[Swizec]

> I'm kinda curious if there's any evidence that would support or rule out intelligent life having existed on earth before.

How intelligent is intelligent?

Homo Neanderthalensis predated Homo Sapiens by about 100,000 years. They were intelligent enough to build tools and have communities.

Oldest corvid fossils are 25 million years old[1]. They are known to be very intelligent and modern crows can solve 8-step puzzles, build tools, teach their young etc. etc.

I mean, intelligence has evolved independently many times in animals on earth. It's hard to say which species was first to become intelligent, but I'm pretty sure humans weren't the first.

[1] http://www.reed.edu/biology/professors/srenn/pages/teaching/...

[hyperpallium]

I thought corvids a strong candidate, but if they've been around for 25 million years without getting human-level intelligence, they mightn't ever get it, like the dinosaurs.

General commemt: we can have increasing complexity, without a specific trend towards it, by positing evolution in all directions. We'd get mostly simple life, and fewer instances as complexity increases - which is what we do see. Most life is unicellular; there are more insect species than mammals etc.

I like that paper applying Moore's Law to biocomplexity, showing an exponential increase of the most complex life existing over time.

- It seems complexity increase is inevitable (but there could be barriers, as there seemed to be for dinosaurs).

- intelligence seems to increase with complexity.

Would mammals have expanded to today's diversity if the dinosaurs had survived? Would the ur-mammal instead have remained just one minor species or family, without those niches available?

And what caused the sudden increase in brain size of our own ape-like ancestors? (Surely, some killer application of intelligence, perhaps trade, that gave it incredible survival value, far above the value it already had).

[Swizec]

Well, birds are dinosaurs. Avian theropods to be precise.

So maybe dinosaurs are still working towards their limit. We know that their brains produce more pound per pound intelligence than mammalian brains. It's like they're more efficient.

But maybe something about that efficiency is Good Enough so they don't progress further.

Although watching my parrot at home is quite something. He's definitely on par with a young human in terms of coercing cooperation and puzzle solving.

[hyperpallium]

Spiders also produce more pound per pound intelligence. They are solitary. What if they became social? Brain-body ratio is provocative, but not the whole story.

Seeing galahs (Australian corvid https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Galah) socialize in trees in monkey troop-like fashion, dextrous in tooth and claw, makes me believe they are on the way. Though maybe raccons are next.

> efficiency is Good Enough

I was thinking that, now I think it may be the niche environment, which we somehow happened to stumble into, giving a more rewarding gradient for intelligence. OTOH, it could have been some neuroanatomy trick, eg faciliating abstraction/hypothesis. IDK. I think it's one of the more fascinating questions of our intelligence, and will be telling.

I don't want to harp on this point, but the birds-are-dinosaurs seems a meaningless semantic classification to me, more about our definitions than reality. Like "Pluto, planet?" I mean, why not call mammals a subgroup of reptiles, since we evolved from them? Anyway, I'm sure this debate has raged hotly across the centuries amoungst taxonomic philosophers, and carefully taking into account all the perspectives, they've collectively come up with... something.

[Swizec]

> I don't want to harp on this point, but the birds-are-dinosaurs seems a meaningless semantic classification to me, more about our definitions than reality.

It's a lot more direct than "mammals are a type of reptile".

Particularly because late stage dinosaurs, the theropods, had feathers and generally looked like birds with teeth that can't fly. Some later models could in fact fly.

If you look at this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur

You'll see that there is a single step from Velociraptor to Birds.

> The scientific consensus is that birds are a group of theropod dinosaurs that evolved during the Mesozoic Era. A close relationship between birds and dinosaurs was first proposed in the nineteenth century after the discovery of the primitive bird Archaeopteryx in Germany.

It took a lot of steps to go from reptiles to mammals.

[Pyxl101]

Here's a crazy idea:

What if we picked a domesticated animal such as a pig or dog, and began to breed the species for intelligence? Or any other suitable animal. Only intelligence (and general health), over an extended period.

It's believed that all of the modern dog breeds came about in the last hundred or so years. Modern domesticated dogs are definitely intelligent, especially socially intelligent. They understand words, they look you in the eye to get your attention, they understand their name, they seem to have simple emotions. How fast would they evolve if directed scientifically by humans?

... and at what point would we have to stop, because they're approaching human intelligence, making the program unethical?

[Swizec]

> Modern domesticated dogs are definitely intelligent, especially socially intelligent. They understand words, they look you in the eye to get your attention, they understand their name, they seem to have simple emotions. How fast would they evolve if directed scientifically by humans?

The crazy thing about birds, parrots especially, is that they do all that without humans directing it.

I have a bird at home. The biggest difference I've noticed between having a bird and having a dog or a cat is that birds have moods. Dog/cat emotions always seem to directly correspond to what is happening right now.

Bird emotions seem to correspond to whatever has been happening for a while. Like, if you upset the bird in the morning, he acts towards you with resentment 12 hours later when you come home. It's hard to explain, but acting the same way towards my bird definitely produces different results based on his mood.

