What makes you angry?

[Mataresa]

Well in the end we don't matter that much anyway. We'll probably destroy our habitat or ourselves sooner rather than later. And we shouldn't worry about the tiger because of tigers sake, but rather because of our own sake, since we are slowly changing the world to a place where we can't survive anymore. Nature will prevail, humans most likely not. And we will be even less significant than other species in the time scope of evolution. Did you know, that T-Rex is timewise closer related to the chicken than to Stegosaurus? We mean nothing to the world. Just one leading specias at the moment. Destructive for sure and maybe speeding change up, but ultimately insignificant.

 

[myari]

It makes me angry when people act like they are more then others. People that judge you while they do not even know you. I see everyone as my friend untill they prove otherwise, and i wish more people were like that instead of thinking i am wierd because i am friendly from the start. I have been bullied allot in the past just because i was nice to everyone and being "different". I am still nice and ready to help everyone, just i dont give a shit no more what people think of me

 

[volsung]

Not really in a less literal sense though. There’s a reason why we separate ourselves from animals on the linguistic level. No other animal has even near as pronounced mental faculties. Ethology and developmental psychology have proven as much.

Language is one such higher cognitive faculty that, yes, separates us from *other* animals. Some in fact say higher cognitive functions are those mediated by language. But there are other high level functions that are not spoken language present in many so called animals. Language is a cognitive engine, it lets us model and represent the world and manipulate symbolic representations. Some of these symbols are names. Dogs, for example, can use names to an extent: they respond when you call and can recognize an individual dog by their name. But they cannot give them.

Other species, such as octopi and corvids, have also shown remarkable ability to solve problems and find alternate solutions. And speaking of other species, our close cousins the Chimpanzees and Bonobos can manipulate and create utensils which require a degree of knowledge and modeling of the world. On the other hand all apes (us included) show very impressive "Machiavellian" intelligence. Chimpanzees flat out lie, cheat and deceive other chimpanzees.

Other high level cognitive functions include experience based problem solving, pattern recognition, decision making, etc. The fact that different animals see and understand the world in different ways doesn't make them less intelligent or capable. It just means we have defined intelligence around US.

So yes, we are not plants or bateria. We are animals. Why is it so hard to accept that we have the same rights to this Earth as a sloth, a snail or a dog? Our evolutionary history is very particular and we certainly have many skills. But we usually consider ourselves superior because we measure others with our own rules.

Sound integration and image processing also takes place in the brain. Try competing with some wild animals in these aspects, and we will be the ones scratching our butts in zoos. And it's irrelevant that these functions are not mediated by consciousness, because most of our mental faculties are not. Otherwise we would go insane.

 

[Demut]

Nature will prevail, humans most likely not.

Wait ... what? Do you really believe that whatever disasters climate change will bring forth are going to cause humanity to go extinct? All seven billion of us? Are you serious? You know that, for instance, proto-European humans survived an ice age before we even knew how to tame horses or use anything better than stone for tools, right? Or that humans have lived in barren deserts for thousands of years?
What climatic cataclysm do you see us causing that would surpass our modern capabilities to deal with it? Heck, even an all-out nuclear war doesn’t seem capable of killing us off anymore unless we actually tried to eradicate every last human settlement no matter how small.

The fact that different animals see and understand the world in different ways doesn't make them less intelligent or capable. It just means we have defined intelligence around US.

Nah, I have to disagree with that. I think that as individuals homo sapiens will score as the most intelligent species no matter what definition you use.

But we usually consider ourselves superior because we measure others with our own rules.

Again, I don’t think that’s true. There are pretty clear difference between the minds of humans and animals. For instance, animals are generally vastly inferior to humans in the social cognition department. You observed that animals don’t seem to give each other names. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know but it would fit what else we can say for certain.
For one thing, animals seem incapable of grasping that their fellow animals have minds. That’s why you have gorillas who can communicate with humans and answer their questions but they never ask questions themselves. They don’t see us (or other gorillas, for that matter) as a source of information that can be used. They fail false belief tasks since they don’t understand that other animals have different minds with different beliefs / sets of information. Animals couldn’t pass something like the Sally–Anne test.

