than humans. I highly admire the apparent compassion of both whales and dolphins in trying to avoid harming humans and in some dolphins' cases, actually saving them despite our having killed them by the thousands. I am in awe of the ability of dogs to read human emotions, sense things we do not, smell and hear things we cannot, and all the other things they're discovering dogs can do (and most of THEM are far purtier than us, too). I stand in awe of many things animals are and many of their abilities.

None of those statements mean that I think any one species is superior to another, us to them or them to us. Intelligence happens to be one of the things we posses more of than any other animal, in my opinion...there are myriad things other species possess which no other species but their own possesses. We obviously couldn't fend for ourselves if our lives depended on it, not for long anyway as an individual, or at least VERY few of us could, and none under a certain age. We're a weak species by all accounts, but I believe our brains are more complex than other species, that's all. And it's intelligence we've been debating, nothing else.

The world isn't driven by intelligence, in my opinion, it's driven by myriad factors, intelligence being only one, and quite likely not the best one.

By the way, my family was middle class as well, and had the inate belief humanity is superior, it was just accepted. I came to my beliefs through experience, observation, and my own judgment. My parents didn't have disdain for the poor, but I'm pretty sure for the feeble-minded, tho' it never came up that I can recall. Mom worked tirelessly for and with the Afghan women, and admired them greatly. I wasn't brought up in any religion, and the very idea of man as "god's chosen rulers of this Earth" has always made me shudder, nauseated me and made it hard to keep my tongue (the times I've managed to).

I don't think there's any "danger" in my beliefs, as I don't promulgate them and talk far more about the qualities of other species and the failings of humans than anything else. I'm beyond trying to influence anyone about animal rights (especially since I have little interaction with other people at this point in my life); I did my bit for animal welfare, rehabilitation, rights, etc. "Your mileage may vary."

Oooo, rereading your post, I wonder if YOU don't have a bias, something that says intelligence means superiority? You interpreted my words as indicating a belief in superiority, despite my saying I didn't find our greater intelligence a mark of superiority. Just a wild guess from what you wrote... Personally, I firmly believe in giving every species its due. This was just a debate about one aspect of that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 4:05 PM

Niki,

1. Personally, I'm much more interested in hearing stories from your experiences with pinnipeds than a defense of human supremacy. Also, my reference to academia wasn't a slur, I've taken a lot of college classes, and have heard the argument many times. These vary widely, but consistently fail to address real science probably because real science, such as animal intelligence studies, problem solving, communication, synaptic capacity, brain size, brain to body weight ratio, cognitive rate, etc. do not support the human supremacist point of view.

If you want to know what makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom, I can sum it up in two words:

Written Language.

That's it. Nothing else going on here.

It is a huge advantage though, little to do with genetics. Probably closer to "necessity is the mother of invention.

2. Scanning back over previous comments, I saw this, just prior to Chrisisall's comment above:

Quote:

Sorry, DT, didn't read all of it, just skimmed. Too long,

If you don't read my posts, then there really isn't a discussion, is there?

I have things to say, and as your posts are easily as long as mine, I can't help but feel that you're just waiting to talk, a feeling which is definitely going to exacerbate antipathy.

I humbly suggest going back and reading my posts before discussing them. You do recall asking us to read a book once? I made it about 4 chapters in before giving up, Geezer made it all the way through. I think he nailed it with the hostility towards the right alienating the conservative audience, but I don't want to revisit that discussion.

3. I concede the point that we both could be more succinct.

4. Your arguments are riddled with assumptions: animals are not reliving childhood memories, making calculated judgments etc, just doesn't jibe with my life experience. I've known animals with PTSD, dog who were abused puppies, and watched mice study and outwit a fairly sophisticated mouse trap.

5. If you want a scientific basis, it's simple: The evolutionary pressures and genetic background of the human animal is similar to those of other species throughout time, from our initial prosimian splinter squirrelish animal around 40 million years ago until our evolutionary peak around 40,000 years ago. Probably the advent of a sustainable agriculture forced a devolution of the species, and may have done the same to other agricultural species, which would just give us a disadvantage, not an advantage.

As for unique qualities, I've witnessed most of the traits you ascribe as potentially uniquely human in some relatively common insects, not to mention the majority of higher life forms.

5. You got irked when I did this before, so now I will explain why I'm doing it before I do it.

There's an old internet adage that goes something like this:

That said, Your points seem to aim to counter other's opinion. IMHO, This is a pointless exercise. It does not matter who has the last word, the web is not a linear discussion, anyone can see either position with a scroll bar. I almost never read these FFF threads in order.

Given this, "winning" an argument is pointless. I never aim to win, only to exit. I can always exit by just ignoring. Please don't make that the only option.

I just didn't want you to get irked if I ignore points.

6. Yes, I believe that humans are not the end all be all of intelligence, but I previously stated that there are many measuring sticks, and we basically win by none of them. But then, there is nothing out there that would win by all of them. Is it the pure synaptic capacity of cetaceans, the problem solving ability of cephalopods, the rapid cognition of murine mammals? Which is more intelligent?? These are different types of intelligence.

Sure, I'm not a complete relativist, a horse is probably objectively smarter than a cow. On average. Individuals vary. But still, a great amount of relativity does enter into it.

