Feb 27, 17 / Ari 02, 01 17:34 UTC
There are many Birds,animals, creatures are found.Human body has brain so it should be decided a best phenomina of the universe or any other creature may be decided better than a human.If any other is better please prove it Birds are able to fly and are very beautiful and pretty should be decided best among human body making a super it's nest. Is it correct?
Feb 27, 17 / Ari 02, 01 17:43 UTC
Comment deleted
Feb 28, 17 / Ari 03, 01 00:23 UTC
Yes humans are amazing, but like all living creatures, a product of evolution: The same process that has formed every species that has ever lived or will ever live.
As far as being the best phinomena (or phenomena) amongst living creatures, my vote is for the tardigrade. It is the only animal that can survive in space and capable of withstanding temperatures from close to 0K to above 400K. It doesn't seem to be affected by high pressure or radiation and can live for more than 10 years without food or water. They are just about indestructible and even if something does stop them, they can often be revived decades later. As an added bonus, they are able to produce asexually.
Yes, the human brain is pretty amazing, but these guys are absolutely bad ass.
Feb 28, 17 / Ari 03, 01 00:39 UTC
Comment deleted
Mar 17, 17 / Ari 20, 01 22:44 UTC
@Scarbs,
You know they never actually found evidence of humans having evolved from apes. Look up Lyod Pye everything you know is wrong on youtube the man presents evidence that is contrary to the theory of humans having evolved from apes
Mar 17, 17 / Ari 20, 01 23:00 UTC
Comment deleted
Mar 17, 17 / Ari 20, 01 23:54 UTC
Thank you Clive - you saved me from providing an evolutionary smackdown lesson.
Hey Brandon7 - If you re-read my post, you will see that I never said that human evolved from apes - just that evolution is the "process that has formed every species that has ever lived or will ever live". This in now way indicated, inferred or alluded to humans being evolved from apes... because we are not. As Clive said, apes and humans have a common ancestor that is neither ape or human. You might need to brush up on your evolutionary biology a bit.
BTW, and this may come as a shock, youtube is not necessarily the greatest repository of human knowledge given that you only need to meet two requirements to use it - an computer with an internet connection and an anus.
Mar 18, 17 / Ari 21, 01 17:53 UTC
The concept of "best" is a product of intelligent minds. It is not a natural property of physics. As far as we know, only human minds are sufficiently intelligent for this concept, as no other species appears capable of natural language. Therefore, human minds must be the best phenomenon in the universe.
If only best actually meant something...
Mar 18, 17 / Ari 21, 01 18:38 UTC
Dolphins? Whales?
Those are just the first two that came to head. Many animals have a "natural language". Not all of it is verbal, but some even have that.
"best" is not a product of intelligent mind, "best" is a product of opinion.
Mar 18, 17 / Ari 21, 01 19:02 UTC
I mean language in the technical sense. Most animals communicate in some way, but it's not the same thing. Dogs are some of the smartest pre-linguistic animals, because they can understand individual words. Other apes are quite close to language, but they are only capable of very simple syntax. There is much controversy over whether dolphins and whales use language and it appears that, if they do, it is completely incomprehensible to us on a fundamental logical level. They'd have to be using a completely alien grammar that our best scientists using soft-AI can't even begin to decode.
One wonders how an opinion is created without an intelligent mind. Perhaps rocks think they are the best.
Mar 18, 17 / Ari 21, 01 19:31 UTC
Opinon isn't a defacto equivilent to intelligence, although it does imply the ability to make a decision.
Dolphins have certainly been observed and recorded conversing. Yes, we are unaware of the syntax and grammar - but they certiainly understand it.
Parrots also understand words, and they can use them - sometimes with accurate context. As a wonderful example someone with a dog and a parrot, the parrot has decided it doesn't like the dog. Imitates the human voice: Do you want to go for a walk? would you like a treat? - intentionally to agitate the dog which cannot figgure out what is actually happening. It knows exactly what it's saying, and the effects of this. Further, it is using this to achieve an aim. Indicating intelligent operation. And even malicous intent.
Mar 18, 17 / Ari 21, 01 19:59 UTC
I think your conflating intentionality, language, and communication. Language is defined very specifically and narrowly by linguists. The parrot can understand that the dog is agitated by certain words, but that doesn't mean the parrot is using language. The parrot can even understand that "Do you want to go for a walk" means the dog is about to go for a walk, but it can't decode the syntax. The logical operators of language mean nothing to non-apes (and possibly cetaceans) and they can not distinguish between a sentence and a word.
Either something is capable of intelligence or it is not intelligent. Non-intelligent things, like rocks, do not have opinions. Levels of intelligence vary of course, but there are many things that are logically impossible without intelligence, like opinion. Or nothing is really intelligent and we've all been philosophical zombies all along.
Mar 18, 17 / Ari 21, 01 20:43 UTC
I think you should look into parrots a little more, understanding of slightly more complex syntax might only be there for the few that can be bothered to decode it but they can certainly demonstrate understanding of some things. They might not understand every word in a sentence, but they can pick up on the words they do recognise and understand meaning. This isn't an entirely limited feature to be exhibited, displayed by many species - but the parrot can also use it, in context, not just understand it.
I was not suggesting rocks are sentient or people are zombies(admittedly, some do try hard to prove this with their actions) but was instead highlighting that humans are not the only species to display concepts like preferences. Or language. Or use of tools. Or use of toxic substances to induce a "buzz" for personal enjoyment. And concepts like preference are not within itself an indication of intelligence, or sentient thought. Plants are commonly attributed to little or no intelligence yet definitely exhibit preferences, thusly they find some conditions/locations "better". For example, responding appreciatively to one type of music, but not another.
Mar 18, 17 / Ari 21, 01 21:34 UTC
I agree with you almost entirely, but language is more than thinking or communication. It's the ability to create an arbitrary number of referents for an arbitrary number of objects, to organize referents into logical categories, to join referents into complex words, to join words into phrases, to join phrases into clauses, to modify words and phrases with logical operators, to create referents without corresponding objects, and so much more. It's the highest tier of complexity in communication and it's what enables us to be so intelligent. It takes hours to train other animals to perform tasks reliably, but with language most training is limited mainly by the transmission speed.
Other animals can understand good. They can understand better. But they can't understand best, for the same reason they can't understand statistics. They don't have the ability to organize their thoughts in that way. They don't have the words. Other apes and cetaceans might be the exception, but no one has been able to get them to demonstrate it clearly and if they are capable it should be a trivial task.
