"We're not very intelligent as a species

[FrankM]

Based upon our self destructive tendencies, can we really claim to be an intelligent species?

 

I have looked for how an intelligent species is defined and most seem to point toward homo sapiens as being of the ultimate intelligence. I did find one that referred to "human like intelligence", which implies a species differential.

 

Shouldn't there be some criteria for defining an intelligent species?

 

Who should be defining intelligence, scientists or philosophers?

[Lancaster]

Based upon our self destructive tendencies, can we really claim to be an intelligent species?

 

I have looked for how an intelligent species is defined and most seem to point toward homo sapiens as being of the ultimate intelligence. I did find one that referred to "human like intelligence", which implies a species differential.

 

Shouldn't there be some criteria for defining an intelligent species?

 

Who should be defining intelligence, scientists or philosophers?

 

In comparison to every other organism found on the planet, were are undoubtedly the most intelligent.

 

Yes.

 

I'm not sure how to answer the last one. Who knows more about intelligence? Can intelligence be measured physically?

[infamous]

 

Shouldn't there be some criteria for defining an intelligent species?

There is a point to be made here and I think what you're driving at is this;

Is technology the defining factor in determining intelligence? If it is, one would have to recognize man as the most intelligent species on the planet. If you look around, one doesn't see any other life forms building space stations at the present, do they?

 

Who should be defining intelligence, scientists or philosophers?

I doubt that argument will ever be settled.

 

....................................Infy

[TheFaithfulStone]

I believe you are confusing intelligence with wisdom.

 

TFS

[Pyrotex]

Based upon our self destructive tendencies, can we really claim to be an intelligent species? ...Who should be defining intelligence, scientists or philosophers?

Reminds me of a cartoon I saw published in the late 1960's:

 

A man in a suit faces a large frog who is staring back at the man. The man is holding a box with a button. Out of the box comes an electric cable that leads up his sleeve, out of his collar and into the back of his head. The man is pushing the button with his other hand. Instead of a normal head and face, the man has a flaming skull. Out of the top comes a nuclear mushroom cloud.

 

The caption reads: Man demonstrating his superior intelligence to the Animal Kingdom.

[Boerseun]

Hey - great thread! (This is actually a pet topic of mine...)

 

Intelligence used to be defined as a species' ability to use tools. Then, when we found chimps shaping and using tools, and birds using twigs to dislodge worms from tight holes, the definition kinda crumbled.

 

My personal opinion as to whether a species is intelligent or not, is the species' ability to use energy extrasomatically, that is, outside the body.

 

I mean, look at us: We use energy through making fire, with an express purpose. If a chimp lights a match and burns down a forrest, it doesn't necessarily indicate 'intelligence', because he didn't do it with a purpose in mind. But if a chimp lights a fire with some abstract purpose (like melting something to produce something else which has nothing to do with what he's busy with right now) in mind, then I guess we could say that there's intelligence there.

 

And that also ties in with evolution and the laws of thermodynamics. Any agent capable of accellerating the Second Law will be selected for, expediting the flow of entrophy will be beneficial to the species. And that might be the only purpose to intelligence, after all... I don't know.

 

We're all slaves to the Second Law!

 

It's interesting that the countries in charge of the world, those that history is actively selecting for, is also the biggest energy consumers. The Third World, not in charge of anything, don't use nearly as much. This idea has many facets, and there's no guarantee that there's any truth to it, but if it is true, it might say alot in the debate of whether Intelligence will arise on other life-bearing planets...

 

( - sorry, it's a work in progress, but I find it very interesting!)

[ughaibu]

I read in one book, I think it was Amazon.com: Dragons are extra: Books: Lewis Hastings http://www.amazon.com/Dragons-are-extra-Lewis-Hastings/dp/B0007JRM5U/sr=1-70/qid=1171608662/ref=sr_1_70/105-8780574-7100420?ie=UTF8&s=books, that chimpanzees arrange sticks in spoked circles and then watch, waiting for them to become a fire.

Another way to make intelligence exclusively human is to define it by the activity of smoking, and one can then rank the intelligence of individual humans by how much, and the number of materials, they smoke.

[FrankM]

One measure of intelligence might be, does the species learn from its mistakes?

 

Seems like a simple question, but it is not when you consider how a learning experience by one individual is extrapolated to other members.

 

It appears that some species are genetically programmed to do certain things and not others, but there are species types that have to figure out what is good or not good either on their own or from the "learned experiences" from other members of the same species.

[Qfwfq]

Years ago a guy I knew lived in company quarters and told me this amusing story. The dog kept getting out and neighbors would complain. The people of this company kept saying "Who the heck left the gate open again!" but eventually they saw that the dog had learnt to turn the handle with his teeth, from seeing people doing it, so they kept the key turned in the lock too. Well, one day this guy saw the dog trying to turn the key with his teeth, but not quite managing to budge it...

[Queso]

Think about the macrocosmic aspects of the human races existence here on Earth.

 

We are born babies, turn into kids, teenagers, and many stages of adulthood.

 

As a whole, human beings are still teenagers.

Greedy, deceitful, uncaring, are some things that will be subject to deemphasis with future wisdom.

 

2012 marks the paradigm shift from teenagers into adulthood.

 

This will not happen over night. It's already happening. Just look around.

 

Give us time. We will all grow up. Slowly but surely, the evidence is shining down.

[clapstyx]

Tell me if you think this is true "Is America a land crazed by its love of technology?"

