Is there any indication of increased intellegence over time within the Human species?

My take:1. perception (of evidence)
2. storage (of data)
3. evaluation (of relationships)
3. theory (of interactions)
4. test (of theory)Thus a dolphin making a silver ring displays intelligence
http://www.earthtrust.org/delrings.htmlBiologically this would require the presence of neurons or some similar method of accomplishing these tasks, and due to this I would include the snail and the jellyfish (and note that if we may not be able to design a test for problem solving at their level that the fault may be ours and not theirs).The mimosa is curious inclusion ...
Mimosa pudica - Wikipedia
ie- it displays reaction, and therefor it has sensory inputs, but I don't see data storage and processing capability. Same with the bacteria.Certainly we would not have thought of using silver rings as a test for dolphins because it hadn't occured to us.I also note that these elements do not need to be conscious. Note that many human "intellectual" solutions are developed in the unconscious mind (asleep or daydreaming)Good idea to separate this thread out.As to overall increase in intelligence across time and space and species, I would have to say that we have insufficient evidence, due in large part to our inability to (1) see and (2) measure intelligence in other species but also due to (3) the lack of evidence of the intelligence of extinct species or any way to measure such. We have no idea how smart the smartest dinosaur was.It is entirely possible that we are not the smartest species on the planet (just the most egotistic?)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

see msg 9mouse is easy, they have a-mazing ability.

what is interesting about the jellyfish is whether they have the capability to store information, and if so where that occurs.it may well be that the net operates like a brain with the extra connections acting in place of extra neurons and is capable of storing info. or it may be that it operates in a totally different manner and is not.we do see reactions to stimuli in the jellyfish, vertical movement relative to light level as well as feeding mechanisms with the tentacles.does behavior change over time? do they develop new behavior patterns?if not, then I would have to drop them from my list.thanks.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ben,I've been thinking about this for two days now, on your question related to plants in general I had original proposed that the basic elements of intelligence would be: (which I had expected some comments on regarding similarity to the scientific method)We can now also call "2. storage (of data)" knowledge, to bring it into the discourse on the {intelligence\knowledge} spectrum issue.And it seems to me that we need to (possibly) distinguish between two (or more) levels of intelligence, based on how they {exist\operate}:(1) the {individual} level, where perception, storage, evaluation, theory and testing all occur with the one individual (albeit can include perception of historic data by communications)(2) a {species\life} level, where individuals may only be needed for one or two elements (perception, testing), but data, say, is recorded in an {external} databank (DNA), theorizing is done by shotgun approach (variations caused by mutations), while evaluation and testing is done by an {external} mechanism {survival\sexual selection}In the second sense on can argue that the {process of life} is intelligent, as it fulfills the requirements in a broad sense while asking very little of its littlest participants.Plants, bacteria, and jellyfish certainly qualify as participants in the intelligence of life (and thus the (lowercase) intelligent design of life), but not (necessarily) on the individual level. And there may be gray areas from different degrees in {individualizing} the elements.(*)So are we talking individuals or species or {life in general}?Thanks.ps -- jar: maybe this should be in ID forum? This message has been edited by RAZD, 08*13*2005 10:09 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

yep on both sides. throw holmes in that mix too. For the individual model, I don't think of it as a linear progression so much as one of "irreducible complexity" and threshold limitations. Without all parts there is a breakdown in the process. There is a difference between knowing that sunlight is warm on a cold morning and knowing which side of the hill gets sunlight sooner.The answer for the {species\life} model is a little more difficult, in part from looking at it in a different angle. Artificial Life models are interesting. I'm not sure that a I follow your model use of {Loki\Raven\Mxyzptlk} factors as necessary for them to {evolve intelligent solutions} rather than some form of random generator and selection process. Perhaps I misunderstand. Great, a summer reading list ...
seriously though I will look it up in the library. Any relation to Arthur C? we are (generally) agreed here But I'm not sure that rocks and water exhibit perception or reaction (they don't choose to change direction). Water seems to only have one solution ...And I don't think we can limit conscious intelligence to humans: certainly have evidence that other species are aware of their actions, from the japanese snow monkey to the silver ring making dolphin to the lock-picking orangutan, and that they teach their "tricks" to the next generation. I believe there was one study of apes that had been taught ASL where they were teaching it to the next generation (and "inventing" some new signs).Certainly for individual intelligence communication is necessary for any lasting benefit, and this fits into your {Distributed Cognition} aspect, where some people know some of the story and other know other parts. Communicated aspects kind of have to be conscious... What's a wrong way?⁽¹⁾ Isn't that what it's all about? Any way that succeeds is not wrong. Any way that leads to new solutions is helpful.⁽¹⁾ ... about 20 lbs ... (with a nod to Rowan and Martin )

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Works for me I'm not very. At least you didn't say behavior "evidences itself" or some other such "modern" nonsense I do, certainly I would have a hard time delineating the boundary between {concious\unconcious} in any other species. intent can be observed (the orangutan fu manchu hiding the wire in his lip pocket so he can pick the compound door at night when the guards aren't around). Perhaps that shows that the ultra-general definitions are too general? I have difficulty assigning intelligence to rocks and water (although to be sure, the Japanese grow rock gardens ... and I've seen people with bowls of water for a table centerpiece ... ) For intelligence at an individual level to have any permanence (rather than just be a flash in the pan) it has to be {transfered\transmitted\communicated} to other individuals. Flocking and nest building would certainly apply, and would provide a base for further development of such {behavior\skills\benefits\knowledge} I'm just thinking that a {Distributed Cognition} network needs to have {information\ability\knowledge} disbursed but available and that this requires some way of communication -- whether it is chemical (feeding cells?) or electrical (neurons) -- to organize if nothing else.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Intelligence related to how the brain is used may be more critical than actual size at this point.Note that this ties in with my points about "creativity" being selected for and not "intelligence" per seFROM: Oddballs May Have More Creative Minds - Odd People May Be Wired to Use Their Brains Creatively (click)
No change in brain size, difference in creativity linked to measured difference in patterns of brain use.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Welcome to the fray Richard.I'll thank you not to send me spam e-mails in the future, but to reply to the board directly. First show me that you have something to teach other than arrogance, dogma and a closed mind.Show me that you have an understanding of the real world and not just propoganda.Learn what your intellectual failings are before you presume to teach.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

cool. Ambidextrous too?Perhaps this too shows why this schizophrenia is still part of the gene-pool: an intermediate stage that is beneficial to the whole population.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Doncha just hate that? Jealousy is what it is.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This could be explained by the lack of human socializing, and recognizing that he was displaying wolf socialization.See Lifelong benefits of cuddling your baby (click) for examples of differences in socialization of humans by different human behavior. Not that one study is conclusive, especially given the numbers of subjects (18).{changed subtitle, fixed display}This message has been edited by RAZD, 11*24*2005 02:41 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.