# Scorpion intelligence



## HackoDis (Mar 1, 2007)

After seeing a few videos of scorpions. It me pondering how intelligent are they?

I watch my own scorpions (pandinus imperator) It's neat to see them hunt drink clean them selves. 

Was there ever any studies down testing the intelligence of these creatures


----------



## twirl and kill (Mar 1, 2007)

yes they are intelligent,they eat they drink they clean themselves and hunt,those are the studies.:? .....:wall:


----------



## fusion121 (Mar 1, 2007)

They are not intelligent, they have extremely simply nervous systems. Stimulus/reaction is about as complex as their behaviour gets.


----------



## lucanidae (Mar 1, 2007)

Although I'm not sure what kind of intelligence exists within the scorpions, I'd like to point out that just because an invertebrate dosen't have an extremely complex neural system; that isn't directly correlated to lack of intelligence. The most striking example would be the jumping spider genus Portia, whose nueral network could not be much different than that of a scorpion, but these Portia are still extremely 'intelligent'.

"When we talk about 'intelligence' with Portia, we're talking about genetically based ability," Wilcox notes. "It's all built in. The versatility of these animals, *with their tiny neural systems*, is almost unbelievable."


----------



## lucanidae (Mar 1, 2007)

> The cheliceriform mushroom bodies can reach varying degrees of elaboration. In scorpions, mushroom bodies are relatively small, being supplied by a few thousand globuli cells (in Centruroides sculpturatus). In the amblypygids, or whip-spiders (amblypygids are not true spiders), the lobes are
> huge, richly convoluted (Babu, cited on p. 1256 of Bullock and Horridge 1965), and are supplied by two pairs of globuli cell clusters (~300,000 neurons
> in Tarantula sp) that form a roof over the protocerebrum.


The above quote is from a paper on arthropod intelligence and the function and morphology of the mushroom bodies, a part of the nervous system assosciated with intelligence and learning.  From the quote we learn that scorpions are far less likely to have 'intelligence' or learning ability as compared to amblypygids.  This paper is an awesome read for anyone interested in invertebrate intelligence.

Strausfeld et al. (1998) Evolution, Discovery, and Interpretations of Arthropod Mushroom Bodies  Learning and Memory 5 (1): 11.


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 1, 2007)

So the scorpion is doing what it's genes set down? So a scorpion has very little intelligence, but some. It mostly responds to it's environment.


----------



## fusion121 (Mar 1, 2007)

lucanidae said:


> I'd like to point out that just because an invertebrate dosen't have an extremely complex neural system; that isn't directly correlated to lack of intelligence.


Personally I'd suggest there is an extremely strong correlation there, as they is with all neural networks, whether that be in arthropods, primates or computers.

Of course it really comes down to what you mean by 'intelligence' but in terms of the reasoning and powerful learning abilities we see in  many of the higher vertebrates scorpions cannot be considered intelligent. As the quote about Portia spp. indicates, what we observe in the arachnids are inbuilt behaviours selected for by evolution. They are much like very complex computer programmes, but cannot really be called 'intelligence', just as a computer cannot be called intelligent.


----------



## lucanidae (Mar 1, 2007)

Right. But Portia can learn new things and adapt at the individual level to its environment (read here http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1640513/posts); even with the same basic neural system. This is not just built in static responses to stimuli. Also, the paper on mushroom bodies suggests that the brains of arachnids might not be nearly as primitive as we are assuming. However, it does suggest scorpions and especially solfugids to be far less capable of learning than amblypygids. I just think discounting any form of 'intelligence' based on the so-called primitive brain structure is kind of unfounded.


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 1, 2007)

So a scorpion doesn't learn it merely adapts ?

Like i said it has a certain degree of intelligence, but not the learning type. Just mere "something in front of me moving" "Hmm food" Something like that ?


----------



## lucanidae (Mar 1, 2007)

Adapting, or changing behavior due to experience is a form of learning, and a permanent or long term change is called memory.  All animals experience neural adaptation, "change over time in the responsiveness of the sensory system to a stimulus". It is the ability to remember these adaptations that we usually equate with intelligence. (If we learn that touching a hot surface burns, but we forget every ten minutes....we wouldn't be so intelligent). I think the question of how good scorpions are at long term adaptation to the environment in generally unanswerable at the moment. But, we can say based on the mushroom bodies paper they do have the brain structures needed in order to remember.

I'm not saying scorpions are smart, can add 2 and 2, or will learn to recognize you. But, these are not mindless automatons whose every behavior is dictated during development and never changes in response to stimuli.


