🚀 go-pugleaf

>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.

>>> 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.

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.