NationStates Jolt Archive

What the smartest animal?

I thought it would be an interesting thread. Plz debate about the animal too lol.

isnt it the dolphin? Wait no....

What the smartest animal?

I thought it would be an interesting thread. Plz debate about the animal too lol.


Im sure it is the dolphin, But recently a new breed of spider has suddenly appeared in Scotland it doesnt even make a web it just pounces on its prey - this is gotta be pretty smart a spider evolving to become stronger ..

Great cant go to Scotland now.....

Whales in general are pretty smart. But some of them it’s hard to tell sometimes.

I thought it would be an interesting thread. Plz debate about the animal too lol.
Obviously not humans, if we have specimens unable to spell the language they created.

It's "please".

but pls wouldn't look right

Im sure it is the dolphin, But recently a new breed of spider has suddenly appeared in Scotland it doesnt even make a web it just pounces on its prey - this is gotta be pretty smart a spider evolving to become stronger ..
I don't think evolution has anything to do with the intelligence of the species..

Also I think it should be possible to vote for: "Parrots" :D

If evolution makes something "smarter" than what about sharks they are so evolved they don't have to change. Does that make them dumb?

Humanity is dedicated to slaughtering eachother for tiny differences in belief and destroying the planet they live on.

Dolphins all the way. Then mankind. Apes in third. After that, cat, then dog. Beyond there, intelligence is fuzzy.

Actually, I believe that after humans, the next smartest animal is the chimpanzee. Dolphins are overrated.

but pls wouldn't look right
So you say "please". Or leave it out altogether because it didn't make sense. And your topic needs a verb.

1tz D01f1nz cUz w3 hUm4nz c4nt f00k1n sp311 :P

Im sure it is the dolphin, But recently a new breed of spider has suddenly appeared in Scotland it doesnt even make a web it just pounces on its prey - this is gotta be pretty smart a spider evolving to become stronger ..

Wouldnt pouncing on its prey mean more work? Therefore it would need more prey. Guess it depends on your definition of smart.

The earth's most intelligent animal?

Human, of course.

Actually, I believe that after humans, the next smartest animal is the chimpanzee. Dolphins are overrated.

This compared to animals that will kill and maim eachother because their beliefs dictate they will be rewarded after they die? That build weapons of unimaginable power for the strict purpose of blowing eachother up?

Face it. Humanity is self-destructive and will wipe itself out sooner or later. From a biological standpoint, this is not a smart move, and there's nothing we can do about it.

glad someone agrees with me that destroying yourself isnt very smart

So you say "please". Or leave it out altogether because it didn't make sense. And your topic needs a verb.

Oh sorry. Im used to typing abrivated in a game. (And yeah I noticed I left out the verb)

Oh sorry. Im used to typing abrivated in a game. (And yeah I noticed I left out the verb)
Feel free to ignore me, I like being mean to newbies.

Sorry. :D

i think mice... read "hitchikers guide to the galaxy" to find out why. :D

Humans think they are so smart because they have built the pyramids, the skyscrapers, and the nuclear bomb. Dolphins, on the other fin, think they are much smarter than humans because they have never wasted their time building pyramids, skyscrapers and atomic bombs. Therefore, ergo, fnord, and hence, I choose the entire biota of the planet Earth functioning as one massive superorganism as the most intelligent "animal." It's either that or plankton.

In order, as I understand it:
Humans
Other primates (Bonobos, Chimps, Gorillas)
Cetaceans (whales and dolphins)
Cephalopods (octopuses and squids)

Obviously humans are the most intelligent animals, but after that scientists have already proven that apes are smarter than dolphins. Dolphins are smart, but their intelligence has been exagerated.

humans are so smart that they destroy the world they are living in

humans are so smart that they destroy the world they are living in

common sense isnt linked to intelligence.

humans are so smart that they destroy the world they are living in

Interview with Grant Morrisson, author of _The Invisibles_

THE PULSE: Are you religious, if so how do your beliefs mirror science fiction?

Grant Morrison: Okay ... I've had 24 years of occult experimentation and a "contact" experience in Kathmandu in 1994 which brought me to a point where my own experiences and the lessons I'd learned became much more meaningful, real and important to me than some old book that was written a long time ago by people no more special than me or anyone else. My beliefs are firmly grounded in nuts and bolts reality but probably sound strange because of the sci-fi style language of biology etc.

So based on my own experience, I've come to the conclusion that the individual human body is no more, no less than one of the billions of skin cells we lose every day. Each of those cells was once bursting with youth and health before it lived its allotted span, shriveled and then fell as dust. Now, if a skin cell became conscious and forgot that it was only a temporary and recyclable part of a much larger living body, it too would no doubt feel the same existential trauma experienced by all living, sentient creatures. It would fear its own demise as we do, because it would have forgotten its purpose and function within a larger context and become trapped in the illusory yet painful cage of individuality.

