Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does intelligence have long-term survival value?
Me
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 17 (16000)
08-23-2002 1:55 PM


There seems to be a view (unspoken) that Man is the pinnacle of the evolutionary process. I am not sure of this assumption. The creationists certainly see Man as something special.
A short-term (4m years?) view of the evolutionary process suggests that developing intelligence enhances an organism's DNA survival chances. Homo Sapiens has certainly done well, with extensive toolmaking capability, sufficient to alter the environment in all sorts of micro ways.
But a lot of simulations of evolutionary development - the development of the eye springs to mind - suggest that it does not take long for quite complex structures to develop. Intelligence could therefore have developed in life-forms much earlier than the present era.
So - has it or hasn't it? If it hasn't, why not? What is so special about this period when intelligence has just been created?
If it has, where is the evidence? Gone without trace? Possible - fossils do not give detailed evidence of how intelligent an organism is? If intelligent creatures have existed before and have died out, what does that mean for us - that we are due for the chop? How long might we have?
Just wondered!
[This message has been edited by Me, 08-23-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-24-2002 1:08 AM Me has not replied
 Message 7 by Syamsu, posted 08-29-2002 3:47 AM Me has replied
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 08-29-2002 11:51 AM Me has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 2 of 17 (16018)
08-24-2002 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Me
08-23-2002 1:55 PM


quote:
Homo Sapiens has certainly done well, with extensive toolmaking capability, sufficient to alter the environment in all sorts of micro ways.
Man seems to be showing the capability to macro alter the environment - perhaps it will go to the point of self-distruction.
With great intelligence comes the other side of the coin - great stupidity!
Moose
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 08-24-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Me, posted 08-23-2002 1:55 PM Me has not replied

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7884 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 3 of 17 (16148)
08-28-2002 1:19 AM


yes it does seem that humans are somehow alien to this planet
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Me, posted 08-28-2002 2:32 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Me
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 17 (16179)
08-28-2002 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by KingPenguin
08-28-2002 1:19 AM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
yes it does seem that humans are somehow alien to this planet

Impressive! This raises a completely new thread for the whole debate! We have a third possibility. Humans were not created to fill the highest position on the Earth, nor did they evolve to become the most powerful creature. Instead, they were delivered here from some other place.
It's a lovely idea. A pity that the cell and skeletal morphology, and the DNA similarities with other animals do not bear it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by KingPenguin, posted 08-28-2002 1:19 AM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by John, posted 08-28-2002 2:53 PM Me has replied

John
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 17 (16181)
08-28-2002 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Me
08-28-2002 2:32 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Me:
It's a lovely idea. A pity that the cell and skeletal morphology, and the DNA similarities with other animals do not bear it out.
I know. I am very sad about the lack of evidence for extra-terrestrial colonization.
Probably our alien forebearers altered the genetic structures of their offspring to provide adaptive value within the climate of Earth. As a pattern for these alteration they would of course use the DNA of existing fauna, resulting in our apparent genetic similarities with other life on this planet.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by John, 08-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Me, posted 08-28-2002 2:32 PM Me has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Quetzal, posted 08-29-2002 2:43 AM John has not replied
 Message 8 by Me, posted 08-29-2002 6:38 AM John has not replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 6 of 17 (16211)
08-29-2002 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
08-28-2002 2:53 PM


Ahh, but you're forgetting the terraforming hypothesis: everything was seeded to support human life. Start with a barren planet, add replicators, stir, and voila. Fine tuned, fully designed and interlocking parts.
The ultimate Paley's Watch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 08-28-2002 2:53 PM John has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 7 of 17 (16213)
08-29-2002 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Me
08-23-2002 1:55 PM


Possibly intelligence normally presents a negative influence on the reproductive rate of it's carrier, but by special effort of the intelligence it can contribute a lot to reproductive rate. So then life is reproduced by a contingent effort of the intelligence, and less so by intelligence as a hertiable quality.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Me, posted 08-23-2002 1:55 PM Me has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Me, posted 08-29-2002 6:49 AM Syamsu has not replied

Me
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 17 (16223)
08-29-2002 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by John
08-28-2002 2:53 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:

Probably our alien forebearers altered the genetic structures of their offspring to provide adaptive value within the climate of Earth.

This sounds very like James Blish's book 'Seedling Stars', where humans spread throughout the galaxy by adapting their DNA to create life-forms which will flourish in each individual environment. It has the classic 'Surface Tension' story in it, where microscopic 'humans' struggle to move from one puddle to another.
Of course Hoyle et al are finding that the theory of complex organic molecules being created in space and landing on our planet via meteorites still has some mileage left in it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by John, posted 08-28-2002 2:53 PM John has not replied

Me
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 17 (16224)
08-29-2002 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Syamsu
08-29-2002 3:47 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
Possibly intelligence normally presents a negative influence on the reproductive rate of it's carrier, but by special effort of the intelligence it can contribute a lot to reproductive rate. So then life is reproduced by a contingent effort of the intelligence, and less so by intelligence as a hertiable quality.

