Remix.run Logo
LPisGood 9 hours ago

I think it’s pretty fair to say humans have advanced cognition. There is no myth here, other animals barely use tools, change the world around them, create and pass on information, etc

MangoToupe 9 hours ago | parent [-]

> There is no myth here

The myth is in reducing complex behavior to a single dimension and calling it "advanced" rather than, well, more human-like. I'm skeptical of the utility of this "advanced" conception. There's no objective reason to view tools, language, etc as particularly interesting. Subjectively of course it's understandable why we're interested in what makes us human.

throwaway2562 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Good grief. This is what 20 years of language policing has wrought. People who are nervous (hiding behind ‘skeptical’) about words like ‘advanced’ when, by any number of dimensions, human cognition is uncontroversially superior, more advanced, more fluid, more deep, more adaptive, more various (pick one, nervous people) to that of spiders or cows.

Or is that all just a ‘myth?’

CamperBob2 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This entire subthread belongs on the 'HN Simulator' story.

MangoToupe 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Heart-making-hands-emoji-with-skin-tone-1

MangoToupe 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm not nervous, I just don't see the utility. Perhaps you can elucidate this for me.

Espressosaurus 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're communicating ideas across unknown thousands of miles with a stranger in near realtime and are able to comprehend each other, for one.

No cat or dog has managed that feat yet.

No cat or dog has managed to reproduce fire to the degree that evolution has changed their gut to adapt to the increase in available calories.

The big brain comes with down sides, but one thing it does have is utility.

Germ theory of disease has made it so a scratch isn't fatal anymore. Why, after all, do cats play with their prey? To tire it out so there's less chance of injury when they go in for the kill.

We just figure out how to farm it instead and mold it to our needs.

MangoToupe 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't disagree with any of this, but what is the utility of viewing this ability as "more advanced"?

throwaway2562 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What is the utility of denying it?

What do you or anyone else actually get from such obvious absurdity, I wonder?

If it helps - and I have doubts - does (say) a working knowledge of Galois theory require more advanced mathematical cognition than arithmetic?

Would it be immoral to introduce such ghastly, hierarchical language? Etc.

I see you ignored the obvious rejoinder downthread, which stated that the utility of classifying behaviours or capacities is to help you predict outcomes.

How much more help do you need here? It’s not very complicated, but you prefer to showboat.

munificent 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Let's say you're about to embark on a cross-oceanic sailing voyage. For safety reasons, you think it's best to bring another living being with you who can help if things go south or you are incapacitated.

Are you going to bring another human, or a goat? Can a goat navigate while you sleep? Can it apply first aid to you? Can it respond on the VHF radio if you get hailed? Can it operate the bilge pump?

MangoToupe 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Embarking on a cross-oceanic sailing voyage seems to be a particularly human brand of tomfoolery. Why not just stay at home with the goat?

munificent an hour ago | parent [-]

I honestly can't tell if you think you're being funny, deep, or just trolling.

antisthenes 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> I don't disagree with any of this, but what is the utility of viewing this ability as "more advanced"?

Because that's the most accurate description of what it is. The more accurately you describe something, the more effectively you communicate, an aspect of more advanced cognition.

aoeusnth1 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The utility is that it's predictive of future observations, like all good language.

goatlover 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Tool use allowed humans to colonize the planet and outcompete all rivals. We became a super predator species. We even gained the ability to look beyond our home. We look for evidence of other such advanced tool users in space.

observationist 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Humans have fingers and thumbs and sophisticated wiring of throat, lips, and tongue.

Wire up a gorilla with the equivalent hands and vocalization capacity, negate the wild hormonal fluctuations, and give that gorilla a more or less human upbringing, and they're going to be limited in cognition by the number of cortical neurons - less than half that of humans, but more than sufficient to learn to talk.

The amazing thing isn't necessarily that brains get built-in environmental shortcuts and preprogrammed adaptations, but that nearly everything involved in higher level cognition is plastic. Mammalian brains, at the neocortical level, can more or less get arbitrarily programmed and conditioned, so intelligence comes down to a relative level of overall capacity (number, performance of neurons) and platform (what tools are you working with.)

