[a2decrow]

Think about how dumb the average human is and then realize half of them are dumber than that.

Humans have become the dominant species for two reasons:

1. Our ability to reason

2. Our technological superiority

Many animals can rival or exceed the intelligence of the average human, but due to the fact that they're seen as "just animals" and that they can't communicate with us in a matter we understand (nor care about doing it) makes humans think they are superior in every way. Then, whenever scientific progression proves that animals aren't as dumb as they look, humans have to come up with new arguments to separate themselves from other species.

It's the typical arrogant and limited view of the common homo sapiens.

Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world. -- Arthur Schopenhauer

[noir_lord]

> Many animals can rival or exceed the intelligence of the average human.

That is an absurd assertion, the 'average' human being can use language at a level far beyond what any other species that demonstrates language can, complex tools, create even more complex tools from those already complex tools, write down the things they have learnt and gain knowledge from the things other humans have learnt and written down, create sophisticated predictive models of the world and test them refining the models as they go.

Do animals have intelligence, absolutely, is it in the same realm as the average human, not even close.

The difference in vast, there were other species with intelligence comparable to our own, they went extinct (and it's arguable that we are the reason why) I refer of course to the other species in the Genus Homo, the neanderthal's and others.

We had competition from other species and we eliminated it not intentionally we just out-competed them (and interbred with them but since we where more numerous the end result was the same though their genes are still present).

[a2decrow]

What you are describing is called education and technological superiority. Take one of those away and see what happens.

And whether the extinction of neanderthals and other species close to ours is due to intelligence or other influences can't be reliably proven. It's just the way nature evolved and it could have gone any other way as well.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> education

Tempting, but no; we've tried raising primates like human children, and teaching them sign language. Childrearing went fine until age... 3 or 5, I forget, and then they hit a wall and stopped getting smarter. ASL went alright but still falls short of human levels.

[a2decrow]

Trying to teach them human inventions that are developed by and for humans and then calling them inferior when they don't succeed in using them to the fullest extent is pretty short-sighted. You can't teach every human every invention we ever made either. Some people suck at math, others excel at it. Are the people that suck at it now intellectually inferior to those that excel at math?

I also wrote taking it away, implying humans, not giving it to animals. Educate a dolphin all you want, I don't think you're going to get very far.

[noir_lord]

Education is a function of intelligence otherwise there would be nothing to educate people on.

Technological superiority is a function of intelligence as well or to put it the other way - systematic education and systematic technological superiority are a result of the exact intelligence superiority you claim we don't have.

We took ourselves out of the food chain, You have to be astronomically unlucky or really try at getting eaten anymore.

I'm actually going to stop answering you now because I see no way we can reach any kind of satisfactory conclusion given that you throw out statements like "animals are smarter than the average human" and that education and technological superiority aren't dependent on intelligence.

[a2decrow]

The average person is consuming, not inventing. Human superiority is based on collective intelligence, inventions made by a few exceptional people, e.g. the top 2%. The other 98% are just riding along, not adding anything useful. Take a look at the state of the earth and tell me that's how a supposedly intelligent species acts. The one fighting wars against itself to impose domination, the one justifying most cruel acts with the will of some higher power that is just another invention of mankind's mind. I could go on and on.

It's human nature to think they are superior to anyone and anything.

It used to be that the difference between humans and animals was one is self-aware, the other is not. Then science has proven that to be untrue and humans craved for other reasons to distinct themselves from their animal origin, which one by one are disproved as well.

Claiming something that hasn't been proven beyond a doubt to be true doesn't make it true. It's a thesis that could work out either way. There are plenty of humans that think with a firm believe that earth is the only planet in the universe with life on it. Then there are scientists that think living organisms need water to exist, despite there being organisms on this very planet for which that does not hold true. Water is required for life the way we know it to develop. Outright dismissing it as the only option is a sign of ignorance, not intelligence. The first counter-example would be Artificial General Intelligence, which is estimated to arrive within the next three decades.

Dismissing the possibility of something outright because it doesn't fit into ones thesis or world-view is a sign of ignorance, not intelligence.

It is impossible to transmit speech electrically. The 'telephone' is as mythical as the unicorn. Professor Johann Christian Poggendorrf, Germany physicist and chemist, 1860

[jonnathanson]

"Many animals can rival or exceed the intelligence of the average human"

Huh?

The only animal on Earth known to be capable of exceeding the intelligence of the average human is the above-average human. Octopuses, dolphins, chimps, crows, and elephants are all extremely intelligent, but let's not get carried away.

[a2decrow]

Broad general intelligence? Yes. Field specific intelligence? Not even close.