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 1, 2007)

Interesting, It makes me appreciate these creatures even more.

Also thanks for explaining that clearly.


----------



## fusion121 (Mar 1, 2007)

There's no doubt that scorpions display memory in some instances; burrow location (perhaps even based on star positions) is a very good example and they are able to locate it instantaneously even after moving considerable distances from it (I guess that's what the mushroom bodies are for). But the core of what is traditionally considered to be Intelligence does not lie primarily in simple memory formation but in using memories to reason, plan solve problems etc.   

Using the computer analogy again: a scorpion like a computer can store information (ie burrow position) and process it when needed (such as running back to its burrow when disturbed by a predator) but that's a long way from 'intelligence' and going on the relative simplicity of their nervous systems there is very little reason to assume their mental abilities are much more substantial. I don't think it does raise them above the level of mindless automatons.

(P.s your link doesn't work  )
Edit: got it now


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 1, 2007)

So they have a simple memory. Dang now i want to research this.

Can i borrow about 30 emps, a degree and yeah


----------



## lucanidae (Mar 1, 2007)

http://inside.binghamton.edu/September-October/23Oct97/spider.html
Here is another link that should work.



> When Dujardin (1850) first described the mushroom bodies in bees and ants, he compared them to the vertebrate cerebral cortex and considered them the seat of intelligence. It took nearly 150 years to establish beyond doubt that they are, indeed, involved in something related to intelligence.


From:
Heisenberg, Martin. (1998) "What Do Mushroom Bodies do for the Insect Brain" Learning and Memory, 5: 1-10



> The *complex nervous system* of arthropods *integrates a diverse array* of external sensory and internal physiological information *and generates some of the behaviors* discussed in Chapter 4.


From,
Gullan and Cranston, The Insects. Third Edition, (2005) Blackwell Publishing; Malden MA.

All of my sources are recently published and peer reviewed, and I can't find any suggesting that insect or arachnids are anything like 'mindless automatons'.


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 1, 2007)

They defiantly aren't, i mean come on if they were mindless they shouldn't clean them selves if dirt were on them. They wouldn't be able to "hunt"

Thanks for the links.

And the information


----------



## Michiel (Mar 1, 2007)

You can divide human intelligence in cognitive, emotional and social intelligence. You cannot compare these kinds of intelligence with those (if there at all) of arachnids. They have a central nervous system and they have an array of sensory structures, which they use for different inhibited reactions in different situations, but this has nothing to with thinking, or problemsolving/ trial-and-error learning.


----------



## EAD063 (Mar 1, 2007)

I  guess it would help to also know what type of intelelligence you refer to, anything in particular. I've been trying to devise a test which I've previously done in fish but I haven't put a considerable amount of time into developing the idea, nor do I belive I have the proper facilities to do a test on a large scale such as before.

The test I would like to duplicate involved fish.  One person always fed his tanks wearing a red smock, and always in the near right corner. After a couple weeks the fish responded by going to that corner whenever they saw the red smock comming.  We were able to feed other tanks specifically in one corner, but the fish would only goto the corner once they saw the siphon in the water.

I would like to try to duplicate this with the scorpions but it is somewhat difficult.  I've considered trying to get them aquainted with a certain color or object while they are fed... and then trying to use that object to lure them to prey that is not roaming they're container.  Keeping crickets in a single place but still allowing the scorpion to have access is hard also.  Another idea would be trying to get them acuainted with a certain series of noise/vibration that would indicate its time to feed.  But both test would take an immense amount of thought, space and intelligence.  It's something I've always been curious about though because we were able to do this with the fish and it was "neat" for lack of better words.

So did you have anything specific in mind?


----------



## orkimedies (Mar 1, 2007)

if a scorpion ran for president, i would vote for it.


----------



## lucanidae (Mar 1, 2007)

> but this has nothing to with thinking, or *problemsolving/ trial-and-error learning.*


Portia is in direct opposition to your generalization.  They display an incredible ability to learn. For example; Portia will pluck on the webs of araneomorphs. They will pluck in all kinds of random ways.  Once they find a way that works (often mimicking prey closely or mating plucks on occasion) they will continue to use this whenever they encounter orb weavers.  This is only one example of an amazing Portia behavior, and I doubt that such 'intelligence' is restricted only to Portia.

