alt Hacker NewsIt seems like the lesson we keep learning, no matter the proxy we use for intelligence, is that there is nothing that fundamentally sets humans apart from other animals (or even, in some ways, AI) other than the degree and scope of our intelligence.
While I'll never begrudge science that points out the obvious -- that's often where the most value comes from -- this particular avenue is always a little funny to me, as it often belies an expectation that other animals are unable to do these things by default.
Replies
> It seems like the lesson we keep learning, no matter the proxy we use for intelligence, is that there is nothing that fundamentally sets humans apart from other animals
Except it doesn't show that.
The reason people make this judgement is because they don't have a coherent or clear definition of "intelligence". Nothing has been undermined, except in those who took the view that animals are dumb automatons. That's more of a legacy of modernism and the desire to gain "mastery over nature" more than anything else.
The essential feature of human beings - from which the rest of human nature and its consequences follow, including our social nature - is rationality. This entails an intellect, which is the abstracting faculty. It is the intellect that makes language possible, because without the capacity to abstract from particulars, we could not have universal concepts and thus no predicates. Language would be reduced to the kind we see in other animals.
For clarity, the functions of language are:
1. expressive: expressing an internal state or emotion (e.g., a cry of pain)
2. signaling: use of expressive to cause a reaction in others (e.g., danger signals)
3. descriptive: beyond immediate sensation; describes states of affairs, allowing for true or false statements
4. argumentative: allows critical analysis, inference, and rational justification
Without abstraction, (3) and (4) are impossible. But all animal activity we have observed requires no appeal to (3) and (4). Non-human animals perceive objects and can manipulate them, even in very clever ways, but they do not have concepts (which are expressed as general names).
Could there be other rational animals in the universe? Sure. But we haven't met any. And from an ontological POV (as opposed to a phylogenetic taxonomic classification), they would be human, as the ontological definition of "human being" - "rational animal" - would apply them.
The primal separation of man and animals has not changed since the invention of the device...
Animals fear motorized vacuum cleaners.
> I'll never begrudge science that points out the obvious
People have many beliefs, inaccurate to varying degrees - many to a large degree. Science is a solution to our pretty bad intuitions. Sometimes it discovers they are wrong; sometimes science shows they are correct - it's hindsight to say it was 'obvious'.
Also, I don't think it's obvious to 99.x% that cows use tools.
Not long ago there was the story of an orangutan in the wild using a paste it made from plants to heal itself, like some sort of anti-bacterial/anti-inflammatory.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-68942123