/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10506294
I never asserted that intelligent capabilities depend only on the number of neurons and the environment, but they are highly influential factors. Those are just two examples I gave you.

There are physiological differences in animals that determine the excitability of neurons and overall emotional responses to a variety of stimuli. For humans to learn language and math, interaction and reward are crucial. Other animals lack the cultural immersion and interaction with humans.

And what exactly do you mean "developing language"? Certainly, elephants are not capable of pronouncing human words. Different animals hear sounds at different frequencies, and humans are optimized to recognize each other's speech, just like they optimized to recognize faces. Moreover, animals do communicate in many ways humans do not understand. Larger animals may need a lot of neurons to control movements and body functions, and elephants have more neurons in the cerebellum.

In the model, the property of the neuron is meant to mimic human responses that are both physiologically distinct and culturally influenced. When taken down to the basic level, humans do not respond that much differently to the environment than other animals. All animals can learn a certain range of patterns, prediction and behaviors, and that was perfectly demonstrated in the article.
Humans do stand out a little bit because they can use tools and learned to use tools because of their environment. Teaching a whale to use tools would be useless, no matter how many neurons it has. Do you know that monkeys can remember numbers much better in a short period of time than humans? There are specialized physiological differences, but I'm arguing about the most basic mechanisms. No organisms came to these specialized designs without evolution. They all started from the basics.