Try competing with some wild animals in these aspects, and we will be the ones scratching our butts in zoos.

Eh, not really. We can counterbalance these “deficiencies” with the fruits of our intelligence. We didn’t come to be the global apex predator from the 3rd degree trophic level for no reason.

 

[Mataresa]

Wait ... what? Do you really believe that whatever disasters climate change will bring forth are going to cause humanity to go extinct? All seven billion of us? Are you serious? You know that, for instance, proto-European humans survived an ice age before we even knew how to tame horses or use anything better than stone for tools, right? Or that humans have lived in barren deserts for thousands of years?
What climatic cataclysm do you see us causing that would surpass our modern capabilities to deal with it? Heck, even an all-out nuclear war doesn’t seem capable of killing us off anymore unless we actually tried to eradicate every last human settlement no matter how small.

Well, I believe that just another successful species will come along, but probably way before that we will have dwindled in number, so that we don't matter. We can only exist on such a small temperature scale and our food as well. Also we only need some changes in the composition of the atmosphere for it to not be breathable anymore. And seven billion is really nothing. Look at insects or bacteria, they will survive much easier, cause they can adapt much faster. Mammals are quite bad at adapting and as soon as their niche disappearst, they probably will as well. Sure we as humans have technology to help us a bit. But nobody will be able to create selfsustaining life bubbles for us, should climate change in a way, that we can't survive there. And if there are remaining individuals they will have to adapt and we will cease to be humans in the way we know us. After all evolution made us, what we are, it will change us again, if we don't go extinct before that.

Nah, I have to disagree with that. I think that as individuals homo sapiens will score as the most intelligent species no matter what definition you use.

How does the quote go: "If you judge a fish by it's ability to climb trees..." Our definition of intelligence is as limited as ours is. Firstly you could also define intelligence as the ability to survive, then the award would go to all the microbes and whatever that can survive in huge temperature ranges and completely different surroundings and environments. Then much later the cockroaches, that are not really susceptable to radiation and can survive in most habitats and much much later humans, that probably come last with all other mammals even being behind alot of those. If you take as intelligence the ability to function as a society, I would argue that fungi that cooperate in their billions and even ants and other state building insects are much more advanced in that, cause they function as a collective to their mutual benefit. I would even argue that the future of traditional intelligence as we know it lies in a collective intelligence of rather simple beings than in the single intelligence. And even if you focus on the traditional intelligence of a single being, we will always be limited to our logic of true and false, our limited memory capacity, or simply our lack of senses in many regards. We miss so much information, therefore knowledge, just because we can't perceive so many things. We don't even know what other kinds of intelligence there are out there, that we simply can't perceive. There are many animals with senses that we do not have and that can communicate in ways that elude us.

 

[Mataresa]

By the way, you all rock!

Whenever I'm in a bad mood I come here and discuss things with you like this topic here and then my mood changes for the better, like now.

So what makes me "unangry": You guys!

 

[wichat]

Any natural or tecnologic disaster could erase humanity from the map. Mere conjuncture in time of a pandemic and an earthquake could trigger chaos in security (e.g. Tōhoku Chihō Taiheiyō-oki Jishin 2011)[sup].

[/sup]7,000,000,000 of inhabitants without an effective food industry, reduction of basic vaccines, and indiscriminate weapons world traffic are a cocktail quite inestable.

People who believe in supremacy of humanity species makes me angry too....

Edit:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUqmamlW9cc&feature=player_detailpage[/media]

 

[Guest 2091327]

Forget food and global warming. Remove the internet and we would cease to exist!

No, but seriously, there are lots of things that could kill us. We could easily do it ourselves, and it looks like a fair few politicians are running in that direction, although they don't know it themselves. A comet could do us, a new variant of the bird flu for example that would quickly spread from human to human and be much more deadly. Something like that is unlikely to kill every single one of us, but with vastly reduced numbers, society in turmoil, maybe war erupting due to even more scarcity of numbers, we'd certainly be at a disadvantage.

