Chimps own humans in memory test

[Toxic10x]

observe (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7124156.stm)

Chimpanzees have an extraordinary photographic memory that is far superior to ours, research suggests. Young chimps outperformed university students in memory tests devised by Japanese scientists.
The tasks involved remembering the location of numbers on a screen, and correctly recalling the sequence.


It's pretty wild. The video is definitely worth watching.



It's good food for thought on how we think we're the big-brained head-honchos of the planet. 'Makes you wonder what's next- white mice and dolphins?

[Thumper]

until the chimps go crazy and chew the scientists face off.

[TQ]

Obviously in a few more years we should be seeing Charlton Heston discovering the statue of liberty in the desert...

[OneWiseJedi]

There is about 1% difference between us humans and chimps. We are closer genetically than say, a horse to a zebra for example. If you visited the earth 6 million or so years ago to study earth; you would have only needed 1 category, as apposed to the drastic difference we see today. Mankind should be ashamed of how many chimps have been killed and abused. All animals as far as that goes. At least these chimps probably have a good life.

[Derek]

It's good food for thought on how we think we're the big-brained head-honchos of the planet.
We are the big-brained head-honchos of the planet. Memory does not equate to intelligence.

you visited the earth 60000 or so years ago to study earth; you would have only needed 1 category, as apposed to the drastic difference we see today.
You're going to have to go further back than that. Five to eight million years.

And the video isn't working for me.

[nilloC]

I don't find it too surprising.

I'm waiting for them to test chimps vs humans for IQ now. :p

[Statalyzer]

Memory isn't necessarily a sign of intelligence, otherwise computers would already rule the world. I mean, I used to know a guy who had memorized a couple of thousand digits of pi, but that doesn't he was 50x smarter than the average person.

There is about 1% difference between us humans and chimps. We are closer genetically than say,

1% different of what? There are many ways to determine genetic closeness.

[OneWiseJedi]

1% different of what? There are many ways to determine genetic closeness.

Our genes I was referring to.

Because chimpanzees are so closely related to humans, those genes that work differently in people than in chimpanzees could be all that is needed to convert a default-mode great ape into a human.


The number of such genes may be only a few hundred, out of the 100,000 genes that humans and chimps are thought to possess, with just 50 genes accounting for the cognitive differences, according to scientists at GenoPlex

And yes Derek your right. I now see I left off a few zero's good eye.

[ItalianPenguin]

We are the big-brained head-honchos of the planet. Memory does not equate to intelligence.
Shhh!!! We have to prove humans aren't really all that intelligent!

[sterio]

We are the big-brained head-honchos of the planet.

Yeah, but what is intelligence? Memory, now that's a rather simple concept, and a vital part to being "intelligent", as a species. But intelligence is a very complicated concept we can't really ever measure. It's simply in the nature of intelligence that it is no one thing. In fact, I would rather say that it is a self-designation of ours that is completely useless when comparing species. It tells us a lot more when we measure concepts with a more "proper" meaning, as we can not ever measure a concept such as intelligence in a fairly unbiased way...

[Nod Fanatic]

Well, people can't really improve unless they have some competition or something to push them in the right direction. This doesn't seem like quite the rival in intelligence (Like Derek said, memory doesn't = intelligence), but give it enough time (thousands of years) and just maybe. That is if this world isn't already a big crater from a futuristic weapon of war. Funny how humans are the only species to blatantly resist their natural place in the environment.

[OneWiseJedi]

we can not ever measure a concept such as intelligence in a fairly unbiased way... I think we can measure intelligence rather well.

[Statalyzer]

I agree, you can measure intelligence to a point. It's not perfectly objective but we all know what intelligence is generally, we know what rational thought is, what self-awareness is, what self-discovery, what the ability to doubt ones actions and second-guess oneself is, what logic means, what attempting to understand someone else's emotions even though you might not be having those same ones is, etc etc etc, but there's no way to assign an objective number ranking to any of that.

Our genes I was referring to.

Right, but what specifically about genes is being used to measure "closeness"?

[Toxic10x]

Stat I believe he means that if you looked at our entire genetic code, it is identical to a chimps to within 1 or 2 percent.

We are the big-brained head-honchos of the planet. Memory does not equate to intelligence.

Oh yeah I know-- I was just pointing out that we tend to think of ourselves as mentally superior to animals in every way, and yet, it seems chimps beat us when it comes to certain kinds of memory.