I suspect human supremacy possibly as being an absurd position, but I'll to it being at least a questionable one, from a biological position alone, not a moralistic one. For this reason, if no one has joined to support it, don't be surprised, and if they do, don't be surprised at the support coming from unlikely corners. I wouldn't be surprised if Wulf held such a view, not because of his other views, but because he's a meat eater, and this position would help justify that lifestyle choice.

Byte,

1. Humans shouldn't eat meat. It's like robins and worms. It's very destructive to the system. The fact that we do it is simply an evolutionary fallback for a species that has completely destroyed its own native habitat, that being the Sahara. There are many Saharan species that are actually essential to human survival, that most humans do without, and I could go on about this for some time, and overall is probably a more interesting subject but is off topic.

2. Human are essentially mice. We're evolutionary a murine sub-family of voles, from prosimian forward. Human habits and chemistry aren't all that different from our murine ancestors, and there's a tremendous amount of evidence to support the idea that a health or ideal human diet would also not vary from that. Since we earlier discussed and I think agreed that there was no essential difference between Lucy and her bonobo precursor outside of a 2-3 chromosomal merger, Lucy is genetically both bonobo ape and human, and that as such, we can stuy the bonobo diet and see a natural human diet, again, far closer to that of a mouse.

3. I disagree about the Nazis. I think like the Zionists, they fear competition. Certainty of superiority would lead one logically to inaction, and a role of natural leadership. But analyzing the Nazi/Zionist rhetoric is much simpler than that: It's flattery. It's an advertising pitch: "You are the master/chosen race. You were destined to rule. You have the right to oust others and dominate them." It's the same sort of flattery that allows self appointed minority leaders to gain following: "We are the minority of Z. Z has always been oppressed. Z has been oppressed by Y. We must unite, and free ourselves from Y. You are a Z. We are the leaders of the Z. Please read all about the Z, in our manifesto, 'The Rights of Z' which will be full of rules for you to follow that were made up by us, your self-appointed leaders."

Also, it's worth pointing out that much of Nazi rhetoric and symbolism was targeted at gaining India as an ally for Germany against Britain. This tactic eventually worked, and is part of why we have a nationalist India today, but by the time it succeeded, Nazi Germany had fallen. Ironically, Gandhi is often hailed as progressive, and never slandered as a Nazi, not that I think he should be, but that it would be fair to say he is an outgrowth of that nationalist movement.

Important side note here, the aryan nationalist rebellions in India during WWII *were* sufficient enough to prevent Britain from using India as a proxy army during WWII, which probably aided in what I could only call Britain's overwhelming defeat (sorry, you guys lost your whole empire.)

Quote:
They also saw themselves as the stewards of the lesser races.

Still quibbling. Nazis were stewards of nothing. They tended to kill other races, and the aryan unity logic never held up under scrutiny. It was pointed out as early as 1920 that there was no evidence to back up the idea that Germans were Aryans by prominent German anthropolists, and this idea was almost universally accepted by the Nazis themselves.

The essence of what I'm saying is: IMHO, I think the Nazis were lying their asses off, and doing it strategically, but never really believed what they said. Pretty crafty manipulators of mass psychology though.

(Another note: If you're an aryan nation, why would your principle ally be an Altaic culture of an Asiatic race, Imperial Japan? There is no logic here. Also, note that Gypsies are Aryans, didn't save them, whereas Serbs are actually Germanic, which didn't save them.)

4. I don't think human supremacy is just supported by the meat industry, an industry that I will *easily* concede is the single most destructive force on the planet, displacing the bankers, the military industrial complex etc. I think that about 1/2 the world's problems, starting with global warming, could be solved by destroying the meat industry.

But academia also has something to gain from the myth, which is the same as what early humans had to gain from primitive human-centric religion: You are the master race, (humans) you have the right to take from others (animals, plants) etc. So in that sense, your parallel of human supremacy to so called aryan supremacy* is justified, though you did go a little Godwin on it.

* So called Aryan, because I think it's a shame. Aryan culture is really quite fascinating, and one of the more interesting ancient cultures, dominating between 3000-2000 BCE, which places them post-Altaic, and contemporary to Egyptian, pre-Hellanic (Germanic culture is Hellanic, a fact which didn't serve Nazi aims, since other dominant Hellanic cultures were not their allies.) But there's really nothing about the Aryans that deserves identification with Nazism, an idea we should get over... and here's why:

When you take the collective western populations that demonize Aryan culture because of WWII, in which no actual Aryan cultures fought in the Axis invasions, took part in genocide, etc. Anyway, take all of these offended peoples of the allied west who view even the swastika as a symbol of racial supremacy, we are still, to this day, vastly outnumbered by people to whom the swastika is a sacred religious symbol. Mainly, of course I'm referring to India.

I have said before, I support Israel, and I do, but if I had to choose, and I had to either alienate Israel or alienate India, I do have capacity for logic and can do the math here. There are 200 Indians for every Israeli. I would definitely think twice about offending them, an idea which our nation seems collectively to not stop and think about

But this footnote is way off topic, my apologies.

I hope we can drop Nazis and get back to animal intelligence.

ETA: Niki, we simply disagree that humans are universally more intelligent than animals based on the overwhelming lack of scientific evidence for the idea.

