Human Intelligence Theorem

[Aureumterra]

That just proves that the ability to comprehend symbols doesn’t make you sapient

N…no...it doesn't, but that wasn't the point I was making anyway, it proves that symbolism is not a mere idea coined by humans, it exists in animals too, in that they can apply value to symbols.

So aliens might think of us as animals even with symbols

[The New California Republic]

N…no...it doesn't, but that wasn't the point I was making anyway, it proves that symbolism is not a mere idea coined by humans, it exists in animals too, in that they can apply value to symbols.

So aliens might think of us as animals even with symbols

Wait, what? Are you intentionally interpreting what I am saying in a roundabout and facetious manner?

Regardless, no. There are other indicators of intelligence besides symbols.

[Light Green]

At least ants don't have their own little nukes.

Some kinds of ants do cultivate fungus, although some say it's more of a symbiosis.

And arguably, Human agriculture is a symbiosis as well. We eat them and they get to be spread all over the planet and beyond.

Ants actually herd certain types of insects. I frogot an exact example, but I found out there are certain insects that can produce something certain ants like, and they will actually keep them in their protection so they can make use of their substance. If the insects get attacked, the ants rush over to help out the insects. You could say thats symbiosis, but then isn’t it symbiosis when we herd animals like cows or hens? (of course we force them to make milk or eggs and kill them after, but we do protect them in the end.)

[Aureumterra]

At least ants don't have their own little nukes.

Some kinds of ants do cultivate fungus, although some say it's more of a symbiosis.

And arguably, Human agriculture is a symbiosis as well. We eat them and they get to be spread all over the planet and beyond.

Ants actually herd certain types of insects. I frogot an exact example, but I found out there are certain insects that can produce something certain ants like, and they will actually keep them in their protection so they can make use of their substance. If the insects get attacked, the ants rush over to help out the insects. You could say thats symbiosis, but then isn’t it symbiosis when we herd animals like cows or hens? (of course we force them to make milk or eggs and kill them after, but we do protect them in the end.)

This might be interesting, any links?

[Pope Joan]

Most of us can all agree that Humans are the most intelligent creatures on Earth. No matter how intelligent we are, we don’t know how we compare ourselves to the rest of life in the universe (if there is any). Many scientists searching for alien life and the possibility of an alien visit to Earth use humans being classified at “intelligent” in their situational models. There really is no reason to believe that extraterrestrial life would consider Humans as being intelligent, and this is the problem that I have with scientists making possible alien scenarios based on the fact that aliens would consider us as being intelligent. I also noticed that the Human brain is the thing that classified itself as intelligent, with no real standard other than the “non-sentient animals" we have on Earth. I came up with a theorem:

Humans are only intelligent to themselves, and themselves only. All life has its own standard for classifying intelligence.

That was pretty thought-provoking, and also makes many paradoxes too. Feel free to discuss your thoughts and objection about it here.
(And no, I don’t think that the world is ruled by reptilians, please keep your conspiracies away from this thread)

I like it.

Trees communicate with each other; they use chemicals.

So much that proud rationalist Austrians of 150 years ago called "mere instinct" in animals is now shown to be purposeful and intelligent in its way.

[Ratateague]

Ants actually herd certain types of insects. I frogot an exact example, but I found out there are certain insects that can produce something certain ants like, and they will actually keep them in their protection so they can make use of their substance. If the insects get attacked, the ants rush over to help out the insects. You could say thats symbiosis, but then isn’t it symbiosis when we herd animals like cows or hens? (of course we force them to make milk or eggs and kill them after, but we do protect them in the end.)

You mean aphids?

[Olthar]

Are you both serious right now? When we find an uncontacted tribe deep in the jungle, do you look at them living in mud huts and wielding pointed sticks and think, "They're so stupid," or do you think, "They're so primitive?" If the former, then there is no point in further discussion since your chauvinism is clearly blinding you.

If the latter, then why would a spacefaring species come to Earth, see all that we have done, including our own attempts at space travel, and think us stupid rather than simply primitive? It's not about subjectivity here. There is literally no way any species could even find us without using tools, and if they use tools, then they will absolutely be able to recognize and understand our intelligence.

