Who's next to take our place?

[Keanumoreira]

 

M'kay, the meaning of the phrase "they are no smarter than" means just as smart as but cannot proceed. I did not say that they are less smarter than a chimpanzee, so, to set the reins straight as I can cleary see where this is going, I'll put it in the simplest way I possibily can. Chimpanzees are as smart as a toddler according to your word choice. To say that I experienced a logical fail based on what you said is not a reasonable conclusion.

 

"No smarter than" means they are either as smart or less smart. It does not just mean "just as smart", it could, but you assumed that's what I meant, which I clearly explained later I didn't.

 

Ok, this is the last time i'm going to say this: They won't form a civilization right away.

 

The fact that your saying that you aknowledge they won't do it instantly, and the fact that this is the third time I said it, yet you are still claiming I think they will spontaneously form a civilization makes no sense. I know they won't form one instantly; the process takes millions of years to even begin the process. I'm well aware of how it begins, as does everyone else here.

 

What you're failing to grasp is that the evolution involved in a race eventually forming, say, a civilization, is not a species just getting stronger and smarter, its a species branching off to form new species. If, for example, wolves eventually formed a civilization (or more appropriately the descendants of wolves) the resulting species would be much different than the wolves we know of today.

 

The other issue is that you are making the assumption that evolution has an ultimate goal (i.e sentience) that all species are heading towards, some faster than others. This is not true, as evolution is simply the process in which a race adapts to its environment (alternatively sometimes various random genetic mutations over time can produce a new species). If an equilibrium already exists in that environment, its unlikely that a member of that ecozone will evolve to possess a higher degree of intelligence or strength. Humans amazingly sophisticated intelligence is likely a result of both natural evolution and variou genetic mutations over time. So, it's not only incorrect to say that millions of years from now wolves will form a civilization, as whatever descendants of wolves that do form that civilization would be a different species. It's also very rare for a species as highly intelligent as humans to form (as demonstrated by the fact that there are only a few species possessing both sophisticated intelligence and sentience, with humans very much farther ahead than the others), so its unlikely that a race that show's no sign of evolving in the way you're proposing would ever become intelligent enough to create a civilization later.

 

TL;DR: You're seeing order where there is only chaos.

 

Whatever, I'm done discussing this. This is a pointless argument anyway.

[AliasTheory]

A human toddler is practically a genius compared to a chimpanzee...

 

Even Chimpanzee's, the 2nd most intelligent species, are less intelligent than Human toddlers.

 

What is your basis?

[GetOutOfBox]

What is your basis?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee#Intelligence

 

They are certainly intelligent, but for example, toddler's are capable of using complex human languages (though mastering their language takes a few years), are able to create and utilize complex tools (chimpanzee's do show a remarkable use of tools compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, but the average human toddler can create and use much more complex tools, some "child geniuses" have been known to demonstrate amazing inventive abilities), even toddlers are capable of extensive abstract thought (for those that aren't aware, abstract thought is basically creating/comprehending concepts that are not rooted in simple observation, i.e systems of government, physics (yes, you can observe many of the laws of physics, for example, a dog is likely aware that objects fall when there is nothing to support them in the air (gravity), but Dog's do not likely consider the reason for this.), religion, etc.

 

The one thing that chimpanzee's appear to have much more developed than us is photographic memory, they appear to be capable of remembering images that are only shown to them for an extremely brief period of time, in fact, a chimpanzee named Ayumu was capable of remembering an image displayed on a computer screen that was only visible for a quarter of a second, which the worlds memory grand champion (I did not give him that title, lol, wikipedia) was unable to do most of the attempts.

[AliasTheory]

Humans as I've read are also more intelligent in social respects as in communication. ;) And by child geniuses do you mean savantism / savants?

 

Some examples would be nice regarding tools, etc. But anyway, intelligence is a very broad term that we have always struggled to measure. How do you determine artistic intelligence? Emotional intelligence? What skills are considered more intelligent?

[GetOutOfBox]

Humans as I've read are also more intelligent in social respects as in communication. ;) And by child geniuses do you mean savantism / savants?

 

Some examples would be nice regarding tools, etc. But anyway, intelligence is a very broad term that we have always struggled to measure. How do you determine artistic intelligence? Emotional intelligence? What skills are considered more intelligent?