Like skin cells or perhaps more like immune cells, we as individuals are all part of one immense intelligent living creature which has its roots in the Cryptozoic era and its living tendrils - including us - probing forward through the untasted jelly of the 21st Century. The body of this vast and intelligent lifeform - the biota as it's known - is still in its infancy and still at the stage in its life cycle where it must consume the planet's resources like a caterpillar on a leaf. What looks like environmental destruction to us is, I believe, the natural acceleration of an impending metamorphosis; just as a caterpillar gorges itself to power its transformation into a butterfly, so too does the biota consume everything in its path, in preparation for its own imminent transformation into adult form.

Quite soon now, possibly within ten years even, the infant creature in the body of which we are all merge cells will awaken to its true nature, the concept of individuality will vanish overnight, as the imaginary walls separating our minds collapse, we will realise there is only one mind, and our mega-maggot will metamorphose, leaving the planetary cradle and the four dimensions of spacetime to be born at last as a fully-formed adult creature designed for existence in a higher dimension fluid continuum or informational supermembrane. As immune cells inside this gigantic, living, tree-like body that's currently huffing and puffing its way towards maturity, it's our job to do everything we can to keep the larva healthy and developing normally. That's if we want to be born as adults into hyperspacetimelessness and quite frankly, I fancy the idea.

That's my religion and it didn't come from a book and it's not based on my blind faith but on my own direct experience of and conversation with my "God." "Grant" is an immune cell in the body of "God" - the biota - does its thinking and its sensing through tiny, self-replicating cell-creatures like me and you and all the other examples of life on earth. All life is the same life. All thoughts are the same thought. No one dies at all, except in the way that a baby has to "die" for a child to be born and the child has to "die" for the adult to be born. That's all death is at every stage - scary transformation. And, although individual "bodies" seem to wither, fall away, and be lost, consciousness remains as a function of the biota.

YOU CAN FOLLOW ME IF YOU LIKE. I'VE GOT MY OWN CULT AND EVERYTHING.

I don't think evolution has anything to do with the intelligence of the species..

Also I think it should be possible to vote for: "Parrots" :D


It clearly does

Well lets see, humans regard themselves as the smartest thing on this planet, which is patently false, and to prove it just one simple sentence is needed.

They invented leet-speak.


Proof enough that human's can't be the smartest thing around, add to that that noobs are also human I'm going to have to put human at the bottom of the inteligence rankings.

Primates in general however are not dumb, they use enough tools to be above what many a sci-fi author has regarded as the minimum level to be considered another sentient species.

However overall I'm going to have to go with the cow, because we can learn much from it. It does not run after the material possessions of this world, yet it lives in perfect contentment. And it tastes delicious. Aside from that they also have tricked those stupid humans into taking care of them so all they have to do is eat and sleep, with free medical coverage, and they wo't need to suffer the infermeties of old age. Truly the cow has shown that it is the smartest animal on earth.

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Images/Brain-Earth.GIF

The Social Superorganism and its Global Brain (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SUPORGLI.html)

Society can be viewed as a multicellular organism, with individuals in the role of the cells. The network of communication (http://www.heise.de/tp/english/special/glob/2227/1.html) channels connecting individuals then plays the role of a nervous system for this superorganism, i.e. a "global brain".

It is an old idea, dating back at least to the ancient Greeks, that the whole of human society can be viewed as a single organism. Many thinkers (http://www.newsarama.com/Filth.htm) have noticed the similarity between the roles played by different organizations in society and the functions of organs, systems and circuits in the body. For example, industrial plants extract energy and building blocks from raw materials, just like the digestive system. Roads, railways and waterways transport these products from one part of the system to another one, just like the arteries and veins. Garbage dumps and sewage systems collect waste products, just like the colon and the bladder. The army and police protect the [elite members of, and the status quo of] society against invaders and rogue elements, just like the immune system.

Such initially vague analogies become more precise as the understanding of organisms increases. The concepts of systems theory provide a good framework for establishing a precise correspondence between organismic and societal functions. The fact that complex organisms, like our own bodies, are built up from individual cells, led to the concept of superorganism. If cells aggregate to form a multicellular organism, then organisms might aggregate to form an organism of organisms: a superorganism. Biologists agree that social insect colonies, such as ant nests or beehives, are best seen as such superorganisms. The activities of a single ant, bee or termite are meaningless unless they are understood (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/GBRAINREF.html) in function of the survival of the colony.

