Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, August 30, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

by Scientific American

Thanks to SPS for the link.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=intelligence-evolved

Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Subtle refinements in brain architecture, rather than large-scale alterations, make us smarter than other animals

By Ursula Dicke and Gerard Roth


Key Concepts

* The human brain lacks conspicuous characteristics—such as relative or absolute size—that might account for humans' superior intellect.
* Researchers have found some clues to humanity's aptitude on a smaller scale, such as more neurons in our brain's outermost layer.
* Human intelligence may be best likened to an upgrade of the cognitive capacities of nonhuman primates rather than an exceptionally advanced form of cognition.


As far as we know, no dog can compose music, no dolphin can speak in rhymes, and no parrot can solve equations with two unknowns. Only humans can perform such intellectual feats, presumably because we are smarter than all other animal species—at least by our own definition of intelligence.

Of course, intelligence must emerge from the workings of the three-pound mass of wetware packed inside our skulls. Thus, researchers have tried to identify unique features of the human brain that could account for our superior intellectual abilities. But, anatomically, the human brain is very similar to that of other primates because humans and chimpanzees share an ancestor that walked the earth less than seven million years ago.

Accordingly, the human brain contains no highly conspicuous characteristics that might account for the species' cleverness. For instance, scientists have failed to find a correlation between absolute or relative brain size and acumen among humans and other animal species. Neither have they been able to discern a parallel between wits and the size or existence of specific regions of the brain, excepting perhaps Broca's area, which governs speech in people. The lack of an obvious structural correlate to human intellect jibes with the idea that our intelligence may not be wholly unique: studies are revealing that chimps, among various other species, possess a diversity of humanlike social and cognitive skills.

Nevertheless, researchers have found some microscopic clues to humanity's aptitude. We have more neurons in our brain's cerebral cortex (its outermost layer) than other mammals do. The insulation around nerves in the human brain is also thicker than that of other species, enabling the nerves to conduct signals more rapidly. Such biological subtleties, along with behavioral ones, suggest that human intelligence is best likened to an upgrade of the cognitive capacities of nonhuman primates rather than an exceptionally advanced form of cognition.

Smart Species
Because animals cannot read or speak, their aptitude is difficult to discern, much less measure. Thus, comparative psychologists have invented behavior-based tests to assess birds' and mammals' abilities to learn and remember, to comprehend numbers and to solve practical problems. Animals of various stripes—but especially nonhuman primates—often earn high marks on such action-oriented IQ tests. During World War I, German psychologist Wolfgang Köhler, for example, showed that chimpanzees, when confronted with fruit hanging from a high ceiling, devised an ingenious way to get it: they stacked boxes to stand on to reach the fruit. They also constructed long sticks to reach food outside their enclosure. Researchers now know that great apes have a sophisticated understanding of tool use and construction.

Psychologists have used such behavioral tests to illuminate similar cognitive feats in other mammals as well as in birds. Pigeons can discriminate between male and female faces and among paintings by different artists; they can also group pictures into categories such as trees, selecting those belonging to a category by pecking with their beaks, an action that often brings a food reward. Crows have intellectual capacities that are overturning conventional wisdom about the brain.

Behavioral ecologists, on the other hand, prefer to judge animals on their street smarts—that is, their ability to solve problems relevant to survival in their natural habitats—rather than on their test-taking talents. In this view, intelligence is a cluster of capabilities that evolved in response to particular environments. Some scientists have further proposed that mental or behavioral flexibility, the ability to come up with novel solutions to problems, is another good measure of animal intellect. Among birds, green herons occasionally throw an object in the water to lure curious fish—a trick that, ornithologists have observed, has been reinvented by groups of these animals living in distant locales. Even fish display remarkable practical intelligence, such as the use of tools, in the wild. Cichlid fish, for instance, use leaves as "baby carriages" for their egg masses.

Animals also can display humanlike social intelligence. Monkeys engage in deception, for example; dolphins have been known to care for another injured pod member (displaying empathy), and a whale or porpoise may recognize itself in the mirror. Even some fish exhibit subtle kinds of social skills. Behavioral ecologist Redouan Bshary of the University of Neuchâtel in Switzerland and his colleagues described one such case in a 2006 paper. Bony fish such as the so-called cleaner wrasse (Labroides dimidiatus) cooperate and remove parasites from the skin of other fish or feed on their mucus. Bshary's team found that bystander fish spent more time next to cleaners the bystanders had observed being cooperative than to other fish. Humans, the authors note, tend to notice altruistic behavior and are more willing to help do-gooders whom they have observed doing favors for others. Similarly, cleaner wrasses observe and evaluate the behavior of other finned ocean denizens and are more willing to help fish that they have seen assisting third parties.

From such studies, scientists have constructed evolutionary hierarchies of intelligence. Primates and cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are considered the smartest mammals. Among primates, humans and apes are considered cleverer than monkeys, and monkeys more so than prosimians. Of the apes, chimpanzees and bonobos rank above gibbons, orangutans and gorillas. Dolphins and sperm whales are supposedly smarter than nonpredatory baleen whales such as blue whales. Among birds, scientists consider parrots, owls and corvids (crows and ravens) the brightest. Such a pecking order argues against the idea that intelligence evolved along a single path, culminating in human acumen. Instead intellect seems to have emerged independently in birds and mammals and also in cetaceans and primates.

