this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
228 points (97.5% liked)
science
26849 readers
354 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I really like how the evolution of intelligence is phrased here: https://ma-lab-berkeley.github.io/deep-representation-learning-book/Ch1.html
This line of reasoning puts something rather interesting into perspective. If in the past life could develop (via evolution) new forms of intelligence, of which they could not have possibly perceived of before, then who’s to say it won’t happen again? Perhaps humans could evolve and obtain, yet another, higher form of intelligence which we cannot possibly perceive of now.
Our scientific method draws a blank when it comes to justifying phenomenology and consciousness. Perhaps a higher form of intelligence would more naturally yield insights on how different structures of information processing yield different macro behavioral characteristics which could justify the mind and why it feels anything at all. … or something.
I, too, find that perspective compelling, but I think it's worth pointing out that societal intelligence, as defined there, isn't unique to humans. Mycelial networks allow communication, learning and reactivity among entirely different species within a forest. Eusocial insects like the hymenopterans have their own unique languages. Whales communicate among their pods and across oceans to pass on information and teachings. I'm not saying that a tree knows what a beetle is, but there's something deeper than mere genetics at play when unrelated species communicate the presence of parasites through a mycelial network, and each tree begins to produce insecticide toxins, even those which have never been infested by a beetle. We too-often discount the many languages which are already spoken on this planet, simply because they are less intelligible to us, or seem more simplistic than Infinite Jest.
Yeah, really interesting point and I appreciate all the examples you included—I will have to read more on those. I’ve similarly been intrigued by the common belief that dogs “mark their territory.” It downplays the significance of using urine as a language. What seems more accurate, IMO, is that dogs use urine as a mode of asynchronous chemical communication. With the Jacobson’s organ, they can get all kinds of details by sniffing a lamppost. Is this a high traffic area, are the other dogs healthy, male or female, any potential mates, rough age, rough time (based on how old the urine smells), … it’s a spectrum of information.
Sometimes I wonder if my dog might recognize others, without ever having physically met them, because he’s been communicating with them via the fire hydrant for years. Not sure how likely that would be, but it’s certainly crossed my mind.