If it were not so, animals would still have a right to live. I am quite vociferous on the point of defending trees, but I don't claim they have superior intelligence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 4:36 PM

DT, I wasn't arguing the motivations of the Nazis in making the claims they did, I was stating the arguments they made (fallacious and which they probably knew were false) to support their claims of master race. Which is itself a hallmark of racism, and found in white supremacists, Nazi identifying or otherwise. All of which are chillingly similar to androcentricism and anthropocentrism. I was pointing out the logical fallacy in the argument by comparing it to something that Niki must find reprehensible, because the comparison, I think, is a valid one.

And I also mentioned laboratory animals, there, I covered your academic and progressive interests. The meat industry does have a vested interest here as well, though. There's a reason a stereotype exists of the red blooded meat eating god fearing American.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 4:42 PM

Quote:
Oooo, rereading your post, I wonder if YOU don't have a bias, something that says intelligence means superiority? You interpreted my words as indicating a belief in superiority, despite my saying I didn't find our greater intelligence a mark of superiority. Just a wild guess from what you wrote... Personally, I firmly believe in giving every species its due. This was just a debate about one aspect of that.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a BIAS, but it's a perception problem that's interfering with my ability to understand what you're saying. Unless you're saying that I'm biased against you, but by my own admission based on my background I should be agreeing with you (read: not bias).

I'm not agreeing with you because something in your arguments is giving me pause. Humans have already been given their due. Yay, we're smart (maybe). But by trumpeting humans, you seem, to me, to be neglecting the triumphs of animals. Not giving THEM their due. You seem to feel like animals are our equals, but I don't see how that can be possible unless you think some of them are our intellectual peers.

I've learned about different kinds of intelligence, that's how I've learned respect for people my folks tried to teach me to not respect. And that's how I view animals. Intellectual peers, just as marvelous in our constructions, but with intellect used different ways.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 8:41 PM

Byte,

Well, you have a couple of things going on here.

1. Claims of Ayranism, which they knew were false, have nothing to do with supremacy, unless you mean numerical.

2. Claims of racial supremacy, they were not the only ones selling the idea to their people, it was very common at the time. There are few govts. that do it today, whom I won't enumerate because everyone knows who they are.

3. The strange bedfellows of racial supremacy. You have Germany and Japan, with neither cultural nor genetic ties. Sure, there's a feeling of supremacy in each, but it's more a marriage of convenience.

Still, attacking Niki's comments on those grounds, while scientifically solid, is rhetorically weak.

I'm not sure that it matters whether one race is supreme. It would be easy to make the case that one breed of dog is all around smarter than another, so the same could be true of a breed of human. I happen to know too much about anthropology to think that there would be any scientific support* for such a claim, but that does hinge on part of the problem:

Another pet peeve with academia: They are so afraid that scientific data *will* prove one race inferior or superior that they block the scientific study of human intelligence.

In the same way, they try to stonewall the study of animal intelligence because it might undermine other precepts of their religion.

* Curious side note: Actually, there's a radical difference between the intelligence of breeds of human, but these breeds have no relation to the races we know. I now call them "wave 1" "wave 2" and "wave 3" humans, and all ethnic groups contain genetic variations of mixes of those waves.

The logic is as follows: Humans spread from Africa to the rest of the world multiple times, but at what could be generalized into three levels of development. Wave one humans are little different from apes, mentally. Wave two humans are about twice as smart as apes, and half as smart as wave three humans.

The migrations began so long ago that the genetic phenotypes by which we identify race were probably well established early in wave one.

The cyclical flow of human intelligence has been due to the relative progression and dominance of various waves throughout history, which is more or less the same for all species.

Humans are sliding and have been for 40,000 years due to an increased dominance of wave 2 genes. The ultimate projection of geneticists which seems most credible to me, scientifically, is for the ultimate dominance of wave 1 genes, which will be the end of the human race, in a manner not unlike what HG Wells predicts in the Time Machine.

The reason for this is environmental. There are two major competing factors:

1. Evolutionary pressure
2. Ecobalance

Evolutionary pressure favors wave 2 and wave 3, and the more extreme evolutionary pressures favor wave 3, for fairly obvious reasons. The harsher the evolutionary pressure, the more the capabilities of the individual are important for survival relative to the rate of reproduction, which I'll return to in a moment.

Ecobalance is the most stable bio-energy state, which makes for the easiest adaptation, leading to a lower energy consumption, hence a lower food demand, and a higher potention carrying capacity for any given piece of land. The absence of evolutionary pressure favors ecobalance.

Rate of reproduction is the principle mechanism by which genetic trends compete, as this has a far more potent effect on the evolutionary outcome than any other force.

Since we've created a social structure which favors the survival of everyone, we can predict, provided that this can be maintained indefinitely, a return to ecobalance, which places us back at wave one.

Now, to carry this into the animal kingdom:

These principles appear in spades in cetacean populations, canines, and most of the animals we're talking about here. But the level that they appear in within mice is absurd. Some species of mice are evolutionarily pushed to some sort of wave fifteen or something.

Evolutionary pressure also ultimately pushes for small size as an alternative population balance per carrying capacity, which I figured was probably obvious and everyone was already there, but I'll say it anyway.

That said, if true of mice, ignoring whether or not its a factor in east asia, (dietarily, probably, but that's a social evolution, genetically, that's less likely) but if we accept that it is true of mice, then we can muliply the generation history of mice which is already a thousand times that of humans, by another thousand or so, and we have the evolutionary history of insects.

