: Consider the real world. We've got at least, say, a dozen
: species who can be considered "intelligent"
: and capable of possessing comparatively complex
: cultures; humans, apes, dolphins, whales, maybe
: elephants, maybe some monkeys. (Not that they're all
: as "smart" as people--whatever that
: means--but that they're at least in our league.)
Now, correct me if I've got the wrong author, but I believe it was Isaac Asimov who coined the term "sentience", and his deductive argument followed that in order for it to exist, there can only be one sentient species per planet (pre-sentient species exterminate all threats to their dominance on the way to sentience, something like that).
Whether or not you believe that, it doesn't matter so much. But I think consciousness or self-awareness should be considered separately from sentience, at veyr least because these terms all mean different things.
I would argue that we only *know* of one species' ability to be aware of itself (and in certain areas of the United States, I'm not even sure that's absolutely true): Man.
We might observe "complex" behaviors in other species, but that doesn't make them self-aware, conscious, intelligent, or sentient. It just means they exhibit complex behaviors. Heck, I think certain bacteria exhibit complex behaviors, it just happens at a physiological level, rather than at a gross mechanical one.
So perhaps it's best if we keep the definition of "complex" restrictive, so it retains some semblance of meaning. It might be argued that since certain skills must be communicated vertically, from parents to children, in chimp troops and dolphin pods, there is some kind of primitive culture. But come on SD, a complex one? You freaking hippie. :)
Unfortunately, short of Flipper or Bonzo raising their heads to their trainers and saying (in clicks or sign language, as it were) "Hi. I'm self-aware, where's my goddamn breakfast?," SD's assertion that these species are "intelligent" remains specious.
IMHO. :P
-David
