"We're not very intelligent as a species

[LJP07]

We are intelligent as a species and yes, we lead to our own self-destruction as a whole. But we have intelligence, what we decide to do with that intelligence is an entirely different thing. We know what's right and what's wrong and comprehend that when we do wrong we know, unless we have mental problems that think otherwise, but their in the minority anyway. Just because a minority of people wage war, doesn't mean we paint everyone with the same brush and conclude we aren't an intelligent species.

 

Homo Sapiens are the ultimate intelligence as far as we know as well. There are criteria for being the most intelligent, me constructing this reply is an example of how superior we are. There is a division in species and this determines their limits of intelligence so to speak. For example, wasps etc and their species all have the same species so I wouldn't say a new or updated classification is required for this.

 

Who should be defining the intelligence, scientists or philosophers, why not both. Why not get both sides in do say what they believe and come to a conclusion as a result, if any that is that must be concluded. It really doesn't matter either, I don't think scientists or philosophers see the importance of this, although they would argue it, if it came up recently, maybe it already has.

[ErlyRisa]

Kurzhweil -- I thought he was a genius (well alright he is...), he seems to be suffering from OCD ... centric to trying to live forevever!!!

 

-At least know I know who invented all of those things.

 

--The only thing we haven't acconted for though is WAR... we could end up in many 'Stuck' evolutionary scenarios.

 

A. As we ar know.

B. Bladerunner/5th Element/Total Recall

C. Irobot

D. Matrix

E. ?/Space Oddessey/5thElement -void entity

 

--Actually... factoring in our history (civilisation), their is a higher probability that we will end up in one of the afformentioned scenarios.

[Kriminal99]

The idea needs to be separated into parts. Scientists should define things like processing power etc with regard to other people. They can even identify trends between things like yearly income and early behavioral tendencies.

 

Philosophers however have the task of defining intelligent behavior.

[FrankM]

Philosophers however have the task of defining intelligent behavior.

 

You gave examples of what scientists might define, give some examples of what a philosopher might define.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

A philosopher would define an intelligent person as someone who continues to question in the quest to better oneself or mankind as a whole. But most philosophers have realized the inability to change humans on a world wide scale.

 

Remember though, the average human IQ is dropping. But that isn't to say that there aren't people being born with higher IQs. It only proves that more lower IQs are being born than high IQs.

[Queso]

reminds me of the movie "idiocracy"

[CraigD]

Remember though, the average human IQ is dropping. But that isn't to say that there aren't people being born with higher IQs. It only proves that more lower IQs are being born than high IQs.

Do you have an data to support this claim, ISEM?

 

According to all the intelligence testing literature with which I’m familiar, IQ scores have risen at a fairly constant rate, a phenomena known as the Flynn effect for the roughly one hundred years standard intelligence test data has been available. Although there’s some evidence that this trend has ended or slightly reversed in some nations and demographic cohorts, the assertion that more lower IQs are being born than higher IQs is not, to my knowledge, supported by any scientifically valid evidence.

 

Although I’ve not studied the phenomena systematically, it appears to me that the perception that, on average, people are becoming less intelligent, is very old folk myth.

[wigglieverse]

In mammalian sexual reproduction, the female has a full normal complement of chromosomes, the male has an almost normal complement with a single non-matching pair: the sex chromosomes.

 

In the female, there are a normal matching pair of X chromosomes, with the usual double copy of each gene. The male has a XY pair of sex chromosomes, with no double copies (genes from the Y only, are expressed and lead to the development of male physiology).

 

So the male seems to be a specialization of the female (apologies to the book of Genesis). This is further corroborated by observations that, in many species the male has a specialized role.

 

In humans (us folks), a (single) study has found that, "intellectually" at least, females (the default genotype) fill the middle ground and males are more represented in the start and end sections of the bell curve.

 

This means that males (seem to) have a greater chance of being either stupid (low IQ) or intelligent (high IQ), and females are of average intelligence. Of course there are exceptions and this is only 'a' study: (historical, constrained and a general -British- population, with similar starting ages), so far.

 

But there it is guys, XX doesn't appear to have the same odds of being genius IQ, men have more, er, potential to inherit either edge of the curve.

 

We hybrids can be cheered by having that: the 'better' chances of being potential quantum dots on the surface of the substrate, or cowpies on the great big pasture of life.

[Kriminal99]

Some people associate it with ability to accomplish your goals through means other than brute force. This definition or a similar one would have us being less intelligent than any species which did not nuke itself into extinction.

 

Another type that I would like to see acknowledged is self awareness. A monkey can build a bridge to get more bananas. An actuary can perform complex calculations to get more money that he can use to attract women so he can get laid. I fail to see the difference between the latter and the monkey.

 

To me an important kind of intelligence involves being able to have some control over your goals.

[CraigD]

To me an important kind of intelligence involves being able to have some control over your goals.

I agree, and with your other general observations. However…

A monkey can build a bridge to get more bananas.

Do you have a link about that?

 

Though I’ve seen various examples of non-human primates using slightly-modified found tools (eg: termite-dipping sticks), I’m unaware of non-human primates building bridges.

[MegaManiac]

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?

 

I doubt that argument will ever be settled.

 

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

 

It goes even further than technology being the defining factor in determining intelligence. It's a species or organisms ability to evolve, harness it's resources, and affect or manipulate the world around it. Most importantly achieving a pre-determined or desired result. Ultimately, surviving for as long as possible.

 

That's the true measure on intelligence! Argument settled! what more could there be than that. Achems Razor.

 

MNM

[Boerseun]

Though I’ve seen various examples of non-human primates using slightly-modified found tools (eg: termite-dipping sticks), I’m unaware of non-human primates building bridges.

Not too sure whether it'll count as a bridge, but chimps have been shown to manipulate objects in their environment to reach fruit out of their reach.

 

For instance, in a well-known experiment, a bunch of bananas is suspended from the ceiling, out of reach of the chimp. Chairs and various other objects are strewn around the scene, but not under the bananas. Chimps have been shown to take boxes, and set the chairs up on top of the boxes, and then climb on top of the stack and then eat the bananas, which is now in reach.

 

Whether it'll count as a bridge or not is probably up to the individual to decide, but I reckon it does.

 

In any case, as far as a definition of intelligence goes, I'm sticking to mine:

 

"Intelligence is the ability of a species to use energy extrasomatically".

[mynah]

Just how importance is intelligence anyway in the greater scheme of nature? The coelacanth, which weighs roughly as much as a human, has a brain about 1/500th the size, has survived for many millions of years more, and is far less likely to become extinct as a result of the workings of its brain as man. We prize big brains because they are what set us apart from other animals, and probably for no other special reason.

[Kriminal99]

I agree, however...

 

I think that the real measure of intelligence is self awareness. I believe that if a race reaches an ultimate state of self awareness there would not be wars etc. Reaching that state would reveal the futility of such endeavors. Animals can sometimes engineer methods of getting what they want, perhaps in a similar manner to how we can do our everyday jobs.

 

I believe intelligence though is when a monkey could stop and say "Why do I really want that banana?" "Might there be another source of food that is easier to obtain but just as nutritious?" "Should I override my instinct?" "Should I really fight with that other monkey or is he really just like me?"

 

In that light, I agree that we are really not that intelligent. But it may be more culturally related.