In addition, even if they are so different from us that communication is impossible, we can still show them that we have advanced scientific understanding due to the universality of math. All we have to do is show them some sort of universal constant that lacks units, and they'll be able to recognize it. For instance, we could start giving them digits of pi or e. Understanding like that can only come from intelligence, and they’ll know that.

They might not see tools as sentient. Chimps use sticks to “fish” termites out of the mounds, which is using a tool, yet we don’t see them as sentient. I kinda get your universal math statement, but I’m sure many animals can figure out how to count, so, still no sentience there.

There is a difference between a found tool and a made tool. There's also a difference between a simple tool and a complex tool. Most importantly, there is a huge difference between counting and mathematics. I can only assume that you are being intentionally obstinate right now because I absolutely cannot comprehend someone not understanding such simplicity.

[Aureumterra]

They might not see tools as sentient. Chimps use sticks to “fish” termites out of the mounds, which is using a tool, yet we don’t see them as sentient. I kinda get your universal math statement, but I’m sure many animals can figure out how to count, so, still no sentience there.

There is a difference between a found tool and a made tool. There's also a difference between a simple tool and a complex tool. Most importantly, there is a huge difference between counting and mathematics. I can only assume that you are being intentionally obstinate right now because I absolutely cannot comprehend someone not understanding such simplicity.

Read the last few posts

[Olthar]

There is a difference between a found tool and a made tool. There's also a difference between a simple tool and a complex tool. Most importantly, there is a huge difference between counting and mathematics. I can only assume that you are being intentionally obstinate right now because I absolutely cannot comprehend someone not understanding such simplicity.

Read the last few posts

What a complete non-response. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[The New California Republic]

There is a difference between a found tool and a made tool. There's also a difference between a simple tool and a complex tool. Most importantly, there is a huge difference between counting and mathematics. I can only assume that you are being intentionally obstinate right now because I absolutely cannot comprehend someone not understanding such simplicity.

Read the last few posts

That...doesn't answer anything...

[Aureumterra]

They might not see tools as sentient. Chimps use sticks to “fish” termites out of the mounds, which is using a tool, yet we don’t see them as sentient. I kinda get your universal math statement, but I’m sure many animals can figure out how to count, so, still no sentience there.

There is a difference between a found tool and a made tool. There's also a difference between a simple tool and a complex tool. Most importantly, there is a huge difference between counting and mathematics. I can only assume that you are being intentionally obstinate right now because I absolutely cannot comprehend someone not understanding such simplicity.

We also don’t know the chemical communication that plants use, maybe they’re talking about math? We haven’t found proof though.

[The New California Republic]

There is a difference between a found tool and a made tool. There's also a difference between a simple tool and a complex tool. Most importantly, there is a huge difference between counting and mathematics. I can only assume that you are being intentionally obstinate right now because I absolutely cannot comprehend someone not understanding such simplicity.

We also don’t know the chemical communication that plants use, maybe they’re talking about math? We haven’t found proof though.

That still doesn't answer anything that Olthar said.

[Ratateague]

If I may add a glaring correction? Chimps are undeniably senient. Whether they are sapient is up for debate.

[Olthar]

There is a difference between a found tool and a made tool. There's also a difference between a simple tool and a complex tool. Most importantly, there is a huge difference between counting and mathematics. I can only assume that you are being intentionally obstinate right now because I absolutely cannot comprehend someone not understanding such simplicity.

We also don’t know the chemical communication that plants use, maybe they’re talking about math? We haven’t found proof though.

The fuck?

[The New California Republic]

We also don’t know the chemical communication that plants use, maybe they’re talking about math? We haven’t found proof though.

The fuck?

The replies I received earlier were just as opaque.

[The South Falls]

If I may add a glaring correction? Chimps are undeniably senient. Whether they are sapient is up for debate.

This stone age development, except for them not being able to use a human-style language, would make them Sapient, at least to me.

