One problem in sentient and sapient discussions is that the
defintions of each word tend to get blurred together in trying
to describe the intelligence capability of species. Tests and
observations are used to try and predict current and future
capabilities. Reference points are needed, but the only set of
points people have, so far, are on Earth.
Here's an example of a useful reference point, up to a certain limit:
If you want to know if a species is possibly intelligent and has
the chance of developing sophisticated capabilties like language,
music, math, art, wisdom, tools, etc; Watch how the species
manipulates it's food; ie, Watch how the species combines one or
more food items and non-food items together to make a third food
item. If the species simply eats what's there,(no matter the order
of what it eats; nuts and berries, then berries and nuts), and you
never observe any change, then that species will (probably) not
have the advanced intelligence you are looking for. Notice the
word "probably". The weakness for this reference point is the time
period of observation. If I observed proto-humans 500,000 years ago
I probably wouldn't see them combine two or more foods for the
pleasure of the taste of the end product; Nor would I see salt
being put on meat or fish. But if I do see food being combined into
an end product before being eaten, then we may have something
intelligence wise; (and probably French too boot).
This a starting reference point. Notice fire isn't in the equation.
But add fire to food combining and you have a strong candidate
species who might one day build language, music, radio, T.V., and
A-bombs.
(Then again, there's the human race, which is why people are
wondering if there is intelligent life on Earth).
Go at it folks.
Received on Mon Feb 19 2007 - 17:54:45 CST