If we want to project an end future of animal intelligence, we can look at ants, who are more or less at ecobalance, and individually, neither brilliant nor moronic, but collectively, brilliant, at times.

However, evolution never sleeps: Even if each ant is essentially a low-functioning ecobalance intellect, the combined mental powers of the ant hill as a collective consciousness still fall to evolutionary pressure. The world's dominant Argentine Ant, which was trapped in a remote valley until 1805, barely squeaks by in its own native habitat due to fierce evolutionary competition (S.A. is the most evolutionarily competitive place on the planet.) But in conflict with the other major ant species of the world, the Argentine ant wipes the floor with then, and does so at a moderate size, an with a smaller colony population base than any other.

And at that baffling evolutionary point I'll have to leave you, because the counter-intuitive conclusion is something I haven't yet made sense out of, outside of the obvious evolutionary pressure as a driving engine. I just thought that it was interesting that a species at ecobalance on an individual level would still be under intense evolutionary pressure on a community level.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 4, 2010 10:09 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

You guys certainly have interesting discussions. I'm not sure than my knowledge (or lack of it) of animal brains means that I should contribute in any meaningful way, except to say the following -

-that we ARE animals, not apart from them, not superior, just different
-that our brain has evolved to include a combination of functions that makes us unique - including self-control, planning, reasoning, and abstract thought along with language capacity and socialability. Not saying that other animals don't have any of these, just not to the extent or the degree that we do
-that as the most proficient tool makers, we have the capacity to shape our environment to a far, far greater degree than other animals

I guess our superiority is dependant upon we are more successful than other species in survival and that remains to be seen. The dinosaurs were around for millions of years, yet at the rate that we consume and destroy we may wipe ourselves in a few tens of thousands and our position at the top of the evolutionary ladder be usurped by something as hardy and as humble as the cockroach.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 9:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

There was an interesting show about the intelligence differences between chimps/ bonobos and humans. Here are some of the listed differences, and the experimental results:

"Humans use tools". So do chimps and bonobos.

"Humans have a theory of mind". In other words, they recognize that others also have minds, and can make predictions about what others are thinking/ feeling. So do chimps/ bonobos.

"Humans have language." Ditto for chimps/ bonobos.

"Humans have a sense of fairness". Ditto.

"Humans pass on cultural heritage/ learned behavior." Ditto.

"Humans form abstractions." All mammals do.

"Humans have societies." Ditto.

I honestly cannot all of the "markers" that fell when examined experimentally. The one BIG difference, though, is that humans will follow what they're taught even if it conflicts with easily observable fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 10:09 AM

magonsdaughter

good points. I'd add that I think the ability of man to make sophisticated tools is dependent on written language.

an untrained human could perhaps make a bow, I think it woul stop around there. There are animals who make different, but probably equivalent tools.

The use of written language by rats and mice is fairly rudimentary. Short lives, smaller brains, but give them time.

It's quite impressive what ants can do through the excessive domestication of other species, which they can essentially use as tools.

As for direct tools, wasps are pretty impressive, as are termites, bees. Some birds, etc.

But humans definitely way out distance them. I built this computer, but I could build a transistor from scratch. I could learn how, because it's all written down. a few thousand years of written instructions on how to build civilization goes a long way.

As for destroying ourselves, that's sort of the whole point, understanding ourselves better, we can come up with better solutions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 10:37 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
magonsdaughter

good points. I'd add that I think the ability of man to make sophisticated tools is dependent on written language.

language, per se. I forgot to add that one to our mix of specialties. Animals seem to be able to pass on rudimentary tool making by showing/observing - but humans can explain more sophisticated use and creation, and of course you are right about documenting through writing or symbols of some kind. Pre literate societies managed some pretty sophisticated tools, but not so much pre verbal.

Quote:
As for destroying ourselves, that's sort of the whole point, understanding ourselves better, we can come up with better solutions.

Maybe, or maybe the fact that we can alter our environment to meet our short term needs, rather than through evolutionary developments will mean our downfall.

I also wonder whether our tool making capacity has overtaken our physiological and psychological capacity. I guess what I mean is - has the environment we have shaped in order to survive and thrive no longer meet our psychological and physical needs - given pervasive issues sound health connected to obesity and underactivity, as well as increasingly poor levels of mental health and a whole host of social problems, I'd say that would be an overwhelming YES.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 1:36 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ahh, DT, you're at it again. Lecturing and judging me, and dissing me. I wish you could manage to refrain from same, but such is life.

"Defence of human supremacy"...exactly what I said I WAS NOT doing. I don't think we're greater than animals; the only aspect we've been debating is intelligence, only one aspect of every species, and in my book, intelligence doesn't give a species supremacy.

As to academia, that was an opinion garnered from many of your posts, wherein you express a "lack of respect", shall we say, for academics and academia pretty consistently--including several posts within this thread. Just my opinion.

Quote:
If you want to know what makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom, I can sum it up in two words:

Written Language.

That's it. Nothing else going on here.

I respect your right to your opinion; I disagree. As I said, I suggest we agree to disagree. I wish you could have, rather than getting personal. And yes, that "flavor" comes out in this post to me yet again. I don't think I'm being overly sensitive; I read each post from everyone in its own context, and it wasn't far into yours that I began to perceive the judgment and negativity toward me. No biggie.