[Cetacea]

If I may add a glaring correction? Chimps are undeniably senient. Whether they are sapient is up for debate.

yeah Chimps (great Apes in general) are a special case as to whether they should also be considered fully sapient as well as just regularly sentient.

most of the markers of human intelligence including self concept, tool use, abstract symbolism and facility for communication are present in Apes such that the more generous theorist would count them as being as intelligent as young children.

perhaps Aliens would see humans similarly

[Olthar]

If I may add a glaring correction? Chimps are undeniably senient. Whether they are sapient is up for debate.

yeah Chimps (great Apes in general) are a special case as to whether they should also be considered fully sapient as well as just regularly sentient.

most of the markers of human intelligence including self concept, tool use, abstract symbolism and facility for communication are present in Apes such that the more generous theorist would count them as being as intelligent as young children.

perhaps Aliens would see humans similarly

There is one thong that apes decidedly lack, however, that keeps them from being fully sapient: the ability to recognize the intelligence of others. They may be to the point of "I think, therefore I am," but they most certainly have not reached "you think, therefore you are."

We've been able to communicate with apes for decades now thanks to teaching them sign language, and he have consistently done so. Many things have been said back and forth, but the one interaction that has never happened was an ape asking a question. It's not due to a lack of curiosity as virtually all mammals are probably curious, apes included.

The reason they don't ask us questions is because they don't expect answers. They are incapable of understanding that other beings could possess knowledge that they don't. The saying goes that no man is an island, but apes certainly are. They're a collection of islands, each one thinking they're the only being capable of thought. In this respect, they are very much like young children, as humans don't gain that ability until roughly three or four years of age.

Edit: This is also why apes do not and can not have a true civilization. Civilization requires specialization, and specialization requires the ability to understand that other people can do things you can't.

[Aureumterra]

yeah Chimps (great Apes in general) are a special case as to whether they should also be considered fully sapient as well as just regularly sentient.

most of the markers of human intelligence including self concept, tool use, abstract symbolism and facility for communication are present in Apes such that the more generous theorist would count them as being as intelligent as young children.

perhaps Aliens would see humans similarly

There is one thong that apes decidedly lack, however, that keeps them from being fully sapient: the ability to recognize the intelligence of others. They may be to the point of "I think, therefore I am," but they most certainly have not reached "you think, therefore you are."

We've been able to communicate with apes for decades now thanks to teaching them sign language, and he have consistently done so. Many things have been said back and forth, but the one interaction that has never happened was an ape asking a question. It's not due to a lack of curiosity as virtually all mammals are probably curious, apes included.

The reason they don't ask us questions is because they don't expect answers. They are incapable of understanding that other beings could possess knowledge that they don't. The saying goes that no man is an island, but apes certainly are. They're a collection of islands, each one thinking they're the only being capable of thought. In this respect, they are very much like young children, as humans don't gain that ability until roughly three or four years of age.

Edit: This is also why apes do not and can not have a true civilization. Civilization requires specialization, and specialization requires the ability to understand that other people can do things you can’t.

Once again, I’m bringing up ants, who communicate through chemicals. We don’t know their perception of the world, but the YouTuber AntsCanada has shown numerous times an ant searching for food, walking around in circles. This ant brushes past other ants with food, and somehow know how to find food. This must be them asking “Hey, were’d ya get from?” and the other ant responding.

[Ratateague]

Once again, I’m bringing up ants, who communicate through chemicals. We don’t know their perception of the world, but the YouTuber AntsCanada has shown numerous times an ant searching for food, walking around in circles. This ant brushes past other ants with food, and somehow know how to find food. This must be them asking “Hey, were’d ya get from?” and the other ant responding.

Ants are merely following trail pheromones, passing each other, and receiving brief updates through antennae communication. Army ants do well to demonstrate that this is not necessarily a sign of intelligence, as they are known to form "death spirals" in which they fall into a feedback loop of everyone following everyone else until they all die of exhaustion.

[The New California Republic]

This ant brushes past other ants with food, and somehow know how to find food. This must be them asking “Hey, were’d ya get from?” and the other ant responding.

Stop muddying the waters by jumping to conclusions and making completely unfounded assumptions, it derails the debate whenever you do that. You have done it several times so far on this thread, it really isn't helping.

