And I’m pointing out exactly once that mammals did not evolve in the ocean, but they absolutely could have!
Since neither of us seems inclined to actually offer evidence rather than just stating our opinion as though it were a fact, we’re even! (Scientific facts get decided by debate now, right?)
Even if you could back up this assertion, it has no bearing on the OP.
Mammalian physiology evolving on land, then human-level intelligence evolving in the ocean is still human-level intelligence evolving in the ocean.
(Otherwise, to be consistent, you’d have to say Homo sapiens is a human-level intelligence that evolved in the sea, because our ancestors evolved in the sea).
Again, not that I think whales and dolphins are anywhere near human-level, but they did massively increase their brain size and gain a number of mental abilities after moving to the sea.
Well, I don’t know why I bothered.
One response from someone who had a knee-jerk response to the word whale before he read the rest of the post, and another response from someone who doesn’t understand enough chemistry to know that the O in H2O is not available for breathing.
For anyone who wants to read about oxygen in relation to air, water, lungs and gills, here’s a link: Curiosities: How do fish gills work?
Dolphins have managed to free themselves from the oppression of the 1 percent and all other tyrannies and play all day and eat sashimi. There really isn’t any good argument that humans are any smarter than dolphins.
And again, you are confusing human level with human type. Tool making and thinking abstractly and complex communication is required for human type intelligence; there is no reason to presume that human level (or higher) intelligence cannot develop without those things even though it would be an intelligence very different than ours.
It was not very smart of dolphins to eat sashimi. Raw fish is approximately 100% infested with parasitic worms, and anybody who eats the same will be too. This is one of the major limitations on life expectancy of all higher forms of marine life. Captive dolphins live longer than wild ones, and the foremost reason for this is the better health care that captive dolphins get, and particularly the worm-free food.
True, we feed them raw fish and some humans eat sashimi too. But those are frozen first, which, when done just right, kills the parasitic worms. Dolphins, who didn’t invent nuclear weapons or New York, also didn’t invent refrigeration. This was an oversight on their part.
Discussion. (Scroll down about 5 screensful.)
You seem to confuse a long life in captivity with a good life. Dolphins in the wild play all day and eat sashimi, and when they are done with life, they die, just like the rest of all living things. They never wonder what is in the refrigerator, don’t waste time on nuclear war and have never wasted a minute in the City that Doesn’t Know How to Sleep.
You seem pretty sure that humans are smarter than dolphins. I’m pretty sure you are wrong based on how each species enjoys its life in its natural habitat.
Not necessarily. Just about eating sashimi. Animals full of parasites are very very sick, eventually, and are not enjoying life at all.
What I think is interesting is that for the vast majority of human evolution we’ve been chasing animals and eating nuts and berries. Not really that sophisticated. Eventually we started chasing animals with pointy objects, then later we developed fire, then larger brains and language, yet right up until a scant 12,000 years ago or so, we were still using our evolving brains to do not much more than chase animals around with pointy objects and sit around the fire afterwards chatting about it. Modern day San People are still content with that (though they may have reverted to it when the climate changed and/or they buggered the environment).
So, the difference between chasing animals with pointy objects and building nuclear reactors and space ships is… practically nothing? Evolutionarily speaking? The human brain hasn’t evolved significantly in the last 1-200,000 years or so. We’re mangy-looking apes chasing animals around the savannah and oh, coincidentally we can build space ships using the exact same brain.
The whole “Different species would define smart differently” meme I thought was being invoked here tongue-in-cheek, but it seems you are being serious.
Intelligence is hard to define very precisely but it’s not relative, and it’s certainly not arbitrary.
It broadly means being able to solve problems.
Even if we went with the hypothesis that dolphins’ primary goal is frolicking about in the sea, we would expect to see them solve problems that prevent them from frolicking e.g. nets. They have not demonstrated significant ability to do so.
Also, there can be a double-standard in this area. When animals use tools, do basic communication, etc. we cite that as evidence of intelligence.
But if we say “Well their ability to use tools is very limited”, we get this retort that maybe they define intelligence differently.
So which standard are we using? If we’re going to throw our hands up and say intelligence is relative then why do we consider dolphins smarter than jellyfish? Or a yoghurt pot?
It’s not a retort; it’s the basic point.