If I don't read your posts, it's not a discussion? Well, you had already pretty much covered how you feel on the issue, and I DID skim it, and I believe answered what I felt were the pertinent points. It SEEMS to me that the length of your posts far exceeds mine (in general), tho' I've long been teased for the length of mine. You go off on tangents, I'd rather stick to the issue at hand. It's just who I am and how I deal with debates; you've said you don't read some things which I, on the other hand, would find interesting, the same is true for me. It doesn't mean I'm not paying attention, merely that I'm sifting due to my own priorities. And no, lest you jump to that conclusion, it's not a contest. We both write long, for our own reasons.

Quote:
I can't help but feel that you're just waiting to talk, a feeling which is definitely going to exacerbate antipathy.

If that's your opinion, I respect your right to have it, but it's interesting that you say "exacerbate antipathy", which seems to indicate there is some antipathy THERE in the first place to be exacerbated. This isn't surprising; you respond differently to me than you do to others, I recognize that. The statement is, by the way, a pretty obvious put down.

Dogs with PTSD and mice outwitting traps have long been known, but are not what I was talking about at all. We're miscommunicating...I have a feeling Byte and I are beginning to work past doing so, but I don't feel you and I are at all. If I can manage it, I'll try to be brief. I meant such things as subconscious messages instilled by our parents or others in our childhood, about ourselves, prejudice, religion, etc.--again, complexity--that affect how we think and react to things. I'll leave it at that, I've tried to be as clear as I can on the matter.

Quote:
That said, Your points seem to aim to counter other's opinion. IMHO, This is a pointless exercise. It does not matter who has the last word, the web is not a linear discussion, anyone can see either position with a scroll bar...Given this, "winning" an argument is pointless. I never aim to win, only to exit. I can always exit by just ignoring. Please don't make that the only option...I just didn't want you to get irked if I ignore points.

Respectfully, you're judging and assuming again. And dissing (which I think is a better word than "attacking"). I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm having a discussion/debate about animal intelligence v. human intelligence. Debate is ABOUT countering points where it seems valid to do so from one point of view. I don't care if I have the last word, and often back out of threads I've been in for one reason or another; sometimes because others have made the points I would make, sometimes because the thread has devolved into snarks, sometimes because it's "E"volved into other topics I'm not interested in.

I would respectfully suggest you go through this thread, in which case I believe you’d find that accusation incorrect. I'm "RESPONDING", in a debate, not trying to get the "last word". Some debates are interesting enough to stay in, others aren't. This one has been, for me. But it went thus:

-At the very beginning, you made some points and asked about pinniped v. cetacean intelligence.

-I found what I could and agreed with you on several of your points.

-You then responded with a very, very long post on many things; given at the beginning you stated flatly that there was no “doubt” animals are smarter than humans, a stance I know you believe firmly, I skimmed the rest and responded to the points I felt were worth responding to.

-Chris made a crack, which I thought was funny and said so, and you came in with yet another very long post about many things.

-At that point Byte came in, and you replied to both of us.

-Byte and I had an exchange, and you came in and likened the situation to “Niki is the orthodox defending the canon, and we're denying the divinity of the chosen.”

-Byte and I continued to have a number of exchanges after that, and now here you come in and wrote another very long post with not a few personal put-downs aimed at me.

-Byte responded to both of us, and you responded to her with another very, very long post on a number of things.

-Magon and Sig now came in, and you responded to both, and Magon replied.

So how exactly was I working toward the “last word”? I hope we cleared that up.

In a number of cases the past few posts between Byte and I, I've been trying to CLARIFY that my belief that humans are of higher intelligence doesn't in any way mean I think we are superior, it's just one aspect of our nature and in some cases makes us inferior to other species, and in some cases works to our detriment. But it is the title of the thread and the issue we've been discussing. There's no "last word" involved, the past few posts I've been discussing with Byte, and trying to improve our COMMUNICATION and that we're not actually in disagreement.

This one, by the way, along with the cartoon, is a major diss. I think most people would agree. And believe me, I won't be the slightest bit "irked" if you ignore my posts, tho' I'll continue to read and respond to yours, if you don't mind. I wouldn't be bothered at ALL if you ignored mine, given what I tend to get in return. I'm guessing that remark was about your twice backing out of threads where I was trying to clarify my intentions and our lack of communication and defending myself when you thought I was "attacking" you and made some very cutting remarks to and about me in return. In both cases, you made it very clear you were NOT reading my responses; even clearer because it was obvious you hadn't by merely repeating your accusations. Those posts were about a personal difficulty we were having which I wanted to clear up, and were a clarification of the untrue things you said about me; your lack of response was telling. But aside from those two instances, I have NO problem with you ignoring me, trust me!

As to

Quote:
Niki, we simply disagree that humans are universally more intelligent than animals based on the overwhelming lack of scientific evidence for the idea.

I disagree that there is "overwhelming lack of scientific evidence", but I respect your right to believe it.

Quote:
If it were not so, animals would still have a right to live. I am quite vociferous on the point of defending trees, but I don't claim they have superior intelligence.

I never, never said animals didn't have the right to live, and have described my feelings about giving other species their due in depth, so I'm not sure where that comes from.

