Unpopular Opinion
Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!
How voting works:
Vote the opposite of the norm.
If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.
Guidelines:
Tag your post, if possible (not required)
- If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
- If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].
Rules:
1. NO POLITICS
Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.
2. Be civil.
Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...
Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
5. No trolling.
This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/
view the rest of the comments
No animal shows anywhere near the range of neuroplasticity of humans. Humans can exist comfortably on almost all biospheres on earth and even space thanks to the technology we developed. Including the technology of language which features the word intelligence which we use for the way we grow and adapt. That's what we use our brains for and what we specialize in. We don't use our brains for sonar the way bats do, but that isn't intelligence.
Does that make humans inherently superior or give us the right to render the planet uninhabitable? No, of course not, and animals are smarter than many people give them credit for. But calling animal intelligence comparable to that of humans simply isn't accurate.
Other animals have language
Edit: when I tried to research the nueroplasticity claim I didn't see the answer you're giving. I saw sources claiming many animals have this and that rats have shown more nueroplasticity than humans
Other animals communicate. Language involves syntax and grammar which only humans are capable of. That also has nothing to do with the fact that intelligence is a human word to describe humanlike capacity.
And it's not like dolphins could learn whale language. Animal communication is very basic compared to ours.
I think it's undeniable that we're the most intelligent and capable species on the planet and not just because of apposable thumbs. Maybe some of the smartest animals are smarter than the dumbest humans, but we have a huge range.
No other brain works the way ours does, other primates and some dolphins/whales come close with their ingenuity and stuff but obviously millions of years behind us.
Yeah this is the attitude I think is harmful. You essentially have no evidence of your claims but you just strongly feel superior to other species.
'Animal communication is very basic compared to ours' is just a blatantly false statement. We know there are named individuals, dialect, syntaxes in other species. I think some humans are just ignorant of these things, which is the opposite of intelligence
Also none of you seem to consider the extra communication abilities many animals possess around scent a mark AGAINST humans. We may use the most complex vocal language to compensate for our total lack of smell communication
I understand some animals, especially mammals like whales, dolphins, and primates have complex languages. But ours is still more advanced. They just have no reason for their language to become more complex when all they need to do is eat and mate.
It's not, it's proven in the study you linked.
And as for smell, I would consider that an ability/skill, not intelligence. Monkeys aren't smarter than us because they can climb trees faster than us, dolphins aren't smarter than us because they're more adapted to swimming. Even cats aren't smarter than us based on their faster reaction speeds. Intelligence relies on brain power.
This is the double standard I have a problem with;
Human has ability = we attribute it to intelligence.
Animal has ability = we attribute it to their physiological form.
Human's ability to use intelligence is also attributable to our evolved survival strategy ie our physiological form. Why is using our brains proof of skilled intelligence but an animal using their nose ISN'T? To me you have reduced intelligence to a reductive measurement that is biased towards humans.
Animals derive knowledge about the world from their sense. That other animals can smell disease or sense magnetic forces and we CANT should humble us, but we see it as some meaningless outdated ability we have grown past while worshiping every tool we create.
Because it's not intelligence. Our apposable thumbs aren't an indicator of intelligence, what we decide, with our brains, to do with those thumbs is intelligence. Just like brain size isn't an indicator, sperm whales have the largest brain on the planet yet we are better at applying ours. And a crow's brain is smaller than a child but it's commenly understood they're smarter than a 4 year old.
Dog's use of their nose are signs of intelligence but not the nose in and of itself. It shows that they're intelligent, but clearly not more so than humans, who still have more complex relationships, language, learning ability, etc. The smelling of diseases isn't intelligence, they don't learn it, they can just do it. It's a natural evolved ability, like better hearing. Animals and humans using their brains to learn is a measure of intelligence and it's faster than evolution. It's not like we couldn't use smell to communicate if we had the ability.
I never said anything other than intelligence is meaningless, but in this case, it's largely meaningless as a measure of intelligence past the comparitivly simple form of communication smell is used as. I'm not saying animals are unintelligent, we're just more intelligent. It's more like;
Human has ability = what we do with it is a measure of intelligence.
Animal has ability = what they do with it is a measure of intelligence and we'd do more with it if we had the ability, because our intelligence makes us more curious and inventive. Most animals are content with the natural order, if humans could smell disease we'd use it to advance our medicine.
Its just so reductive and I couldn't disagree more. We learn how to use our tools by emulating nature.
Example: Humans and dolphins use sonar, but dolphins use it better (we are learning from their example): https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180531102742.htm
If your idea is true, humans would immediately be 'smarter' at using sonar than dolphins the second we gained the ability to do it.
But shocker, the animal that's been using it for millions of years has learned better ways to do it. And we get better by copying them. And without them, we (and our ability to use sonar) would be lessened forever.
WTF haha, there's no way for anyone to know that.
This strikes me as an example of as in/ought fallacy in that you assuming because most animals living on the planet in a sustainable manner are doing so because they want to, and not for any of a million other reasons up to and including that the species who don't live sustainably simply go fucking extinct.
Obviously not immediately, I never said that. If we had the ability to use sonar for the same amount of time, we'd be better at it and we soon will be better at it in less time than evolution allowed because our creativity and intelligence lets us advance faster than evolution.
Does the fact we learned how to use sonar without the natural evolved ability prove that we're smarter?
Maybe content was the wrong word, animals just don't care about advancing technology or growing. Most animals only care about reproduction, that's their lives goal. Salmon literally spend their entire lives, growing up, leaving home, going back home to mate, and dies.
I'm not sure what your point is anymore, are you still campainging that animals are smarter than us? Because they're not, they may be better at filling certain niches, but our niche is literally being smart. There are intelligent species but none have come close to what we can achieve with our brains. We sacrificed primate stretch and agility for higher brain power.
My last point is that you literally can't know what animals care about, and its weird you keep asserting you do. I think you mean that evolution selects based on reproduction, and thats true for humans as well. So do humans only care about reproduction? If so, then we can say they are exactly equal to animals.
Yes, a lot of humanity only cares about reproduction. But we've also elevated ourselves to creat art, science, music, etc.
I can't know for sure what animals care about, but I can make an educated guess based on evidence and observations. Most animals haven't got past the "find food, survive, reproduce" mindset - at least not much more than that, maybe add entertainment to pass the time. There's documentation of dolphins getting high recreationally.
Pretty much, some animals have other have a slightly varied goal set, but none are able to do anything close to our achievements. Which are mostly based around intelligence as we're not physically gifted.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060322175201.htm
We have known for quite some time that whales have language with syntax, in fact we now know they have regional dialects as well
You are proving my point this should be taught in school more, here you are under the impression humans are unique in this regard
Did you even read the article you submitted? I get it, you like animals.I like animals, even humans, some of them. But you're comparing other animals to humans at the things that humans are demonstratively best at. Its like saying that cattle are sometimes faster at running than cheetahs and maybe we've been defining "fast" or "run" wrong. If you move the goal post far enough apart and select the outliers you can find examples of anything, but you've proved nothing.
Are you the same person who claimed they didn't have syntax at all or someone different? Why claim that when they don't have syntax, and then move goalposts to bits of information?
https://www.uw360.asia/the-difference-between-human-and-cetacean-brains/ Are you aware cetaceans have more lobes in their brain than humans ?
Humans are always comparing animals TO OURSELVES and when they fall short we consider ourselves better, but we don't do the comparison the other way and subtract points from ourselves when we fail against animals.
I think this is my overall point and why our estimation of ourselves and other life on earth is so flawed.