Heavy Thoughts?
What about the brain might underlie these parallel paths to astuteness? One candidate is absolute brain size. Although many studies have linked brain mass with variations in human intelligence [see "High-­Aptitude Minds," by Christian Hoppe and Jelena Stojanovic], size does not always correlate with smarts in different species. For example, clever small animals such as parrots, ravens, rats and relatively diminutive apes have brains of modest proportions, whereas some large animals such as horses and cows with large brains are comparatively dim-witted. Brain bulk cannot account for human intelligence either: At eight to nine kilograms, sperm and killer whale brains far outweigh the 1.4 kilograms of neural tissue inside our heads. As heavy as five kilograms, elephant brains are also much chunkier than ours.

Relative brain size—the ratio of brain to body mass—does not provide a satisfying explanation for interspecies differences in smarts either. Humans do compare favorably with many medium and large species: our brain makes up approximately 2 percent of our body weight, whereas the blue whale's brain, for instance, is less than one 100th of a percent of its weight. But some tiny, not terribly bright animals such as shrews and squirrels win out in this measure. In general, small animals boast relatively large brains, and large animals harbor relatively small ones. Although absolute brain mass increases with body weight, brain mass as a proportion of body mass tends to decrease with rising body weight.

Another cerebral yardstick that scientists have tried to tie to intelligence is the degree of encephalization, measured by the encephalization quotient (EQ). The EQ expresses the extent to which a species' relative brain weight deviates from the average in its animal class, say, mammal, bird or amphibian. Here the human brain tops the list: it is seven to eight times larger than would be expected for a mammal of its weight. But EQ does not parallel intellect perfectly either: gibbons and some capuchin monkeys have higher EQs than the more intelligent chimpanzees do, and even a few pro­sim­ians—the earliest evolved primates alive today—have higher EQs than gorillas do.

Or perhaps the size of the brain's outermost layer, the cerebral cortex—the seat of many of our cognitive capacities—is the key. But it turns out that the dimensions of the cerebral cortex depend on those of the entire brain and that the size of the cortex constitutes no better arbiter of a superior mind. The same is true for the prefrontal cortex, the hub of reason and action planning. Although some brain researchers have claimed in the past that the human prefrontal cortex is exceptionally large, recent studies have shown that it is not. The size of this structure in hu­mans is comparable to its size in other ­primates and may even be relatively small as compared with its counterpart in elephants and cetaceans.

The lack of a large-scale measure of the human brain that could explain our performance may reflect the idea that human intellect may not be totally inimitable. Apes, after all, understand cause and effect, make and use tools, produce and comprehend language, and lie to and imitate others. These primates may even possess a theory of mind—the ability to understand another animal's mental state and use it to guide their own behavior. Whales, dolphins and even some birds boast some of these mental talents as well. Thus, adult humans may simply be more intuitive and facile with tools and language than other species are, as opposed to possessing unique cognitive skills.

Networking
Fittingly, researchers have found the best correlates for intelligence by looking at a much smaller scale. Brains consist of nerve cells, or neurons, and supporting cells called glia. The more neurons, the more extensive and more productive the neuronal networks can be—and those networks determine varied brain functions, including perception, memory, planning and thinking. Large brains do not automatically have more neurons; in fact, neuronal density generally decreases with increasing brain size because of the additional glial cells and blood vessels needed to support a big brain.

Humans have 11.5 billion cortical neurons—more than any other mammal, because of the human brain's high neuronal density. Humans have only about half a billion more cortical neurons than whales and elephants do, however—not enough to account for the significant cognitive differences between humans and these species. In addition, however, a brain's information-processing capacity depends on how fast its nerves conduct electrical impulses. The most rapidly conducting nerves are swathed in sheaths of insulation called myelin. The thicker a nerve's myelin sheath, the faster the neural impulses travel along that nerve. The myelinated nerves in the brains of whales and elephants are demonstrably thinner than they are in primates, suggesting that information travels faster in the human brain than it does in the brains of nonprimates.

What is more, neuronal messages must travel longer distances in the relatively large brains of elephants and whales than they do in the more compact human brain. The resulting boost in information-processing speed may at least partly explain the disparity in aptitude between humans and other big-brained creatures.

Among humans' cerebral advantages, language may be the most obvious. Various animals can convey complex messages to other members of their species; they can communicate about objects that are not in sight and relay information about individuals and events. Chimpanzees, gorillas, dolphins and parrots can even understand and use human speech, gestures or symbols in constructions of up to about three words. But even after years of training, none of these creatures develops verbal skills more advanced than those of a three-year-old child.

In humans, grammar and vocabulary all but explode at age three. This timing corresponds with the development of Broca's speech area in the left frontal lobe, which may be unique to humans. That is, scientists are unsure whether a direct precursor to this speech region exists in the nonhuman primate brain. The absence of an intricately wired language region in the brains of other species may explain why, of all animals, humans alone have a language that contains complex grammar. Researchers date the development of human grammar and syntax to between 80,000 and 100,000 years ago, which makes it a relatively recent evolutionary advance. It was also one that probably greatly enhanced human intellect.

