|
| ▲ | lelanthran 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > However research on monkeys/apes has for the most part proven that their intelligence is at a dead end and never can progress past what is basically around human 2yo level. How do you prove something like that with animals that can come up with a strategy, form battle plans, execute them, etc. Even a 4 year old has less strategic vision than what is required to wage a prolonged war over years. |
|
| ▲ | Xss3 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That really depends how you measure and define intelligence and does a disservice to them. Toddlers for example dont tend to have gang wars for territories and certainly couldnt do battle outcome predictions from a glance at a group across thick canopy and the sounds of branches and hollering. |
| |
|
| ▲ | gerdesj 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Please quote your sources regarding monkey and ape intelligence with regards dead ends (whatever that means), wet blanket. Please also note you are just a wet blanket and not the wet blanket - that epithet is not normally sought after. |
| |
| ▲ | stevenwoo 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | This is not the objective of this book, but The Language Puzzle discusses why primates have never exhibited any verbal language skill as we recognize it past the capability of a infant/toddler, even the best achieving examples we have of primates show they cannot manipulate language as well a child of four or five, and some of those studies with humans raising primates in their homes have some particularly unscientific bits, it also discusses why the vocal abilities of all other primates is lesser than humans and the language centers in brain that we think we know about in humans is also much lesser or not used to the same extent in other primates measured using MRI/anatomy studies, the progression of brain and vocal capabilities of homo sapiens progenitors to develop language via paleontology that shows the divergence from other primates, and many experiments with wild and captive primates of all types to demonstrate some language skill but nothing past very simple meaning for one sound, that might not be common to a geographically separate group, and not always the same meaning for the same group, and the inability of primates to use gestures without lots of prompting for communication. The highest form of communication I remember is one study that shows that orangutangs might be able to communicate a meaning of "in the future" via example warnings about snakes to young ones but you can read about that yourself, it seemed kind of speculative, too. Off top of my head it's a comprehensive overview of primate language research and evolution of physiology of brain/vocal abilities/hands. I don't agree with all the conclusions at end of the book (prior to this everything is based on what we have evidence for so there's a bit of speculation towards the end) but it's fun to think about. Here's a decent review:https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/steven-mithen/the... |
|
|
| ▲ | keeganpoppen 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| well that surely seems to be empirically true... |
|
| ▲ | iwontberude 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Apes tend to be way more intelligent than humans of any age about how to hold and consume different vegetables and fruits. |
| |
| ▲ | dlisboa 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Humans today perhaps. People tend to underestimate our abilities in nature because we’ve evolved to be able to shape it. In reality humans had generationally transmitted oral knowledge of food, plus are the only animals that can transform food at will, including from “toxic” to consumable. |
|