I can't say I honestly know.. but I'm pretty sure it isn't humans.. look at what we have done to the earth.. Humans also happen to be the only animals who kill each other for no good reason at all. So, I don't believe humans are all that smart.

I'd say humans are the most intelligent, but perhaps not the wisest :)

'Man has always assumed that he is more intelligent than the dolphin, because he has achieved so much more throughout history... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins ever did was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins know themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reason.'

-- Douglas Adams

The badger! Every1 knows badgers are too smart for their own good! They're like sheep....they're going to take over...

its the mouse.

duh

It is an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always asumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much-the wheel, New York, wars and so on-while all the dophins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always belived that they were far more intelligent than man-for precisely the same reasons.

The sad truth. But of course the mice are the most intelligent.

The earth's most intelligent animal?

Human, of course.

That just said it all. The EARTH's most intelligent animal...
We aliens know better of course.

'Man has always assumed that he is more intelligent than the dolphin, because he has achieved so much more throughout history... the wheel, New York, wars, and so on, whilst all the dolphins ever did was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely the dolphins know themselves to be more intelligent than man for precisely the same reason.'

-- Douglas Adams

Yeah. Dolphins at least have enough sense to know when they have it good and to not mess with it.

I tried to vote for "dolphins" but my flippers couldn't work the little buttons.

In my personal opinion, humans are by far the dumbest creatures on that list. I may be one myself, but look at how we live and treat other people, creatures, and the environment. We're not bright. Dolphins are smart, but yes that is overrated. Apes and chimpanzees are really smart (funny how we evolved from them yet some are still smarter then us...) and so are some dogs, though I state now that my dog is the smartest on our block. lol
I vote for ferrets - only because they are my favorite animals. 2nd being panthers and 3rd being dogs. If dragons were scientifically real, they'd be my number one. :)

Firstly, how do you define intelligence?

Secondly how do you compare intelligence between animals?

Different animals are adapted to do different things.

Physically how do you do it?

How do you measure an animal's IQ?

Do you take the weight of the brain in comparison to the weight of the body (encephalisation quotient) or do you measure the relative cortex weight - a part of the brain that scientists theorise may be related to such abilities as problem solving, learning and "concious" thought, or do you get specific rates of brain weight to spinal chord weight, etc.

Many feel that Humans cannot be considered the most intelligent species on Earth because we are constantly fighting amongst ourselves and ravaging the ecosystem. My contention, which I have been subconsciously inferring with the bizarro posts regarding Humanity as Superorganism, is that we ARE the most intelligent species, but unfortunately we are also mostly UNCONSCIOUS of what our role CONSISTS OF as Earth's intelligent species. You follow me?

“I have had a thought about this recently which I will tell you. One of the science fiction fantasies that haunts the collective unconscious is expressed in the phrase "a world run by machines"; in the 1950s this was first articulated in the notion, "perhaps the future will be a terrible place where the world is run by machines." Well now, let's think about machines for a moment. They are extremely impartial, very predictable, not subject to moral suasion, value neutral, and very long lived in their functioning. Now let's think about what machines are made of, in the light of Sheldrake's morphogenetic field theory. Machines are made of metal, glass, gold, silicon, plastic; they are made of what the earth is made of. Now wouldn't it be strange if biology is a way for earth to alchemically transform itself into a self-reflecting thing. In which case then, what we're headed for inevitably, what we are in fact creating is a world run by machines. And once these machines are in place, they can be expected to manage our economies, languages, social aspirations, and so forth, in such a way that we stop killing each other, stop starving each other, stop destroying land, and so forth. Actually the fear of being ruled by machines is the male ego's fear of relinquishing control of the planet to the maternal matrix of Gaia”. - Terence McKenna

I'll be the first to admit that McKenna is a loopy dude, but he might have a point, somewhere... a valid and usefull perspective... a unique way of perceiving our raison d'etre...

The hippy might be on to something...

I'm going with humans. No, I don't care about all the doomsdays seers. :rolleyes: People have been predicting the end of humanity (and general 'massive disasters', think Y2K) since it's conception. Yet here we stand nonetheless. Our end will come someday. But not by our own hand.

I'm not sure of the exact breed of primate, but wasn't there some gorilla that was taught sign language? That's pretty damned impressive if you ask me. I'll put whatever primate that was in second, with dolphins in third.

Firstly, how do you define intelligence?

Secondly how do you compare intelligence between animals?

Different animals are adapted to do different things.

Physically how do you do it?

How do you measure an animal's IQ?

Do you take the weight of the brain in comparison to the weight of the body (encephalisation quotient) or do you measure the relative cortex weight - a part of the brain that scientists theorise may be related to such abilities as problem solving, learning and "concious" thought, or do you get specific rates of brain weight to spinal chord weight, etc.