Editor's Note: This story was originally printed with the title "Intelligence Evolved"

Comments 1 - 44 of 44 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #239820 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 11:32 am

 avatar
As far as we know, no dog can compose music, no dolphin can speak in rhymes, and no parrot can solve equations with two unknowns.

So?

Its the parrots that compose the music not dogs. No human can sniff out explosives as a dog can, no human can use sonar to detect underwater mines (even with our technology) though dolphins can. And as for equations with two unknowns... well a significant portion of the human population cannot do that either.

Other Comments by J Mac

2. Comment #239852 by John Locke on August 30, 2008 at 12:51 pm

 avatari see your point jmac but to paraphrase the comedian david mitchell, until i see cat cathedrals i will maintain that humans, generally are smarter than animals "'"at least by our own definition of intelligence"

i can make coherent noise that might be aurally pleasing but im not technically composing music. i think in the context of the article, it would have been clearer put "no dog can sit down and write a sonata using standard music notation and theory"

our sonar technology can detect mines quite well. hence minesweepers active sonar. like our technology can detect particles etc.. but we still prefer the use of trained sniffer dogs as it is both cheaper and easier. EDIT: training dolphins i assume is not cheap, but much easier having a creature that can not only locate a mine but signal where it is. a machine to do that i assume would be unpracticle to construct, so therefore not worth doing, but not impossible.

naturally there are many dumb humans, and as daft as it may seem reading an article saying how amazing humans are, written by a human, its the enexcapable truth.

Other Comments by John Locke

3. Comment #239857 by oasis-al-reason on August 30, 2008 at 1:15 pm

 avatarAnd a significant proportion of humans are trained (indoctrinated) to not use the upper vortex or the Broca's area for anything other then belief in fairies and god(s) at the bottom of gardens of eden.

Other Comments by oasis-al-reason

4. Comment #239869 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 1:31 pm

 avatar"our sonar technology can detect mines quite well."

False. Dolphins are not used because they are cheaper or easier. They are used because our technology fails to do the job.

"Dolphins have the best sonar on this planet… the Navy does not have any technological sonar that can find buried mines except for their dolphin system," said Whitlow Au, who studies marine bioacoustics at the University of Hawaii's Marine Mammal Research Program in Kailua. "They can not only find objects like mines that may or may not be buried into the seabed, but they can distinguish them from clutter such as coral rock, and man-made debris,"
Source


Other Comments by J Mac

5. Comment #239877 by John Locke on August 30, 2008 at 1:44 pm

 avatartouche and fair kop


for dicussion purposes, any technology for the purpose of finding buried things wouldnt use sonar. be like using standard radar to find things buried under the ground. a sort of submersible metal detector, using a system similar to the JSTARS aircraft would be quite effective but costly and complicated to develop, so yes dolphins are the more sensible option

Other Comments by John Locke

6. Comment #239911 by TalkyMeat on August 30, 2008 at 2:42 pm

 avatarHmm. I have to say, I always worry that formulating the question as "How much smarter, if at all, are humans compared to other vertebrates?" is in fact a bit of a red herring. I would imagine the more helpful question to ask would be "What aspects of our cognitive capacities require explanation in terms of our evolution subsequent to the divergence of our lineage from that of chimps and bonobos?" - that way, we skip the value judgements and get straight down to the more scientifically tractable issues of human evolution.

Other Comments by TalkyMeat

7. Comment #239938 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 3:20 pm

 avatarGood point TalkyMeat

It is the inherent, implied, or reader-derived value judgements of such work that I find disturbing. Though I thought this article was excellent it did leave a lot of vague terminology that could be used out of context.

I suppose here is a good a place as any to plug one of my favorite quotes:
We patronize them for their incompleteness, for their tragic fate of having taken form so far below ourselves. And therin we err. For no animal shall be measured by man. In a world older and more complete than ours, they move finished and complete, gifted with extensions of the senses we have lost or never attained, living by voices we shall never hear. They are not brethren, they are not underlings; they are other nations, caught with ourselves in the net of life and time, fellow prisoners of the splendour and travail of the earth.

-Henry Beston, in 'The Outermost House'

Other Comments by J Mac

8. Comment #239953 by bachfiend on August 30, 2008 at 3:52 pm

"New Scientist" this week had an article noting that dogs are more intelligent than we give them credit for. Although, whether their capacity for tolerating and apparently liking us humans is a sign of high or low intelligence, I am not certain.

Other Comments by bachfiend

9. Comment #239954 by Quine on August 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm

 avatarI predict you are going to see more and more of this data as our ability to do FMRI on the cognitive processes of other species continues to advance. The trend is to close the gaps on the way to a continuum of consciousness. If so, will the churches have to start baptizing dolphins? How do you, exactly, do that? :shock:

Other Comments by Quine

10. Comment #239956 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 3:57 pm

 avatar"baptizing dolphins? How do you, exactly, do that?"

Well, they're already in the water. Some moronic priest will undoubtedly bless the ocean.

Other Comments by J Mac

11. Comment #239974 by coretemprising on August 30, 2008 at 4:47 pm

J Mac, I wouldn't have thought of you as a fellow who would admire the writing of Henry Beston, and someone who does, can't be all bad.