Intelligence is hard to define precisely. Just solving problems is not enough to define it. If all problems presented are solved by instinct, by fixed action responses, that hardly counts as intelligence, IMHO. “Novel problems” must be required. And intelligence is clearly domain specific.
At this point we are not even well equipped to define and measure intelligence in humans across cultures all that well. Admitting that we are not equipped to measure intelligence in naturalistic settings for something alien to us is just basic. We point out tool-making because that is our sort of intelligence so it we appreciate it. It is speaking our language. But tool-making is not necessarily sine qua non of advanced novel problem solving.
And again, the problem-solving accomplishments of the human meta-organism is no more proof of individual human intelligence that the ant colony’s or bee hive’s problem solving is proof of individual ant or bee intelligence.
We do not know how intelligent some ceteceans are but we know it is impressive. Our level? We do not have a meaningful metric for that so all we can say is that we do not know.
Each time you’ve pointed it out it has been somewhat wrong, though. Marine mammals most certainly did evolve in the ocean. They didn’t do all their evolving in water, but they didn’t evolve into today’s whales and dolphins then flop around the jungle for a while before deciding that, actually, with those flippers ‘n’ shit, the ocean would make much more sense.
Also, I can’t help it: “octopi” is generally considered an error. “Octopuses” is better.
BLAAAH! Octopodes! (Link, paragraph 11)
But yeah, ocotopussies works if ya wanna blend in. I need to get back to the sea.
From the column:
Did anyone else read that in Hugo Weaving’s voice?
Also, sod “octopodes”! 
And people, just before they die, are very very sick, eventually, and not enjoying life at all. And all people die. You haven’t made an argument on why people are smarter than dolphins, merely that both die at the end of their lives.
I did mean novel problems (you’ll note that I used that expression back in post #27). So yeah, on that I agree.
And the domain-specific thing, we have to be careful what we’re saying. Sure it’s possible to be good at solving one kind of problem, but not another. But that doesn’t mean the very concept of intelligence itself is domain specific.
Whether we can measure something very accurately, and whether the concept is itself relative, are two different things.
Of course the “meta-organism” in the case of a social species is likely to be able to solve more complex problems than any given individual.
But in the case of humans, we don’t have to look at the meta-organism. Individual humans can solve complex, novel problems, fact.
I’m sure you would quibble over the fact we are not blank slates and have knowledge passed on to us from other humans. But nowhere in the definition of intelligence is there a requirement to start from 0. Intelligence means taking a set of inputs, which includes a problem and can include whatever expert knowledge you like and solving a novel problem (i.e. not a problem exactly like those in the expert knowledge base). Individual humans of course can do this, and indeed are masters at it compared to other terrestrial organisms.
I’ve seen videos of gorillas, chimpanzees, crows, parrots, octopussies and squirrels solving puzzles that most humans would give up on.
Feh. “Octopus” may come from the Greek, but it’s an English word now, and we can pluralize it however we like.
Besides, “octopodes” sounds dumb.
My mom’s terrier will spend hours trying to lick peanut butter out of the inside of a Kong, but I get bored after ten, fifteen minutes tops.
I’m still pretty sure I’m smarter than that dog.
This is true. But while problem solving is one benchmark for measuring intelligence it isn’t a particularly ‘human’ intelligence. Comparative psychologists, who no doubt shot the videos you mention, tend to look for things like self awareness (if presented with themselves in a mirror do they recognize that it is them, or treat it like an encounter with another of their species) and theory of mind (e.g. the ability to put themselves into the mind of another and predict some outcome based on how they will react to some circumstance). Being able to unlock little puzzles to get a treat is not a measure of these types of ‘human’ intelligence, nor is use of tools. But there are other members of the living community who do possess those qualities of mind - mostly other primates but also elephants, birds and others have demonstrated that they possess them. There are surely many, many more that do but we haven’t devised tests that can reliably bring it out on our terms of understanding. There is no reason to think marine life isn’t included in this group of definite maybes.
The origin of the human mind is the subject of intensive study but nobody has any firm conclusions yet. How we made the leap from basic instincts and motor control to philosophy and nuclear bombs is not known. But more and more research indicates we are not alone in possessing the basic building blocks of what we consider human-level intelligence. It may just be a matter of time and evolution until others display it and/or we are able to find a way to test for it’s current existence in terms we can understand.