It would be much appreciated if you could respond to me (if you're going to) by discussing the issues, rather than impuning my motives or judging my character.

Byte:

Quote:
I wasn't arguing the motivations of the Nazis in making the claims they did, I was stating the arguments they made (fallacious and which they probably knew were false) to support their claims of master race....I was pointing out the logical fallacy in the argument by comparing it to something that Niki must find reprehensible, because the comparison, I think, is a valid one.

I got this, just so’s you know, and understood completely what you were saying, that it was the CLAIM of the Nazis, and in the context you wrote it, I think it’s a valid comparison, tho' it didn't exactly pertain to what I was trying to say, as I explained.

And no, no, no, I wasn’t saying you were biased against me, at all! I think you worded it perfectly in calling it a “perception problem”, and I think we got past it, didn’t we? I sure hope so; it’s frustrating when we’re misunderstood, and I really don’t want you to think I believe in human SUPREMACY, because I definitely do not. I think we agree far more than we disagree in what we’re saying.

As to

Quote:
But by trumpeting humans, you seem, to me, to be neglecting the triumphs of animals. Not giving THEM their due. You seem to feel like animals are our equals, but I don't see how that can be possible unless you think some of them are our intellectual peers.

We’re still having a miscommunication, to a degree. Nowhere am I “trumpeting” humans...damn, I must not be making myself clear still. I don’t believe intelligence is the mark of superiority—-in fact in some cases I believe it’s the mark of INferiority. Again, the fact is we’ve been discussing "animal intelligence", the title of the thread. If we were discussing senses, intuitiveness, problem-solving skills or any number of other things, I would be saying this or that species had more than we have. It’s JUST intellect I’ve been talking about... Strangely, for ME, it’s easy to see animals as our equals, and I have difficulty seeing how they would have to be our INTELLECTUAL peers to be our equals or even our superiors.

I’m happy to give them their due; propose some aspect of any species you admire, and it’ll be very surprising if we don’t agree and I don’t find many species OUR superiors because of one aspect or anothe. We’ve only been discussing intelligence (I seem to keep repeating that, but it doesn’t seem to make any difference), which I consider only one aspect of any species. Am I getting there? ;o)

Magon:

Quote:
-that we ARE animals, not apart from them, not superior, just different
-that our brain has evolved to include a combination of functions that makes us unique - including self-control, planning, reasoning, and abstract thought along with language capacity and socialability. Not saying that other animals don't have any of these, just not to the extent or the degree that we do
-that as the most proficient tool makers, we have the capacity to shape our environment to a far, far greater degree than other animals

Excellently put, and exactly what I’ve been trying to say. Thank you!

Quote:
....maybe the fact that we can alter our environment to meet our short term needs, rather than through evolutionary developments will mean our downfall....I also wonder whether our tool making capacity has overtaken our physiological and psychological capacity.

That’s a resounding YES from me, too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 1:59 PM

Quote:
I’m happy to give them their due; propose some aspect of any species you admire, and it’ll be very surprising if we don’t agree and I don’t find many species OUR superiors because of one aspect or anothe. We’ve only been discussing intelligence (I seem to keep repeating that, but it doesn’t seem to make any difference), which I consider only one aspect of any species. Am I getting there? ;o)

Yes, I think so. I'm not sure I agree whether humans are more intelligent, but I suppose as long as you're willing to act in the defense of animals against people who do think themselves entitled and superior, then perhaps there's no need for us to argue this, as our goals and aims are the same.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 3:33 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh goodie! We understand one another...wanna talk about some of the aspects of animal species other than intelligence? I could really get behind that, and it's much more fun...I think we've pretty much covered the "animal intelligence" thing.

I love wolves. I am in awe of their community structure, how only the alphas mate but the rest of the pack cares for the pups; population control at its best. How they greet one another with such joy and love, despite such obvious heirarchy. I don't much like the treatment of Omegas, but we do the same thing, and worse.

I have two huskies, and their behavior is awfully close to that of wolves in so many ways. I watch my older guy when he "hunts"--one of the places we go has open grasslands, and his favorite thing is to pick a spot and watch the ground for something to pounce on and then dig out (of course, I don't let him actually GET to anything...he couldn't anyway). We worked on training up there one day, his "down stay". He downed, and stayed, but the whole time was concentrating on the grass about FIFTEEN FEET AWAY...when I let him up, he immediately ran there and pounced, then began to dig. He saw movement that far away! In relatively tall grass.

The pack mentality is so wonderful in them; I had to learn to be "alpha" in order to train him (and he hikes off leash, which everyone says huskies shouldn't)...hubby has always been a softie, and I see so much difference in how Tashi looks at me compared to how he looks at Jim. They've worked it out so damned well, that heirarchy. Rarely do they injure or kill one another because of it, it only takes a snap or growl to reinstate the heirarchy and keep things in working order.

I admire dolphins greatly. Their spectacular ability to sense currents, their sonar, communication, especially their wonderful sneaky sense of fun, the ease of their lives! They've truly got it whipped; few predators, and those they can pretty much deal with by working together, they've worked things out to the point where they rarely have to work at much of anything and are relatively safe in life...except for man, of course.

Their unabashed horniness toward both sexes really tickles me. When I swam with them at Marineworld, nobody warned me about that, and they mobbed me when I got in. Later they told me female trainers couldn't go in the water with them when ovulating, it drove both male and female dolphins into a frenzy!