"Peace with the earth is the first peace."

from his Herbs and the Earth

Other Comments by coretemprising

12. Comment #239975 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 4:53 pm

 avatarI have not found time to read much of his work, though it is on my list (which is quite long) and based on what I have read I would certainly consider myself a fan.

I am curious as to why that surprises you. Are there things I've said on here that would lead you to believe otherwise?

Other Comments by J Mac

13. Comment #239979 by InYourFaceNewYorker on August 30, 2008 at 5:17 pm

 avatarChimps are smarter than gorillas? I could have sworn it was the other way around. At any rate, watch the DVD "A Conversation With Koko." She is such an amazing gorilla!

Other Comments by InYourFaceNewYorker

14. Comment #239984 by MPhil on August 30, 2008 at 5:52 pm

 avatarRemember, guys, if you will - that this is not about general capabilities and faculties - but about cognition. And in every single study ever conducted on cognition - the average adult human fares by far better than even the most exceptional non-human animal.

One thing we learned is that many more tasks are non-cognitive than we thought.

And - of course (this should go without mention) - there is no question that animals have minds - that our minds are just different in degree, not in "essence" or whatever from animals.

Some animals are cognitively further developed than others - that which makes all the difference between humans and other animals (why we have cultural artifacts, poetry, technology and even an understanding of how the universe works and came about) are two things:

a) enhanced "future-producing" mechanisms (planning for the future is more effective if you know more about the consequences of several eventualities)
b)language (not "communication" or even "acoustic means of communication"), but arbitrary, open-ended (potentially infinite), syntactic, grammatical means of communication - the capability for which is certain co-evolutionary (otherwise mind the cognitive bottle-neck) with the conceptual capabilities. The latter are of course the important thing - try to conceptualize a specific mathematical relationship without being able to make use of (parts of) a theory of numbers, of mathematical operations and so forth. For that matter - try to conceptualize any logical relation (such as expressed by every proposition) without a language capable of signifying the logical relations through syntax, vocabulary and grammar.

No animal - except for those who were taught rudimentary sign-language have any means of communicating or (for all we know) cognizing such things.

Yes, the "gap" between human and animal minds is by far not as wide as many have thought and would think. But it's also not as narrow as many "progressives" would think.

John Locke is correct - equality will be established if we see animals conducting experiments about fundamental particles, expressing thoughts about the applicability of mathematical equations to problems in the world, or even just when they manage to conceptualize and communicate such propositions as expressed in "That new film by (x) has some really great actors and a fascinating story - you should go see it."

Some people don't recognize that animals have minds at all, some that theirs are not (biologically) that far removed from ours. Sadly, others don't recognize the cognitive capabilities necessary for the cognitive every-day human life.

Me, I think some animals should have rights very very similar to persons - I think that we should not under- or overestimate the capabilities of our fellow animals, but study to find out how different and how similar we are. I think that biodiversity ought to be protected and that deliberate cruelty to animals ought to be avoided.

Still - my areas of study being science, logic and the mind, I'm basically with John Locke here.

Other Comments by MPhil

15. Comment #239985 by Laurie Fraser on August 30, 2008 at 5:57 pm

 avatarmike - good post; agree with you re language. This is the trait, if there was only one, that sets us apart. Language (grammar, syntax & vocab, all open-ended) enables our construction of the world to be that much more complex than even our nearest cousins.

P.S. you left your italics on.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

16. Comment #239988 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 6:09 pm

 avatarWell said as always MPhil, but there remains a point which I hate to see taken for granted:
John Locke is correct - equality will be established if we see animals conducting experiments about fundamental particles, expressing thoughts about the applicability of mathematical equations to problems in the world, or even just when they manage to conceptualize and communicate such propositions as expressed in "That new film by (x) has some really great actors and a fascinating story - you should go see it."

Experiments on fundamental particles? Really? Come on, you want to measure an animal by whether its interests are the same as ours and whether their exploration of nature takes a similar path as ours? And if movie reviews are our claim to fame we are surely doomed.

I do not disagree, but there must be balance. Take the idea (which is obviously a fictional thought experiment) of a bee colony trying to decide if humans were intelligent. They would use their own measures to evaluate us. They may find many things intriguing and give us much credit, but all that credit would be tempered by a bee philosopher named Bee Keye. Bee Keye believes equality will be established between humans and bees when they see humans efficiently raising their young in colonies where all members of society contribute to their care, and when humans manage to conceptualize and communicate through the waggle dance the location and quality of a food source. Bee Keye values human life and thinks the human species should be protected but is disappointed by fellow bees who do not recognize the cognitive capabilities necessary for the every-day life of an average worker bee.

Humans are no better by a measure of bees than bees are by a measure of humans. Why are we so arrogant to apply our measures to them? As far as I know they do not apply theirs to us; to me that could be a sign of superior logic on their part, not inferior.

Other Comments by J Mac

17. Comment #240009 by critica on August 30, 2008 at 6:46 pm

 avatar"Humans have 11.5 billion cortical neuronsâ€"more than any other mammal, because of the human brain's high neuronal density. Humans have only about half a billion more cortical neurons than whales and elephants do, howeverâ€"not enough to account for the significant cognitive differences between humans and these species."

How do we know? If the system needs a critical level of complexity....?