I do agree humans is the most intelligent species (or animal, but some people seem to have a problem with that term). We're able to make much more tools than others can (several other animals can though, like crows for picking worms out of holes), we have the most advanced languages and can learn other languages fairly easily (this is one of the remarkable things, which have some linguists saying we must have an innate ability to learn language). But like Mataresa says, there can be others form of intelligence too, not just limited to internal thinking in one individual. We're in the strange situation where individuals can be fairly intelligent, but put us in a group and we turn into idiots. Pretty extraordinary.

There are other species that are very good at social interaction and such too btw, humans are far from the only ones. Elephants can remember ~500 individual elephants for example, and have relations with all of them to various degrees. There are fairly complex social structures in many other ape-like species too, and of course other mammals.

We are certainly unique, but not as unique as we think.

In addition to dolphins, also keep in mind that mice are really, really crafty...

 

[Mataresa]

In addition to dolphins, also keep in mind that mice are really, really crafty... />

I sense, I might need my towel here.

 

[Guest 2091327]

Never leave town without it

 

[Demut]

Any natural or tecnologic disaster could erase humanity from the map. Mere conjuncture in time of a pandemic and an earthquake could trigger chaos in security (e.g. Tōhoku Chihō Taiheiyō-oki Jishin 2011)[sup].

[/sup]7,000,000,000 of inhabitants without an effective food industry, reduction of basic vaccines, and indiscriminate weapons world traffic are a cocktail quite inestable.

Sorry, I don’t get what you’re trying to say, Wichat. That something like the aforementioned earthquake and tsunami could happen globally all at once and “erase humanity from the map”? This doesn’t sound all too likely to be honest.

People who believe in supremacy of humanity species makes me angry too....

But it’s true

We can only exist on such a small temperature scale and our food as well.

Small temperature scale? Huh? Maybe when talking about naked humans. But there’s this thing called “clothing” which allowed us to inhabit such inhospitable places as the Arctic regions or the Sahara desert. The only colder/hotter places are the Antarctic and the depths of Earth’s crust or something but I guess given enough time and resources we could carve out a living even there. As for our food ... we’re omnivores so we’ve got quite the wide range of options when compared to other mammals.

Also we only need some changes in the composition of the atmosphere for it to not be breathable anymore.

“Only some changes”? You make it sound like such a change of the global atmospheric composition could be caused by just about anything. What it would “only” take is an event of such epic proportions as the death of most plants or the eruption of hundreds if not thousands of volcanoes at once. Not really something that we have to worry about, I think. But even then we could probably build devices that would make this atmosphere breathable for us. I mean we’re able to recycle the air of the ISS, people! Filtering out the toxic components in an abundant atmosphere is child’s play in comparison.

And seven billion is really nothing. Look at insects or bacteria, they will survive much easier, cause they can adapt much faster. Mammals are quite bad at adapting and as soon as their niche disappearst, they probably will as well.

lol wut

The clade of mammals doesn’t have one, single niche, you know? The way you phrased it one could make the same argument about bacteria or insects. As for the speed of adaption, methinks humans have actually surpassed both insects and bacteria or at the very least caught up to them. What other species has as many habitats as we do? Come on, we’re on the way of being able to permanently live in the desolate wastes of space (and probably would be already if it wasn’t so expensive to get matter up there). What other species can boast that? And with the help of technology, how long would it take for (some part of) humanity to adapt to a vastly different environment? Faster than it would take other species through mutation and natural selection, I reckon.

But nobody will be able to create selfsustaining life bubbles for us, should climate change in a way, that we can't survive there.

Well, first off, such a dramatic change seems unlikely. Secondly, I think we would be able to create such environments. Sure, not for all seven billion but certainly for enough people to continue the species.

Our definition of intelligence is as limited as ours is. Firstly you could also define intelligence as the ability to survive, [...]