Give a whale, dolphin, or orca some neuralink adapters for arms and dexterous hands, and a fully operational virtual human vocal apparatus, and they'd be able to match humans across a wide range of cognitive capabilities.

By co-opting neural capacity for some arbitrary human capabilities equivalent, you might cripple something crucial to that animal's survival or well-being, the ethics are messy and uncertain, but in principle, it comes down to brains.

What makes us interesting as humans is that we got the jackpot set of traits that drove our species into the meta-niche. Our ancestors traits for adaptability generalized, and we started optimizing the generalization, so things like advanced vocalization and fancy fingerwork followed suit.

kbenson 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> Give a whale, dolphin, or orca some neuralink adapters for arms and dexterous hands, and a fully operational virtual human vocal apparatus, and they'd be able to match humans across a wide range of cognitive capabilities.

While I don't disbelieve this out of hand, I can think of different things that might easily make this untrue. On what evidence is this assertion based? Is it just "our brains are essentially similar and much of it is not hard wired therefore they should perform the same" or is there deeper science and/or testing behind this?

observationist 3 hours ago | parent [-]

There's a lot of data that seems to fit. I'd say the science heavily leans this way - things like the dog/cat talking button studies, AI vocalization research in primates, whales, and birds, a whole ton of biological research across mammals, and most data start to paint a picture of mammalian brain structure being more important than particular quirks of human brain biology.

There are some theories of function out there, like that of Numenta, which seems consistent across mammal brains, and is at least partially explanatory of cognitive function at a cellular level. There's also value to be found in LLMs and AI research in understanding networks and recursion and what different properties of structures that perform different functions have to conform to.

Pilot whales and blue whales and some other species have upwards of 45B cortical neurons, and if higher cognitive function is conserved across species, then they'd have the potential to be significantly more intelligent than humans - all else being equal.

A useful thought experiment is to compare different species to feral humans. Absent culture, the training, education, knowledge, and framework for understanding reality, without language, natural and wild living is pretty grim and intense. There's a whole lot we take for granted underpinning our abilities to reach the heights of technology and abstract use of language and thought.

It could be humans and primates have some sort of magic sauce - a particular quirk of networking or neurochemistry that augments relative capabilities, as opposed to embodiment or other factors. People have sought the magic sauce for decades, however, and that doesn't seem to be a viable explanation.

pyridines 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Animal intelligence is often underestimated, (e.g. there's a famous test that shows that chimpanzee working memory is better than ours) but our use of language is qualitatively different from other animals. Some animals have rudimentary communication, but no other animal is capable (as far as we know) of recursive, infinitely variable language structure like us.

rolisz 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Objective reason: humans have done the most change to the planet (and have put stuff into space). No other species has done that.

oceanplexian 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Also objective:

As far as we know humans are the only species to leave Earth’s gravity well. No other species has been able to do that in 4 billion years.

NobodyNada 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Humans have not left Earth's gravity well. We've built probes that have, but humans have only gotten as far as orbit.

pezezin 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Did you forget about the Moon landings?

NobodyNada 5 hours ago | parent [-]

That's pretty close to escaping the Earth's gravity well, but not quite out, since the Moon is definitely still orbiting the Earth.

MangoToupe 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> humans have done the most change to the planet (and have put stuff into space).

I think we have a long way to go to catch up with algae.

kruffalon 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Please never change (in thus regard at least)!

I agree with you, it's not obviously clear what "advanced" means in this context if we don't automatically equate it with humanlike.

anthonypasq 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

brother we could easily eliminate 99% of life on the planet tomorrow or drastically alter the composition of the atmosphere if we wanted to.

shpx 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That remaining 1% are then actually the most advanced species, since they can continue their billion year existence through a blip of a couple thousand years when the environment became a bit more radioactive. We're so fragile that we're effectively biologically unstable, they're so advanced that they don't even need to know what happened.

MangoToupe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not our capacity that matters but our actual behavior. Sure, we could cause even greater mass extinction. But will we choose preservation over suicide? That matters in evaluating our role in the hierarchy of life

cindyllm 4 hours ago | parent [-]

[dead]

stray 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think it's funny that humans think humans are uniquely advanced. The brain thinks the brain is the most awesome machine in the universe :-)