Other Comments by critica

18. Comment #240011 by Laurie Fraser on August 30, 2008 at 6:51 pm

 avatar Trying to fix italics

Edit: failed. Mike, you'll have to do it in your post, I think.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

19. Comment #240026 by kraut on August 30, 2008 at 7:29 pm

 avatar"They may find many things intriguing and give us much credit, but all that credit would be tempered by a bee philosopher named Bee Keye."

Since communication of abstract concepts and problems beyond the purely survival are rarely part of the "intellectial" toolkit of animals, the comparison of animals to human intelligence is nonsense, as idiotic as a number of arguments for "animal vs, human intelligence" brought forward here.

The ability to formulate abstract concepts - the "future" is one of them, the capability of problem solving first in thinking through, of conceptualising processes and then altering those is afaik exclusively human.
The simple proof - no single animal species whatsoever can live in as diverse climates and landscapes as humans - because we can create - even to our own detriment - technologies to live in ANY environment, even space.

This gives us a superiority simple due to the fact that our species can adapt to any environment - thus outcompeting any species extant.
Is this a positive development?
From an agricultural perspective: any monoculture is not viable in the long run.

Other Comments by kraut

20. Comment #240027 by Quine on August 30, 2008 at 7:32 pm

 avatar
Laurie, this should fix it.

Other Comments by Quine

21. Comment #240030 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 7:34 pm

 avatarKraut I'd love to respond to your post, but I cant, as it is not based in reality. Almost everything which attempts to be factual in your post is simply false.

Other Comments by J Mac

22. Comment #240049 by Laurie Fraser on August 30, 2008 at 7:58 pm

 avatarVery good, my boy! *pats Quine on head* Smarty-pants!

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

23. Comment #240050 by coretemprising on August 30, 2008 at 7:58 pm

J Mac, it is simply that, if memory serves, you figured prominently in my annoyance with TWP et al. My consideration for the main participants was, um, altered. Negatively. That's all. No big deal.

Other Comments by coretemprising

24. Comment #240055 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 8:06 pm

 avatarAhh, so because I didn't share your asinine and unfounded hatred for someone neither of us know you assume I would not be well read or interested in any legitimate subjects?

I do believe that says more about you than about me.

Other Comments by J Mac

25. Comment #240077 by MPhil on August 30, 2008 at 9:15 pm

 avatarDamn, sorry for leaving the italics-tag open. Thank you, Quine, for fixing it.

J Mac,

I do not disagree,

Are you sure? The rest of that comment surely looks like it :)

efficiently raising their young in colonies where all members of society contribute to their care,
a social skill in bees, not conceptual, cognitive work.

and when humans manage to conceptualize and communicate through the waggle dance the location and quality of a food source.


The task here is communicating the location of a food source - evidentally, we can do this very effectively. In fact, we can do it in many more different ways than bees - because our cognitive, conceptual capabilities allow us far more (navigation by sun, stars, landmarks, pathway-description, gps, maps in general etc) Furthermore - let me ask - do you a bee needs to cognitively, consciously "work out", conceptualize how to dance?

I get your point about some standards possibly not being applicable. However, my examples were meant as examples which would count for tell-tale signs.
In the end, its about cognition and conceptualization - and if we want to know how much of that animals can do, we need to look at what they're doing, and - always applying occam's razor - look for behaviour where the explanation with the most explanatory value (parsimony, broadness of scope, integration into background knowledge) necessitates invoking cognition. From everday knowledge, information-theory, neural network research etc, we can definitely construct a certain measure of complexity of cognition and conceptualization required.

In a culture where we find particle-accelerators and theaters, math-departments and debate clubs - we have tell-tale signs that in this group there is cognition and conceptualization on the highest level known to us. Empirical Science, fiction, philosophy, mathematics etc are just examples - but a complete absence of anything we can identify as a behaviour necessitating cognition/conceptualization on a level approaching our own is very conspicuous.

Language (open-ended, grammatical, syntactic - with arbitrary denotation instead of natural signification) was the other point - and I really think it does make perhaps nearly all of the difference.

Again - the "standards"-point is an important caveat, but this and your example - taken to the extremes they suggest would end in either in complete agnosticism about the mentality of anything at all, or in a gratuitous ascription of mentality to everything - if we are to apply the principle of charity (which we don't in science - as you know :). In my response I tried to show why that kind of argument, specifically as you chose to present it in your thought-experiment is not as strong as it might present itself at first.

I apologize again for leaving the italics-tag open...

Talk to you later!
-Michael

Other Comments by MPhil

26. Comment #240084 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 9:55 pm

 avatar"Furthermore - let me ask - do you [think] a bee needs to cognitively, consciously "work out", conceptualize how to dance? "

No, but neither do I see that as a detractor of their ability. Quite the opposite in fact, they can do more with less.

If the question is merely a measure of cognition and conceptualization ability then I would say humans do come out on top. My point is about the inherent value judgements that cognition and conceptualization are the most meaningful criteria. Why should they be? Don't get me wrong, I think they are wonderful characteristics and one of the joys of being human but they are just one quality among many.

Athletes by their nature value athletic ability, academics by their nature value book learning, and artists by their nature value creativity. Few would accept the arrogance of an athlete who thought his athletic ability put him above academics and artists, and similarly few would accept the arrogance of an academic who thought their knowledge put him above other members of society, and again similar for the artist.