And he's very adept at getting attention and asking for help. For example, he's used to drinking water from human cups. If he's thirsty and there are no cups around, he's able to communicate that he needs me to go fetch a cup and fill it with water.

When he needs help with getting some food item, he's able to get my attention, then fly away to where he's having trouble, and signal that he needs help. He's even figured out, from observation, how to open some of the drawers in our apartment so that he can get treats.

Currently he's figuring out how to open cage doors. Luckily his main appendage is the beak so while he can open the cage physically, he can't hold the door open while he gets out. So it slams shut (by gravity) when he tries to walk through the opening. Fingers crossed he doesn't figure it out :D

It's really quite fascinating to observe.

[logfromblammo]

Birds will also play jokes.

Example: A bird may call your attention to a near-empty water dish. You fill it up. The bird uses bathing behavior to splash you with the water, and then mimics human laughter.

Source: a caique with whom I am acquainted.

But birds are also not very sophisticated as comedians. Sometimes their funny prank is indistinguishably similar to a nasty trick. But really, if the bird wanted to be mean, he'd just pretend to be chill, and then bite you in the webbing between your fingers. They do that sometimes, too.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

I used to work at a parrot sanctuary[1] and one of the cockatoos had learned the combination to the luggage lock we used to keep his cage shut. Parrots can be very smart.

[1]https://www.freeflightbirds.org/

[vidarh]

Clifford D. Simak's "City" (1952) consists of a series of bridges between a number of short stories described as legends of "Man" tolds by intelligent dogs to their puppies. The dogs in the stories were able to start communicating with humans thanks to the work of one of the human protagonists, getting intelligent enough to form a civiliation of their own once humans gradually disappear.

It's one of the weirdest apocalyptic sci-fi novels around, in that it describes the end of the human race by isolation and loneliness and resulting escape into an alien world, while at the same time describing dogs creating a thriving replacement.

[lordelph]

For a book which explores this, and similar ideas, try "Oryx and Crake" by Margaret Atwood.

[rojobuffalo]

We're sharing the planet with several intelligent species at this moment. Maybe a worthwhile distinction would be intelligence sufficient to dominant an entire planetary ecology; or sufficient to intentionally become multi-planetary.

[Swizec]

Dominate the planet is tricky too. Corvids for instance are almost as widespread as humans. They don't do greenland and the southern parts of south america.

But they happen to be less destructive to their environment than humans so maybe that disqualifies them from the "dominate" part?

That said, humans also don't quality for multi-planetary. I like that definition, though.

[rojobuffalo]

Good point about corvids. Ants are another example I was thinking about. They actually do engineer ecology on the scale of individual mounds by feeding and growing fungi that they eat. They are spread all over the Earth, and I think they have us beat in terms of biomass. Maybe there could be another definition for a weaker form of intelligence that covers those cases.

[SAI_Peregrinus]

Ants are especially interesting. Each individual is very simple, you could probably create an accurate ant model with a (very big) finite state machine. Yet entire colonies are extremely complex. I suspect that it's analogous to human brain cells vs the entire brain. Each cell isn't intelligent alone, but the whole is.

[eric_h]

> That said, humans also don't quality for multi-planetary.

True, but we've definitely sent probes to other planets, and a few people did manage to walk on the moon, so we're certainly farther to the right on the multi-planetary spectrum than any other species on our planet.

[ars]

> It's hard to say which species was first to become intelligent, but I'm pretty sure humans weren't the first.

And yet, somehow Humans are in a completely different category than all other life. It's not just a matter a degree ("more" intelligent), it's a completely different category.

So that means your definition of intelligent is flawed because it is unable to capture that distinction. Perhaps you need a new word.

[Swizec]

How do you know it's a completely different category? We used to think all animals are incapable of intelligence and everything they do is "instinct". Now we know they can think, organize, have complex social structures, even imagine and form plans. Many show evidence of being self aware.

So we're not special enough anymore and we have to come up with a new word? I don't buy it.

It's likely that humans' extraordinary achievements stem from our immense ability to communicate and cooperate. A single human on its own isn't all that smart really.

Many intelligent animals suffer from limited knowledge transfer between generations and low cooperation between individuals. So each is only as smart as itself. Or maybe as itself and a couple of friends.

Whereas every human is able to tap into the intelligence of very many other humans. That's really one of our biggest superpowers.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

We used to think all animals are incapable of intelligence and everything they do is "instinct".

Whenever I see this written I like to point out that the "we" in this case was only a vocal minority of people throughout history.

Anyone who's ever lived or worked with animals, at the very least mammals and birds, would have observed them being intelligent.

I'm sure this idea that people used to think animals weren't intelligent is a myth in the same way we think people used to believe the Earth is flat is a myth[1].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

[adrianN]

Animals not being intelligent is also very convenient if the bible teaches that they're made for our use. There are fewer ethical problems if they're soulless automatons without consciousness or intelligent.

[jumanchiss]

Same goes for plants, but i don't see you and all the partisan Vegans (and in this case Anti-christian bigot) care for them, On the contrary, they mock everyone who dare to say that plants are intelligent beings.