 

The link in my 1st reply say's it all :)

 

Basically, human's are more intelligent in every aspect except photographic memory.

 

And no, by "child geniuses" I don't mean just children with Savant Syndrome, which refers to people with developmental disorders(s) who have one or several abilities in which they greatly excel in, which contrasts with the other limitations caused by the disorder(s) (i.e some autistic people have certain areas in which they excel greatly in, though their social abilities are greatly limited). A person can be brilliant at an early age without nesssarily having contrasting mental disorders.

 

I don't know if this was really what you were trying to do, but it kind of sounds like you were trying to sound smart by using a more technical and (incorrect) alternative for the phrase "child genius". No offense if I'm wrong, but it just was a strange thing to say, kind of like if someone was talking about light and I said "by light do you mean photons?". Just saying, in case you didn't realize how that sounded :).

Edited December 19, 2010 by GetOutOfBox

[AliasTheory]

First time replying from my phone-

 

No I was not trying to sound smart. Anyone can sound smart over the net by rapidly going to wikipedia and citing random facts or religiously using a thesaurus. It doesn't make the argument any better if used in such a manner and it only gives off a strong apparent reputation. And thats deluded in my opinion. It is the first thing that came to mind because I'm writing a story related to the topic as well as having written some essays on it.

 

I would however appreciate if you just gave me a straight response to my later questions instead of bashing me on how I write.

[GetOutOfBox]

First time replying from my phone-

 

No I was not trying to sound smart. Anyone can sound smart over the net by rapidly going to wikipedia and citing random facts or religiously using a thesaurus. It doesn't make the argument any better if used in such a manner and it only gives off a strong apparent reputation. And thats deluded in my opinion. It is the first thing that came to mind because I'm writing a story related to the topic as well as having written some essays on it.

 

I would however appreciate if you just gave me a straight response to my later questions instead of bashing me on how I write.

 

Calm down, I was just saying how it sounded, and I don't know how I can get any clearer than what I wrote in my last post, I answered your first question, in detail too.

Edited December 19, 2010 by GetOutOfBox

[AliasTheory]

How do you determine artistic intelligence? Emotional intelligence? What skills are considered more intelligent?

 

To me, the comparison is hardly clearcut.

[GetOutOfBox]

How do you determine artistic intelligence? Emotional intelligence? What skills are considered more intelligent?

 

To me, the comparison is hardly clearcut.

 

Tell me how exactly this is not clear cut:

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee#Intelligence

 

They are certainly intelligent, but for example, toddler's are capable of using complex human languages (though mastering their language takes a few years), are able to create and utilize complex tools (chimpanzee's do show a remarkable use of tools compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, but the average human toddler can create and use much more complex tools, some "child geniuses" have been known to demonstrate amazing inventive abilities), even toddlers are capable of extensive abstract thought (for those that aren't aware, abstract thought is basically creating/comprehending concepts that are not rooted in simple observation, i.e systems of government, physics (yes, you can observe many of the laws of physics, for example, a dog is likely aware that objects fall when there is nothing to support them in the air (gravity), but Dog's do not likely consider the reason for this.), religion, etc.

 

The one thing that chimpanzee's appear to have much more developed than us is photographic memory, they appear to be capable of remembering images that are only shown to them for an extremely brief period of time, in fact, a chimpanzee named Ayumu was capable of remembering an image displayed on a computer screen that was only visible for a quarter of a second, which the worlds memory grand champion (I did not give him that title, lol, wikipedia) was unable to do most of the attempts.

 

As you can see I covered about every aspect there is too cover. All of your questions were answered in the above post, except for the extremely obvious question "How do you determine artistic intelligence" which doesn't even deserve an answer. How many chimps have you seen produce something like a Van Gogh or Tom Thomson painting? How many have designed architecture such as that of Saint Peter's Basilica or the Taj Mahal?

Edited December 20, 2010 by GetOutOfBox

[Keanumoreira]

 

How many chimps have you seen produce something like a Van Gogh or Tom Thomson painting? How many have designed architecture such as that of Saint Peter's Basilica or the Taj Mahal?

 

That's an inappropiate answer.

 

The reason that conclusion doesn't fit this whole "Chimpanzee intellegence" arguement, is because such paintings took thousands of years of human development in artistic means to produce such creations. Let's discuss them becoming an actual people before going into such deep matters.