Yet people do not notice the arrogance in saying that it is our ability to study and learn, paint and create, and engage in olympic events that puts us above the animals that do not engage in such activities.

The athlete may pride himself in his athletic ability but nothing more that he has not earned. The artist can pride himself in his creativity but nothing more that he has not earned. We humans can pride ourselves in that which we are good at such as language, conceptualization, and cognition without claiming superiority we have not earned.

The athlete due to his lack of education may not even know about the wonders of science of which he is ignorant, would he then be justified in claiming he was the best in every measure he was aware of? All of us who have engaged in academic pursuits have found that the more we learn the more we find we have yet to learn, so it is not unthinkable that the most uneducated of people would be the least aware of their own ignorance.

We humans, due to our lack of experiencing the life of a bee may not be aware of the wonders of being bee. Even if we are the best in every measure that we can fathom, which we certainly are not, we would still not be justified in our all-encompassing arrogance.

In conclusion, yes we have the potentially unique and amazing capabilities of cognition and conceptualization and in that we should have pride. But there our pride should end. Our traits are not justification for our placing ourselves above any other organisms.

I understand that people may feel good in setting themselves above and apart from the rest of the world, it is a similar good feeling the theist draws from knowing they are a "child of god." The feel-good effect is as similar as the lack of a basis for such belief, and I find that it is much more wondrous and much more inspiring of good feelings to realize we are part of the tree of life, not the peak of it; we are part of the universe, not the masters of it.

Much as psychologists and criminal justice specialists have known for years that there is a high correlation between cruelty to animals and violent crime, I suspect there is a correlation between those who wish to place themselves above animals and those who have contempt for their fellow man. It is a false dichotomy to think we must either be better than animals or we cannot have pride at all just as it is a false dichotomy to think either my country must be better than others or I cannot have any pride in my nationality at all.

Also we need not feel superior to value human life over animal life. This is relevant as a common objection I hear when I claim humans are not superior to animals is along the lines of:

"So if it was between a human dying and a gerbil dying you would not see a difference?"

Of course I see a difference. I am human and I value human life above a gerbils life (in most cases). But I do not need to set human life as objectively superior to gerbil life to make that conclusion. Humans are social animals which means our fellow man is a valuable resource to us, gerbils are not so valuable of a resource. That discrepancy means that we will place a higher value on human life. Again this is not however because we are objectively superior in any way. I admit my in-group membership in the human race and I admit my desire to protect that human race, not because we are "better", but because I am a member of "we".

Pride can exist without arrogance. If we fail to achieve such a state I suspect it will lead to many other failings.

Other Comments by J Mac

27. Comment #240101 by MPhil on August 30, 2008 at 10:13 pm

 avatarJ Mac,

There's barely anything in your last comment I object to. A few very minor points here and there - nothing of great consequence. Though "pride in my nationality" - that really bugs me. How could anyone justifiably be proud to having been borne within a certain arbitrarily defined geographical area whose inhabitants are governed by a specific system? How can pride in anything one has not achieved oneself ever be justified?

But the original article - and my comments - were (or did I get that wrong) about conceptualization, cognition, "intelligence" and mentality in general... and nothing more.

No ethical judgement involved - nothing about having more or less intrinsic value.

But if you'd like to know my position on that - I don't think "intrinsic moral value" exists at all. Ethics is something that arises between agents capable of reason who have awareness of their interests, though it can have the protection of things other than agents capable of reason as a subject.

As for the "wonders of being a bee" - I don't think bees have the self-awareness, consciousness and richness of "inner life" to experience "wonder" (or something remotely like what we would conceive as wonder). It appears (though I may be totally wrong) that you conceive of the "inner life" of an animal in some way similar to imagining yourself (with your mind and richness of "inner life") in the body of such an animal.

But still - I was not talking about intrinsic value or anything - simply about cognition, conceptualization, intelligence, mentality.

Other Comments by MPhil

28. Comment #240107 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 10:23 pm

 avatar"I was not talking about intrinsic value or anything - simply about cognition, conceptualization, intelligence, mentality."

In that case I find myself in complete agreement with both of your posts. To reiterate my line that you quoted: "I do not disagree," but I wanted to raise awareness on what I see as a concern.

Many people who write as you did, or read what you wrote, make the jump from the unique abilities of humans to the value judgement of human superiority. This is troubling, and I see it as a potential cause of many problems in society.

Anyhow, it seems we are in agreement, thats no fun, some moron needs to come pick a fight or there is nothing to debate. :o)

As far as the "wonders of being a bee" I was taking some poetic license and speaking somewhat metaphorically. I don't know if they are capable of anything similar to wonder, though I cannot rule it out. They do have drives and motivations even if they do not conceptualize them. Neither I nor any other human nor other animal for that matter needs to understand or conceptualize sex to enjoy the act. In fact most if not all pleasurable experiences evolved to be pleasurable for the very fact that they achieved some goal or fulfilled some drive. The bees are just as capable of that.