[nilloC]

Memory isn't necessarily a sign of intelligence, otherwise computers would already rule the world.

Of course great memory most certainly does not interpret to a high intelligence.

I was simply saying I can't wait until they come out with a design that pits chimps vs humans for intelligence.

How we interact socially, you could make the argument chimps and humans are similar. Culturally however, we're way different. The only way to account for that is either chimps are way more intelligent than us, or we're way more intelligent then them. Sure, we have the wheel. But we also have war. :p

[OneWiseJedi]

Our ability to problem solve is impressive based against all the animals around us. The understanding that we are going die separates us in a profound way as well.

Now I am not saying that we can do a test that equates intelligence into a exact number. However I have witnessed a extremely high level of comprehension displayed in pre-teen and teenagers, that had a high level scored on a tests. Sure there are anomalies both sides and the tests are not perfect. Intelligence is displayed in many aspects, and in different ways by different people.

Statalyzer
What if you had to have a jury decide your fate and your really innocent. You have the option to make the jury all take credible IQ tests and then you view the results. Do you think the IQ number is still not reliable? Given the choice what would you choose? People at 110 or perhaps 125 or even 160? or it all doesn't matter that number is irrelevant need not see the scores.

According to what you say need not see the scores; its an irrelevant ranking.
Would you really choose not to look?

[Derek]

Statalyzer
What if you had to have a jury decide your fate and your really innocent. You have the option to make the jury all take credible IQ tests and then you view the results. Do you think the IQ number is still not reliable? Given the choice what would you choose? People at 110 or perhaps 125 or even 160? or it all doesn't matter that number is irrelevant need not see the scores.

According to what you say need not see the scores; its an irrelevant ranking.
Would you really choose not to look?
Stat said that we can measure intelligence to some degree, so of course he would say that you would pick the smarter people. He was merely pointing out that intelligence is not something that can be quantified in one precise measure. Things like IQ tests give us good approximations and are the best we have.


To get back to the Chimps, from what I can tell reading the article I would surmise that the ability tested (how well we can make quick counts and see the most basic details) are a survival attribute advantages in the jungles of Africa (and indeed in many environments). As humans became more intelligent they no longer needed these specific abilities and they slightly degraded.

[nilloC]

Our ability to problem solve is impressive based against all the animals around us. The understanding that we are going die separates us in a profound way as well.

Indeed our ability to problem solve is impressive. So is our opposable thumb, right? :p To say we are the only species that understands our mortality is a difficult statement to back up, as we're the only species that has a linguistic system that allows us to communicate the idea of death and thus often have somewhat existential crises. Who is to say that other animals know not that their life is limited, as well? Its known that some higher level primates (as well as a ton of other animals, for that matter) communicate. Who is to say that they can't communicate the idea of mortality as well?

I just enjoy playing devils advocate though; so I don't need a hefty retort unless you really want to, and then I could go on arguing my case as well. :p

Intelligence is displayed in many aspects, and in different ways by different people.

The most common (and an older) theory on intelligence is Cattell's theory of crystallized vs fluid intelligence. A very interesting theory, and really got things kicked off back in the 70's and 80's was incredibly innovative. I tend to subscribe to the idea of situated intelligence which is based on more of a cognitive learning point of view and focuses on intelligence as learned units with people retaining a rather high capacity for intelligence regardless of personal differences.

Now, situated intelligence sounds like hippie mind ****, but once you break it down it is a decent theory. I tend to be more of a humanist though, and try not to take too much of a pessimistic view on things. Which of course always tends to happen.

Lastly, intelligence quotient is but a small measure of knowledge and intelligence. In fact, numerous studies (Which I can look up if you'd like) have found tests such as the SAT and GRE are have a higher rate of validity than most IQ tests when measuring successful (self rated) lifestyles; which would bring up the point of "what is intelligence?". Because shouldn't people who are "more intelligent" lead a more successful lifestyle? Thought provoking, yes, but it is also a seemingly shallow question. I like it none the less.

Oh, and back to the chimps. When I read through the article I thought it was really pretty flawed for quite a few reasons. One criticism is the population sample. University students. Its probably incredibly likely these university students had to take this battery for some sort of course credit or as a prior agreement for a class or a prior reward. Automatically the population sample greatly compromises the validity of the test.