My thoughts precisely. What criteria to base the analysis on? There are not just different 'levels' (for lack of a better term) of intelligence, but different types, as well.

In my personal opinion, humans are by far the dumbest creatures on that list. I may be one myself, but look at how we live and treat other people, creatures, and the environment. We're not bright. Dolphins are smart, but yes that is overrated. Apes and chimpanzees are really smart (funny how we evolved from them yet some are still smarter then us...) and so are some dogs, though I state now that my dog is the smartest on our block. lol
I vote for ferrets - only because they are my favorite animals. 2nd being panthers and 3rd being dogs. If dragons were scientifically real, they'd be my number one. :)

Alright, let's look at the way humans behave. From the tone of your statement, I presume you are considereing the negative examples only.

Secondly, chimps ARE apes.

Third, we did NOT evolve from apes. Apes and humans have a common ancestor. This is such a simple distinction, yet it is a common mistake.

The statement that some apes are smarter "than us" (meaning all humans) is false. Gorillas have been given IQ tests via Ameslan, and some have consistently scored in the 90s, which is undeniably smarter than some humans, but not all. Keep in mind that 100 is the stastical average result for humans.

In conclusion, I am compelled to point out that, given all our current knowledge of human intelligence and intelligence of other animals, that debating the "smartest animal" is akin to comparing apples and oranges.

It was Kanzi the bonobo but it you read some of the detractors, the teaching of sign language can't be shown/proven as true communication, but as just very sophisticated associative learning, which is present in many many animals and therefore it also isn't indicative of any level of conciousness.

It was Kanzi the bonobo but it you read some of the detractors, the teaching of sign language can't be shown/proven as true communication, but as just very sophisticated associative learning, which is present in many many animals and therefore it also isn't indicative of any level of conciousness.

Excellent point.

But again, it illustrates the problems of comparing human intelligence with that of any other species.

I agree, and as humans performing the procedures there is no doubt that there will never be a non-anthropocentric test of intelligence

In reply to the previous post that the "they" scientists taught a gorilla to learn sign language, I was making the point that if through an animal being able to communicate/learn sign language this isn't a good guage of intelligence.

I was clarifying that sign language can be learnt on an associative level i.e. make the right sign and get a reward, and thus isn't a true communication, a true measure of consciousness or lastly a measure of intelligence which still hasn't been defined

I did a tutorial on comparing animal intelligence once. In it we concluded that the definitions of intelligence were suitably vague that any animal that lives in such a way as to maximise its reproductive and survival fitness is the most intelligent of its group.

Ergo among humans the people who leave the most surviving descendents which in turn leave more, could be considered "the fittest" and therefore most intelligent.

Pardon me for going slightly off topic :D

In reply to the previous post that the "they" scientists taught a gorilla to learn sign language, as if through an animal being able to communicate/learn sign language this was a good guage of intelligence I was clarifying that sign language can be learnt on an associative level i.e. make the right sign and get a reward, and thus isn't a true communication, a true measure of consciousness or lastly a measure of intelligence which still hasn't been defined

I did a tutorial on comparing animal intelligence once. In it we concluded that the definitions of intelligence were suitably vague that any animal that lives in such a way as to maximise its reproductive and survival fitness is the most intelligent of its group.

Ergo among men the people who leave the most surviving descendents which in turn leave more, could be considered "the fittest" and therefore most intelligent.


Excuse me, but I never said that. Apart from the redudancy of teaching to learn, I did not speak at all to thier specific use of Ameslan (other than administering a test designed for humans), nor did I assert that it would be proof of humanoid intelligence.

I stated that tested using a method designed for humans, individuals of a species scored higher than some humans. I was not only illustrating the point that intelligence differs greatly from individual to individual, but that the inherent flaws in all known attempts to analyse and compare human and nonhuman intelligences, in my opinion, make the endeavor impractical.

Excuse me, but I never said that. Apart from the redudancy of teaching to learn, I did not speak at all to thier specific use of Ameslan, nor did I assert that it would be proof of humanoid intelligence.

I should use the quote thingy more often - I wasn't reffering to your post Beluchistan but that of Sydenia

I stated that tested using a method designed for humans, individuals of a species scored higher than some humans. I was not only illustrating the point that intelligence differes greatly from individual to individual, but that the inherent flaws in all known attempts to analyse and compare human and nonhuman intelligences, in my opinion, make the endeavor impractical.

I agree the endeavor is impractical - if intelligence is defined as whoever's the best at quoting shakespeare, well then humans have that one covered, but if the definition of intelligence is whoever's the best at foraging for nectar it might be a honeybee.

Ask yourselves which of the above examples is closer to your definitions of intelligence and then ask yourself why that is?

The white mouse.