EAD063 your experiment and the one you described for scorpions are perfect examples of Pavlov aka Classical conditioning. This kind of thing can be demonstrated in a non-feeding manner too. Bang on a cage of an invertebrate. It will probably retreat. Continue to bang on the cage once or twice a day and the retreat will probably become a flinch. Eventually it will not respond to this annoyance. That is also classical conditioning, just with a negative stimuli instead of a positive one.


----------



## Selenops (Mar 1, 2007)

orkimedies said:


> if a scorpion ran for president, i would vote for it.


Simply the fact it has greater intelligence!

Anyways, interesting discussion. I had a Hadogenes troglodytes that displayed some eerie behavior. And there are other moments where my inverts made my *shudder* but that is going into the speculative realm of thought.


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 2, 2007)

Ead interesting experiment

Accept scorpions don't see with colors or anything.

I wonder what scorpions vision is like.

So how can someone do something like this on intelligence.

I think it's neat the hunting style the jumping spider uses.

Now if it was trial and error, there would be alot more dead jumping spiders.

Plus i suppose you could say trial and error is learning.


----------



## Michiel (Mar 2, 2007)

lucanidae said:


> Portia is in direct opposition to your generalization.  They display an incredible ability to learn. For example; Portia will pluck on the webs of araneomorphs. They will pluck in all kinds of random ways.  Once they find a way that works (often mimicking prey closely or mating plucks on occasion) they will continue to use this whenever they encounter orb weavers.  This is only one example of an amazing Portia behavior, and I doubt that such 'intelligence' is restricted only to Portia.
> 
> EAD063 your experiment and the one you described for scorpions are perfect examples of Pavlov aka Classical conditioning. This kind of thing can be demonstrated in a non-feeding manner too. Bang on a cage of an invertebrate. It will probably retreat. Continue to bang on the cage once or twice a day and the retreat will probably become a flinch. Eventually it will not respond to this annoyance. That is also classical conditioning, just with a negative stimuli instead of a positive one.



Hi lucanidae

Yes, I have seen _Portia_ on the NGC and I concur with you, but I thought we discussed scorpions on this forum  There are some nice documents about several subjects, like pray capturing behavioural patterns.
And for classical conditioning, I think the experiments your refer to, are more fit in vertebrates than invertebrates, but on the other side, If no one tries to we will never know for sure.  
By the way, it is a well known fact that in tarantula keeping, the soft knock on the enclosure (to scare that nasty baboon spider to its burrow, so you can remove the cricket leftovers)is frequently used on it wouldn't be succesfull if animals became unresponsefull from the continuous banging. The animals are under the impression that they are in danger when they hear a bang (in fact they receive a massive amount of soundwaves)and retreat. 
I would worry if scorpions or tarantulas became unresponsful from stimuli like music, sounds etc, because it would indicate to me that there might be something wrong with them. 

Regards, Michiel


----------



## pandinus (Mar 2, 2007)

in The Biology of Scorpions (Polis 1990) There is a 70 page chapter soley devoted to covering the subject of neurobiology in scorpions.


John


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 2, 2007)

I should go out and buy that book.


----------



## pandinus (Mar 2, 2007)

HackoDis said:


> I should go out and buy that book.


if you can find it, it is one of the most useful books i have ever bought.

John


----------



## EAD063 (Mar 2, 2007)

HackoDis said:


> I should go out and buy that book.


If your old enough to be in a university use can use HELIN and find the book wherever... 2 Universities in my state have the book and I'm in the smallest state, so I'm sure there are probaly a ton of couple floating around wherever you are.  I think some high schools use HELIN also, mine did.


PS Michael, it is a good point that the expiriment is best suited for vertebrates, which is why I've been unable to come up with a solid way to try and replicate it.  Food location expiriments may be interesting also.  I need more room though.


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 2, 2007)

well i can get it on amazon for 105 bucks.

Maybe i'll wait till i go to college.
Try a pheromone test. Se how the scorpion reacts to a lizard smell etc etc


----------



## EAD063 (Mar 2, 2007)

HackoDis said:


> well i can get it on amazon for 105 bucks.
> 
> Maybe i'll wait till i go to college.
> Try a pheromone test. Se how the scorpion reacts to a lizard smell etc etc


 I once put an anole in a heterometrus enclosure. Thing was quick as a bugger,  and had an amazing camaflouge in the plastic leafs I had as a decoration.   The little guy only lasted under 12 hours though.


