[Raggs]

Hmm, I'd disagree, chimps are capable of all these things, not in their wild state perhaps, but they only really lack the communication there, and for them it is merely more basic, as opposed to lacking. Communication is capable of improving for them, but doesn't have the drive. I'd therefore like to add one, simply active teaching, rather than passive.

You talk of memetics, as if it is less than conversational. The transfer of ideas from one to another. The parrot has had the idea of the number 4, and the colour blue, and the shape square, transfered to it by it's trainer. And when placed in front of such a number of objects can state these facts about them. When given a selection of objects, and asked to count the squares, it gives the correct answer. A memetic transfer has obviously occurred. When asked to describe an object it had not been taught, it combined two words of objects possessing the correct attributes, again it has been given the idea of the two objects, when presented the one, given what it has been taught, in a sensible fashion.

How exactly is that any different (except for scale), to what you and I are indulging in now? I have been taught by various sources, and am taking this information and presenting it to you, and you are doing the same. This is what I was talking about when I said I feel humans are too impressed with themselves. Most of us merely spout knowledge that we have been fed from other sources, maybe with a few insignificant modifications. But these modifications don't come from innovation, but a continuity of knowledge (such as using two words that sufficiently describe a new object). Those very very very few examples of humans that geniunely invent a use (such as a cart with wheels), are by far the exception of the rule, and can perhaps be compared to the first chimps to fish for termites, or a great modern day example, those few chimps that have made spears.

Birds are capable of great problem solving abilities, and build tools. Crows (caledonian are the smartest I believe) show these skills in the wild and in the lab. And we've all heard bird calls. Unfortunatly they rarely need to use true teamwork, this is where chimps perhaps have them on the run.

Enough examples, I think we can pretty much agree on as what represents a suitable definition of intelligence that we are looking for (for a spore like universe). So lets get on with what is required for these things to come about, since it is these things that are more likely to be able to detect.

Self conscious, very hard to pin point when it comes about, but recognising yourself in a mirror seems to be sufficient to suggest it exists. Merely a sufficient mental capacity seems to be enough to give this. So other pressures leading to completion of other necessities should lead to it.

Tool using, not necessarily requiring anything more than a basic copying intellect, and one revolutionary individual to pick up a pointed stick and stab something with it. Mimicing can spread it from there, from tool use in birds to chimps.

Language to a sufficient level. Teamwork, as it's necessity increases, encourages communication and active teaching. Chimps are getting there, but a chimp can get by without learning skills such as spearing, there's not a lot of pressure of developing active teaching. Active teaching, with decent teamwork, covers the desire and action part.

So I feel that teamwork is essential to develop sufficient conversational, and teaching skills, you need to be able to rely on others in your pack. And this teamwork needs to be essential itself.

And of course, time helps immensely, mutations causing increase in brain capacity, social ability, mothering instinct (probably very significant in terms of teaching).

So, something that runs in a pack, and requires specific actions from it's pack mates, that must be learnt in order to survive more successfully. And enough time.

Humans stagnated for hundreds of thousands of years, with very little advancement, then the odd innovator comes forward, and boom massive advancements, then again, stagnation, not for so long admittedly, with increase in numbers comes a decrease in the needed time for the innovator.

Really in my mind human intelligence, whilst very impessive, it's more our social capabilities that lead us to such success, and the occasional innovator.

If there were no humans, then the world would be a very different place, but I suspect that since many intelligent species would be far more numerous (the great apes for example), it is more than likely that something else would have come about to replace us, as we replaced the neanderthals.

Intelligence isn't a guarenteed occurence in evolution, but very clever creatures are. Then, depending on how likely you think it is for them to gain improved cultural skills (not necessarily that massively improved, just a slight change could be enough, from having your offspring copy your toolmaking technique, and then showing them again), you have a very good chance of intelligence.

Very long post, but I'm enjoying the discussion and tend to get carried away.