The Misapprehension of the Nature of Nature - Pt 1

(Or: Going Against the Human Tendency Toward Hubristic Anthropomorphism.)

Which misapprehension of the nature of nature should we begin with? How about this one: "Man is The Crown of Creation".

Who says? Dog certainly does (Dog adores us). What about insect? Oh, wait, we are beyond "the range of apprehension" of insect. (The parable of the blind men and the elephant.) Do insects "know" we exist? What about the ant bumping into your toe? Food? (Ouch). Insect knows "toe" exists, surely. But what of humans does it know? Do ants living in the walls of an urban high rise know they are living in the midst of human civilization? Is our hive too big for insect to see?

So let's propose a principle: exponential differences in biological complexity allow the more complex to know of the existence of the less complex, but not the other way round. So what is the implication?

If man is not the crown of creation we very probably wouldn't know it. What are the odds we are not the crown of creation? Reasonably good?

1) every species directly apprehends only a very (very) tiny slice of the electromagnetic spectrum, the one relevant to finding food, trying not to be food, and procreational activity. Everything else is "beyond the range of apprehension".

2) what are the exact odds we who-mans just happen to be at the very tippy top of all life on earth? I guess that would be, what, one in a zillion? (1 to the number of all other species on the planet, however many that is.)

3) we, like every other species, need some level of "narcissistic hubris" just to survive. Every species is the crown of creation.

4) this supposed exponentially more complex creature would also potentially be exponentially larger than other forms of mammalian life (all of which we easily see and recognize), and existing in a different "dimension" of time.

5) does the huge (narcissistic) resistance among us humans to an idea this ridiculously preposterous support the likelihood of it's truth? (As opposed to the other way around.)

6) is this potential misapprehension of the nature of nature just another example of "the sun revolves around the earth"? Would the human who proves it be arrested and placed under house arrest?

7) and finally, "aliens" are always depicted in two ways, 1) more intelligent than humans, but 2) not so much that we can't even know they are there. This is anthropomorphic projection, and unlikely to be reality, as is every other example of anthropomorphic projection, of which there are zillions.