Imagine this

>If we consider intelligence the ability to recognize patterns, and creativity the ability to innovate based on those patterns, then it's both.
I think that is an excellent way to see it. And I imagine that in the case of the crow the pattern is causality.

Well, if we're just going by neural connections, then a whole lot of animals are very creative. There's not a lot of animals, however, with a higher encephalization quotient than we have.

It may not be a good measurement, though, as even animals with relatively low encephalization quotients occasionally demonstrate much greater capacity for experimental learning than those with higher EQs. Corvids, for instance, should be "dumb as birds", but demonstrate complex learning behavior rivaling roadents, who have just about the highest EQ outside of primates.

There's also brain structure to be taken into account. The cerebral cortex and different degrees of brain folding, which increases the surface area (and volume) of the cortex, are positively correlated to intelligence in humans, and seem to be a more accurate measure of analytical ability and success than are IQ tests, in addition to being more objective, rather than varying radically on the same individual and his immediate genetic relatives based on various circumstances.

Thanks for the insightful comment, if you have some paper recommendations or even textbooks let me know

Well, while I'm sure it's hogwash, EQ related theories did bring us the "aquatic ape" theory of evolution, and some of that's kind of an interesting read, even if it's largely comical. Exploring it does provide some fun perspectives on the subject.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis

Having a more accurate and objective measurement of potential intelligence would be very useful, however, as the IQ system we rely upon now is so narrow and so fundamentally flawed that it is causing more problems than it solves. I suppose we'll have to wait until neurology advances and scanning technology gets cheaper.

artistic ability isnt intrinsically creative, i think an animal can be creative in any kind of domain. and your thing about creative animals seems to be anecdotal.

this is far too simplistic and id like to see an evidence.

this. they are mutually dependent i think.

you only have to look at a dogs brain and compare it to a rats to see that rodents are not the smartest mammals. Even just looking at their behaviour. desu im not sure neural stuff is directly relevant since we don't have a perfect understanding of their relation to behaviour and ultimately there are many many neural variables that interact in many many different ways that are very complicated.

its probs also a hard question in that animals are adapted to different behaviours and different niches so might be hard to compare creativity just like id expect it harder for someone to be creative in math as opposed to literature if they were not well versed in it. i think though that in the sense that creativity relies on being able to make inferences on novel relations, it is related to intelligence atleast on the scale of comparing humans to other species.

>this is far too simplistic and id like to see an evidence.
I do agree.
You can search gray matter and intelligence at google scholar there are several papers.

As for creativity and connectedness or white matter, I could only find these (so it is not much indeed):
- Bayesian Inference and Testing of Group Differences in Brain Networks
- White matter structures associated with creativity: Evidence from diffusion tensor imaging

Well, I didn't mean to imply that rats are smarter than dogs, but they are pretty damned smart, and while yes, it's anecdotal, most of us have had to deal with an animal that was "too smart for its own good", be it wild or domesticated.

Though, going back to the anecdote, I did have this situation where I was kinda babysitting these mice for a friend, and they kept coming up with new ways to escape. The last time they pulled it off, my cat found them, one at a time, and brought them back to me, all completely unharmed. They didn't try to escape after that. Had kinda had a whole ecosystem of animal intelligence going on there for a bit.

Some food for thought:
>Most animals have many offspring. The number of offspring that survive to adulthood tells us something about how complex an animal’s environment is compared to its own complexity. Mammals have several to dozens of offspring, frogs have thousands, fish have millions and insects can have as many as billions. In each case, on average only one offspring per parent survives to have offspring. The others made wrong choices because the number of possible right choices is small. In this way, we can see that mammals are almost as complex as their environments, while frogs are much less complex and insects and fish are still less complex when compared with their environments.
>Although Darwin’s theory of evolution discusses how the fitter offspring tend to survive, the reality is that whether or not an offspring will survive is mostly a function of chance due to the many possible wrong choices that exist for each right choice. Higher complexity organisms have more behavioral options, which in turn enables them to make more right choices.
>Although complexity is very important for survival, scale also matters. In general, larger scale challenges should be met with larger scale responses. The rule of thumb is that the complexity of the organism has to match the complexity of the environment at all scales in order to increase the likelihood of survival.
- From Making Things Work

Animal must know we are smarter, all those stories about hurt animals seeking out humans to help them.

While I could easily see that happening with a domesticated animal - with wild animals, it's usually just humans being stupid.

Whats making things work?

>To test these hypotheses, we separated avian feeding innovations into a ‘technical’ (novel
searching and handling behaviour) and a ‘food type’ (incorporation of a new food in a species’
diet) category. Technical innovations, but not food type innovations, have previously been shown to correlate with avian brain size, suggesting they reflect cognitive ability. We
used a world-wide data base of 2339 feeding innovations recorded in the literature, covering a
total of 765 avian species and assessed the correlations between brain size and feeding innovation rates on one side and habitat and diet generalism on the other.
>4. Habitat generalism was positively related with food type innovation rate, but not technical
innovation rate or brain size. This suggests that habitat generalist species are more likely to
incorporate new food types in their diet because of higher chances to find new food resources
in their environment, or of a higher opportunism, but not enhanced cognitive skills. In contrast,
diet generalist species had higher food type and technical innovation rates, as well as larger brains, suggesting that cognitive skills might help species expand their diet breadth or
that an increase in diet breadth might favour the evolution of enhanced cognitive abilities.
5. Our results provide new insights into the nature of the generalists’ advantage in the face of environmental changes, and suggest that dietary and habitat generalism are different, but convergent, routes to feeding flexibility and adaptation to changed environments.
From: Ecological generalism and behavioural innovation in birds: technical intelligence or the simple incorporation of new foods?
A book by Yaneer Bar Yam

About what?

Complex systems
Do you know what a google is?

Youre eager enough to write walls of text but dont want to bother explaining it to anyone? Gtfo slimebone.

I copied them
And you almost made a fair point, almost

Fine, you copy wall of texts but cba to explain them. Take another (you)

I don't want to argue, but
I could have explained them, you were right on that
But don't you think the copied text already explains enough?
I didn't make the connection between complexity and creativity but I wanted to share it as food for thought, not as an argument