You could but that would make about as much sense as saying “you could also define intelligence as the ability to blow snot bubbles” or something like that. I thought it was clear then we we’re talking about our definition of intelligence we were at least agreeing on the basic set of parameters that make up this term.

[T]hen the award would go to all the microbes and whatever that can survive in huge temperature ranges and completely different surroundings and environments.

I’ve heard this kind of argument several times and each time I point out that it is kinda unfair to generalize like that and say “all the microbes” and then go on to compare them to a single species. At least compare species to species and not domain to species.

Then much later the cockroaches, that are not really susceptable to radiation and can survive in most habitats

Pfff, cockroaches are sooo overrated. You know who is far less susceptible to radiation than cockroaches? Even frickin’ fruit flies. As for their habitats, I think humans have them beat in that regard. Can you think of a region that cockroaches inhabit which humans do not? I can think of examples the other way around (hint: cold-ass places).

And even if you focus on the traditional intelligence of a single being, we will always be limited to our logic of true and false, our limited memory capacity, or simply our lack of senses in many regards.

Intelligent computers

 

[ApuLunas.211]

except losing net connection?

 

[Demut]

Also, why did you post that video, Wichat? Does space make you angry? Or where does this fit in? Is this about the last line in there? Because that’s not true. Technically, I am the center of the observable universe from my perspective (and you of yours et cetera) Cosmological principle ftw!

 

[Cs__sz__r]

Fucking space! Ahhhhhhh!!!! FUCK YOU SPACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Guest 2091327]

The video was obviously put in there to show how incredibly insignificant we are compared to the vastness of space.

That's obviously not to say we'll be wiped out by a slight breeze tomorrow, but the possibility of human life ending is certainly there. We've barely been around at all. Dinosaurs had a much better run than we have had. Yet they were wiped out. We are of course in a better position to do something about it than they were, but life is very precious and lots of things can kill us. Unless something truly disastrous happens, like what wiped out the dinosaurs, then major cataclysmic events are more likely to drastically reduce our numbers than wipe us out. But we shouldn't strut around pretending we are indestructible either. Anyone who have experience with bad health in some way can testify to that. Life is very precious.

This thread took a strange turn btw.

 

[wichat]

The video was obviously put in there to show how incredibly insignificant we are compared to the vastness of space.

That's obviously not to say we'll be wiped out by a slight breeze tomorrow, but the possibility of human life ending is certainly there. We've barely been around at all. Dinosaurs had a much better run than we have had. Yet they were wiped out. We are of course in a better position to do something about it than they were, but life is very precious and lots of things can kill us. Unless something truly disastrous happens, like what wiped out the dinosaurs, then major cataclysmic events are more likely to drastically reduce our numbers than wipe us out. But we shouldn't strut around pretending we are indestructible either. Anyone who have experience with bad health in some way can testify to that. Life is very precious.

This thread took a strange turn btw.

Thanks Pangaea, and your right... a ittle detour to regain the original thread will be cool.


Life is very precious and so frail too..

 

[volsung]

I'm only going to refer to this last reply since we're going way off topic

proto-European humans survived an ice age before we even knew how to tame horses or use anything better than stone for tools, right?

Homo Habilis, a homo sapiens predecessor, was already capable of creating stone tools, manipulating fire, and probably other technological advancements. And it is estimated they disappeared around 1.4 million years ago. Way before any hominids ever set foot in Europe. Homo Ergaster/Erectus eventually reached Europe and led to Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, but by then they already had elaborate clothing. Not to mention Homo Ergaster already had many cognitive mechanisms for language. Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, who adapted successfully to an ice age, had a larger brain than we do and were extremely capable. They had tool workshops which imply, of course, shared mental models of the world and of others. It is no small feat to simply "survive an ice age".

Nah, I have to disagree with that. I think that as individuals homo sapiens will score as the most intelligent species no matter what definition you use.

If any professor of cognitive science, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, or anything in between heard you say that, they would have you committed. That is, to begin with, a logical fallacy. There is necessarily at least one definition of intelligence in which humans are not the best. For example, if you define intelligence as the mental capacity to compute and generate visual representations of heat waves. Or listen to anything above 22 KHz.

