Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

I like Soli's model.

[Rolepgeek]

I never said that humans are smartEST just smartER.
Also, why only stop at ancient egypt? that was only 10 or 20 thousand years ago, and those humans were clever enough to obey orders, live in a society, speak fluently, buy, sell and trade, understand concepts like law and property, commerce and markets, build complicated structures to live in, express themselves in some way or another?

So, first. Ancient Egypt was around 8,000 years ago, and was one of the largest early large-scale civilizations. Humans have not changed very much in the last 8,000 years.  Evolution takes a very long time. My point here, is that you can't say whether an elephant is capable of understanding that stuff. Furthermore, if you mean Smarter, not smartest, what is the smartest? You've been saying there's an order of magnitude of difference. But TECHNOLOGY is different from INTELLIGENCE. You can teach technology. You cannot teach intelligence.

They were all able to consider their own destiny, life, situation etc. and had self-awareness (albeit, not as much as, for example, Buddha)
Self-Awareness is not a merely inherited trait: we inherit the hardware only, the software which makes use of it is memetically passed on, for example, through society, parents and family.
Keep going back a couple of 100 thousand years and you'll see what makes humans SO different from animals:

-tool use + tool creation (logic and abstract problem solving)
-fishing and agriculture (time, seasons, plant biology)
-complex tribal society, primitive language, body language (social complexity)
-reflection/meditation, worship, mysticism or shamanism (trance, concentration)
-mastered fire (understanding, overcoming fear and danger)
-drawings in ochre, creation of accessories such as necklaces, rudimentary clothing (art, creativity)
-medicine, drugs, rituals (biology, psychology)

Thumbs. Other animals use tools as well, and I agree that we're far better at using tools than any other animal. That's not a matter of intelligence necessarily. Fishing and Agriculture are a form of tool use, and a form of pattern recognition, which status-game creatures are pretty good at. I can't think of a single species that doesn't communicate in part via body language, and tribal society is not all that different from pack society save in that there's technology which enables specialized roles.
What would you use to see if an animal could worship or meditate? The basis of it is pattern recognition and storytelling, it doesn't arise spontaneously from nothing. We do have very powerful brains. We are quite probably the smartest animals on the planet. There is, however, a comparison.
Fire is also thumbs. Cooking is actually what let us get as smart as we are, with less energy devoted to digesting food. It's pretty great.
Aesthetics is an interesting thing to look at. Mostly tools, though, far as I know. Though from what I remember apes will decorate themselves if they have the stuff to do it.
Again, medicine is tech, not intelligence.[/quote]

How can anyone compare animals to humans? We've come so far, and we'll go even further. Humans are made of meditation and tantra.

What the hell does that even mean? We aren't, I can guarantee you we aren't made of either of those things.

Here's what wikipedia has to say about human brains versus apes

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Encephalization
Brain size and tooth size in hominins.

The human species developed a much larger brain than that of other primates—typically 1,330  cm3 in modern humans, over twice the size of that of a chimpanzee or gorilla.[71] The pattern of encephalization started with Homo habilis,[72] which at approximately 600 cm3 had a brain slightly larger than that of chimpanzees, and continued with Homo erectus (800–1,100 cm3), reaching a maximum in Neanderthals with an average size of (1,200–1,900 cm3), larger even than Homo sapiens. The pattern of human postnatal brain growth differs from that of other apes (heterochrony) and allows for extended periods of social learning and language acquisition in juvenile humans. However, the differences between the structure of human brains and those of other apes may be even more significant than differences in size.[73][74][75][76]

The increase in volume over time has affected areas within the brain unequally—the temporal lobes, which contain centers for language processing, have increased disproportionately, and seems to favor a belief that there was evolution after leaving Africa, as has the prefrontal cortex which has been related to complex decision-making and moderating social behavior.[71] Encephalization has been tied to an increasing emphasis on meat in the diet,[77][78][79] or with the development of cooking,[80] and it has been proposed that intelligence increased as a response to an increased necessity for solving social problems as human society became more complex.[81] The human brain was able to expand because of the changes in the morphology of smaller mandibles and mandible muscle attachments to the skull into allowing more room for the brain to grow.[82]

