>You're implying that bees are less intelligent than humans.
>However they can sense electromagnetic fields and can sense whether a flower they're interested have pollen or not without looking at it with their eyes.
Which, yes, like your other examples, is an impressive feat, but not an impressive feat of intelligence. Perceiving one or another part of the spectrum isn't intelligence. Neither is hardwired responses. In contrast:
>Oh, also crows understand and exploit physical phenomena and can manipulate things with tools to get what they want.
That would be a feat of intelligence. But you're lumping all impressive feats into "intelligence", regardless of what's responsible for them.
>However they can sense electromagnetic fields and can sense whether a flower they're interested have pollen or not without looking at it with their eyes.
Which, yes, like your other examples, is an impressive feat, but not an impressive feat of intelligence. Perceiving one or another part of the spectrum isn't intelligence. Neither is hardwired responses. In contrast:
>Oh, also crows understand and exploit physical phenomena and can manipulate things with tools to get what they want.
That would be a feat of intelligence. But you're lumping all impressive feats into "intelligence", regardless of what's responsible for them.