How do humans differ from other species?

SuperInfinity · 30-07-2010 3:52pm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I've been consistently saying that it was energy expenditure on thought as opposed to cranial capacity that was the defining issue.

Yeah, I agree your story of it is consistent in that regard.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Whales have significantly bigger brains than us, but no one suggests they're smarter. I stated earlier that neanderthals had larger cranial capacity. But that doesn't support your assertion that they were smarter.

But whales have a much lower EQ than we do. Neanderthals didn't. I don't know why you seem to be just ignoring EQ, EQ is like brain metabolism but we can actually measure it to some degree of accuracy.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I accept it as possible, that's why I was asking you to support your assertion. I find it fascinating, but I haven't seen you present any strong evidence for believing that early hominids or neanderthals were smarter than homo sapiens sapiens. I'd be of the opinion that we use more energy for thought than either, and probably more efficiently too.

I agree it's fascinating. I know I haven't presented very compelling evidence, I just think it's more likely. I definitely respect your viewpoint as being a valid and reasonable one, but I do think there is also a "wing" or facet of certain people (not saying you are a part of it), that think that we must be obviously the smartest beings that ever existed, with arguments that boil down to something like: "well if people were so smart 100,000 years ago, how come they didn't have the internet?". They refuse to accept on principle that any species or subspecies or our ancestors could ever have been smarter than us.

KindOfIrish · 30-07-2010 3:56pm

paky wrote: »

How do humans differ from other species other than our physical characteristics?

Only humans can ask this question on boards.ie

Cavehill Red · 30-07-2010 4:03pm

SuperInfinity wrote: »

But whales have a much lower EQ than we do. Neanderthals didn't. I don't know why you seem to be just ignoring EQ, EQ is like brain metabolism but we can actually measure it to some degree of accuracy.

We can only assume neanderthals didn't, being hominids. But I'm happy to accept that. I don't know a tremendous amount of EQ (or EI) except it has been posited in a wide variety of models as representing everything from self-awareness levels to the capacity to manage different social relationships. It seems fuzzy and highly debated to my limited knowledge, so I'm intrigued that it apparently is more concrete and measurable than that.

SuperInfinity wrote: »

I agree it's fascinating. I know I haven't presented very compelling evidence, I just think it's more likely. I definitely respect your viewpoint as being a valid and reasonable one, but I do think there is also a "wing" or facet of certain people (not saying you are a part of it), that think that we must be obviously the smartest beings that ever existed, with arguments that boil down to something like: "well if people were so smart 100,000 years ago, how come they didn't have the internet?". They refuse to accept on principle that any species or subspecies or our ancestors could ever have been smarter than us.

That smells like a 'God of the Gaps' argument to me. At the very least it's a highly homo sapiens-centric view of evolutionary history, and I wouldn't concur at all with it. As I said earlier, if cetaceans or primates evolved to divert sufficient energy towards thought, it's likely that they would become as smart as us, though obviously expressed in an entirely different way to how we've expressed our intelligence (superstition, civilisation, conurbation living, war, etc.)
As you said earlier, the trappings of civilisation came about late in the day and very quickly (demonstrating man's ability to learn from each other and spread information by communication quickly.)
It's highly possible that some early hominids might have been smarter and died out for varying reasons, including the neanderthals. With the latter, though, we know a bit more about them, and can certainly conclude that they were at least not as adaptable as homo sapiens, and likely not as smart either.

Cavehill Red · 30-07-2010 4:04pm

KindOfIrish wrote: »

Only humans can ask this question on boards.ie

I'm fairly certain that's within the capabilities of basic artificial intelligences too. Maybe even chimps, with the right training.

recedite · 30-07-2010 5:47pm

SuperInfinity wrote: »

Here they talk about the decrease in brain size (about 10% in the past 30,000 years). http://adhominin.com/index.php?id=4152453199173583192

Eh.. if you read that link it says; "The decrease in brain size during the late Pleistocene was also accompanied by a decrease in body size"

Anyway the whole brain size thing is a generalisation. It is known that we do not use all of the brain 100%, so if a piece is removed in an accident or in surgery , another part can sometimes take over the function. Intelligence output or performance cannot be measured in fossils. Phrenology was also once thought to be significant to intelligence, but not any more.

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Slightly off the subject, there's a 'Planet of the Apes' type theory than runs that if gorillas had made it to the coast first and began eating fish (rich in those Omega oils the brain just eats up), then we'd be the species in the zoos and they'd be the ones inventing space travel technology.
It's no surprise we're genetically closest to chimpanzees. Like us, but unlike their close cousins the bonobos, we're an aggressive, warlike species. Bonobos and gorillas are much more pacific.
Playing counter-history for a moment, one wonders what a gorilla or bonobo dominant planet might have been like. Likely, it would be a less competition-based, more pacifist society than our own, and on those grounds, possibly preferable.
Similar arguments have been made for the Neanderthals too.

I'm sure plenty of gorillas have glimpsed the ocean before turning back into the forest. The key to our success seems to lie in our flexibility and adaptability.
There is no reason to believe the neandertals were pacifists; I would would guess they were both aggressive and intelligent. They were big game hunters, so they needed both these qualities. It seems they weren't interested in eating fish or fruit. It is also quite possible that early H. sapiens were allowed to scavenge at a mammoth kill after the neandertals had finished. Being more specialised would have left the neandertals vulnerable when the big game ran out though.
As an analogy, consider how lions and hyenas interact. Lions will occasionally kill a particularly annoying hyena scavenging at their kill. A group of hyenas will occasionally kill a weakened lion. Mostly they just co-exist. Hyenas can also hunt down large prey and kill it, but they are not as proficient as lions. However if the big game ran out, the hyenas would still get by, but the lions would be extinct.
In this analogy, we are the hyenas.
I suppose being more flexible in outlook is a sign of our superior kind of intelligence, but the difference may have been smaller than is often supposed.
That leaves the question; does our flexible intelligence derive from eating fish, or did we fish because of our flexible intelligence?

JuliusCaesar · 08-08-2010 6:48pm

By EQ or EI are you referring to Emotional Intelligence? Just wondering, as I thought first you were talking about a measure of how much energy the brain consumes, proportional to bodily requirements.

EQ (emotional intelligence) isn't a single ability, it's a whole rake of abilities. It gained popularity with Golman's book, but that doesn't mean that it is entirely accepted within psychology.

How do humans differ from other species?

Comments