 

One of the comments mentioned technology as the indicator of intelligence. I have two comments. Firstly a great deal of the technology produced is for its own sake. Basically just gadgets to suck in consumers. And secondly just because a corporation of 1000 minds can produce a computer chip doesnt, in my mind really count as a measure of general intelligence as a guide for the level that mankind as a collective species is at. I cant honestly claim that level of intelligence because I wouldnt have the foggiest idea how to make a nano second split converting micro whacker for a microsoft sleazy drive. Sure I might understand the logic behind the creation of a successful simbiotic relationship but I dont think my neighbour down the street can claim his intelligence is enhanced just because I can explain it to him in a way that he understands. And he certainly couldnt think of it from scratch all by himself through to a mathematical equational representation of the concept. I would consider I am intelligent but not as intelligent as the best minds that conceptualised how to build a mayan pyramid to the standard they achieved.

[geko]

In general i see intelligence as the application of knowledge. The more knowledge that is applied to a situation, the more intelligent are the workings and inevitably the outcome.

 

In this view, considering humans ability to obtain and pass on knowledge we can be said to be the most intelligent species known.

 

Also, using situational outcomes of applied knowledge as a benchmark as to whether a species is intelligent or not (such as our self-destructive tendancies), is incorrect as it's forgetting the 'ability' to do it in the first place and is also presuming a particular intent and purpose that hasnt necessarily been identified.

 

For example, is exclusively eating fatty, high cholesterol foods intelligent?

 

On the assumption that self-destruction equates to a lack of intelligence (and therefore self-preservation equals intelligence), then no, it's surely not. But yet we have no idea of this said persons motives, wants, desires, beliefs etc.

 

If we find out that this said invidual aspires to live to old age, remain healthy for as long as possible and wishes to, say, partake in numerous sporting activities, then, according to the knowledge of what health science and medicine have given us by way of our understanding of excessive fatty food on the human system and the detriment that high cholesterol can cause, then applying this knowledge to the situation and realising to eat fat etc., in moderation in aim of the 3 goals outlined, it can be said that the individual is showing intelligence.

 

Of course, if the person loves junk-food and doesnt care about their expiration date, so therefore stuffs their face with it 24/7 as it increases their happiness or whatever, then this can be said to be intelligent to.

 

The existence of intelligence doesnt need purpose or intent, but the defining of a situation or action as being intelligent or not, a purpose or intent must be identified.

 

Anyway, personally i see humans as a greatly intelligent species. We are capable of amazing things, for particular purposes or otherwise. Paying attention only to our destructive nature when judgeing us is forgetting about the marvellous and benign things that we are capable of.

[FrankM]

Tell me if you think this is true "Is America a land crazed by its love of technology?"

That is too general, there are individuals that are "crazed with technology", but society in many countries has become "dependent" upon technology rather than crazed. Even the Amish and Mennonites use some of the latest technology, but they restrict where it can be used. You adapt to technology or you become a "luddite".

 

What happens when the bulk of the population has no concept how most of their "technology works"?

[ErlyRisa]

Technological singularity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[billg]

I have to say I agree that we are the most intelligent species known... the idea that we have over-bred and caused major problems for ourselves of course means we are not perfectly intelligent, but does not neccessarily mean we are less intelligent than the other species on this planet. I guess whether or not we are intelligent depends on what you're comparing us to - there is no objective standard of intelligence where everything below it is not intelligent and everything above it is.

 

I read in one book, I think it was Amazon.com: Dragons are extra: Books: Lewis Hastings, that chimpanzees arrange sticks in spoked circles and then watch, waiting for them to become a fire.

Another way to make intelligence exclusively human is to define it by the activity of smoking, and one can then rank the intelligence of individual humans by how much, and the number of materials, they smoke.

 

WTF...

[CraigD]

What happens when the bulk of the population has no concept how most of their "technology works"?

I can’t predict what will happen to human society as a whole, but can confide what has happened to me, as an individual: not knowing how must of my technology works has made me uneasy, and filled with a vague sense of incompetence.

 

One could argue that I actually do understand, in a general way, how most of my technology works. However, my personal definition of “understand” in this context is: “if necessary, given time and naturally obtainable material, make it work”.

 

As a student (especially during my 3 semesters as a Fine Art major), I went out of my way to get experience making glass from sand, cord from animal and plant matter, smelting and working metal, etc. (under the guise of studying jewelry making :hyper: ), to the extent that I was fairly confident I could, given time and raw materials, reproduce from scratch technology roughly equivalent to that of the late 19th century. Although I might be able to absolutely scratchbuild a very simple computer, I don’t think I could manage anything approaching a modern one (though I made an effort, I couldn’t convince my department that a practical grasp of techniques like photolithography and thin film deposition were essential commercial art training :) ).

 

My personal obsession with “extreme do-it-yourself” skills are, I think, mostly a matter of personal, emotional satisfaction. I sometimes wonder, though, if a reasonable change in social circumstances, such as war or economic collapse, could take away the computer technology I so enjoy and appreciate.

[FrankM]

ErlyRisa, the reference to the "Technological_singularity" is quite interesting. I expanded the chart on the main page and then followed the Kurzweil posting. While reading down into the Kurzweil text, Moore's law came to mind, and interesting enough it was covered in "The Law of Accelerating Returns and Transhumanism".

 

Raymond Kurzweil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Expand the first chart on the right of the article and considers Kurzweil's statement that technology this century will expand at 20,000 times faster than the last century. CraigD is realistic when he stated he was, "filled with a vague sense of incompetence". Most of those we see around us everyday don't realize how technically incompetent they really are.

 

It is difficult to maintain competence in a technological specialty, things keep changing so rapidly.