Secondly, humans excel at remembering things when humans are told they have to remember them for survival. Disregarding the chimps' results, these were university students taking the tests. Its highly unlikely the students felt threatened to remember the location of the numbers. However, it is possible the chimpanzees did not feel frightened or feel as though their survival was at stake either. However being in capacity does add a certain neurological anxiousness to nearly any day to day activity; so take that for what its worth. :p

I'll just skip ahead and also go with a fundamental flaw of some pop-psychology experiments: attributing results found in a closed lab to occurring in the real world. What the study has found, if anything, is that in this specific pretext (With university students and the mother/offspring combination) the chimpanzees had a better mapping memory (remembering location of numbers on a computer screen) than the college students.

An interesting study would be sequencing; giving the chimpanzees and humans a sequence of single digit numbers starting with 5 numbers asking them to recall the sequence, then working their way up until the task is too demanding to complete. This is not as much a visual memory devise as it is auditory, but those holding the study could present the numbers visually on a computer screen.

Wow this post is way too long. :p

[Toxic10x]

..yes, it is :p

Another thought that occurred to me regarding the validity of the study was the level of training the chimps must have had to use the interface. In order to teach them to use the touch screen, and to seek the numbers out in order must have taken dozens of trial runs. In other words, the chimps were probably well practiced on the machines, whereas the students, I imagine, were simply told what to do at the start of the test, with few or no trial-runs. It's possible that this task is something that can be improved through practice, and thus the chimps had an edge.

[Statalyzer]

Derek summed up what I was going to say any more. I doubt I'd necessarily want the higher-IQ guys on my jury though - lots of innate intelligence doesn't mean lots of common season.

Lastly, intelligence quotient is but a small measure of knowledge and intelligence. In fact, numerous studies (Which I can look up if you'd like) have found tests such as the SAT and GRE are have a higher rate of validity than most IQ tests when measuring successful (self rated) lifestyles

Well, the SAT at least mostly just measure the amount you know how to take the SAT. And I'd bet that the people with the personal initiative to go out and really apply themselves to something like that are the type of people who have a lot of motivation and motivated people are likely to have self-rated successful lives.

which would bring up the point of "what is intelligence?". Because shouldn't people who are "more intelligent" lead a more successful lifestyle?

As a general tend, most likely, but again, intelligence is not common sense and so there'll be myriad exceptions.

Also, after reading over things more carefully, this doesn't appear to be related to having better memory!

"When the numbers were displayed for about seven-tenths of a second, Ayumu and the college students were both able to do this correctly about 80 percent of the time. But when the numbers were displayed for just four-tenths or two-tenths of a second, the chimp was the champ. The briefer of those times is too short to allow a look around the screen, and in those tests Ayumu still scored about 80 percent, while humans plunged to 40 percent. That indicates Ayumu was better at taking in the whole pattern of numbers at a glance, the researchers wrote."

This is a test, by the way, that human kids do better at than adults, so it's definitely not an issue of intelligence: "The other factor is the youth of Ayumu and his peers. The memory for images that's needed for the tests resembles a skill found in children, but which dissipates with age. In fact, the young chimps performed better than older chimps in the new study. (Ayumu's mom did even worse than the college students)."

[ein1017]

Sure, we have the wheel. But we also have war. :p
In the animal world they do have wars but more on a small scale and less destructive. Do no the animals enforce their territory? Do some not "invade" another's space in order to find a mate or resources? And how is that really different from what we do? Really all we did was make war bigger and nastier and longer.

The chimps as someone else's said, uses those skills more then us. When something is not needed, nature have a tendacy to breed it out.

[nilloC]

In the animal world they do have wars but more on a small scale and less destructive. Do no the animals enforce their territory? Do some not "invade" another's space in order to find a mate or resources? And how is that really different from what we do? Really all we did was make war bigger and nastier and longer.

Note, ein, I said war, not single acts of violence between 2 animals of the same species. Of course, every animal on this planet exhibits violence. Other animals, from my understanding, aren't capable of launching coordinated attacks to decomate an opposing force elsewhere.

Tell me that you understand the difference between war and violence. Humans are unique; even when sufficient resources and territory are possessed and there is no threat to livelihood, humans will kill each other. On a massive scale. In a massive way.