The increase in volume of the neocortex also included a rapid increase in size of the cerebellum. Traditionally the cerebellum has been associated with a paleocerebellum and archicerebellum as well as a neocerebellum. Its function has also traditionally been associated with balance, fine motor control but more recently speech and cognition. The great apes including humans and its antecessors had a more pronounced development of the cerebellum relative to the neocortex than other primates. It has been suggested that because of its function of sensory-motor control and assisting in learning complex muscular action sequences, the cerebellum may have underpinned the evolution of human's technological adaptations including the preadaptation of speech.[83][84][85][86]

The reason for this encephalization is difficult to discern, as the major changes from Homo erectus to Homo heidelbergensis were not associated with major changes in technology. It has been suggested that the changes have been associated with social changes, increased empathic abilities[87][88] and increases in size of social groupings[89][90][91]

tldr: human brains are twice the size of gorilla or chimpanzee brains and specially developed for exploratory intelligence, not just problem solving some random shit they happen to come across.

Although everyone is quite right that animals have feelings, consciousness, thoughts, etc. there is just no comparison between them and humans.
They lack the WETWARE.

Okay? There's still quite a comparison to be made. I mean literally you can compare them, it's called the encephalization quotient. Yes, humans have the largest. There's still a comparison. We're not super-beings far and away superior to all other life on this planet. Like, dude, you keep shifting the goalposts, but there really is, in fact, a comparison. A lot of the shit we like comes from status-games. Intelligence makes you better at status games. Being better at status games and appearing to have a higher reproductive fitness makes mates more likely to desire you, and makes you more likely to have more kids. That does not make us beyond comparison to animals. If you're wanting to compare like an insectoid 'hive mind' to humans, I'll agree, there's no real comparison. But dogs can reach the intelligence of somewhere around a four-year-old. And they're pretty good at some surprising stuff. And that's from a dog, not a dolphin or a chimpanzee.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Left for a few days, came back and saw the FD/miauw stuff. Thanks for keeping it civil, good job.

Look, I'll just say it plainly.

ANIMALS LACK THE WETWARE.
Humans have brilliantly faceted and intricately developed minds, formed from tens of thousands of years of contemplation on "nature" "virtue" "music" "art" "logic" and "self" as well as many more things.

Wait, what? We made our brains smart by thinking of music? That's Lamarckian, and it's wrong. Besides, that's cultural.

Our brains are just plain different and made that way through thousands of years of a specific burning curiosity that is found nowhere else.

It's annoying, but [CITATION NEEDED]. Animals are curious. There is a greater amount of curiosity found in humans than elsewhere, and that might be part of why we're so successful, but...

It is imprinted, burned on our minds, the thoughts and deeds of our ancestors, which, even then, were far beyond the musings of any ape by at least 100 thousand years difference in evolution.

...what? Sorry, dude, learn evolution. There's no ladder. Evolution can be fast or slow. 100000 years isn't a measure of intelligence.

Somethings, a dog was never meant to compute or contemplate.

Meant by whom? Also, "making calculations" - how do you know they don't? Oh, is it because they don't write anything? Too bad for them, it's impossible to be intelligent without hands.

Apes too, are shockingly devoid of "higher" thought processes.

How so? They're shockingly similar to us.

Even orcas, dolphins and elephants, despite being emotionally profound and inspiring, cannot match the will of a human being who can sacrifice for an intangible cause, and do so happily, gladly, lovingly.

You're talking about symbols and intangible concepts. That's a measure of sapience. Of course nonsapient beings can't do that.

Only humans understand their feelings and actions to such an extent as to become conflicted.

Citation needed. When was the last time that you read an animal's mind?