The fact that they are so gentle to us, despite centuries of us killing them, floors me; where do they get such simple compassion to not hold any grudge and go out of their way to save people and so enjoy interacting with us? How have they changed themselves to fit so well into their environment, to make it possible to have such a free and easy life? I'd love to figure that one out!

There are so many fascinating aspects to different species which we haven't managed to attain through all our evolution, I'd love to know the tricks; our brains are so damned complex and our goals so convoluted, and our desire to change our environment instead of changing ourselves to fit the environment has cost us SO much!

Invitation: pick a species; what do you admire about it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 3:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just one ?

Elephants. When you look into their eyes there is so much there. A baby has a different expression from an old elephant. An old one looks so wise.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 4:01 PM

Things just took a turn for crappy for me today on another board, me and this girl that I really can't stand and who really can't stand me finally had it out, and I decided I'd had enough, so I've left.

But it doesn't have me in the best of moods, so some other time, maybe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 4:14 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I'm truly sorry, Byte...but I certainly empathize, believe me!!

Elephants: yes, I agree. For such a huge animal, so dainty. I haven't been close enough to look in their eyes, for that I envy you. The muscle control in their trunks, definitely...to be able to move something so cumbersome so delicately seems almost miraculous to me. I wish I knew more about them, they've always been fascinating to me. Do you know how long they live? I've never known.

Don't they have some of the same kind of behavior of wolves, in that the whole bunch (tribe? I don't know the term) care for the young? I know they make a circle around the young to protect them from predators, but I seem to remember hearing the other thing, too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 5, 2010 5:53 PM

Nik? Dissed, lectured? judged?

Sorry, I was unaware that I responded to you, I was largely responding to others. It doesn't matter to me what you believe, I was saying don't waste your own time ranting that someone is wrong. We've been through this, we disagree.

For my part, I've studied a lot of human evolution, it's far from unique, logic dictates that the results be far from unique as well. It's really hardly the first time I've heard the argument, but I have no interest in criticizing, or trying to change your mind, let alone judgment, a concept I don't even believe it.

I was just, for your benefit, telling you not to waste your time trying to change mine. If you respected me, you'd assume that my opinion was not based on ignorance. But that aside, we already established this.

Also, this will be my one and only post on this matter. I have neither time or interest in changing who you are or what you believe in, or disrespecting, judging, lecturing or in any other way influencing you or discrediting you.

I agree that we disagree, at that, on this, my interest ends. Sorry if that disappoint you. I was just trying to save you the time of an argument.

If you want to discuss your experiences or other matters, go ahead, I'll treat any new posts as I always do, independent information from a respectable source. Firefly Fans share a lot more in common than it appears, and that transcends smaller differences.

As a footnote, I'll add that I suspected anyone would have been able to predict my responses on environment issues and the natural world as I've made no secret of being a Taoist. I view all matters as objectively as possible, and all things being equal, all things are roughly equal.

Also, you have noted with exclamations a couple of times that I bear no ill will even after a horrendous fight, and I'm not about to do so in the future. You're an interesting intelligent person, and I value your input. I disagree about the intelligence of animals, like I disagree about the conservative origins of authoritarianism. People disagree. It happens.

I intended no personal attack. I actually had to dig to see what you were talking about, I reread it, and I still think that there was no personal attack, if there was a miscommunication, the fault was mine, I'll review my phrasing to say more succinctly in the future what amounted to:

"After you've already established that you are not about to change someone's mind, why waste your time arguing about it?"

That's all that the cartoon implies. It's one of the internet's most posted images, along with the ORLY owl

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 9:28 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Humans are omnivores...

We eat meat and veggies.

Get over it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 9:37 AM

Wulf? Returning to the thread topic, what's your take on animal intelligence?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 9:42 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Animal intelligence? Ok.

Yes, there are certain animal groups that are above average in intelligence. Dolphins for example, or chimps.

But, cows? Chickens? Not so much.

And this doesnt mean that I think the level of intelligence merits them being taken off the menu. Just that if we have the choice... lets not eat beings that are halfway smart.

Or loyal. Or useful. Like dogs... sorry to piss of the Chinese here...

Again, we are omnivores...

Soylent Green is not something I want to come to tho...

heheheh

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 12:02 PM

Wulf

There was a whole thread on the chemistry of the omnivore diet. "Eat meat and veggies" did not even come close to the definition. If you want to know what humans eat, look at mice, or any intervening ancestor:

Fruits, nuts, seeds and berries.
Possible *substitution* with dairy, eggs, fish and meat.

Omnivores can eat meat as a fall-back, but then, so can herbivores. A cow gets the same value from a steak a you do, chemically, which is less than a dog does. This is because a dog has a predator metabolism. A cow gets more from veggies than us or a dog, because she has an herbivore metabolism.

It would be more chemically accurate to say "Omnivores have the benefit of neither" than to say we had the benefit of both.

Where we come ahead is that the core omnivore pitch is high in cyanide and other natural pesticides, which we are not only highly resistant too, but can benefit from. Thus, chocolate is actually healthy for us, but can kill a dog.

Chocolate is part of a core omnivore pitch.

Learn this stuff, and you are likely to live longer. But then again, humans smoke cigarettes, consume alcohol, and do a number of self destructive things, so feel free not to ;)

Now back to animal intelligence.