I have never seen nor heard of a family of gorillas uniting with another family of gorillas to attack a group of 3 other families of gorillas simply to secure their freedom. Of course, just because I haven't heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Humans are animals, but of course our species is different in a few ways than other animals. I feel war is the biggest difference, and once you think about it is war really advantageous? Are we truly more intelligent than animals? We kill massive amounts of our own species every day. And to what end? I know it seems like I'm going on a leftist, pacifist tirade here... But I think I have a point, and thus pursuing it.

[Statalyzer]

Are we truly more intelligent than animals?

Yes, the fact that some use their intelligence for bad purposes does not mean that humans are less intelligent than otherwise. Greater intelligence endows a being with both a greater capability for good AND a greater capability for evil. Great intelligence doesn't mean great common sense or great morals. One can be ingeniously evil.

[Derek]

Note, ein, I said war, not single acts of violence between 2 animals of the same species. Of course, every animal on this planet exhibits violence. Other animals, from my understanding, aren't capable of launching coordinated attacks to decomate an opposing force elsewhere.

Tell me that you understand the difference between war and violence. Humans are unique; even when sufficient resources and territory are possessed and there is no threat to livelihood, humans will kill each other. On a massive scale. In a massive way.

I have never seen nor heard of a family of gorillas uniting with another family of gorillas to attack a group of 3 other families of gorillas simply to secure their freedom. Of course, just because I haven't heard of it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Humans are animals, but of course our species is different in a few ways than other animals. I feel war is the biggest difference, and once you think about it is war really advantageous? Are we truly more intelligent than animals? We kill massive amounts of our own species every day. And to what end? I know it seems like I'm going on a leftist, pacifist tirade here... But I think I have a point, and thus pursuing it.
War is the same kind of animal violence, just more organized and communal. The level of violence we have is comparable to animals, we just have the intelligence to increase the scale.

[nilloC]

Intelligence: capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.

Its not just a mathematical formula. If humans are more intelligent than animals, we should also show these attributes as well. It is for this reason that I'd argue humans are not more intelligent than some other animals. Sure, humans have an excellent entry-level intelligence. But once this rigid boundary is set in place, it is very difficult for humans to expand upon their intelligence (The plateau we usually see in early adulthood). Several other animals (Rhesus Monkeys, Chimpanzees and some gorillas {Forgot which species exactly}) do not show this plateau. Joaquin Fuster did a lot of work on this.

Which is a really interesting study. It was a massive longitudinal study however, and those tend to have problems in the long run.

I suppose the primary argument lies on: If we're more intelligent than other animals why do we have a higher rate of intraspecies killing? Is it because we're more insightful and understand the powers of resources and thus are more willing to kill others of our same kind to obtain these resources? Is it because we're all fundamentally greedy? Is it because we are too unintelligent to determine an alternate way to solve these problems? Is it just because we have opposable thumbs? I think the last one is my favorite.

And in regards to war. Of course its the same fundamental kind of violence. Emphasis on the "fundamental" part. The Crimean War and say, a Silverback trying to protect his territory are very, very different monsters though. Humans have shown we're incredibly capable and apt at war. Animals have not shown this yet.

Maybe war and intelligence tie in completely, and I'm completely wrong on both ends. But saying we're more intelligent than other animals because we have skyscrapers is a moot point; look at termites. There's no absolutely positive data and thought that we are more intelligent than other animals, outside of our accomplishments as a species; which is no sign of intelligence, contrary to belief.

[Statalyzer]

Humans have shown we're incredibly capable and apt at war. Animals have not shown this yet.

You don't think that's a sign of intelligence?

Is it because we're all fundamentally greedy?

Most humans and most animals are very selfish and greedy. Humans have the intelligence to act upon that greed in larger ways and thus cause more harm.

Our war intelligence also makes us better in good ways. If England was run by a bunch of chimpanzees they wouldn't have used their warmaking abilities to intervene in favor of an innocent Poland.

But saying we're more intelligent than other animals because we have skyscrapers is a moot point; look at termites.

Are termites passing on their collective knowledge so that future generations can be equipped to discover new ways to build better nests. And skyscrapers aren't all we can make. What about bridges? (Spider webs - no, that's not a sign of intelligence, but of having an substance that humans don't produce naturally emitted from their back end). What about advil?

[nilloC]

You don't think that's a sign of intelligence?