[adrianN]

From the guidelines:

> Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity.

[losvedir]

Heh, I originally started this comment "oh come on!" as I thought you were being needlessly obtuse.

Agriculture, written language, metal smelting, universities, space shuttles, nuclear bombs, radio, computers, etc.

It was obvious to me that we're in a whole other category from other species. But then I thought about human tribes in the rain forest that don't have any of those. Are they not as intelligent us? But they are us... Hm, well you've made me think. Thanks!

[Baeocystin]

Human tribes in the rainforest have levels of social sophistication, technology, and manipulation of their local environment that outstrips any other animal. It's not close.

Look at the recent discoveries in the Amazon basin. Layers of dirt thousands of years old, still filled with the charcoal used to improve soil quality. Species of plants that were clearly selected for over time. The list goes on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_preta

[milquetoastaf]

>And yet, somehow Humans are in a completely different category than all other life.

Lol no we are not. We share 98 percent of our DNA with various simians. We share 97 percent of our DNA with mice.

Are we the only species to communicate? No. Are we the only species to communicate symbolically? No. Great Apes use hand gestures.

Are we the only species to recognize themselves? No. Plenty of animals do. In fact, even wasps can perform facial recognition on members of their species.

Are we the only species to use technology? No. Corvids and apes use tools all the time.

Are we the only species to develop culture? No. Simians teach their young various customs, some of which (such as the washing of food by macaques in Japan [http://alfre.dk/monkeys-washing-potatoes/]) are local to the group.

Are we the smartest species? Monkeys have been able to naturally memorize a sequence of numbers after looking at it for fractions of a second. It took dedicated teams of research scientists several practice sessions to even come close to the performance of a so-called "lesser animal".

Humans are exceptional (I honestly would just say lucky), but are we truly in a different category? Highly recommend the book "Are We Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are?" by Frans de Waal.

[ams6110]

Biology notwithstanding, no other species has deliberately transformed its environment and improved it longevity and standard of living like humans have. Not even slightly.

[milquetoastaf]

Animals transform their environments all the time, deliberately (I don't get why people act as if animals don't do deliberate things?). What of the great honey fungus in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, a living organism whose size is measured in miles - it deliberately transformed its environment in a way we, the species Aristotle put at the top, can barely even comprehend.

The difference is in degree, not of kind.

[JumpCrisscross]

> The difference is in degree, not of kind

Everything is a difference of degree. At a certain point, a difference of degree becomes a difference of kind. There is a difference of kind between a fungus altering its environment through enzymes it produces from its genetic programming and people inventing steam engines.

[mcbits]

I think written language is our primary difference. Prehistoric wild humans had spoken language for hundreds of thousands of years, but we didn't have the explosion of "intelligence" until the advent of written language ~5,000 years ago.

Or in more general terms, we have the ability to use our environment as a durable supplemental memory. This is what I would look for in assessing whether another species has the potential for human-like intelligence.

[hyperpallium]

You can argue for their intelligence, but they can't argue for yours.

[milquetoastaf]

Is argumentation and rhetoric the basis of intelligence?

[JetSetWilly]

We share 50% of our DNA with a banana. That doesn't mean that a banana has all these incredible human characteristics. Stats about "percentage of DNA shared" are meaningless. A very small change in DNA can produce very large changes in the organism - ones fundamental to its nature.

[milquetoastaf]

It's the fact that we share the DNA with such diverse amounts of life that matters. You argue that humankind is fundamentally different and exceptional than all other life is to reinforce the hierarchy set forth by Aristotle and offers an outdated pyramidal view of the biosphere. The more we share, the more in common we seem to have. You can't tell me it's meaningless, that's just completely ignoring decades of scientific research.

[scythe]

My answer to this is simple: we have Turing machines. Somehow, our communications are Turing-complete, whereas other species's aren't.

(I make no assumption as to why we have Turing machines, but note that implementing one usually requires some work)

[milquetoastaf]

Your answer is as simple as it is unsatisfactory and arbitrary. Humans have turing machines, sure. But we have yet to truly translate an animal language (though we do know they exist) so your point is rather moot.

My point isn't that humans aren't amazing, it's that we perhaps think too highly of ourselves in relation to our incredible relatives.

[kpil]

I don't think you can 'translate' animal languages.

There is nothing to translate, basically.

We can get a good grip of the meaning of their sounds though, if we spend some time listening, but there is no deeper meaning hidden that we can not access.

[LoSboccacc]

Experiment on dolphins showed they can explain each other what trick to perform. Can't find the exact experiment but trainer showed the trick to one dolphin and rewarded the pair only when the other dolphin perormed the same trick

[zeroer]

Recursive grammar.

[milquetoastaf]

Being able to live six years without food. Humans can't even come close to that, yet a tiny tick can outlast the so-called smartest species on earth.

See, species tit-for-tat is easy. What's your point?

[zeroer]

Yea, point taken, but recursive grammar is a prerequisite for arbitrary cognition or computation.

[danmaz74]

See sorites paradox.