Are Dogs Smarter than Babies?

I post this question because I think there is some confusion over the intersection between knowledge, intelligence, and consciousness that makes someone or something, "smart."

Before someone makes the claim that I'm comparing apples and oranges, I will get some things out in the open. First of all, I'm not comparing apples to oranges, I'm comparing dogs to babies; maybe once I've finished that analysis, I'll compare dogs to apples and babies to oranges, or vice versa. The main problem I find with claiming that I'm comparing apples to oranges is that apples and oranges are actually much more similar than dogs and babies. Do the math.

I will assert this first: I've seen dogs behave intelligently, and I've seen babies behave dumb as rocks. Based on my completely unqualified estimate, dogs' intelligence involves a series of cause and effect relationships. Dogs are built to see the world as a collection of cause and effect relationships; if I (the dog) do this, then this will be the result. This is the dog's method for understanding how the world works, and is therefore what we can call its "worldview." If a dog's worldview consists of many simple cause-effect relationships, what does that suggest about its intelligence? Now we have to draw a distinction between knowledge and intelligence. The dog's knowledge probably consists of the individual pieces of information which it has gained over time. Intelligence refers to the dog's methods of acquiring, storing, and implementing this information in making decisions.

Acquiring information is where the process of intelligence begins. I think that a dogs and babies possess common instincts for gaining information. Babies most likely rely on the same methods of observation in order to discern relationships between causes and effects. As humans and dogs age, these relationships become more complex, more nuanced, and take into account ever more and increasing volumes of information. While adult humans obviously possess greater skill at observation than adult dogs, I believe that the observatory skills of adult dogs and human babies are comparable. Let's say a dog and a human are born at the same time. Within a shorter time span, the dog will possess greater skill at discerning information and putting that information to use. Ultimately, the human has a higher potential for developing this skill; but at some point in the simultaneous development of this dog and this human, the dog will surpass it in intelligence.

Dogs observe the world just like humans. A dog can perceive danger just like a human through the same fundamental methods. For example, when a dog sees a truck coming at it, it will run away. The same could not necessarily be said of a baby (provided it could run), which could gaze upon an oncoming truck with no perception of it at all. Thus, dogs possess an ability to observe and calculate a course of action that a baby might not. As a baby grows older, it will obviously understand the impending danger of an oncoming truck. However, that means the skill to perceive an object and understanding the force it will exert when it collides with another object (aka our bodies) is not always present in us, and in some cases can be less developed than that of a dog. On the other hand, adult dogs will quite readily understand that objects, especially large ones, threaten physical harm when they come in contact with them. This introduces another critical component of intelligence; the ability to utilize previously acquired pieces of knowledge.

Based on my aforementioned estimate, the process for dogs to gain, store, and use information is more intuitive than it is for humans. Since this intuition involves relatively straightforward cause and effect analysis, a dog never really develops a more advanced sense of how more complex dynamics and processes function. However, this development is exactly what enables human children to surpass dogs in intelligence; children develop a more advanced ability to implement their knowledge and makes inferences and predictions based upon it. Human intelligence can transcend simple cause and effect relationships; we can estimate, gauge, wonder, and reason at a level beyond canine intelligence. Moreover, improvement of observatory skills parallels this broader augmentation of our intelligence. As babies turn into children, they begin to account for more complex variables and combinations of factors that govern the ongoings of the world. Thus, a child's development is two-fold; they get better at discerning information, and they possess an enhanced ability to put this information into practice. A dog's intelligence hits its maximum potential at a much lower level; the instinctual observatory skills that feed into its reasoning and decision making abilities never undergo any dramatic changes.

The point I want to make is this: intelligence is a complex thing that develops alongside the being that possesses it. Moreover, while the intelligence of dogs and humans appear vastly different when they reach their respective potentials, they begin in much the same place. Babies and dogs rely on the same basic observatory skills. However, human skills gain new layers; we construct mental models based on the information gained in previous situations, and use them to incorporate new information in a practical, effective way. While these layers add an immeasurable quality to human intelligence, human intelligence never fundamentally changes.
New pieces are added in, on top of, and around our intelligence, but the core remains the same. If you ever wonder about your most basic instincts, look no further than your own, damn, dog.