Obviously not. That's kind of like saying the bully who always gave kids wedgies and swirlies in the toilets is intelligent because he is effective at giving kids wedgies.


Most humans and most animals are very selfish and greedy. Humans have the intelligence to act upon that greed in larger ways and thus cause more harm.

Our war intelligence also makes us better in good ways. If England was run by a bunch of chimpanzees they wouldn't have used their warmaking abilities to intervene in favor of an innocent Poland.

I wouldn't say intelligence is acting on greed in larger ways. I'd say that's more of a psychological unconscious response than a cognitive function.

Our ability to coordinate wars has a massively negative effect on us as well. If Germany was run by a bunch of chimpanzees, they wouldn't have been threatening Poland, thus likely a whole World War conflict killing tens of millions of people may have been averted. That's more along the chicken and the egg complex, what came first. War to prevent other people from waging detrimental war, or detrimental war first and then defensive war second? I'm not a military expert, so I have no clue if that is even logical.


Are termites passing on their collective knowledge so that future generations can be equipped to discover new ways to build better nests. And skyscrapers aren't all we can make. What about bridges? (Spider webs - no, that's not a sign of intelligence, but of having an substance that humans don't produce naturally emitted from their back end). What about advil?

I propose nearly everything humans have created they've gathered the idea from other animals. This isn't really a "WHOA MASSIVE" kind of concept, as how else would we think of things? With the exception of some recent inventions (Space travel, microtechnology, etc) many other structural oddities have been gathered from observing other animals or plants.

For all we know, there may be a genetic disposition going on in termites so that they are passing on knowledge to future generations. Knowledge has some foundations in genetics, otherwise why would a Rhesus monkey freak out when it sees an alligator on a television screen when it has never encountered an alligator before or seen an alligator attack another Rhesus.

I guess I would just argue that accomplishments humans have surmounted are due to comprehension, not overall intelligence. True, I would say that everyone would agree comprehension is an aspect of intelligence.

[Derek]

If humans are more intelligent than animals, we should also show these attributes as well. It is for this reason that I'd argue humans are not more intelligent than some other animals. Sure, humans have an excellent entry-level intelligence. But once this rigid boundary is set in place, it is very difficult for humans to expand upon their intelligence (The plateau we usually see in early adulthood). Several other animals (Rhesus Monkeys, Chimpanzees and some gorillas {Forgot which species exactly}) do not show this plateau. Joaquin Fuster did a lot of work on this.
Which is a really interesting study. It was a massive longitudinal study however, and those tend to have problems in the long run.
Thats related to the fact that they die a lot sooner than we do. As well as becoming more intelligent, as humans evolved all parts of their lifespans increased drastically, but not proportionally. We reach that learning plateau because thats the point when the vast majority of our ancestors would have died, so continued improvement in intelligence beyond this point was not a genetic trait passed down. The fact of the matter is that we are smarter than all other animals. Chimps, no matter how old or young or however long they've been learning, never pass the intelligence level of a young child.

I suppose the primary argument lies on: If we're more intelligent than other animals why do we have a higher rate of intraspecies killing? Is it because we're more insightful and understand the powers of resources and thus are more willing to kill others of our same kind to obtain these resources? Is it because we're all fundamentally greedy? Is it because we are too unintelligent to determine an alternate way to solve these problems? Is it just because we have opposable thumbs? I think the last one is my favorite.
War is not particularly advantageous for the species, but it is very advantageous for the individual, and selection on the individual level is far more powerful than selection on the population level. Even a small advantage to the individual will overcome a strong disadvantage to the species in evolution. You're failing to seperate individual intelligence with population intelligence (which doesn't really exist, but would be approximated by the population doing what is best for the population as a whole). Population intelligence is not something that would easily evolve, because the individual intelligence is far more significant. So if its advantageous for the individual to kill his neighbor, natural selection will evolve this even if its bad for the population. Think of it as a Tragedy of the Commons.

And in regards to war. Of course its the same fundamental kind of violence. Emphasis on the "fundamental" part. The Crimean War and say, a Silverback trying to protect his territory are very, very different monsters though. Humans have shown we're incredibly capable and apt at war. Animals have not shown this yet.
They're caused by the exact same impulse towards violence. The difference is only why we use that violence and what methods we use in it.

