Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New articles
New media comments
New article comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Articles
New articles
New comments
Search articles
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Dark Theme
Contact us
Close Menu
Are you a Tarantula hobbyist? If so, we invite you to join our community! Once you join you'll be able to post messages, upload pictures of your pets and enclosures and chat with other Tarantula enthusiasts.
Sign up today!
Forums
Tarantula Forum Topics
General Tarantula Discussion
Tarantulas Got Smarts?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Stan Schultz" data-source="post: 191391" data-attributes="member: 28438"><p>The one who wrote the tarantula book? Yup!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Interesting that you should say so. Consider this for a moment. The vast preponderance of our intelligence involves <strong>TECHNOLOGY</strong>. This apparently began several hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or two, years ago with us learning how to make and use fire, and very primitive tools. Before this, we were little more than soft, tasty, defenseless, entrees! Our technological intelligence was our hedge, our advantage over tooth and claw, that permitted us to out-survive all the competition, and most of our predators. But look at where it's taken us!</p><p></p><p>Most of us rate the intelligence of an individual by how successful they are at manipulating tools, building things, and creating things. Yes, it's true that we also are deeply involved with arts and crafts for esthetic purposes as opposed to constructing tools, but such is clearly a secondary issue. First we build a bridge (in a broad sense, a sort of tool), then we paint it red secondarily. First we built a car. Then we altered its design to make it pretty.</p><p></p><p>Now, we also recognize that some other animals also display some level of intelligence. Consider for instance, dogs, domestic cats, ravens, porpoises, the other great apes, and parrots to name a few. But I present to you several hypotheses that may rattle your cage, if not your sense of intellectual superiority:</p><p></p><p>1) Intelligence is not like pregnancy! It isn't a matter of "either you is, or you ain't!" It's a spectrum of grays. Or even more dimensions (or colors), depending on how sophisticated you are as you consider it. Hypothetically, we should be able to draw a line across the page, label the left end as zero, and the right end as 100. Now, on this axis we should be able to place a dot representing the intelligence of a sponge (for instance, but this may be demeaning the sponge!) very near the zero mark. And place another dot somewhere around the middle and declare it to represent the intelligence of a blue crab. Ants, and bees might go a little farther to the right. And of course, we, being very egocentric, even narcissistic, would place our dot very near the 100 mark.</p><p></p><p>2) There are different kinds of intelligence. Our species tends to emphasize technology. But what about porpoises? In what direction have they fine-tuned their intelligence? Or bumblebees? Is it possible that we're so infatuated with our own technological smarts that we've missed the point entirely?</p><p></p><p>Are we so artistically challenged that we've entirely missed the artistic attributes of a termite mound, the design of which has taken tens, if not hundreds of millions of years to perfect?</p><p></p><p>Are we so retarded that we cannot appreciate the symphony of a coral reef beyond acting like a boorish tourist, or wanting to eat the grouper, Spanish mackerel, or red emperor?</p><p></p><p>If it can't build a skyscraper or a fast car, is it merely food?</p><p></p><p>More central to this epistle, where along our left-right line would you place tarantulas? And why would you place them there, as opposed to farther to the right, or to the left?</p><p></p><p>Thanks for your contributions thus far, and keep 'em comin, sports fans!</p><p></p><p></p><p>Stan</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Stan Schultz, post: 191391, member: 28438"] The one who wrote the tarantula book? Yup! Interesting that you should say so. Consider this for a moment. The vast preponderance of our intelligence involves [B]TECHNOLOGY[/B]. This apparently began several hundreds of thousands, perhaps a million or two, years ago with us learning how to make and use fire, and very primitive tools. Before this, we were little more than soft, tasty, defenseless, entrees! Our technological intelligence was our hedge, our advantage over tooth and claw, that permitted us to out-survive all the competition, and most of our predators. But look at where it's taken us! Most of us rate the intelligence of an individual by how successful they are at manipulating tools, building things, and creating things. Yes, it's true that we also are deeply involved with arts and crafts for esthetic purposes as opposed to constructing tools, but such is clearly a secondary issue. First we build a bridge (in a broad sense, a sort of tool), then we paint it red secondarily. First we built a car. Then we altered its design to make it pretty. Now, we also recognize that some other animals also display some level of intelligence. Consider for instance, dogs, domestic cats, ravens, porpoises, the other great apes, and parrots to name a few. But I present to you several hypotheses that may rattle your cage, if not your sense of intellectual superiority: 1) Intelligence is not like pregnancy! It isn't a matter of "either you is, or you ain't!" It's a spectrum of grays. Or even more dimensions (or colors), depending on how sophisticated you are as you consider it. Hypothetically, we should be able to draw a line across the page, label the left end as zero, and the right end as 100. Now, on this axis we should be able to place a dot representing the intelligence of a sponge (for instance, but this may be demeaning the sponge!) very near the zero mark. And place another dot somewhere around the middle and declare it to represent the intelligence of a blue crab. Ants, and bees might go a little farther to the right. And of course, we, being very egocentric, even narcissistic, would place our dot very near the 100 mark. 2) There are different kinds of intelligence. Our species tends to emphasize technology. But what about porpoises? In what direction have they fine-tuned their intelligence? Or bumblebees? Is it possible that we're so infatuated with our own technological smarts that we've missed the point entirely? Are we so artistically challenged that we've entirely missed the artistic attributes of a termite mound, the design of which has taken tens, if not hundreds of millions of years to perfect? Are we so retarded that we cannot appreciate the symphony of a coral reef beyond acting like a boorish tourist, or wanting to eat the grouper, Spanish mackerel, or red emperor? If it can't build a skyscraper or a fast car, is it merely food? More central to this epistle, where along our left-right line would you place tarantulas? And why would you place them there, as opposed to farther to the right, or to the left? Thanks for your contributions thus far, and keep 'em comin, sports fans! Stan [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Tarantula Forum Topics
General Tarantula Discussion
Tarantulas Got Smarts?
Top