Philosophical question: Are humans the "top" of the natural intellectual

hierarchy?

I look at my cats, and I understand that they don't fully comprehend everything that's going on with my decision making. Clearly, there is an intellectual and power hierarchy in nature. Certain creatures understand more, or understand things differently, than others.

The question is, though, are we at the top? Are we that lucky?

Or...no...maybe the question is, if we weren't at the top, would we understand that fact? Or would we look at the food bowl, our world, being filled with the same appreciation, but still the same lack of understanding, as our cats' experience in seeing our actions?

That's not to say that the human intellect, as it is today, might be the greatest possible, as far as potential. I think we're still evolving. But, do you think it is even the greatest in existence?

How can someone in our condition, with our limited intellectual capacity, make the conclusion that there is nothing that understands things in a greater capacity than we do?

We're just lunch.

Or even, not necessarily eventually.

But, in many ways, they actually work for us. And, in that regard, we're also indebted to them.

Whether it's at the top is up for grabs. As you posit, other animals have intellectual capacity. But it's different. They're all different. So who's to say which one is top?

Every species' intellectual capacity is, I would assume, just what they need.

So how do we even rate which is better, let alone, how can we even generate any kind of criteria by which to make that judgment? I don't think we can.

Understand Them.

They are some of the most intelligent creatures in the world, particularly octopi, when it comes to problem solving. In fact, I'm sure a smart enough octopus could have coordinated disaster relief better than Bush just by waving its tentacles around.

For one thing it would not have hindered relief efforts.

You're the top, you're the smile on the Mona Lisa. With apologies to Cole Porter. Great stuff. And a reminder that music is pretty tough to contend with if you are to question coming up with appreciating our understanding of who we are. Went to the National Symphony two weeks ago; Beethoven and Tchaikovsky. Haven't heard another species come up with that - much as I love them.

that destroys the very environment it needs to survive? homo sapiens - intelligent? i see us as pretty close to the lowest level of true intelligence.

Compared to most animals, we are deficient by almost every measure: we are weaker and we are slower; do you know that chimpanzees, for example, have 8 to 10 times the upper body strenght of the average human being? We have no feathers or fur to provide at least some protection against the elements. We have no claws or fangs for attack.

But yet it is we who have made the world our own. Because we have one single advantage: we're just smarter!

n/t

perspective.

Felines have a different standard - one you might not fare well in. :-)

Of course, I provide the food and open the doors, at least in my house. :)

“The mental evolution of the species proceeds apparently by regular progress side by side with the physical development until it comes to man, then there is a long, unexplained gulf. Somewhere man acquired an asset which sets him immeasurably apart from the other animals—­his imagination. Out of it he created for himself a conscience, and clothes, and immodesty, and a hereafter, and a soul. I wonder where he got that asset. It almost makes one agree with Alfred Russel Wallace that the world and the universe were created just for his benefit, that he is the chief love and delight of God. Wallace says that the whole universe was made to take care of and to keep steady this little floating mote in the center of it, which we call the world. It looks like a good deal of trouble for such a small result; but it’s dangerous to dispute with a learned astronomer like Wallace. Still, I don’t think we ought to decide too soon about it—­not until the returns are all in. There is the geological evidence, for instance. Even after the universe was created, it took a long time to prepare the world for man. Some of the scientists, ciphering out the evidence furnished by geology, have arrived at the conviction that the world is prodigiously old. Lord Kelvin doesn’t agree with them. He says that it isn’t more than a hundred million years old, and he thinks the human race has inhabited it about thirty thousand years of that time. Even so, it was 99,970,000 years getting ready, impatient as the Creator doubtless was to see man and admire him. That was because God first had to make the oyster. You can’t make an oyster out of nothing, nor you can’t do it in a day. You’ve got to start with a vast variety of invertebrates, belemnites, trilobites, jebusites, amalekites, and that sort of fry, and put them into soak in a primary sea and observe and wait what will happen. Some of them will turn out a disappointment; the belemnites and the amalekites and such will be failures, and they will die out and become extinct in the course of the nineteen million years covered by the experiment; but all is not lost, for the amalekites will develop gradually into encrinites and stalactites and blatherskites, and one thing and another, as the mighty ages creep on and the periods pile their lofty crags in the primordial seas, and at last the first grand stage in the preparation of the world for man stands completed; the oyster is done. Now an oyster has hardly any more reasoning power than a man has, so it is probable this one jumped to the conclusion that the nineteen million years was a preparation for him. That would be just like an oyster, and, anyway, this one could not know at that early date that he was only an incident in a scheme, and that there was some more to the scheme yet."


more
http://www.oldhippy.org/books/MTBio/MTBio266.html

:evilgrin:

And it's hardly postulated here that we have reached our capacity for intelligence.

But, the question still stands: Is it just a coincidence that we can't see beyond our own intelligence?

I suggest not.

that they don't understand what we're doing.

They can't formulate thoughts or concepts in the same way that we can, but they "know" when they don't get it.

Determine whether its a threat or or food opportunity and act accordingly.

That might be formulating thoughts, but they are pretty boring and vulgar thoughts.

In the same way, I'm sure many animals talk. The difference between cats and humans isn't the power of speech; the difference is that cats NEVER have anything interesting to say. "Food, look out, don't hurt me, pets please." Day after day after day. Not exactly a college seminar.

they can understand.

And, it's not much, as far as I can tell.

As far as your initial question, though, they must have some kind of similar "default" thought that allows them to process non-understanding, because they seem to be dealing with it constantly.