Other Comments by J Mac

29. Comment #240109 by kraut on August 30, 2008 at 10:31 pm

 avatar

Other Comments by kraut

30. Comment #240112 by MPhil on August 30, 2008 at 10:41 pm

 avatarRegarding that last paragraph - aversion and predilection are I think pretty much universal... emotions on the other hand (again, I'm talking about anything that would approach what we can reasonably mean by "emotion") seems to require specific functional complexity of the neural architecture as well, specifically the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, amygdala, temporal lobes (etc). Apes, dogs, cats and many other animals seem to have pretty broad range of emotions - not sure about insects. What empirical observations would be relevant?
Anyway - I think it is still reasonable to assume that our experience of emotions is very different from that of other animals with less cognitive capacities because they are connected in mutual feedback with our cognitive consciousness.

Take this example - you are being robbed at gunpoint. You feel intense fear - but your experience of it will also be influenced heavily by your cognition. You think about your wife/husband/kids/parents/loved ones, about potentially never seeing them again, perhaps about what their lives would be like without you, you go through all the possible options of behaviour you have in that situation, you think of what to say, whether to say anything and so forth... these all in turn influence your emotional state and your general experience of the situation.

But yes, you are of course right that having emotional experiences or even experiences in general primarily do not necessarily involve complex cognition.

And yes - it is troubling that many people jump to conclusions about "human superiority" in the moral sense. As I said - moral value is nothing intrinsic - it is something ascribed by agents with interests capable of reason. But because placing moral values on anything is going to affect how we act towards others - we better be extra careful.

And arrogance is quite definitely never a good thing :)

Other Comments by MPhil

31. Comment #240113 by J Mac on August 30, 2008 at 10:42 pm

 avatarEDIT: The following is in response to Kraut's post that seems to have vanished.

That one is factual I agree. Perhaps I was too harsh and I apologize. There were other statements in that same post however that I can easily falsify.

The human ability to thrive is shared however with what we consider to be the most vile of viruses and parasites. I hardly see it as something to brag about.

One critique: If our abilities developed "beyond the purely survival" level what was the source of this development? If design was added to the system what was the source? As far as I know natural selection is the only source of apparent design in the universe and the statement that our cognitive abilities developed for purposes beyond survival (I'm assuming you also meant beyond reproduction as well) implies that natural selection (or sexual selection) were not the causes of these abilities.

"The ability to formulate abstract concepts - the "future" is one of them, the capability of problem solving first in thinking through, of conceptualising processes and then altering those is afaik exclusively human."

This is the one that really set me off, as it is plainly false as demonstrated most recently on this site in reference to the work of Nicky Clayton at Cambridge.

Then in your last line: "This gives us a superiority..."

Frankly that just does not follow from anything in your post.

Other Comments by J Mac

32. Comment #240116 by MPhil on August 30, 2008 at 11:00 pm

 avatar
If our abilities developed "beyond the purely survival" level what was the source of this development?


Hmm - it is at least not impossible. A prominent theory for parts of human mentality is that it arose as an originally selectively neutral function of neural architecture that was selected for because it did a quite different job - it just somehow came to produce a function that lead to no selection-disadvantage, which then got passed on culturally for other reasons - and later developed further because it then lead to selection-advantages. Since natural selection is not teleological, it cannot select something which has no immediate benefit for "genetic proliferation". Take for example a specific grammar - it is not (contrary to what some argue) genetically modular. Neither does it lead to any selection-advantage as long as there is no society in which not adopting that grammar makes you an outsider less likely to reproduce. So how did it develop?

I've read an interesting paper on that recently ("Language, Modularity, and Evolution" by Kim Sterelny)

Other Comments by MPhil

33. Comment #240124 by kraut on August 30, 2008 at 11:24 pm

 avatarthe statement that our cognitive abilities developed for purposes beyond survival

I did not say they developed for a "purpose", all I stated that we developed those abilities, based on a specific brain structure, that now give us an advantage over other, competing species.

"Superiority" is not used as a qualitativ expression, purely as a functional description that we as a species without genetically based specialization can occupy almost any niche we choose to, based on our adnvantage to develop technological solutions to environmental challenges.
We can therefore outbreed any competing species in almost any environment.
That this "superiority" might have vast negative effects on our own species in the end - that is a strong possibility.

As to your last point - I would argue a "advantage" of human conceptualization as to the complexity of abstract thought we can engage in.
That animals can do that to some extend - I agree.

Other Comments by kraut

34. Comment #240178 by John Locke on August 31, 2008 at 2:34 am

 avatarto rejoin the debate rather late

you're dead right jmac - it is very important that a concept of human superiority isnt taken too literally - but to reiterate my original point that we are capable many things proportionately so incredibly far beyond any animals capability. it is a statement of fact.

a good singular example, and close to the heart of much debate on this site, is the fact that we are aware of, can explain and (hopefully not) control evolution - our species genetic destiny.

i think you're right to talk about any ecological or moral problems of talking about human superiority, but my original post wasnt in that vein. it was a simple statement. for example to compare and demonstrate what i mean; talking about hypothetical "good" genes and "bad" genes as statements of fact is fine, but it would be wrong to start applying that knowledge in a socio-ecological context - like my controlling evolution.

hope i make sense if not ask me as im sure you will.

also this should provide a few laughs, as it is very poignant and so close to the truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24

Other Comments by John Locke

35. Comment #240221 by TalkyMeat on August 31, 2008 at 4:58 am

 avatarI think our intelligence owes more to having evolved a set of hacks and exploits to get more use out of our thinking meats, rather than any quantitative measure or thinking-meat-having (not to say that that isn't also part of the story). Symbolic cognition, and language in particular are, as has been observed above, absolutely crucial in that regard. Some points totally ripped off from Andy Clark...