----------



## skinheaddave (Mar 2, 2007)

Polis (1990) can be gotten as a reprint here: http://wwwlib.umi.com/bod/fullcite?id=185892



Michiel said:


> And for classical conditioning, I think the experiments your refer to, are more fit in vertebrates than invertebrates,


How so?  There was a student at my university who was doing some work with hissing cockroaches.  She showed that the hissers eventually stopped responding to her, whereas they would still respond to other individuals.  In other words, they had become habituated to manipulation in the presence of her scent/taste.  The only reason a pavlovian bell won't work on these critters is that they don't really respond at all to bells.



> I would worry if scorpions or tarantulas became unresponsful from stimuli like music, sounds etc, because it would indicate to me that there might be something wrong with them.


There are plenty of examples of habituation in tarantulas.  If you have a copy of the Schultz & Schultz Tarantula Keeper Guide around then you can read the bit on habituation in there.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## EAD063 (Mar 2, 2007)

I'm curious Dave if you know of such "conditioning" expiriments done on scorpions in specifically?

The research with the Zebra Danios were interesting, but they were also kept perfectly (reverse osmosis treated water, a defined day night schedule, fed mostly on live home cultured brine shirmp and perfectly maintained PH levels)  so  I have wondered whether these conditions affected the outcome of the expiriment and thus would affect the outcome of future ones aswell.


----------



## John Bokma (Mar 2, 2007)

> Personally I'd suggest there is an extremely strong correlation there, as they is with all neural networks, whether that be in arthropods, primates or computers.


I can only speak for ANN (software neural networks in this case), but what a neural network can do depends on the complexity inside the node (often the threshold function), the number of connections and the number of nodes, and from what I know about it it's not simply the more of all, the more a network can do. For example too many interconnections can make the learning very slow. Too many nodes can make that the neural network does things because it just remembers the entire trainingset.


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 3, 2007)

If you could explain your ANN "theory" a little simpler.

So your saying the more nodes = slower learning but higher intelligence.

Lesser nodes = Learning not as great, lower intelligence.

Just trying to understand this.

Thanks


----------



## John Bokma (Mar 4, 2007)

If there are too many nodes in an ANN it suffers from memory effect. Instead of trying to find rules hidden in the trainingset, it just learns all the trainingdata. Compare it with someone doing an exame while having access to Google and Wikipedia. You wouldn't call that person intelligent.

ANNs are often used to find the hidden rules in data so it can also work with new data. If an ANN has just learned the data it might give a completely wrong answer because it doesn't remember the answer.

An example: you can train an ANN with black and white photos as used in IDs and provide it with the sex of the person in the photo. If the ANN learns it might give quite accurate answers with new photos you feed it. If it just remembers it might give random answers if you feed it new photos.

(BTW: this is a real example, if I recall correctly the ANN was quite good at it and only got it wrong when people also had a hard time to see if the person in a photo was male or female).

Also added complexity might result in making the wrong decision in an urgent situation. A human might hesitate while an animal just automatically does the right and "more intelligent" thing.


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 5, 2007)

Thanks for explaining that.


----------



## konrad16660 (Mar 5, 2007)

a lot of people think that scorps are dumb.  i have owned a lot of them.  Some are really violent, while the emperors are more communal.  You have to remember they can only sense light for the most part, so they aren't going to be able to do a lot of things mammals can.  But among those that are communal I do believe they build relationships and communicate between eachother.  I feel they all have their own personalities, so they are not as dumb as most people are set to believe.  I think it depends on the sub-species as well.  Because I have had some pretty dumb scorps to boot.


----------



## Michiel (Mar 6, 2007)

in the end I concur with fusion in the stimuli-response thing, scorpions cannot solve mathematical problems.......lucky them


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 6, 2007)

They should make a show to find out if in a million years scorpions will be more intelligent.

Just imagine seeing a scorpion "talking" or making a trap....:drool:


----------



## skinheaddave (Mar 6, 2007)

HackoDis said:


> They should make a show to find out if in a million years scorpions will be more intelligent.


This intrigues me.  How is making a show going to come even close to answering this?

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 7, 2007)

don't know, they had a show on a while back on animal planet. They made octopus more intelligent. Monkeys become the next humans, spiders got slightly bigger. Grrr


----------



## konrad16660 (Mar 7, 2007)

haha is scorpions could make traps and whatnot we would all be dead.  although i think some of us would enjoy it here on the boards, hehe.;P


----------



## skinheaddave (Mar 7, 2007)

HackoDis said:


> don't know, they had a show on a while back on animal planet.


Please tell me you see that those types of show are pure speculation.  We can do the same thing here on this board.  I predict, for example, that given their general lack of modification in the 400-some-odd million years they've been evolving on land, another million years is not going to do anything for their intelligence.  

I fear that the new trend towards ficticious CGI shows dressed up as documentaries on Discovery and whatnot are confusing our youth.

Cheers,
Dave


----------



## Bayushi (Mar 7, 2007)

Last time they had one of those cgi docufantasies on my son asked me if it was true...  I replied it's as real as TMNT is until it actually happens.


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 9, 2007)

I wasn't saying it was or anything. The show showing brontoscorpio i liked.


----------



## EAD063 (Mar 10, 2007)

skinheaddave said:


> Please tell me you see that those types of show are pure speculation.  We can do the same thing here on this board.  I predict, for example, that given their general lack of modification in the 400-some-odd million years they've been evolving on land, another million years is not going to do anything for their intelligence.
> 
> I fear that the new trend towards ficticious CGI shows dressed up as documentaries on Discovery and whatnot are confusing our youth.
> 
> ...


Resources like that usually deserve quotations around documentary.  Some of the shows are enjoyable, a tad educational, but mostly as you said are speculation and definently need to be called "documentarys".  Not a complete surprise though seeing this appears to be the general direction that all news reporting is taking.  It's  great to point that out Dave and a reminder to all to check you resources and never rely on strictly one informational source!


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 14, 2007)

Ok so anyone else have anything else to provide to this thread ?


----------



## HackoDis (Mar 23, 2007)

Dangit, not gonna let this thread die....


----------



## vtecgsr (Mar 25, 2007)

*I think so*

When i had my emperor scorpion i would occasionally feed it pinky mice. I noticed it would do the same thing every time, it would would clamp the mouse's nasal passage shut with it's claw. To me, the knowledge of knowing how to cut breathing on it's prey like a lion does to a wilderbeast is intelligence...


----------



## EAD063 (Mar 25, 2007)

vtecgsr said:


> When i had my emperor scorpion i would occasionally feed it pinky mice. I noticed it would do the same thing every time, it would would clamp the mouse's nasal passage shut with it's claw. To me, the knowledge of knowing how to cut breathing on it's prey like a lion does to a wilderbeast is intelligence...


You can't really compare hunting techniques of mammals and bugs, thats like apples and oranges. And as for clamping the nasal passage, I'd say with confidence that the scorp is  just creating leverage at the front and back of it's prey as to not drop it, by no means must the prey be dead before being consumed, most often the feast starts far before the prey perishes.  Especially with a pinky, blind and defenseless, the scorp would have no problem eating it alive.  If someone would show me a scorpion who repeatably showed a certain technique that would kill prey larger than itself, I would think it would be worth looking farther into, but not until.  One thing I'd be curious of is parabuthus takeing aim when they project venom, similar to how a cobra instinctively aims for it's predators eyes, but I still don't know if that is construed as intelligence or instinct.


----------



## Urizen (Mar 31, 2007)

konrad16660 said:


> a lot of people think that scorps are dumb.  i have owned a lot of them.  Some are really violent, while the emperors are more communal.  You have to remember they can only sense light for the most part, so they aren't going to be able to do a lot of things mammals can.  But among those that are communal I do believe they build relationships and communicate between eachother.  I feel they all have their own personalities, so they are not as dumb as most people are set to believe.  I think it depends on the sub-species as well.  Because I have had some pretty dumb scorps to boot.


Communal does not mean social, and certainly doesn't hold the connotations of the human idea of community, this can be held true via the fact that I see more than one post on these forums of 'communal' species suddenly becoming cannibalistic. Also be careful with the term "personality", you may be personifying in your mind, polarities in instinctual behavior, which is probably a genetic event rather than a emotional one. I think in this thread the ideas between what is 'dumb' and 'intelligent' behaviour has been paraphrased and watered-down. In my personal opnion scorpions aswell as all animals, react 'intelligently' in relation only to their basic instincts ie: Alot are ambush hunters however this does not mean that will suddenly construct an elobarote trap to capture their 'human ensalver'.


----------



## Zman16 (Apr 2, 2007)

I read somewhere on here that if a mother emp gives birth, and the young stay with her there whole life (if the mother doesn't eat them), they will make a pack or something. That seems like intellegence to me


----------



## EAD063 (Apr 2, 2007)

Zman16 said:


> I read somewhere on here that if a mother emp gives birth, and the young stay with her there whole life (if the mother doesn't eat them), they will make a pack or something. That seems like intellegence to me


Absoultely not.


