GENIUS FORUMS

Isn't one only able to think and know after first perceiving and learning first? since the 5 senses are necessary in learning, or in this case perceiving, and since animals have their noses, eyes, ears etc "wired" differently does this mean the literally perceive differently? Is it because we are more evolved and more "fit", in the Darwin sense, we are at the highest plateau (as far as we know) of intelligence? Does this mean that animals are on a different level of consciousness, and therefore thought itself?

Just some questions from the curious mind....

Check wikipedia on Sense, you'll see that there are more than five.

animals are not conscious, they do not possess language, or a well formed neocortex, which means high level cognition and reasoning is just not possible.

animals are driven mostly by instinct and a deep cellular drive to survive and replicate, probably caused at the very primal level of the cells. Humans are also controlled by cellular demands, but not to the degree of animals who are unable to think or reflect on action.

As far as the senses, some senses are more important than others as far as intelligence is concerned, in my opinion, eye-sight is much more important to the emergence of intelligence than lets say the sense of smell.

smell is mostly useful for survival purposes only, as it prevented our ancestors from digesting toxic substances, but it doesn't have any usefulness as far as greater intelligence is concerned. However, eye-sight which also evolved for survival purposes - IE: finding food, evading predators and so on - also has the unique attribute of making the observer aware of beauty, truth and deep relationships within reality.

arek,

Isn't one only able to think and know after first perceiving and learning first?

Sure.

since the 5 senses are necessary in learning, or in this case perceiving, and since animals have their noses, eyes, ears etc "wired" differently does this mean the literally perceive differently?

Yes.

Is it because we are more evolved and more "fit", in the Darwin sense, we are at the highest plateau (as far as we know) of intelligence?

Yes.

Does this mean that animals are on a different level of consciousness, and therefore thought itself?

Yes. Animals are conscious, though to a much lower degree than we are. Monkeys, gorillas, dolphins and maybe whales are the only ones besides humans who are self-conscious -- they are aware of their own existence. Going down on the scale of consciousness, we would have most mammals and birds. Going down much further we would reach the invertebrates, who have a much more primitive form of consciousness because they don't have a nervous system. I could keep going down, but I'll stop here. I think you get the idea.

Arek, have you read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer? He delves into these issues. Amongst other things, he points out that the difference between the most intelligent animals and the least intelligent humans is minimal (and the logical consequences of that). He also argues that while the senses of perception differ in strength between animals and mankind, our level of consciousness has more in common in respect to basic interests than many people would like to believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

In the nasal cavity of most mammals and humans there is an organ called the Vomeronasal Organ (VNO) which performs DNA comparisons between one's own DNA and the DNA in the pheremones of potential mates.

That is one kind of "intelligence" which is different than pure reason. Of course, pure reason would have a hard time working out all the details. The VNO accomplishes this by fuzzy logic.

Here is a question. If you didn't "feel" pain, how and why would you react to it? In clinical cases where a human subject does not "feel" pain, they do not react to it either.

You might think a light switch doesn't "feel" the switch movement. But this presupposes there is more to the human nervous system than switches. And so far as neuroscience can tell us, there isn't anything but switches. So now your into the realm of the paranormal.

But what is the drive to be different from other animals or even a light-switch? What is it about us that strives so hard to find something else? Something that would make us special.

volta wrote:Arek, have you read Animal Liberation by Peter Singer? He delves into these issues. Amongst other things, he points out that the difference between the most intelligent animals and the least intelligent humans is minimal (and the logical consequences of that). He also argues that while the senses of perception differ in strength between animals and mankind, our level of consciousness has more in common in respect to basic interests than many people would like to believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

I would add that our intelligence isn't so different from descent with modification, or evolution, or the laws of nature. Intelligence v non-Intelligence is a false duality, IMHO.

In terms of the duality of Intelligence v Non-Intelligence. How does "intelligence" arise from "non-intelligence" and wouldn't that require a degree of "Free-Will"? In order for a person to become "more intelligent" than the non-intelligence which gave cause to their intelligence.

Animus,

In the nasal cavity of most mammals and humans there is an organ called the Vomeronasal Organ (VNO) which performs DNA comparisons between one's own DNA and the DNA in the pheremones of potential mates.

Wow! I had no idea.

There is a lot of intelligent processes that go on at a subconscious level. It is intelligence nonetheless, in spite of the protests of most people.

arek4321 wrote:Is it because we are more evolved and more "fit", in the Darwin sense, we are at the highest plateau (as far as we know) of intelligence?

We aren't really more evolved or more fit in a Darwinian sense. We are on the same level as all other current species in that each current species has successfully adapted to changing conditions over the eons and managed so far to survive.

Each species has its own strengths and weaknesses. While we are strong on intelligence and adaptability, we are weak on smell, sonar, physical strength, wings, gills, etc. Determining which species is the "more evolved" would depend on which criteria we choose to adopt to assess such a matter.

-

David Quinn said,

We aren't really more evolved or more fit in a Darwinian sense. We are on the same level as all other current species in that each current species has successfully adapted to changing conditions over the eons and managed so far to survive.

Actually, there are a lot of species that are much more evolved than we are. Cockroaches, viruses, bacteria -- they will be around long after we're gone.

Admittedly, the VNO is a rather controversial subject and some argue that it receeds in fetal development. However, in a recent issue of SciAm Mind a study reports discovery of this organ in most humans as well as animals. I'm sure there will be objections to this study. The point though, is just as you said, that there are systems which are "intelligent" in different ways.

Shahrazad wrote:Animus,

In the nasal cavity of most mammals and humans there is an organ called the Vomeronasal Organ (VNO) which performs DNA comparisons between one's own DNA and the DNA in the pheremones of potential mates.

Wow! I had no idea.

There is a lot of intelligent processes that go on at a subconscious level. It is intelligence nonetheless, in spite of the protests of most people.

The virus H. Pylori is incredibly efficient at adapting to our digestive system. It develops long tentacles capable of clinging to our internal organs.

I'll have to agree that all organisms, evolving from the same origin are either adapted to their environments or they are extinct. In this sense something isn't "more evolved", it is only better adapated to its environment. Of course this is confounded by what we consider to be "better adapted". Is the ability to develop machinery which ultimately ruins the environment "more adapted" to the environment? Hardly. And so, neither is a parasite well adapted to preserve its environment.

David Quinn wrote:

arek4321 wrote:Is it because we are more evolved and more "fit", in the Darwin sense, we are at the highest plateau (as far as we know) of intelligence?

We aren't really more evolved or more fit in a Darwinian sense. We are on the same level as all other current species in that each current species has successfully adapted to changing conditions over the eons and managed so far to survive.

Each species has its own strengths and weaknesses. While we are strong on intelligence and adaptability, we are weak on smell, sonar, physical strength, wings, gills, etc. Determining which species is the "more evolved" would depend on which criteria we choose to adopt to assess such a matter.

-

I agree with David on this. Given what evolution is, it isn't really meaningful to say that any species is "more evolved" than another.