1) It allows us to decompose difficult tasks into simple ones (e.g., mental arithmetic, logical reasoning)

2) It allows us to distribute part of the memory and processing load of complex cognitive tasks into the environment (e.g. pen-and-paper arithmetic, notes, calendars, diaries, calculators, computers, etc)

3) The inscriptions by which we offload processing and memory into the environment can also be shared, allowing cognitive processes to be socially distributed (e.g., sticky-note stigmergy, peer-reviewed journals)

I have a hunch that in fact the evolution of (some form of) language in fact preceded the rapid growth of the human cranium: brain is a costly tissue, and I would expect the brain volume of a species always to be drawn towards an equilibrium brain size, at which the survival cost of the energy demands of an extra ounce of brain tissue is equal to the survival benefit of the resulting increase to cognitive powers. My guess is that language and symbolic cognition sharply increased the survival value of brain tissue without increasing its cost, thus shifting the equilibrium brain-size sharply upwards, and the evolution of actual brain sizes rapidly followed.

Other Comments by TalkyMeat

36. Comment #240263 by coretemprising on August 31, 2008 at 7:35 am

re 24.
J Mac, opps, seems I softened my opinion too soon. But you have simply confirmed it, as apparently my reminder caused you a relapse. However, do carry on with your (now) rather reasonable conversation.
I apologize to you and others here for my OT intrusion into an otherwise intelligent thread.

Other Comments by coretemprising

37. Comment #240264 by Red Foot Okie on August 31, 2008 at 7:40 am

 avatarHuman intelligence fascinates me. I have suspected that, when all is said and done, our "smarts" are not due to some huge difference between our brains and other mammals. Or, as this article points out, it may be just a bunch of little differences, each difference adding up to a greater survival for the individual and the cold mechanics of evolution takes over from there.

I'm also fascinated by how animals perceive the world. I've heard that animals with a powerful sense of smell can not only tell what objects/creatures have been in a particular area, but that they can tell how long ago they were there.

Other Comments by Red Foot Okie

38. Comment #240291 by BeyondBelief on August 31, 2008 at 9:44 am

 avatarI would LOVE to see the experimental methodology used to determine an animal's cognitive estimates of the length of time another animal was in the area. :-)

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

39. Comment #240295 by J Mac on August 31, 2008 at 9:50 am

 avatar"to rejoin the debate rather late..."

Wow. I hadn't read the whole thread to realize that we had someone posting under the name John Locke. I thought MPhil was making reference to the actual philosopher....

Other Comments by J Mac

40. Comment #240616 by BigJohn on August 31, 2008 at 5:14 pm

 avatarskuze me but i thot that humanz wuz animals. reedn hear i seem to see a dichotomy bein diskused. aint no difference tween humanz an animulez. look inside.

Other Comments by BigJohn

41. Comment #240818 by Cobra in the fire on September 1, 2008 at 5:18 am

I'm reminded of material in Professor Dawkins book, "Tale of the Ancestors"

If all the animals that had existed were here today, the definition of species would be largely a sliding scale of degrees due to the huge number of intermediates there must be in all species evolution. I would draw attention to a tale regarding salamanders thats quite far on in the book. Please correct me if it's another book. I'm reading about 3 of his books right now.

The only reason we appear to have definite species boundaries seems to be because lots of intermediates are extinct.

Other Comments by Cobra in the fire

42. Comment #240836 by Cobra in the fire on September 1, 2008 at 6:35 am

Ah I appear to be speaking disingenuously.

If we examine many of the concepts and beliefs humans come up with and the emotional investment we have in them, it seems as if we are intellectualising and justifying quite animal drives.

We have a tool of great power in that our brain became locked into an evolutionary path of advancement, rather than an aspect of our physique like stronger ,bigger ,claws or razor teeth.

But who is to say a relatively brainless but tough creature won't be a better survivor than a human? Nature ultimately rewards the survivor and who is to say that will be a creature with brains like ours? We still act like animals anyway, but we use justification after the fact to delude ourselves that we are better than the rest of the animals...It's a well known fact that any creature(e.g a sea urchin) that becomes too numerous will start destroying its surrounding environment. Sound familiar? If we were truly better, and really so intelligent as we like to believe, why do we continue on this path? On the massive scales we are worse than a brainless urchin for this world.

Other Comments by Cobra in the fire

43. Comment #241977 by Elemental79 on September 3, 2008 at 9:12 am

As important as it is to look at superiority subjectively, in the proper terms one could make a valid argument for human superiority from an evolutionary standpoint. Evolution is all about survival. Is there an animal on the planet more equipped for survival than humans?

(I don't think the argument that humans can/will cause there ultimate demise is valid as it is purely speculative.)

Other Comments by Elemental79

44. Comment #242625 by TalkyMeat on September 4, 2008 at 7:54 am

 avatarCockroaches?
Tardigrades?

Other Comments by TalkyMeat
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: