Biological Uplifting

Biological Uplift

Biological uplifting is the process whereby previously non-sapient living things are turned into sapient beings by a variety of means - suggestions include genetic engineering, cybernetic enhancement of the subject organism's brain matter and nervous system, the "splicing" of human genetic material related to intelligence, nootropic drugs, surgical enhancement, and so on and so forth.

Common subjects in fiction for the process of biological uplifting include already intelligent mammals such as chimps, dolphins, and pack animals such as dogs or wolves. But in theory, any biological organism can have it's mental functioning increased, using the various methods listed beforehand to increase the amount of neural connections to the level required for the desired level of intelligence. A theoretical variant of uplifting, which I call "Sublifting", involves increasing the "sophic level" (in simple terms, the "level of intelligence" of a given species, but sapience involves more than mere brainpower) of a given organism from it's original level to anywhere below sapience - Sublifting is likely to be easier to achieve than full-blown uplifting, and will likely provide a necessary stepping-stone to such practices.

I personally, however, am drawn to the possibility of uplifting non-mammalian species, for the simple fact that such radically different biologies are likely to produce radically different mental topologies and states of mind. What would be the end process of uplifting say, a jumping spider? How would it's biology interact with and effect it's mindset? Let us also not forget that although, depending on the techniques used, some trace element of humanity or human mental characteristics will likely be present in the uplifted organism, it will bring with it it's own psychological evolutionary history - just as our simian ancestry influences and shapes our current sapience, so will an uplifted jumping spider's mental heritage be molded and formed.

Some may say that such uplifted creatures will have a mindset so radically different from our own that any kind of rapport will be impossible. I do admit that there is something to this. Firstly, there is that, evolutionarily speaking, mammals are considerably close to each other. So much so that humans react to the young of other mammals in a very similar way to that of their own - who hasn't cooed over a cute little kitten? In fact, this reaction is extended in a lot of humans to mature specimens of mammals - there is a strong indication that pets such as cats and dogs act as "surrogate babies", with the pet owners taking the place of the parents. Pet owners are even likely to talk "baby talk" to their pets, especially cat owners. This is somewhat reciprocated on the part of the feline, with the animal reverting to "kitten behaviour" when in the presence of a trusted human, for instance "kneading" their owners with their paws while being stroked. Dogs perform a similar substitution, with their owners and trusted humans forming a surrogate "pack".
Mammals also, due to their evolutionary heritage, share similar habits.

Back to uplifting non-mammals. When I suggested spiders as a possible candidate for uplifting to Sentinel, he raised an important point - spider habits are vastly different from ours, in some cases monstrously so. Some species of spider practice matriphagy, that is to say, the young eat their mother when they hatch from the egg-sac. Among mammals this sort of behaviour is unheard of, although some mothers have been known to eat their young in certain situations.

I feel there are some potential solutions to the "problem" of certain behaviours among non-mammal species that would be considered odious by almost all mammals.

- Pro-active evolution. In this scenario, uplifting is a multi-generational process; no single animal or group of animals is suddenly "shocked" into sapience, rather increases of sophic level take place over the course of many generations. This has the potential advantage of "easing in" potential uplifted species and offers the opportunity to iron out any problems before they become too big to handle (in other words, half-way through the process you still have a bunch of animals, and therefore there is less of a moral minefield in exterminating them all if it fucks up for whatever reason). It also enables the uplifted animals to be a viable breeding population as well as a sapient species in it's own right. This "slow approach" also offers a greater degree of control over the uplifting process.

- Civilised substitution. This technique involves "substituting" the odious practice of a species for something more acceptable to mammals and humans. For example, in the case of matriphagic spiders, perhaps some alternative food source can be obtained for their young.

- Genetic engineering. As part of the uplift process, genetic manipulation of the species in question may obviate the need for odious practices.

- Memetic discipline. From their moment of birth, the uplifted animals are taught that "atavism" IE actually carrying out odious practices is a truly vile thing, hated by all civilised creatures. Most likely if this method is used, some kind of socially acceptable "outlet" for any pent-up urges to do the vile deed in question must be provided, otherwise the results will be extreme neurosis at best or actual atavism (reverting back to primitive behaviour) at worst. Drugs, psychotherapy and specialised surgical techniques may aid in this. I cannot say I am too fond of this method, as it "feels" ethically dubious even in the best possible light.

- Acceptance. In this, we accept that a vast gulf in social practices is inevitable, and do the best we can to accomodate. Perhaps surprisingly, by the time we actually get around to uplifting animals, practices such as matriphagy may be a non-issue - if a sapient spider desires to be a mother, she can simply head down to her local mind-state centre to backup her mind-state before having children. She may take drugs to ease the pain of being eaten, but will otherwise give birth to her young in the normal way, before being revived again in order to actually live to see her children grow up. It may seem strange, even disgusting to us primitive Earth-bound hominids in the early 21st century, but a thousand years hence may be seen as normal as having kids today.

The above listed solutions, or maybe a combination of them, may serve to help integrate uplifted animals into wider Transhuman society, especially non-mammalian animals such as birds, marsupials, amphibians, reptiles, arthropods (insects, spiders, millipedes etc), molluscs, cephalopods and so on.

In all likelyhood it seems that mammals, especially the ones that are smartest and/or closest to us, will be the first subjects of uplifting. As we become intimately familiar with mammals, we may start to branch out into the other kinds of animal mentioned above.

From then on, we enter into truly unknown territory. I have considered non-mammalian animal species as possible uplift subjects, but what about the other kingdoms? For example, when uplifting animals is an established technique, we may move on to plants.

Plants?

Yes, plants. They constitute a significant amount of the Earth's biomass, and as such can concievably support intelligence. While traditional brains like what humans posess are out of the question due to energy constraints (the human brain, and presumably brains like it, are very energy-hungry - they emit large amounts of waste heat), "quantum dot" computers, tiny things the size of molecules, may have the necessary processing requirements in order for plants to support human levels of intelligence. Such computers would likely be carbon molecules, which are easily synthesised by living things. Rather than having a central "brain mass", the microscopic nature of quantum dot computers enables them to be spread out all over the organism, forming a distributed network with quantum dots inside every cell. A similar trick could be carried out with fungi.

Trees are another potential subject for uplifting, and it may be easier to do so than with other examples of the plant kingdom. Mature trees have a central core of dead wood, known as heartwood. This heartwood can provide materials and structure for potential brain mass. A possible way of uplifting (mature) trees involves injecting this heartwood with "nanocytes", tiny machines of varying purpose designed to infiltrate and live within the dead cells of the heartwood, reinforcing them and using their structure as a basis for further development. Nanocytes have other uses which I hope to mention in further essays. The dead cells are effectively hollowed out, the material within being used to construct carbon-based nanoprocessors and connective structures. Once the neural net/brain mass is complete, it "co-opts" the tree's metabolic systems in order to provide itself with energy and repair materials. At this point, the brain mass and rest of the tree are inseperable, making them effectively the same organism. Although considering the tree and converted brain mass as one organism may seem strange, it might not seem so strange when one realises that almost all human cells contain mitchondria, which used to be organisms in their own right, but have come to take permanent residence in our bodies, which we consider to be a single entity. As all humans are born with mitochondria, so will all of the uplifted tree's progeny contain a "starter population" of nanocytes (delivered to seeds and spores via the xylem and floem tubes) which will begin appropriating heartwood as soon as it appears.

Depnding on just how powerful quantum dot computers can get, it may be possible to sublift or even uplift single microorganisms such as protozoa, euryarchaeota, crenarchaeota, and others. Proteobacteria, firmicutes, and cyanobacteria may also have their processing ability increased via the addition of quantum dots.

Uplifted or sublifted microorganisms could potentially permeate everything, living in the soil, in the air, in the water, and even inside our bodies. It is also speculated that microorganisms may live up to a mile deep or more under the Earth's surface. If so, then it could indeed be possible to do something that sounds completely absurd on it's face - uplift the entire planet.

By releasing uplifted and sublifted microbes on the surface and injecting them deep into the Earth's crust, and giving such altered microbes a means to communicate, our planet could potentially be turned into a single super-organism, with the intelligence provided, perhaps paradoxically, by the planet's smallest creatures. Such a planet-creature, while doubtless sapient, will be a slow thinker, limited by the rate of information transmission between the uplifted and sublifted microbes.

All that I have outlined above will doubtless sound fantastic, maybe even impossible, to many of you. But I will tell you now that it is a truly captivating vision of the future of intelligent life on this planet and beyond, and that I would dearly wish to see it, or at least something like it, in the future of our species. Because make no mistake, such a vast diversity will be of our own making, either directly or through our other potential children, artificial intelligence (another subject upon which I hope to write on in the future).

So what are your thoughts? Do you think the differences between mammals and non-mammals are insurmountable? Is uplifting non-sapient beings "the right thing to do"? Would you feel comfortable living on a planet that was itself alive and intelligent? Are these the deep thoughts of a far-thinking visionary or the voice of a hopeless dreamer of a future never to come to pass?

Doubtless you have your own thoughts and questions.

I think this is an interesting/mind-boggling idea and it should be discussed (although I don't have much to say right now) but:

Would you feel comfortable living on a planet that was itself alive and intelligent?

I wouldn't feel to comfortable about it, especially if we up-lift non-mammals. IS it possible that we would start coming into conflict with one another? This might take the word "specism" to a whole new level when we start to discriminate between sapient beings of different species living in our own planet.

But wouldn't there be a clash between the animals new-found sapience and their evolutionary instincts?

I wouldn't feel to comfortable about it, especially if we up-lift non-mammals.

Why?

IS it possible that we would start coming into conflict with one another? This might take the word "specism" to a whole new level when we start to discriminate between sapient beings of different species living in our own planet.

It's possible, but I would like to avoid it if at all possible.

As for discrimination, I can easily see it happening in a class society, but how would it occur in a classless society?

But wouldn't there be a clash between the animals new-found sapience and their evolutionary instincts?

I devote several paragraphs to this question and posit some possible solutions. I suggest you read them.

Is uplifting non-sapient beings "the right thing to do"?

I'm not so sure, but I'm willing to be convinced -- please do not get hostile/defensive. For starters: are you talking about uplifting individual specimen or entire species, having a sapient globe as your end goal? Furthermore, you don't anywhere state the reason to why we should do this? What's the point?

Is it for the sake of the animals, for biocentric, 'anti-speciesist' reasons? I could understand enhancing animals to perform work, but that would then be ethically questionable, amounting to slavery.

Thing is, I'm anthropocentric, and don't understand this sapientcentrism thing at all. At present, animals (and machines) are used to serve humanity, and this situation is ethically justified by their non-sapience. I just can't see any reason to change this for humanity beneficial situation, other than for biocentric -- irrational -- reasons?

Uplifting dolphins and other already bordeline sapient mammals into the sapient community I can understand, but why spiders, a species fundamentally different, and with for humans absolutely revolting practices? Or plants, why..? All of this is a big question mark for me really, so please enlighten me.

Do you think the differences between mammals and non-mammals are insurmountable?

I actually don't think so, it's rather a question of the amount of modification as I see it -- but it's more complicated than that. I mean, it might be that we'd have to modify a jumping spider to the degree that the end result would be a cross breed of human and spider -- rather than an 'uplifted' spider.

It might even basically become a human trapped in the body of a spider.. One can only try and guess how that'd feel, how the poor bastard would feel about being so different to humans -- who it'd no doubt feel a sense of relationship to.

Would you feel comfortable living on a planet that was itself alive and intelligent?

The first question that comes to my mind is, what would I eat without being a murderer..? In other words, how would we feed humanity if every living organism was sapient and should thus be treated humanely?

It's possible, but I would like to avoid it if at all possible.
As for discrimination, I can easily see it happening in a class society, but how would it occur in a classless society

Oh I thought it was in general (as in doing biological uplifting whenever, even in class society).

Actually the only reason why I didn't like it was the possibility of conflict between the uplifted beings and humans. If this possibility is eliminated than I really won't have much problems I suppose.

I think this is an interesting idea (we should start with other mammals first, like a house cat!) although I really don't have much "to put in the table" of discussion.

Sapient creatures can contribute too, you know.

They might contribute -- but more likely have demands. They might develop entirely opposite plans for the future of the planet, as a matter of fact, due to the fact that they are so different with different needs, urges, feelings.. Human beings have waged war with each other due to much smaller differences than those there are between the very fundamental essence of humans vs spiders, insects etc.

They are just too different from us, so I'm afraid they'd have to be changed to the point that they'd be more human than animal, and I'm far from sure what the benefit of that from human perspective -- or that of the hybrids -- would be.

The main problem as I see it is this: if we create sapience we must respect it -- so if we were to start handing out sapience to the left and the right, that'd limit our freedom to act enormously. I see that idea as crazy from an anthropocentric pov.

EDIT:

Currently Active Users: 143 (21 members, 33 guests and 89 spiders)

ZOMFG NoXion! You've gone ahead and done it. You could have waited for our replies, man!

I'm going to agree with Sentinel here, and repeat his question; what exactly would be the point?
I am perfectly fine with animals being as they are, and especially with plants being as they are.
So it is theoretically possible for animals of low intelligence to become sapient, like us; but what other problems could that cause, for one, and what would be it's benefits?
With greater intelligence comes greater need, for one. First of all, as Sentinel said, they'd feel alienated; from their own species as well as ours.
Second of all, they would increase the demand for materials we could otherwise use for ourselves. A spider with the brain as powerful as a human isn't still going to be content with living in a glass box full of leaves and eating the occasional frozen mouse (or is that snakes? I forget ).
They'll need comfort, they'll need medical facilities, they'll need a more complex social environment,
As said by Sentinel, we can justify not providing regular spiders these things (don't ask why I'm specifically using the spider example) because they are so much less intelligent that us, and they have much simpler needs than us.
I mean, think of all the things we need besides just food, water and shelter. They're not going to be spiders anymore, more like severely handicapped 'human beings'.
And for what purpose?
Just to see if we can do it?
Then we might as well feel as free to do such disabling tests on human beings.

What's more, human beings don't simply have the mental ability, but the physical ability to match. We have opposable thumbs, for instance. Spiders don't. They wouldn't even be able to play chess, poor things!
Our hands have made us able to create tools, to cook food, to ... ... etc.

Other species of animals do not have that ability. They have the limited physical ability to intellectually satisfy themselves in the way that we do.
It would be like breeding human beings to have no arms, or legs.

And a sapient plant ... well, there is a reason that they've not developed intelligence. They don't need to be intelligent.
The things I've mentioned above I'm sure you could imagine to what greater degree they'd apply to a daisy flower. I mean, it's somewhat of a tragic thought to think of how they could apply.

i would oppose such a thing for all the reasons Desrumeaux stated.

but if it had to happen i think we should restrict ourselves to only enhancing already present intelligence and not instill intelligence and sapience on creatures that go without it.

i understand the attraction of this idea who would not want to have say a dog that they could talk with as their companion in life.
but it is extremely important to not do this for selfish reasons and to think about what sort of life the uplifted creatures would live.

Obviously I am not in favor of all the ideas presented here, I am merely saying we should do/continue research within biology and intelligence, etc.

For sure, research should not and can not be stopped anyway. We must always strive to expand our knowledge in all areas. Knowledge equals power, safety and comfort in a hostile world.

I'm not so sure, but I'm willing to be convinced -- please do not get hostile/defensive. For starters: are you talking about uplifting individual specimen or entire species, having a sapient globe as your end goal?

Uplifting can be applied to individual animals or species. Personally, I am of the opinion that uplifting species is the best approach, as it provides the uplifted individuals with a "community" of viable breeders and perhaps the opportunity to develop their own unique culture.

There would still be non-sapient examples of the uplifted species around - I'm proposing additions to the list of sapient species, not intending to make all non-sapient species sapient.

Furthermore, you don't anywhere state the reason to why we should do this? What's the point?

The point is to create offshoots of the human species that fill niches that humans would find difficult if not impossible, with the long-term goal of preserving sapience through diversification - notice that while 99% of Earth's species are extinct, life itself is doing fantastic, with a truly enormous variety of species living in the widest variety of environments that the Earth has to offer.

I think that humans and transhumans, and by extension their sapient creations such as uplifts, Artificial Intelligence and so on, should seek to emulate this successful model that Nature puts forth, and also to expand upon it - to create intelligence where once there was none, to flourish beyond the traditional confines of natural life on this planet and beyond.

In short, I want sapient intelligence to be as ubiquitous throughout the universe as biological life is on the surface of the Earth. Uplifting is but one of the potential methods for achieving this.

Nature also has another lesson to teach us about diversity. Diversity is the end product of evolution, and the diversity of potential Transhumanity (which will include uplifts, AIs, etc among it's numbers as well as enhanced humans/posthumans) is the end product of intelligently directed evolution. Natural history, as well as human history, has taught us again and again that stagnation = death and extinction.

Biological uplifting, by creating a new sapient species to "carry the torch" of civilisation alongside humanity, as well as being the recievers of human genetic, cultural and intellectual heritage to which they will add their own, will help to ensure that sapience lasts in an indifferent universe.

Is it for the sake of the animals, for biocentric, 'anti-speciesist' reasons? I could understand enhancing animals to perform work, but that would then be ethically questionable, amounting to slavery.

It is part of a realisation that even the most successful species becomes either extinct (which is bad, especially if it's us that becomes extinct) or branches out and diversifies. I personally would rather that we diversified than became extinct, and uplifting is one of the ways that human intelligence can be diversified in ways other than mere genetic evolution.

Thing is, I'm anthropocentric, and don't understand this sapientcentrism thing at all. At present, animals (and machines) are used to serve humanity, and this situation is ethically justified by their non-sapience. I just can't see any reason to change this for humanity beneficial situation, other than for biocentric -- irrational -- reasons?

Sapient uplifted animals would possess all the rights that humans have. In fact, they would no longer be human rights, but sapient rights.

Doubtless there would be some form of "Sentients Welfare" that prohibits needless suffering on the part of sentient beings.

Uplifting dolphins and other already bordeline sapient mammals into the sapient community I can understand, but why spiders, a species fundamentally different, and with for humans absolutely revolting practices? Or plants, why..? All of this is a big question mark for me really, so please enlighten me.

As I pointed out earlier, diversity is one of the contributing factors to the success story that is biological life. In fact, heterodoxy seems to be a better "general strategy" in Nature than orthodoxy (no just in biology, either - alloys are stronger).

I actually don't think so, it's rather a question of the amount of modification as I see it -- but it's more complicated than that. I mean, it might be that we'd have to modify a jumping spider to the degree that the end result would be a cross breed of human and spider -- rather than an 'uplifted' spider.

It might even basically become a human trapped in the body of a spider.. One can only try and guess how that'd feel, how the poor bastard would feel about being so different to humans -- who it'd no doubt feel a sense of relationship to.

That's why I'm favour of uplifting populations of animals rather than individuals - I do not think it a coincidence that almost all intelligent animals are social animals as well.

The first question that comes to my mind is, what would I eat without being a murderer..? In other words, how would we feed humanity if every living organism was sapient and should thus be treated humanely?

Well, in "sapient planet" scenario I described above, the intelligent microorganisms would most likely be genetically engineered to pass through the alimentary canal intact.

As for making every living thing on Earth sapient, of course that's silly - the sapient planet I described above would "emerge" from the sublifted/uplifted microbial biomass, only a tiny proportion of which would be disturbed by human activity.

They might contribute -- but more likely have demands. They might develop entirely opposite plans for the future of the planet, as a matter of fact, due to the fact that they are so different with different needs, urges, feelings.. Human beings have waged war with each other due to much smaller differences than those there are between the very fundamental essence of humans vs spiders, insects etc.

They are just too different from us, so I'm afraid they'd have to be changed to the point that they'd be more human than animal, and I'm far from sure what the benefit of that from human perspective -- or that of the hybrids -- would be.

It occurs to me that not only is it important that we develop and expand upon the borders of sapience, but we should also create an all-inclusive "Transhuman Culture", some kind of unifying ideal to ensure cohesion between the wildly different clades, races and species that would make up the greater part of Transhumanity.

What's more, human beings don't simply have the mental ability, but the physical ability to match. We have opposable thumbs, for instance. Spiders don't. They wouldn't even be able to play chess, poor things!
Our hands have made us able to create tools, to cook food, to ... ... etc.

Other species of animals do not have that ability. They have the limited physical ability to intellectually satisfy themselves in the way that we do.
It would be like breeding human beings to have no arms, or legs.

I would have thought that any prospective uplifter would already have had these issues in mind, and would alter the uplifted animals' physiology to take that into account.

I mean, good grief, if you could think of the potential pitfalls, I'm sure a world-class biologist (or a team of such) specialising in uplifting animals would do so too!

For sure, research should not and can not be stopped anyway. We must always strive to expand our knowledge in all areas. Knowledge equals power, safety and comfort in a hostile world.

Which raises another interesting point - if uplifting animals is possible, then someday somebody is going to do it just for the hell of it, and I would much rather if people would do so in a responsible way.

All very interesting ideas and I'm with NoXion on the reasons for this, while anthropocentrism is a good philosophy here and now we must realise that if we are to advance to trans- or post-human we must drop this ridiculous attachment to the bodies we're currently in. Humans are not great because we are hairless apes, we are great because we are hairless apes with sapience, and I see no reason why we shouldn't consider allowing other animals to become our equals - or even helping them.

On the uplifting of plants, micro-organisms and so on, a question to NoXion: if what is providing these plants and so on with intelligence is a gestalt of small computers wouldn't it be more accurate to describe them as hosts for a gestalt AI?

It's hard for me as a 21st century arachnophobia to imagine what our distant descendants will make of their jumping-spider cousins - or indeed what the spiders will make of them, but I hope it's not a gibbering wreck.

On the uplifting of plants, micro-organisms and so on, a question to NoXion: if what is providing these plants and so on with intelligence is a gestalt of small computers wouldn't it be more accurate to describe them as hosts for a gestalt AI?

I imagine it as a more symbiotic relationship than anything else - the microcomputers are more than just nanotechnological enhancements, they become a part of the plant on the cellular level - like with the uplifted tree example I gave, perhaps it would be possible for the offspring of uplifted plants to share their parents' sapience.

It would then be a case of true uplift rather than a clever case of microscale cyborgisation.

I imagine it as a more symbiotic relationship than anything else - the microcomputers are more than just nanotechnological enhancements, they become a part of the plant on the cellular level - like with the uplifted tree example I gave, perhaps it would be possible for the offspring of uplifted plants to share their parents' sapience.

It would then be a case of true uplift rather than a clever case of microscale cyborgisation.

Ah right, yeah that makes sense - I guess I was thinking of the machines of being far more primitive (which is an odd way of describing technology that mind-boggling).

I don't necessarily mind helping animals on the cusp, like say, apes, but the environmental consequences are manifold. Ostensibly apes with sapience would abandon their ecological niche, and then we'd have to figure out how to mitigate all of the byproducts of that. But spiders? No thanks. They have poison and can make webs.

Who's to say that Dolphins aren't already sapient?

They have no detectable Extelligence, that is to say, they do not have a constantly evolving body of knowledge, culture, etc outside of their own brains.

Their brains have more cerebral cortex and more surface area than ours.

The issue is how that brain matter is used, not how much there is.

Biologically uplifting dolphins would simply mean giving them opposable thumbs, teaching them to use tools, and then watching them develop a civilization.

There's no selection pressure in the dolphin's natural environment that encourages the development of civilisation. While they are indeed social animals, they have nowhere near richness and complexity of social relationships, abstract concepts, and so on because there's no "need" for it in the first place, evolutionarily speaking.

If they had extelligence anywhere near our own, it would show.

The first step in biologically uplifting any species should be understanding their communication. For example, if we created a race of sapient spiders, they would have no way of understanding that we're sapient, unless we could communicate with them on some level. They wouldn't distinguish humans from flies.

Yes they would, as they would have the capability to understand that we're so much different from all the other animals. Of all the Earth's species, it's obvious that humans are intelligent.

Even communication is not as big a problem as you seem to think it is. After all, there is one means of communication that transcends all times and cultures, and which remains the same where ever you are in space and time and no matter what form of life you are.

It's called mathematics.

You see, the problem of communicating with non-human intelligences is already being investigated by groups like SETI. The universal nature of mathematics means it is the ideal "rosetta stone" for communicating with alien minds. Pi will always equal 3.14159...

We shouldn't assume that all sapience resembles ours.

True, but the universal nature of mathematics means that communication is always possible, at least in principle.

For all we know, there are sapient plants. An ant colony or hive of bees can be considered a collective sapience. Some scientists have speculated that there is plasma-based life. We could be surrounded by sapient races that we have simply failed to recognize as sapient, or even alive.

As strange as such consciousnesses may be, if they are truly sapient then they will hold some concepts in common.

Why?

In the first place, practical experimentation will provide us with a wealth of insights into intelligence and consciousness, but taking a different approach to those of the AI researchers, which tends to be very theoretical, and doesn't seem to take much into account the interflow between mind, culture, body and environment.

Learning to splice together genetic material from radically different different species will also increase our knowledge of genetics and how they influence each other - as genetic codes are more like recipes or sheet music, each individual component having an effect on the greater whole, rather than a sterile laundry list of instructions.

Such knowledge would be enormously beneficial to the human species and it's descendants. Uplifts and Transhumans with alterations that are the result of the practice of uplifting would be extremely valuable members of society, their enhanced physical and mental abilities improving any socially useful role they wish to play.

Further, uplifting would serve to "raise our consciousness" in much the same way thatn the increasing rejection of racism and sexism does today, except in an additive rather than reductive manner.

The key word being detectable. We have no way of knowing how much knowledge or culture they have.

If they had extelligence, then it would show. Human extelligence physically manifests itself in the form of books, libraries, magazines, computers, the internet... In fact, I might go so far as to say that extelligence is a requirement of technology more advanced than a stick.

Without technology, extelligence is limited to oral tradition, which considering that even dolphins have a brain/body mass ratio of less than half of humans, seems unlikely.

Bottlenose dolphins do appear to have self-awareness, but that cannot be said for other dolphin species.

You're absolutely right. But, as you argued below, they would not have brains so large if there was no evolutionary need for them. As humans, we don't utilize all the matter in our brains. But logic dictates that we evolved all that matter for a reason.

The actual "thinking" part of our brains is limited to the surface - that's why human brains are so wrinkled, in order to increase surface area. The rest is mainly connective neurons.

Dolphin brains are less deeply wrinkled than human brains, hence their lower intelligence. The marine environment is also generally less intellectually challenging than a land environment.

Although we can't draw any definite conclusions about their intelligence at this point, we know that a dolphin brain has the physical potential to be more intelligent than a human brain.

Only in terms of potential future evolution.

Furthermore, dolphins have a wide and distinct variety of chirps and whistles, enough to construct a grammar system. Their communication has the potential to be a language as we understand it, unlike dogs, whose communication likely conveys more general emotions.

Again, this is a potential rather than an actual. A dolphin would still need more intelligence than it currently has in order to be considered a member of society, physical differences notwithstanding.

Why do humans have a greater evolutionary need than dolphins do? What challenges have we faced that dolphins do not? The only answers are problems that were either created or solved using our opposable thumbs.

Unfortunately my knowledge of human evolutionary history is sadly lacking, but I suspect that the process was self-reinforcing; intelligence produced additional problems which required more intelligence to solve.

Your views are respectable but perhaps too optimistic. Of course it shows, but you assume that we already have the ability to see it. You know there are things in the universe beyond our present understanding. We have a long way to go before we can claim "If we can't understand it, there's nothing to understand".

Well, my position is that we can only truly know that something exists if we have evidence for it - there may well be an undiscovered dolphin civilisation, but since it does not turn up in either experiment or observation, it might as well not exist to all intents and purposes. Practically speaking, it doesn't exist.

My suspicion is that if dolphin civilisation really did exist, then it would show up as anomalies or phenomena in dolphin intelligence studies that could only be explained by a dolphin civilisation. The fact that such anomalies and phenomena to my knowledge do not exist, while not ruling out dolphin civilisation, do not support it.

Obvious to a human.

Any being capable of abstract thought and observing a select part of material reality (in this case the planet Earth) would observe two "worlds" - the natural world, populated by "inanimate" irregular and semi-regular shaped objects (rocks, mountains, plants, trees) as well as organic beings that mostly react in simple, instinctive ways to their environment, and the artificial world, that realm of straight lines and regular shapes (roads, buildings, vehicles, monuments) populated by strange-looking beings that cover themselves in a wide variety of odd materials, constantly enter and re-emerge from strange-looking, regularly shaped entities (buildings and vehicles), and who engage in a wide variety of extremely odd behaviours, regularly and irregularly.

I think Carl Sagan put it across very well in his book Pale Blue Dot, in which he wrote of an alien spacecraft visiting Earth (but not landing or otherwise interacting with it's inhabitants) from the point of view of the alien. A number of science fiction authors have also done this.

I think they have all done a very good job of showing that humans and their artefacts are very obviously different from the rest of nature. Whether I have done the same in the paragraph I wrote above I leave for you to judge.

Mathematics is a way to find the solution, yes, but it's not the solution itself. We can translate everything in the universe into mathematics, but there's no reason to assume we know how.

If aliens landed on Earth tomorrow, we would know from their technology alone that they certainly understand mathematics. But their way of expressing mathematics would be completely different from ours. "3.14159" would look like gibberish to them, as would the rest of our language.

Pi is a ratio that remains the same whatever number system is used. It would be fairly simple for us to show them how our number system works, starting with labelling objects - one object we label "1" while we label two more of the same "2" and so on.

Don't forget that any intelligence that takes the trouble to interact with us is also going to be working on the communication side of things, so we won't be working all by ourselves - it seems likely that that our collective efforts will meet approximately half-way, depending on a number of factors. For instance, non-human intelligences would observe that we often cover our feet, and that we have 10 fingers and thumbs. This means they have already eliminated a great amount of the possible number systems that humans could have, narrowing it down to either base ten or base five. Further observations of human number systems and how humans count would also provide clues.

The rosetta stone worked like this.

French > Greek > Egyptian.

There was a common language. Our mathematical rosetta stone would have no common language. It'd look like this.

Our language > Our understanding of mathematics > Alien understanding of mathematics > Alien language.

Getting from two to three is the problem. It's certainly possible, but there's no way of knowing exactly how to do it. Therefore, we can assume that humans can look at a developed language and be completely oblivious to what they're seeing.

I'm not sure, myself. I'm fairly confident in our ability to recognise written/visual language when we see it, and if the species isn't extinct then we would certainly be able to get at least some idea of their language both spoken and written via mutual labelling of some kind.

I certainly expect problems if the method of communication is exotic, like pheromones, non-visible spectra, radio telepathy and such.

Also agreed. And I'm confident in humanity's ability to eventually understand these concepts. But given the amount of research required to do so, there's no reason to assume there aren't languages right under our nose that we have simply failed to recognize as languages.

Like I said, such statements aren't really "useful" as they are untestable and make no predictions. We can only go on what we know, after all.