[The Foxes Swamp]

octopuses are impressive creatures.

[Aureumterra]

This ant brushes past other ants with food, and somehow know how to find food. This must be them asking “Hey, were’d ya get from?” and the other ant responding.

Stop muddying the waters by jumping to conclusions and making completely unfounded assumptions, it derails the debate whenever you do that. You have done it several times so far on this thread, it really isn’t helping.

Whoops, I meant might

[James_xenoland]

Most of us can all agree that Humans are the most intelligent creatures on Earth. No matter how intelligent we are, we don’t know how we compare ourselves to the rest of life in the universe (if there is any). Many scientists searching for alien life and the possibility of an alien visit to Earth use humans being classified at “intelligent” in their situational models. There really is no reason to believe that extraterrestrial life would consider Humans as being intelligent, and this is the problem that I have with scientists making possible alien scenarios based on the fact that aliens would consider us as being intelligent. I also noticed that the Human brain is the thing that classified itself as intelligent, with no real standard other than the “non-sentient animals" we have on Earth. I came up with a theorem:

Humans are only intelligent to themselves, and themselves only. All life has its own standard for classifying intelligence.

That was pretty thought-provoking, and also makes many paradoxes too. Feel free to discuss your thoughts and objection about it here.
(And no, I don’t think that the world is ruled by reptilians, please keep your conspiracies away from this thread)

But if they didn't follow a standard close or near to ours, then they never would have left their home planet and making worrying how they may really classify us, a moot point to begin with. Put another way. The only life that would/could ever come here would have to be the type of a pretty set standard, with principles lining up pretty close in a lot of ways to ours.

You're thinking about this way too hard and falling into the "if we have only one standard" trap, without considering the other side of it. I mean how many non human based space programs are there on earth? If you say that because they're different, they won't follow the same path as us.. Then congratulations, you just ruled them out as forms ever even being able to visit us in the first place, or anyone/where else.

We may have MAJOR issues, even after a good amount of time and trying, to actually communicate and such with other intelligent life.. But outside of a huge, next, next level technological disparity, and even then it would be clear to both sides, it wouldn't be an issue of anything than level of development.

sorry, i'm in a rush or i'd have more to say.

[Aureumterra]

Most of us can all agree that Humans are the most intelligent creatures on Earth. No matter how intelligent we are, we don’t know how we compare ourselves to the rest of life in the universe (if there is any). Many scientists searching for alien life and the possibility of an alien visit to Earth use humans being classified at “intelligent” in their situational models. There really is no reason to believe that extraterrestrial life would consider Humans as being intelligent, and this is the problem that I have with scientists making possible alien scenarios based on the fact that aliens would consider us as being intelligent. I also noticed that the Human brain is the thing that classified itself as intelligent, with no real standard other than the “non-sentient animals" we have on Earth. I came up with a theorem:

Humans are only intelligent to themselves, and themselves only. All life has its own standard for classifying intelligence.

That was pretty thought-provoking, and also makes many paradoxes too. Feel free to discuss your thoughts and objection about it here.
(And no, I don’t think that the world is ruled by reptilians, please keep your conspiracies away from this thread)

But if they didn't follow a standard close or near to ours, then they never would have left their home planet and making worrying how they may really classify us, a moot point to begin with. Put another way. The only life that would/could ever come here would have to be the type of a pretty set standard, with principles lining up pretty close in a lot of ways to ours.

You're thinking about this way too hard and falling into the "if we have only one standard" trap, without considering the other side of it. I mean how many non human based space programs are there on earth? If you say that because they're different, they won't follow the same path as us.. Then congratulations, you just ruled them out as forms ever even being able to visit us in the first place, or anyone/where else.

We may have MAJOR issues, even after a good amount of time and trying, to actually communicate and such with other intelligent life.. But outside of a huge, next, next level technological disparity, and even then it would be clear to both sides, it wouldn't be an issue of anything than level of development.

sorry, i’m in a rush or i’d have more to say.

It’ll be quite a lot of time after first contact till we can communicate.