> cows eat grass, what reason do they have for deep intelligence and thoughts
This line of argument doesn't make much sense given that pigs are very intelligent and you'd probably say "pigs roll in the mud, what reason do they have for deep intelligence and thoughts"
> other animals do dumb things - like videos of ducks walking over drains and the ducklings fall down the drain, or creature stuck in plastic sheet until it dies. Or creature does nothing while humans approach, kill, and eat it. It's hard to see examples like that and think "deep intelligence".
I could say the same about most humans
> But examples of planning ahead, cooperation, tool using, they're so rare they make headlines like this article when observed.
This is true, but the way you go about making a case for it ain't it.
This line of argument makes sense given that humans use ~20% of our energy running our brains, and evolution is known for cutting out energy hungry things which aren't helpful for survival. Cows don't have cooked fatty meat as a ready supply of energy, they don't need to chase prey, they don't need accurate throwing of spears or organising groups to set traps. Why would they evolve whatever you think "deep thoughts" are?
And no, it doesn't help to say "given pigs are intelligent, then pigs are intelligent".
> "I could say the same about most humans"
Go on then, say that most humans are stupid therefore "humans are not intelligent". That will be a very productive line of reasoning.
> This line of argument makes sense given that humans use ~20% of our energy running our brains, and evolution is known for cutting out energy hungry things which aren't helpful for survival. Cows don't have cooked fatty meat as a ready supply of energy, they don't need to chase prey, they don't need accurate throwing of spears or organising groups to set traps. Why would they evolve whatever you think "deep thoughts" are?
This is a logical fallacy which requires "deep thoughts" to evolve the same way we did. As mentioned, pigs are considered to be intelligent and yet you didn't choose to address pigs but instead chose cows.
> And no, it doesn't help to say "given pigs are intelligent, then pigs are intelligent".
It doesn't help to say that. That's true. It's a good thing no one said that though.
> Go on then, say that most humans are stupid therefore "humans are not intelligent". That will be a very productive line of reasoning.
It's about as productive a line of reasoning as you cherrypicking cows.
> "As mentioned, pigs are considered to be intelligent and yet you didn't choose to address pigs but instead chose cows."
If you're going to start with a conclusion, "animals can be intelligent because pigs are intelligent, QED" where does that get you?
Why, exactly, are "pigs considered intelligent"?
And, note that I'm not saying animals are dumb as rock, there clearly is some level of intelligence involved in navigating the world, finding food, finding mates, avoiding predators, and a level of difference between say hamsters and elephants. What I'm contesting is something like "approximately all animals must have the same capacity of thought as humans because humans are animals", or the original statement more like "we shouldn't be surprised if tests show animals do have because we should have been assuming that all along even without evidence".
> "It doesn't help to say that. That's true. It's a good thing no one said that though."
fine, then I don't disagree with your statement that "pigs are considered intelligent" in the sense that "people consider pigs intelligent" but I disagree that they are intelligent in the same way that humans are, and the reason I disagree is that they haven't been proven to be such. Occam's razor, if they haven't been shown to have human-level capacity for (invention, language, music, mirror neurons, communicating abstract information, symbolic manipulation, arithmetic, planning, teamwork), then we shouldn't assume they have it unless necessary.
> What I'm contesting is something like "approximately all animals must have the same capacity of thought as humans because humans are animals", or the original statement more like "we shouldn't be surprised if tests show animals do have because we should have been assuming that all along even without evidence".
Your objection was to someone else saying
> It continues to surprise me that humans are surprised at other animals having deep intelligence and emotions and thoughts.
This is not the same as
> approximately all animals must have the same capacity of thought as humans because humans are animals
That is you moving the goalposts.
> I disagree that they are intelligent in the same way that humans are
> if they haven't been shown to have human-level capacity for (invention, language, music, mirror neurons, communicating abstract information, symbolic manipulation, arithmetic, planning, teamwork), then we shouldn't assume they have it unless necessary.
Again, no one claimed that so you stating that you disagree is fine but who are you disagreeing with? I still don't understand why you feel the need to declare this.
This line of argument doesn't make much sense given that pigs are very intelligent and you'd probably say "pigs roll in the mud, what reason do they have for deep intelligence and thoughts"
> other animals do dumb things - like videos of ducks walking over drains and the ducklings fall down the drain, or creature stuck in plastic sheet until it dies. Or creature does nothing while humans approach, kill, and eat it. It's hard to see examples like that and think "deep intelligence".
I could say the same about most humans
> But examples of planning ahead, cooperation, tool using, they're so rare they make headlines like this article when observed.
This is true, but the way you go about making a case for it ain't it.