Are humans the most intelligent life in the universe?

Post Reply New Topic

Something about this question reminds me of John Lennon's response when asked if Ringo was the best drummer in the world - "He's not even the best drummer in The Beatles".

How would intelligence be defined here, and would we recognise it?

We do have our opposable thumbs and highly-developed vocal chords, and we know how to use them.

On top of that, the human species possesses the advantage of collective intelligence: especially since the Industrial Revolution, each member of our species performs a specialized task, which contributes to our species producing more and more crap.

To our detriment, we have high levels of anxiety, depression, ennuie, and other psychiatric illnesses of which more feral species seldom suffer, except when confined in a zoo.

After the next world war, though, we will revert to a feral state, and few (if any) of us will survive.

Individual octopi are probably more intelligent than individual humans, but lack our collectivist instinct.

Ants and bees have the collectivist instinct, but lack individual intelligence.

Whales have intelligence and collectivist instincts, but lack our opposable thumbs.

Been watching Mad Max again?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1FPK5-Rm38[/youtube]

Okay. As far as we know, no other species has produced the equivalent of our Tina Turner

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL1l0Fz5RlE&feature=related[/youtube]

Although, whales do sing

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXOo68SDTdk[/youtube]

I read somewhere that mice and dolphins were more intelligent than humans

What is "intelligent"?

Mice, dolphins and humans are reproductively successful species. They live, they survive they thrive on that planet now.

ruveyn

Source: Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

This reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the dolphins tried taking over.

The whale has done a marvelous Carl Sagan impression.

ruveyn

Are humans the most intelligent in the universe?

I sure hope not.

Only second declension latin nouns take -i in the nominative plural. Not only is octopus not a second declension noun, it is not even Latin--it comes from the Greek, and so the correct classical plural is, "octopodes."

The correct english plural of octopus is octopuses.

quick do cactus.

Cactus is a second declension latin noun, and so takes -i in the nominative plural. Additionally, cactuses is an acceptable english plural

Yes, well, there is no central authority on English grammar. "Octopi" may be based on false association with Latin , but it is in a lot of dictionaries and in common use. Just because it is not from Latin does not mean "octopi" is not a word in English.

"Island" is another word whose spelling is based on an inaccurate association. It really used to be spelled "yland".

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=island

Of course there's no central authority.

Persistent use of "island" has normalized its spelling. Persistent homosexuality has normalized this half-Greek, half-Latin (sounds about right) abomination (not the practice, just the word). There is still time to man the barricades against classical solecisms that have not yet been normalized, like "octopi" (sic).

Charlie Brooker is newly installed in my panetheon. Next to David Mitchell (who is probably okay with chillax--but I will worship at his altar anyway).

I consider it highly unlikely that we are the most intelligent life in the universe.