Other omnivores, diet and communication:

Re: an earlier thread, I don't want to repost the whole thing, but parents teach the children about diet. If a parrot does not learn the secret parrot diet, it will grow with a fairly normal bird life expectancy of c. 30 years. With a mastery of diet, it can reach 120-150.

A robin would also live a normal life expectancy, but they tend to pick up bad habits from their parents, and shift from an omnivore diet to the insectivore, their life expectancy plummets from 15 years to one and a half. Ouch.

About 90% of Robins live on the insectivore diet.

This spring, some cardinals were born in trees adjacent to the property, right by the window, we watched them grow up. A fascinating thing to watch. Their parents taught them how to hunt insects, and they picked up the diet. The parents then flew off, and the kids, a male and female, stayed.

We then intervened, teaching them an omnivore diet, which we got online, for Cardinals. They were extremely skeptical of it at first. I'd have to say that I cannot understate their initial distrust of our sunflower seed mix and berries. They didn't even think it was food. None the less, they would gather each day to watch a wide variety of fellow omnivores, birds and squirrels, eat it, and survive, even thrive.

Eventually, they decided to give it a try, and have gotten much healthier. In the beginning, they recognized that not only was this food, but there was great competition for it, and whenever that competition threatened to fight for it, they fled. Now they've figured out that virtually all animal attacks are bluffs, and they just ignore Jays or Squirrels claim to supreme right over the food.

As the internet sites predicted, the cardinals both developed a preference for sunflower seeds over all other foods. Now they will preferentially pick out the sunflower seeds before resorting to eating the rest of the mix.

Predictively, we've probably radically multiplied the life expectancy of our baby cardinals, and I can't really predict the effect of that, but relative to animal intelligence, I do wonder...

When they have children, will they pass on both traditions? That beetles are edible but so are sunflower seeds?

As they live longer than their parents, which is very likely, will they construct more solid nests, or take parenting more seriously (Funny stories go with this, parenting errors of the first generation of cardinals)

It also makes me wonder what effect we've had on other species in this way, or they on us.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 12:22 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ahhh, DT, you're amazing. You actually reread what you wrote to me and found nothing personal in it? Not even the cartoon and assumption that I was trying to have the "last word", and what you said about that? "I actually had to dig to see what you were talking about, I reread it, and I still think that there was no personal attack". Like I said: amazing.

But if you happen to recall; I posted in another thread relating to the subject of animal intelligence, and you posted early in this thread, that essentially we should agree to disagree. NOW you're saying it. I wish you had done so when you first suggested it. But you didn't, you went on debating my points, and so did I. I suggested to Byte that we agree to disagree, and mentioned your having suggested the same thing to me. She didn't want to; we continued our discussion, and I believe came to a reasonable conclusion.

"Sorry, I was unaware that I responded to you, I was largely responding to others." Are you freaking KIDDING??? You addressed me very specifically, starting it with "Niki," and spending at least half the post on me! Jezus...sometimes I think you know exactly what you're doing and do it to get my goat. It does, but if so, it's pathetic. Respect has disappeared by now; civility is on its way out. Please leave personalities out of it!

Addressing your previous remark about skipping my posts; please do. Given what I get back from you, the antipathy isn't even subtle and I'm rather tired of dealing with it, not to mention the fact that you'll never see (or are willing to admit?) when you make personal put-down comments to me. Barring that, if you could conceivably manage to deal with the ISSUES, not personal comments, that would be refreshing.

You don't think there's anything whatsoever wrong with "I can't help but feel that you're just waiting to talk, a feeling which is definitely going to exacerbate antipathy," and that's neither lecturing or dissing, I take it. You can claim now that you were just trying to keep me from "wasting time" on fruitless arguments, but it doesn't fly. It's disingenuous; and an all-too-obvious effort to refrain from taking responsibility for what you write.

Fascinating. I make an effort to refrain from personal comments and stick to the issues; I'd really appreciate it if you did the same. You're quick to take the high road NOW, after lengthy posts countering my points and taking personal digs...just as before. Something about "dishing it out but being unable to take it" comes to mind. You make attacks, then say you're not interested in getting into personal disagreements, then you come back and do it again somewhere else. Works for you I guess, but it makes for lousey communication and is irresponsible. Give it a rest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 12:57 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Soylent Green is not something I want to come to tho...

Oddly, there's no taboo in my theological beliefs against that - thing is, most people ain't safe TO eat cause they're fulla toxins from junk food and bad habits.

Now, a free range vegan health nut on the other hand, slow cooked in lima beans with some cornbread on the side and a nice white wine...

Umm, nevermind.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 5:44 PM

Frem,

bad boy overdog image aside, cannibalism is a horrible disease risk.

Niki,

Topic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 5:52 PM

And also deeply spiritual!

I mean... what?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 6, 2010 7:51 PM

FREMDFIRMA

I know, it's just so much fun to weird out vegans by publicly hinting they'd be pretty good eatin.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 7:53 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

It's true; cannibalism makes for a VERY unhealthy diet, aside from just risk of disease!

DT: Cute. Okay for you to attack, but not for me to respond, eh? Cowardly. How about

"DT:

Topic. Stop making personal remarks."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:09 PM

Bored now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 7, 2010 1:53 PM