From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!generic.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!kla!zardoz Tue Nov 19 11:08:42 EST 1991
Article 1163 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!generic.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!kla!zardoz
>From: kla!zardoz@sun.com (Phillip Wayne)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Animal Intelligence vs Human Intelligence
Message-ID: <1991Oct29.185134.12320@sun!kla>
Date: 29 Oct 91 18:51:34 GMT
References: <3844@litchi.bbn.com> <37337@shamash.cdc.com> <3851@papaya.bbn.com>
Sender: news@sun!kla
Organization: KLA Instuments, Inc.
Lines: 48

In article <3851@papaya.bbn.com> cbarber@bbn.com (Chris Barber) writes:
>In article <37337@shamash.cdc.com> map@svl.cdc.com (Mark Peters) writes:
>>
>>Given the obvious survival advantages to having a conceptual faculty,     
>>how is it possible that in all the time these animals have been on earth
>>(which is alot longer than we have) they haven't used their alledged
>>conceptual faculty to improve their lives?
>
>[...] I don't think any of us question that humans do indeed have
>conceptual facility and that ability has allowed us to develop language,
>technology and civilization.  However, just because animals do not have highly
>developed language, cilizations, etc., does not necessarily imply that they do
>not have a conceptual facility!

The problem here is one of perception and cultural bias. Let us take one thing
at a time. Having a conceptual capability is, indeed, a survival advantage. 
So are claws and teeth. Simply having an advantage is no guarantee that is 
will be used, or how. And, more importantly, having one does not imply that
it is the *only* advantage. Insects (and some mammals) build large archi-
tectural structures. No implication of higher thought, but they manage to
get them built just the same. And there is little doubt that an anthill 
does indeed improve the lives of the ants that live in it. So, higher thought
(whatever that is) or a conceptual faculty (ditto) is not required for
improving the life of a critter or community. Genus homo included.

Now, let us talk about language. Birds do it, bees do it. Now we think even
trees do it. Dolphins have a complex language which is apparently capable
of describing individual whales (!), as well as good feeding grounds and `
the way to get there. Complex enough? Try that with English. Many animals are
capable of non-human concepts in their own language. Human language describes
human things. That is evolution. Porpoise language describes porpoise things.
How can you compare them? They are both rich and complex systems of utteran-
ces.

[...]
>>If other animals have a conceptual faculty, then they should use it to   
>>formulate, publish, and defend their own theory of intelligence - we
>>humans are obviously in need of help in that area.

They have. However, you don't have the conceptual ability to realize it,
let alone understand the publications. (1/2 :0). So, prove me wrong...

zardoz
-- 

+-----------------------------------------------
|
| When you do it to me, it's discrimination


