🚀 go-pugleaf

Jon Bray wrote in the message<7893ni$jb4$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>>In one simple group of Whale Song contains more then 3 million bits of
>data.
>
>So does a two and a half second belch sampled at 1.5MHz.
>

Last year (I think) the was a paper in nature describing the tremendously
varied song by a particular songbird. The authors demonstrated that a large
proportion of this variation was not caused by neuronal control, but by the
physical attributes in the bird's larynx. Resonance in the larynx  showed
chaotic properties, which to a large extent could explain the magnificent
variation of the song. These results do of course not "explain
whale-communication away", but should be a reminder that one should be
careful and open-minded when looking for causal explanations.

>>>> Seriously, whales are intelligent creatures with brains as large or
>>>> larger than our own. I would be hesitant to consume them for that
>>>> reason.
>>>
>>>Is it agreed among scientists that large brain indicates intelligence?
>
>
>I think the general conclusion is that its the surface area of the brain
>rather than the volume which is an indicator of intelligence.  This is
>because the neural network which is responsible for conscious thought,
>perception and memory etc. is found around in the cortex of the brain: the
>size of this is dependent on the surface area rather than the volume.  The
>brains of mammals have more surface ridges (gyri) and furrows (sulci - I
bet
>I've got those the wrong way round!) than do other chordates: this
increases
>the surface area and thus the cortical volume.
>

Just an additional point in this context. While the relative size of the
neocortex likely is of great importance in this matter, I think many people
addressing this issue have neglected the very "architecture" of the
neocortex. -Not only gyri and sulci, but the internal organization of the
cortex. If I am correctly informed, the "neocortex" of whales (and even
dolphins) have a simpler transversal architecture than primates. If this
means a lower number of neural connections, the ramifications could be
substantial.

>Furthermore it may be important to compare the sizes of cerebra relative to
>body size.  Assuming for a moment that the sensitivity of whale skin is
>similar to ours a whale is going to need far more cortical volume for its
>somatosensory map (the brain's "picture" of the body surface) than we will:
>thus less of its total cortical mass is left for "higher" thoughts.
>
>I'd feel guilty about finishing off this post without pointing out that
>intelligence is a term devised by humans largely to measure the abilities
of
>humans (in fact, originally to measure the abilities of western humans
>subjected to a good education, with the probable side-requirement of
>furthering the idea that these were THE superior organism) - I think at
>least one definition does refer to the organisms ability to use complex
>tools and things like fire (bad luck, Mr. Whale).  Any other species to
>which we compare ourselves will thus be handicapped by having to "compete
on
>our terms".
>
>Please note therefore that I'm not saying that whales are more or less
>intelligent than us: I'm saying that the logic of the reasons you give for
>their obviously higher intelligence are badly flawed, and also trying
>(badly) to put across the point that "intelligence" as defined by the
>science books should not be thought of as a way of saying whether one
>species (or individual) is better or worse than any other.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Jon Bray.
>
>

Cassanders
Annuntio vobis gaudeum magnum, habemus cetii