Maybe war and intelligence tie in completely, and I'm completely wrong on both ends.
War and intelligence do go hand-in-hand, and the more intelligent we get the more devestating war will be. This can only stop when our intelligence tells us that its better to cooperate than to fight, and they might quite possibly be never.

But saying we're more intelligent than other animals because we have skyscrapers is a moot point; look at termites. There's no absolutely positive data and thought that we are more intelligent than other animals, outside of our accomplishments as a species; which is no sign of intelligence, contrary to belief.

I propose nearly everything humans have created they've gathered the idea from other animals. This isn't really a "WHOA MASSIVE" kind of concept, as how else would we think of things? With the exception of some recent inventions (Space travel, microtechnology, etc) many other structural oddities have been gathered from observing other animals or plants.

Are you suggesting that skyscrapers were inspired by termite mounds? Thats ridiculous. Yes, some of out inventions have been inspired by nature (such as airplanes), but to say that most were is ludicrous. They are inspired by a problem that needs a solution. More people need to live in a smaller space? Build up. Skyscrapers were the naturally evolution of multi-storied buildings that have been around for millenia, and keep in mind that most of these were build in areas where termites do not build mounds.

I wouldn't say intelligence is acting on greed in larger ways. I'd say that's more of a psychological unconscious response than a cognitive function.
If greed is going to help you survive, its intelligent to be greedy. If it will get you killed, then its not. Intelligence is morally independent.

For all we know, there may be a genetic disposition going on in termites so that they are passing on knowledge to future generations. Knowledge has some foundations in genetics, otherwise why would a Rhesus monkey freak out when it sees an alligator on a television screen when it has never encountered an alligator before or seen an alligator attack another Rhesus.
Knowledge cannot be passed on in genes. Instincts, such as the instinct to build a mound or flee from unknown animals, can. Termite mounds will not significantly improve from generation to generation because they lack the ability to learn and then pass on that knowledge. They can be improved on a long-term scale through the evolution of instincts, but not through direct transmission of knowledge.

[nilloC]

Thats related to the fact that they die a lot sooner than we do. As well as becoming more intelligent, as humans evolved all parts of their lifespans increased drastically, but not proportionally. We reach that learning plateau because thats the point when the vast majority of our ancestors would have died, so continued improvement in intelligence beyond this point was not a genetic trait passed down. The fact of the matter is that we are smarter than all other animals. Chimps, no matter how old or young or however long they've been learning, never pass the intelligence level of a young child.

Unfortunately you're incorrect. It has nothing to do with lifespans, but rather brain development. Also: The vast majority of our ancestors (To the best of my knowledge) didn't die when they were 18-20. Furthermore, the initial learning plateau (I was a little incorrect when I insinuated young adulthood) is somewhere between 5-7th grade, with personality solidification occurring around 18 years of age.


War is not particularly advantageous for the species, but it is very advantageous for the individual, and selection on the individual level is far more powerful than selection on the population level. Even a small advantage to the individual will overcome a strong disadvantage to the species in evolution. You're failing to seperate individual intelligence with population intelligence (which doesn't really exist, but would be approximated by the population doing what is best for the population as a whole). Population intelligence is not something that would easily evolve, because the individual intelligence is far more significant. So if its advantageous for the individual to kill his neighbor, natural selection will evolve this even if its bad for the population. Think of it as a Tragedy of the Commons.

Of course war is a Machiavellian machine. It will always tend to be advantageous for a few at the expense of many. Despite this, war is still a group effort. People buy into war, despite what the actual ambitions for the war are in the first place. Also what I feel like you're doing is replacing "sentiment" with intelligence. Intelligence, at least within the human population is not like a "hive mind" type of unit. Sentiment, on the other hand, can be. And I think that's what you were getting at with 'population intelligence'.

They're caused by the exact same impulse towards violence. The difference is only why we use that violence and what methods we use in it.

Fundamental violence... Yes, the same impulse. As I said. The major difference, also as I said, is how and why we use violence on such a massive scale.

War and intelligence do go hand-in-hand, and the more intelligent we get the more devestating war will be. This can only stop when our intelligence tells us that its better to cooperate than to fight, and they might quite possibly be never.

I think you're making very large assumptions. I suppose who doesn't, though?