Not that animals don't get depressed or anything, but humans are definitely more complicated...

By what measure?

...deeper...

What does this mean?

...intelligent...

By what measure? Has somebody finally made an IQ test for animals, and also made the IQ test not suck, and also made it measure absolutely no learned behaviors or knowledge?

...capable of forming rational, complex, well-thought-out and rehearsed ideas, abstract theories, images etc.

How do you know? Also, about the "images" thing, some birds can recall the shape of locks in order to get through them.

Humans can lie about their feelings about sex. Animals don't even need to lie.

Well, hmm, maybe that's because humans can lie.

Humans can appreciate the presence of another person. We keep them alive in our minds in a way that a dog can never do, because a dog isn't made to understand it. They yearn and pine, but ultimately, there is no recognition of the person as an individual being, through empathy, sympathy, self-awareness etc.

A dog isn't... made to understand anything.

[Infinityforce]

How can you say humans have not changed so much?

If anything, the aeon is complete in humanity's ripe usage of the internet, computers and machines to fulfill their every need.
Nowadays, we expect computers everywhere: in our watches, in our phones, at home, at work etc. and are constantly in contact with the internet and computer technology.
We can access any information and the internet is rich in provision on any subject of discourse.
We can know anyone and anything, to a reasonable extent. The amount of content is insane in breadth, depth and width. It covers every known popular subject and we can access it all through our fingers.

More than half of the globe can read and write and have access to the internet.
Around 40% of the world population has an internet connection today. In 1995, it was less than 1%.

We live online, virtual lives through machines. It could be considered the ultimate tool, and the internet the ultimate function.
Modern humans interface with and live in it, living cojoined lives in a virtual world.
Our ancestors did not have access to tinder, or forums, for example. They also did not have books, songs, video games, or movies numbering in the 100s of millions.

We can create art at our fingertips using software or become literate in another language.

Before people used to live in small, sparsely populated societies who had little or no chance to change their lives. Nowadays we can move to another part of the world, and change careers 5 times. People in the past did not have opportunities. Everything is available online, clothes, food, drugs and sex. This is only a recent development in human history compared to 100 years ago, let alone 1000 years ago or 10,000 years ago (or even 100,000 years ago)

In the last decade, with the proliferation and growth of the internet, human society has developed and changed a lot, and so has humanity.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

That's culture and technology.

[Rolan7]

Okay I really don't want to get too involved with this, but...
Is it?

There have been years of study trying to get animals to communicate.  Dolphins and elephants basically failed.  Whales, a case can be made that they're communicating beyond what we understand.  They might be close to our level, but different.  Elephants too *maybe*, but...  They aren't creating works of art.  Nothing that even might be art.

Certain primates are at the top, with (just under) us, because that's how evolution works.  And even they are barely able to communicate simple ideas.

We're *alone*.  As for cats and dogs... they don't understand anything, they just have highly evolved empathy for pack behavior.  They can react to emotional cues accurately and behave socially.  They're not abstract like us.

[Infinityforce]

That's culture and technology.

Humans have changed socially.
Socially=Sexually. For example, tinder, porn, social media, and the internet are the modern view of sexuality.
That stuff is all on the internet, which is the thing humans have to interface with in order to have social lives, which they use to obtain sex (usually).
Even if you live in a country where it is not the norm, technology like phones, make access to social lives much easier. I can instantly find and ring a prostitute to arrange to have sex, in a relatively short time. I can also message my girlfriend all night and have cyber-sex or phone-sex instantly at any hour of the day (If you're reading, I love you baby. Those prostitutes meant nothing to me).
Sex, society and technology, are all woven together in the tapestry of humanity.

Now, I ask you a question. Isn't that different from animals?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

That's culture and technology.

Humans have changed socially.
Socially=Sexually. For example, tinder, porn, social media, and the internet are the modern view of sexuality.

Aaaaah, no. Stop. You're confusing the means of interaction with the interaction itself.

That stuff is all on the internet, which is the thing humans have to interface with in order to have social lives, which they use to obtain sex (usually).

And some animals get sex in even weirder ways. Your point?

Even if you live in a country where it is not the norm, technology like phones, make access to social lives much easier. I can instantly find and ring a prostitute to arrange to have sex, relatively shortly. I can also message my girlfriend all night and have cyber-sex or phone-sex.
Sex, society and technology, are all woven together in the tapestry of humanity.

Now, I ask you a question. Isn't that different from animals?

That hasn't demonstrated an individual psychological change between the people of today and the people of ~7000 BC.

[Infinityforce]

It's inferred. I don't have to prove it, everyone who is reading it understands it implicitly and is a part of it.

[Tawa]

I don't have to prove it

This isn't how arguing works

[Calidovi]

I don't have to prove it

This isn't how arguing works

yeah ok prove it bud

[Infinityforce]

infer
ɪnˈfəː/
verb
past tense: inferred; past participle: inferred

    deduce or conclude (something) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
    "from these facts we can infer that crime has been increasing"
    synonyms:   deduce, reason, work out, conclude, come to the conclusion, draw the inference, conjecture, surmise, theorize, hypothesize; More
    gather, understand, presume, assume, take it, come to understand, glean, extrapolate, reckon;
    read between the lines;
    figure;
    informalsuss, suss out;
    archaiccollect
    "the judge inferred that the deceased was murdered"

Origin
late 15th century (in the sense ‘bring about, inflict’): from Latin inferre ‘bring in, bring about’ (in medieval Latin ‘deduce’), from in- ‘into’ + ferre ‘bring’.

[Solifuge]

Okay everyone. It's a neat discussion and folks are getting into it, which is cool. However, this discussion has taken over the thread and buried on-topic posts for 5 pages now. Plus, it's getting snippy and personal again.

If you want to continue it, can you please move to a new dedicated thread, or at least to the General Science Thread?

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

Good call.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

(grumble grumble, why didn't I see that this would be a problem, I should have done that before you did)

[Solifuge]

Hypothetical gender culture reforms are something I've thought about quite a bit over the years. Reposting this, since I'm still wondering if anyone has any feelings about or objections to these ideas.

We probably don't need words or labels for every combination of personality traits that exists, but I still think we could use a good, simple, easy to understand language for talking about Gender, Sex, and Attraction, especially one that works both in and outside the Binary. Here's some food for thought, and a critique for clearing up how we talk about non-binary identities:

• When referring to Gender: we're talking about a person's social behavior, style of dress, and the titles or pronouns we'd address them by (...at least unless Social Roles go completely out of fashion in the next few generations). We can use Woman (She), Androgyne (They, One), Man (He), or Agender (They, One), and others as necessary. This would be where Pronouns and Titles come from (Mr./Mister, Ms./Miss, plus something like Mx./Micks), and where any expectations of femme/feminine or butch/masculine dress or behavior or presentation would go (if people really still think it's important at this point).

• When referring to Sex: we would be describing the Current state of a person's Physical Body, taking Intersex Conditions or Surgery or Hormones or whatever else into account (...at least until gonad-level sex-transdifferentiation is possible in Humans, and Sex is fully mutable). We can use Male (Primarily Male-Bodied), Trans-Female (Male-Bodied, with Female Secondary Characteristics), Intersex (Equally Male- and Female-Bodied), Trans-Male (Female-Bodied, with Male Secondary Characteristics), Female (Female-Bodied), or Asexual (Undifferentiated or Neuter-Bodied) to describe it, and others as necessary. Sex doesn't have to be public knowledge, but it should at least be reported on personal documents for medical reasons; Trans-folks who undergo body or hormone modification share different amounts of Female and Male health concerns based on their mix of Primary and Secondary Sexual Characteristics. Also Note: Sex doesn't factor in with the Pronouns we use to describe someone, the same way Eye Color or Hair Color doesn't; it's just a physical characteristic.