----------



## Urizen (Apr 2, 2007)

EAD063 said:


> You can't really compare hunting techniques of mammals and bugs, thats like apples and oranges. And as for clamping the nasal passage, I'd say with confidence that the scorp is  just creating leverage at the front and back of it's prey as to not drop it, by no means must the prey be dead before being consumed, most often the feast starts far before the prey perishes.  Especially with a pinky, blind and defenseless, the scorp would have no problem eating it alive.  If someone would show me a scorpion who repeatably showed a certain technique that would kill prey larger than itself, I would think it would be worth looking farther into, but not until.  One thing I'd be curious of is parabuthus takeing aim when they project venom, similar to how a cobra instinctively aims for it's predators eyes, but I still don't know if that is construed as intelligence or instinct.


The Parbuthus spp. that do, just spray in the direction of the irritant, those that get it in their eyes, are mostly because the face is directly inline with them. Animal looking for a meal, silly person having a close inspection. Again I think this all boils down to the symantecs of how far we'd like to describe instinct as intelligence. I agree with your answer to the 'nasal clamping', I think this is pure coincidence, due to scorpion VS prey size.



Zman16 said:


> I read somewhere on here that if a mother emp gives birth, and the young stay with her there whole life (if the mother doesn't eat them), they will make a pack or something. That seems like intellegence to me


This 'pack' idea, is communal living and certainly as I stated out is not indicative of a 'community' helping each other out, give one scorpion more food and the others less and you'll see how quick the 'community' turns to cannabal cook out.


----------



## EAD063 (Apr 2, 2007)

I was giving some serious thought on this subject a week or so ago.  I needed a way to pass the time in psychology, which just doesn't amuse me, so I tried using the different "theories" of psychology and apply them to scorpions.  I feel one of the easies and most accurate descrpitions that apply to they're "intelligence" is refering to them as robots.  They appear to be so well evolved and adapted to be able to perform new behavior sets.  Like a computer cannot do more than what it's programmed to do.  But a computer can respond to differnt inputs, ie. when there is an error (somethings not right), you can an error code, thats all it can do, and all it will ever do.  With a scorpion, a disturbence would cause it to what it's programmed to do, run away.  With a computer, if you get an attack, the computer trys to defend itself, (ie, virus detection software) . With a scorpion, if it is attacked, it will try to defend itself by tensing up and position itself to counter.

A good example of extreme instinct can be seen in most tityus species.  Being partheogenic, a scorpion can be completely isolated for it's entire life, but still be able to hunt, respond apprioately to situations and rear new young, and never encounter another scorpion to "learn" these techniques from.

It's hard to compare what we consider intelligence to that of select groups of animals that have been around for millions of years.  Many factors need to be considered.  One important factor to remember is how important communication is needed for humans to learn, that isn't aviable with all animals.  Most animals communicate minimally, they've found through time that, thats all they need  to survive.  Plus, there is a reason that homosapian is called "smart man", we've evolved into very decisive creatures, but on the other hand, the majority of the homosapian population has lost the abilily to survive in an uncivilized world (ie hunting, prowling for differnt foods).  This is something that most likely in time will come back to bite our species in the butt!  So when you compare intelligence,  you need to consider what we refer to as intelligence and what they're instinct to survive is.  To be honest, "smart man" isn't an extremly "smart" species either, (complex and well orchastrated physically, yes) scorpions have been around far longer than any primeape, and will without a doubt will survive far longer also.


----------



## OneSickPuppy (Apr 2, 2007)

in·tel·li·gence

1.	capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2.	manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3.	the faculty of understanding.
4.	knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5.	the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.
6.	Government.
a.	information about an enemy or a potential enemy.
b.	the evaluated conclusions drawn from such information.
c.	an organization or agency engaged in gathering such information: military intelligence; naval intelligence.
7.	interchange of information: They have been maintaining intelligence with foreign agents for years.
8.	Christian Science. a fundamental attribute of God, or infinite Mind.
9.	(often initial capital letter) an intelligent being or spirit, esp. an incorporeal one, as an angel.


----------



## EAD063 (Apr 2, 2007)

OneSickPuppy said:


> in·tel·li·gence
> 
> 1.	capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
> 2.	manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
> ...


For a second I didn't see the A B and C under number 6.  I was going to say, we all kow the term "Government Intelligence" is an oxymoron.     Thanks for the definition, thats defiently should prove the point.


----------