Are you suggesting that skyscrapers were inspired by termite mounds? Thats ridiculous. Yes, some of out inventions have been inspired by nature (such as airplanes), but to say that most were is ludicrous. They are inspired by a problem that needs a solution. More people need to live in a smaller space? Build up. Skyscrapers were the naturally evolution of multi-storied buildings that have been around for millenia, and keep in mind that most of these were build in areas where termites do not build mounds.

I'm trying to make the assumption that humans were and are largely bi-products of the environment and nature, not the other way around.

If greed is going to help you survive, its intelligent to be greedy. If it will get you killed, then its not. Intelligence is morally independent.

You're using intelligence as a blanket term in regards to anything that has to do with "survival". If greed is going to help you survive, then it is a learned survival mechanism. Not necessarily an increase in fluid or crystallized knowledge (If you're going by Cattell's ideas).

Knowledge cannot be passed on in genes. Instincts, such as the instinct to build a mound or flee from unknown animals, can. Termite mounds will not significantly improve from generation to generation because they lack the ability to learn and then pass on that knowledge. They can be improved on a long-term scale through the evolution of instincts, but not through direct transmission of knowledge.

Correct, and I'd make the argument that instincts are a form of knowledge. Surely they're innate just as knowledge is at times. Given enough time, termites, for instance, might be able to pass on knowledge. Its unknown how long it took humans to figure out a method for written word; who says some other form of animal couldn't do the same given sufficient time.

My entire argument this entire thread has been "Yeah, supposedly its common knowledge that humans are the most intelligent animal around. But by what judge? How do we know this?" Its all assumptions. There's no complete, dogmatic way of saying we're the most intelligent animal. Sure, you can look at our accomplishments as a species, but to assume something is completely 100% true when there is nothing to validate it. More of a theoretical thought process than a "stick to what we think science has figured out" process, I guess.


EDITAGE: This is already getting way ridiculously long and a diverse conversation of opinions that won't be swayed. You can reply if you want Derek, but I completely understand where you're coming from; and not to be frank but it doesn't bother me if you do or don't understand where I'm coming from. :p

[Statalyzer]

Obviously not. That's kind of like saying the bully who always gave kids wedgies and swirlies in the toilets is intelligent because he is effective at giving kids wedgies.

What I said is not even kind of like that. I never claimed that defeating someone is a sign of intelligence.

If a kids who cannot by himself stop the bully thinks up a trap for the bully and asks his friend to help implement it because it needs two people, then that's a sign of intelligence. Killer Wales sometimes use teamwork like this a pair of them hunt. One Orca will tip up one side a block of ice that a seal is resting on, and the seal slides down into the mouth of the waiting whale. I would say that's a sign of intelligence in the Killer Whale that they know how to help each other defeat their prey more effectively.

I wouldn't say intelligence is acting on greed in larger ways.

It's like this. A greedy 6th grader steals some coins out of his sibbling's drawer. A greedy man embezzles millions from a company and skips out of the country. Is the man more greedy than the kid? Not necessarily - perhaps he was just more clever at getting results.

Our ability to coordinate wars has a massively negative effect on us as well.

I'm pretty sure I already agreed with this when I said that increasing the potential to do good also increases the potential to do bad.

With the exception of some recent inventions (Space travel, microtechnology, etc) many other structural oddities have been gathered from observing other animals or plants.

That is a sign of intelligence. Useful, functional, knowledge acquire from copying and observing. When a young lion copies it's parent to learn how to pounce, that's a sign of intelligence.

Even if we were the only creatures on earth, we would taken the first step towards skyscrapers the moment someone thought "I could go to sleep better if this stuff wasn't pounding on me" and strung up huge leaves between two poles.

[Avapodnaught]

When we look at this as Chimps own Humans in a memory test, you could take as many points as you want

You could take these points and expand them among your reason of perception, and your diagnosis of the event before us is absolutely O.K. if its different in any way from someone else

Intelligence takes its form in incredible ways, just as a test that is for all under one universal level will affect those under this category differently just doesn't mean one is smarter than the other

I see intelligence as being able to express how you see the world (and what is in it) and show others so they can understand this as well as you do

Even when you impress others and make others know what you say is justified under definition of an I.Q. doesn't mean you are smarter, its just a form of wisdom or experience on the subject

What I just said could be interpreted as everyone is good at different things at different levels, and on these levels there are different methods of understanding to be reached, but its all the same if you look carefully

[Thumper]

FM7Rpf1x7RU