I'd liken it to ours, in many ways, when we can't make sense of things.

with both fear and disdain, wondering how such a violent, arrogant, self-centered, hateful species managed to ceom up with the Taj Mahal, e.e. cumings, quantum chromodynamics, Chinese Jade pottery, Billy Shakespeare, Haikus, and nuclear propulsion, ICBM-laden, silent submarines.

I'm also quite amazed by my cats, every once in awhile.

does it like fish? more importantly, which end of the pencil is used on the crossword?

ah yes, what DO you get when you multiply 6 times 7?

You're not one of those aliens, are you? :)

Unless you're talking 6, 7 lb. bags of cat food. That's about $50, IIRC.

Strongly recommended (and my curious statements will suddenly make sense. or not)

The author - Douglas Adams - used to write for Dr. Who, then he wrote a 5 part trilogy. Yes, a FIVE part TRILOGY of incredible humor, insight and understanding of US, the world, even the galaxy.

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" is something yoou need to read when you are really depressed about the Shrubushtas. No matter how blue, how low, how bad you feel, he will make you smile.

bigger brains than other species - thus we will be able to destroy the earth, that's all

Although I think, in the long term, maybe we do.

In the very, very long term.

And, maybe, as we progress technologically, humanity might be evolving more quickly. Those who desire peace will find it, while those who desire war and suffering will find that, as well.

They are the only ones who should have access to good information. Then they process it and give us what we need to be little people.:sarcasm:

behind it. Narcissism.

narcissism involved in this question.

the right to create myths to lead a country to exactly where they want it? Come on - they are honest about it. Narcissists are vain like that. Grandiose is another way to describe it.

I think though, also, humanity allows itself to be lead along in that regard by assuming that we are the top of the intellectual chain- while the necons simultaneously, somehow, give the impression that they can speak for God.

I think we need to accept our intellectual deficiencies. That goes for more than just religion.

We need to know what we can know, and what we can't know.

We also need to maintain a positive attitude, though, and not allow ourselves to get too angry at whatever it is that put us here. We have to be appreciative, and keep moving forward.

Of course, my thoughts are just as fallible as any other human beings'.

in which we live. I'm with you.

Like the author said: "the earth is trying to expel us - because we are parasites".

It is not nature that is subject to our graces. We are put down, and subject to the graces of mother nature.

We couldn't "destroy the world" if we tried, for something would live, anyhow, and go on.

I think that's basically what I'm saying.

in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I hear ya.

I think that what he's speaking of is intellectual humility.

great quote, by the way.
But, I too, never really believed that NY really existed.

No chimpanzee ever gave a dime to Jim and Tammy Bakker. Until the same can be said for humans, we are not on the top.

in public, either, though.

Now, there could be valid health reasons for that, or it could just be cultural differences. But, clearly, a chimp can't build an atomic bomb.

Nor can a chimp blow up a huge number of his fellow chimps with an atomic bomb.

Anyway- this isn't about religion, my friend. I invite you to think about this subject independent of any Biblical persuasion. It's not that difficult, and I can assure you that there are strong arguments to be made in both directions.

not to want to build a nuclear bomb.

job that nature began.

Each of us gets to the point where we must decide to take responsibility for our own evolution and consciously work towards our full potential.

That means giving up the limits imposed by an entirely Materialistic worldview.

Nature alone, unaided brings humans only as far as Homo Sapien Sapien.

Nature working in tandem with an enlightened individual gives rise to Homo Spirtualis.

... early in his career and he concluded that dolphins were more intelligent than man. It's been ages since my neuropsychology class, but I *think* his idea was based on the way dolphins communicate through sonar which allows them to convey a vast amount of infomation. Meanwhile we are stuck with "words." I remember he claimed to be nearing a breakthrough on dolphin communication and suddenly turned his back on the research and freed his dolphins.

While man has the advantage of hands and those nifty opposable thumbs, dolphins are a purely mental/intellectual being, according to Leary.

Being stuck in middle America and not having many chances to interact with dolphins, I'd pretty much say dogs rule the world ... well, my household at least.

nt

way smarter than we are

cats aren't it though

Of course cats don't understand. How can anyone understand a 40% (or less) approval rating for * and him still being where he is?

How can anyone understand killing a mouse (let alone a person) when you don't need the food; let alone for oil.

I would like to be able to talk to my cats but I don't think that it would be possible, Our thought processes; our concepts of the world are too different. My cats get excited watching a bird or a squirrel in our yard something that is alive moving; I get excited about a new new computer, car, or tool.

Are we really at the top of the intellectual hierarchy??? do we as "people" as opposed to cats, even come close to the top of any sort of hierarchy???

I think perhaps that it is our bias that has entered the equation. We think that we are "better" than cats. But better is not the question; different is. I am being more and more persuaded that the differences in preception of reality between people; cats; or others is much more profound than I ever thought about.

"We think, we think therefore we think we are" Descartes where are you when we need you.

But it's not necessarily because humans definitively have the greatest intellectual capacity of any animal on the planet. It's because humans evolved opposable thumbs, which allowed us to create tools and written language. No other animal on the planet has a symbolic system for the transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next, as far as we know, and so the understanding of any one human is greatly enhanced by the ability to draw on the knowledge and understanding of countless others who have come before. It isn't so much what you have, but what you can do with it.

Indeed, every day it looks more likely that it is an evolutionary failure, for us in any case.

What went wrong?