Frank Wilson in his book "The Hand" (1998) refers to intelligence as (paraphrasing) the ability to discover, weigh and relate facts, in order to solve problems. A good definition of intelligence *has* to be applicable to other species as well, not just humans. This has been the labour of many scientists for almost a couple of decades.

Again, I don’t think that’s true. There are pretty clear difference between the minds of humans and animals. For instance, animals are generally vastly inferior to humans in the social cognition department. You observed that animals don’t seem to give each other names. Whether that’s true or not I don’t know but it would fit what else we can say for certain.
For one thing, animals seem incapable of grasping that their fellow animals have minds.

You're playing with fire there. Have you read about any primatology experiments within the last 10 years? Chimpanzees, for example, not only have models of other's minds but they know how to effectively use their proto-theory of mind. There is a documented case in which a female chimpanzee is reclining against a rock, facing her male which happened to be a high ranking chimp. Behind the rock, was her lover. And she was caressing her lover with her own hands, right in front of her male, with the knowledge that he could not see that she was cheating on him because, from his perspective, he couldn't see her lover, being covered by a rock. Likewise, it has been found chimpanzees have a food gathering radius in which all findings must be shared. It happened that this one chimp was barely out of the circle when he/she found some food (let's say bananas). So he did what every ape does when pondering: he scratched his head, and finally decided that would not share his food and ate it all by himself. He knew he was out of the circle and they would not see him.

Primates are on an entirely different category. Maybe your average fish never questions what other fish do. But especially apes are way, way more intelligent than you give them credit for. In fact, chimpanzees have faster cognitive development than humans in the early years. Bluntly said, a 4 year old chimp is smarter than a 4 year old human, even using OUR own rules and tests.

Chimpanzees also have a remarkable ability to learn by imitation. They however cannot teach other chimps how to do things. If they did, maybe they would develop even more impressive skills.

Eh, not really. We can counterbalance these “deficiencies” with the fruits of our intelligence. We didn’t come to be the global apex predator from the 3rd degree trophic level for no reason.

The fruits of our intelligence being technology? If so, yes, we create technology to help ourselves adapt to the environment, since we don't have claws or fangs or wings. But we only "dominated" the Earth in this ridiculously small time frame because we found ourselves without major predators outside of Africa. Had we stayed there, no technology would have saved us from extinction.

Look at this from a historical perspective. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is no more than 200,000 years old. The Earth is approximately 4,500 Million years old. That is about 0.004% of the Earth's age. We are insignificant. There were others before us and others will come after us. We are animals with the ability to step beyond our animal nature and treat others with respect, love and compassion. But the truth is most of the time we choose not to use that which separates us from *other* animals. So what is the point of artificial tests of intelligence if we simply take things because we feel entitled to them?

And as a tie-in, it makes me angry that people think life on Earth exists for us to take advantage of it, without realizing we are but an insignificant sigh for nature.

 

[Guest 2091327]

And as a tie-in, it makes me angry that people think life on Earth exists for us to take advantage of it, without realizing we are but an insignificant sigh for nature.

Excellent post Volsung, as usual. Think you'd be a really cool guy to hang out with and have discussions with.

Your last line leads me to another thing that maybe not angers me, but certainly frustrates me. Religion.

If I don't remember erroneously, the Book of Confusion roughly says that man are created as the master, and shall rule over all (other) animals. Something like that. So we have seeds of our genocidal policies towards animals right there. And that's not even touching on all the other crap religion does. Thankfully it's not all bad, very few things are, and there were for example some promising religious signs in South and Central America. Unfortunately the Big Bully up north didn't quite fancy the Church caring about the poor, so they waged war against the continent, including the Church there. Which of course leads me to another 'thing' that really grinds my gears: politicians. I probably have that in common with every human being on the planet though, maybe even politicians.

 

[Blothulfur]

the Big Bully up north

Santa?

 

[Guest 2091327]

No, he lives way down south.

Oh wait. Santa?