• When referring to Attraction and Orientation: we'd split it up into words for both the Sex and the Gender you're attracted to, since different things matter to different people. Honestly, people would probably come up with their own terms anyway, but we could use Latin for the formal equivalents; Androphilic (Likes Male-Bodied People), Masculophilic (Like Masculine-Gendered People), Gynophilic (Likes Female-Bodied People), Feminophilic (Like Feminine-Gendered People), Panphilic (Likes People), Aphilic (Ace/Asexual). These could be paired up as necessary, for more specific kinds of attraction (Andro-Feminophilic for being into Girly Boys, Gyno-Masculophilic for Butch Girls, etc.). Also, we ought to avoid orientation words that are relative to your Physical Sex (Gay, Straight) since they don't apply for non-binary people, and don't take Gender into account.

In that model, my personal profile would list me as an Androgyne Trans-Female, with a Gyno-Masculophilic Sexual Orientation. It sounds pretty medical (totally would need shorthand or common parlance words) but it's a huge improvement over having to explain (and sometimes defend) my particularly brand of "Genderqueer" to anyone who asks, since Male or Female, or Gay or Straight don't apply. Categories like this are great in helping potential partners know my whole situation quickly, and they also describe my medical situation to any doctors treating me, so I don't have to explain exactly what's going on with all my parts every time.

Also, since that information is personal, all the average person in public needs to know is that I'm Androgyne, with a Female-of-Center style of presentation. In a world that was used to this system, "They" is a safe introductory pronoun if someone looks non-binary and you don't want to misgender them, while "They" or "She" works if they're judging by my clothes and appearance.

Spoiler: Here's a more wordy rationale for that: (click to show/hide)

Our body's Sex is important for health care, and for potential partners who really want to reproduce. You probably know at least one person who would date a Cis-Person, but not a Trans-Person, for that reason. Their preference is still valid.  Alternatively, some people are into Girly Cis-Guys, but not Masculine Cis-Guys. Also valid. Consider someone who is attracted to Male-Bodied people regardless of their Gender Expression, or someone who would date people of any Body-Morph so long as their Gender is on the Feminine side. Consider someone who was specifically into Physically Intersex people who have a mix of Male and Female physical characteristics. Consider someone who was specifically into people with an Androgyne or Fluid Gender Expression outside the Masculine/Feminine Binary. Those are all valid,  but we don't have good words for these concepts.

Instead, the words we use for Attraction and Orientation refer to the Physical Sex of the person you're interested in, relative to your own Sex; Gay, Straight, Bisexual, Asexual, etc. This idea doesn't work outside the binary; an Intersex-Bodied or Male-Bodied person with a "They" Neutral Gender can't really be Gay or Straight, so how would they refer to who they're interested in when looking for a date? Some people use Androphilic (They Like Males) or Gynophilic (They Like Females), but even that focuses on the Body of the person, and ignores the Gender... and Gender is just as important as Sex is when talking about attraction.

Personally, I'm sexually attracted to relatively Butch/Masculine or Androgynous Female-Bodied people, and romantically interested in Feminine People whatever their body type. By current models, I'm Genderqueer and don't strongly relate to binary genders, but that doesn't really answer the questions potential partners might have. When people would ask me "Are you Gay?" I never knew how to answer... "Gay about some things, but not always? Unless we're talking Romantically, in which case I'm Bi but not always? Does that answer your question?? :<"

Also, when we talk about Sex, we really ought to define what it really means. Is Sex strictly about reproductive roles but not about what Secondary Characteristics you have? (and if so, are infertile people Sexless)? How does Body Modification play into it; do Trans-People who undergo hormones and surgery change their Sex, even if they don't gain reproductive ability?  Are Trans-People Intersex if they keep their old reproductive organs, despite being on new hormones and physical features? We ought to clear this up, for medical reasons, and to potentially make that conversation easier. People are more complicated than Male or Female.