[ars]

> It's hard to say which species was first to become intelligent, but I'm pretty sure humans weren't the first.

And yet, somehow Humans are in a completely different category than all other life. It's not just a matter a degree ("more" intelligent), it's a completely different category.

So that means your definition of intelligent is flawed because it is unable to capture that distinction. Perhaps you need a new word.

[Swizec]

How do you know it's a completely different category? We used to think all animals are incapable of intelligence and everything they do is "instinct". Now we know they can think, organize, have complex social structures, even imagine and form plans. Many show evidence of being self aware.

So we're not special enough anymore and we have to come up with a new word? I don't buy it.

It's likely that humans' extraordinary achievements stem from our immense ability to communicate and cooperate. A single human on its own isn't all that smart really.

Many intelligent animals suffer from limited knowledge transfer between generations and low cooperation between individuals. So each is only as smart as itself. Or maybe as itself and a couple of friends.

Whereas every human is able to tap into the intelligence of very many other humans. That's really one of our biggest superpowers.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

We used to think all animals are incapable of intelligence and everything they do is "instinct".

Whenever I see this written I like to point out that the "we" in this case was only a vocal minority of people throughout history.

Anyone who's ever lived or worked with animals, at the very least mammals and birds, would have observed them being intelligent.

I'm sure this idea that people used to think animals weren't intelligent is a myth in the same way we think people used to believe the Earth is flat is a myth[1].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

[adrianN]

Animals not being intelligent is also very convenient if the bible teaches that they're made for our use. There are fewer ethical problems if they're soulless automatons without consciousness or intelligent.

[jumanchiss]

Same goes for plants, but i don't see you and all the partisan Vegans (and in this case Anti-christian bigot) care for them, On the contrary, they mock everyone who dare to say that plants are intelligent beings.

[adrianN]

From the guidelines:

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.

[losvedir]

Heh, I originally started this comment "oh come on!" as I thought you were being needlessly obtuse.

Agriculture, written language, metal smelting, universities, space shuttles, nuclear bombs, radio, computers, etc.

It was obvious to me that we're in a whole other category from other species. But then I thought about human tribes in the rain forest that don't have any of those. Are they not as intelligent us? But they are us... Hm, well you've made me think. Thanks!

[Baeocystin]

Human tribes in the rainforest have levels of social sophistication, technology, and manipulation of their local environment that outstrips any other animal. It's not close.

Look at the recent discoveries in the Amazon basin. Layers of dirt thousands of years old, still filled with the charcoal used to improve soil quality. Species of plants that were clearly selected for over time. The list goes on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

[milquetoastaf]

>And yet, somehow Humans are in a completely different category than all other life.

Lol no we are not. We share 98 percent of our DNA with various simians. We share 97 percent of our DNA with mice.

Are we the only species to communicate? No. Are we the only species to communicate symbolically? No. Great Apes use hand gestures.

Are we the only species to recognize themselves? No. Plenty of animals do. In fact, even wasps can perform facial recognition on members of their species.

Are we the only species to use technology? No. Corvids and apes use tools all the time.

Are we the only species to develop culture? No. Simians teach their young various customs, some of which (such as the washing of food by macaques in Japan [http://alfre.dk/monkeys-washing-potatoes/]) are local to the group.

Are we the smartest species? Monkeys have been able to naturally memorize a sequence of numbers after looking at it for fractions of a second. It took dedicated teams of research scientists several practice sessions to even come close to the performance of a so-called "lesser animal".

Humans are exceptional (I honestly would just say lucky), but are we truly in a different category? Highly recommend the book "Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are?" by Frans de Waal.

[ams6110]

Biology notwithstanding, no other species has deliberately transformed its environment and improved it longevity and standard of living like humans have. Not even slightly.

[milquetoastaf]

Animals transform their environments all the time, deliberately (I don't get why people act as if animals don't do deliberate things?). What of the great honey fungus in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, a living organism whose size is measured in miles - it deliberately transformed its environment in a way we, the species Aristotle put at the top, can barely even comprehend.

The difference is in degree, not of kind.

[JumpCrisscross]

> The difference is in degree, not of kind

Everything is a difference of degree. At a certain point, a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind. There is a difference of kind between a fungus altering its environment through enzymes it produces from its genetic programming and people inventing steam engines.

[mcbits]

I think written language is our primary difference. Prehistoric wild humans had spoken language for hundreds of thousands of years, but we didn't have the explosion of "intelligence" until the advent of written language ~5,000 years ago.

Or in more general terms, we have the ability to use our environment as a durable supplemental memory. This is what I would look for in assessing whether another species has the potential for human-like intelligence.

[bonzini]

While I agree in general with what you wrote, there are examples of orally preserving collective memory. Think of the ancient epic poems for example.

Painted or etched drawings on cave walls came long before writing, and no other existing species on Earth does that except if we teach them.

Non-homo species also do not domesticate fire. Fire means not being afraid of something that you usually have seen only in scary situations, and it can lead to writing tens of thousands of years down the road (papyrus happens to preserve well in a pyramid in the desert, but cooking clay tablets or melting metals works better everywhere else).

[milquetoastaf]

>Or in more general terms, we have the ability to use our environment as a durable supplemental memory.

You mean like how some species of nut-hiding birds can hide over 20,000 nuts in distinct locations comprising several square miles of territory and then recall precisely where they are when necessary?

[hyperpallium]

You can argue for their intelligence, but they can't argue for yours.

[milquetoastaf]

Is argumentation and rhetoric the basis of intelligence?

[JetSetWilly]

We share 50% of our DNA with a banana. That doesn't mean that a banana has all these incredible human characteristics. Stats about "percentage of DNA shared" are meaningless. A very small change in DNA can produce very large changes in the organism - ones fundamental to its nature.

[milquetoastaf]

It's the fact that we share the DNA with such diverse amounts of life that matters. You argue that humankind is fundamentally different and exceptional than all other life is to reinforce the hierarchy set forth by Aristotle and offers an outdated pyramidal view of the biosphere. The more we share, the more in common we seem to have. You can't tell me it's meaningless, that's just completely ignoring decades of scientific research.

[scythe]

My answer to this is simple: we have Turing machines. Somehow, our communications are Turing-complete, whereas other species's aren't.

(I make no assumption as to why we have Turing machines, but note that implementing one usually requires some work)

[milquetoastaf]

Your answer is as simple as it is unsatisfactory and arbitrary. Humans have turing machines, sure. But we have yet to truly translate an animal language (though we do know they exist) so your point is rather moot.

My point isn't that humans aren't amazing, it's that we perhaps think too highly of ourselves in relation to our incredible relatives.

[kpil]

I don't think you can 'translate' animal languages.

There is nothing to translate, basically.

We can get a good grip of the meaning of their sounds though, if we spend some time listening, but there is no deeper meaning hidden that we can not access.

[LoSboccacc]

Experiment on dolphins showed they can explain each other what trick to perform. Can't find the exact experiment but trainer showed the trick to one dolphin and rewarded the pair only when the other dolphin perormed the same trick

[zeroer]

Recursive grammar.

[milquetoastaf]

Being able to live six years without food. Humans can't even come close to that, yet a tiny tick can outlast the so-called smartest species on earth.

See, species tit-for-tat is easy. What's your point?

[zeroer]

Yea, point taken, but recursive grammar is a prerequisite for arbitrary cognition or computation.

[danmaz74]

See sorites paradox.