This sounds much more like the kind of comment I was hoping for, though I don't understand its implications. Are you saying that intelligence almost automatically leads to extinction, but if it realises this then it can avoid extinction by an act of will?
I tend to associate intelligence with the ability to manipulate the environment - the two are not synonymous, but intelligence gives you the ability to do it if you want to, and eventually most groups want to.
When you can adapt the environment to suit you, evolution would seem to stop. I would expect to find evidence of this if it has happened before on Earth, and because I can't, I suspect that intelligence is rare, and self-defeating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Syamsu, posted 08-29-2002 3:47 AM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-30-2002 4:10 AM Me has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 10 of 17 (16241)
08-29-2002 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Me
08-23-2002 1:55 PM


I am not sure of the "assumption" but Will Provine who wanted to get at least nominally away from tail told him together back in the days seemed to have no problem lecturing 4 times I am told this way. So if formal, I would have "debated" this as the evolutionist's position, straegically. But then again I am not the rebuttal witness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Me, posted 08-23-2002 1:55 PM Me has not replied

Andya Primanda
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 17 (16289)
08-30-2002 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Me
08-29-2002 6:49 AM


If life & evolution has no other function than to keep its existence, then I presume that intelligence do have a survival value. Intelligence permits its owner to know what might be coming. If an intelligent life-form realized that it is driving itself into extinction, then it can stop whatever it had been doing. Sounds like sustainable development? Unintelligent beings deal poorly with excess numbers; I've seen a mold (Rhizopus) colony overcrowd itself to death in a Petri dish. If only the mold knew that the whole colony would be dead if it didn't stop reproducing, it would stop doing so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Me, posted 08-29-2002 6:49 AM Me has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Me, posted 09-02-2002 6:48 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Me
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 17 (16399)
09-02-2002 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Andya Primanda
08-30-2002 4:10 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
If life & evolution has no other function than to keep its existence, then I presume that intelligence do have a survival value. Intelligence permits its owner to know what might be coming. If an intelligent life-form realized that it is driving itself into extinction, then it can stop whatever it had been doing. Sounds like sustainable development?
Yes, this seems to be an obvious position. Intelligence, once developed, enables its possessors to transcend evolution. So my original question still stands - why havn't we seen this before?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Andya Primanda, posted 08-30-2002 4:10 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Quetzal, posted 09-02-2002 9:45 AM Me has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 13 of 17 (16413)
09-02-2002 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Me
09-02-2002 6:48 AM


Me: You really do have a good question. My guess is the only answer that makes much sense is pure speculation: that the specific complex of environmental factors, mutations, etc that provided the impetus for the development of intelligence (or if you prefer, the evolving physiology of the brain that facilitated the emergent property called "mind") are fairly rare.
I wouldn't go so far as to say unique, however. An intriguing question (at least to me ) is what were the environmental factors that brought the evolution of chimp intelligence to a halt? Our nearest cousins are not only really close to us genetically, but are also almost frighteningly close to us mentally. A tiny increase in brain-body mass ratio and some cultural evolution, and Pan could be as smart as we are. So IMO it looks like the rudiments of intelligence arose in our primate lineage, but stopped in the lineage that produced the great [edited to add "apes" here] at some point after the split between them and humans.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 09-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Me, posted 09-02-2002 6:48 AM Me has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Me, posted 09-02-2002 12:40 PM Quetzal has not replied

Me
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 17 (16431)
09-02-2002 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Quetzal
09-02-2002 9:45 AM


Thanks, Quetzal, you have brought a lot of ideas to the thread!
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
...the evolving physiology of the brain that facilitated the emergent property called "mind") are fairly rare.
I am not so sure of this - it looks like post hoc theorising. In all other areas we marvel at the way evolution seems to investigate all strategies for living comprehensively. As you can see earlier, I am drawn to the idea that intelligence is not, as it seems, a great advantage to its possessor, otherwise we would all have it!
quote:
I wouldn't go so far as to say unique, however. An intriguing question (at least to me ) is what were the environmental factors that brought the evolution of chimp intelligence to a halt?

I hadn't thought about the chimps, but I would take them as similar evidence of the questionable benefits of intelligence. I have not looked at the details of the species' history, but we have uncovered several humanoid species (presumably with some level of intelligence)which did not have a long existence. Have the chimps, and their ancestors, got a longer span of species existence?
quote:

Our nearest cousins are not only really close to us genetically, but are also almost frighteningly close to us mentally. A tiny increase in brain-body mass ratio and some cultural evolution, and Pan could be as smart as we are.

Though the chimps are very close, I think that most mammals are not that far away. And several currently existing species have evolved sizeable brains - the whales and the octopuses, for example.
Why did they not go further? Did they, in the past? Would we know if a race of intelligent octopuses lived and died a few million years ago? Why aren't they here now?
quote:

So IMO it looks like the rudiments of intelligence arose in our primate lineage, but stopped in the lineage that produced the great [edited to add "apes" here] at some point after the split between them and humans.

As you have pointed out, this raises more questions than it answers! Surely there were similar environmental pressures on both proto-apes and proto-men?
[This message has been edited by Me, 09-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Quetzal, posted 09-02-2002 9:45 AM Quetzal has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 09-04-2002 12:14 PM Me has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 15 of 17 (16564)
09-04-2002 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Me
09-02-2002 12:40 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Me:
[B]Thanks, Quetzal, you have brought a lot of ideas to the thread!
Originally posted by Quetzal:the evolving physiology of the brain that facilitated the emergent property called "mind") are fairly rare.
I am not so sure of this - it looks like post hoc theorising. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
I agree. But when as teen-ager I was reading the Origin of Consciousness and the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (if I got the title correct) that did not seem to me then "post hoc". Indeed years later it does and still does for I think about brain physiology in a way that IS NOT anatomically congruent to the combined teaching of brain morphology in the Dept of Neurobiology and Behavior at Cornell for some inexplicable psychological reason that I have only been able to associate with ICR textual output my notion of the INSIDE of frog brain is the OUTSIDE of a fish brain and this causes all kinds of physical communciation problems among the scientists there when if I assume a common physiology. Obvioulsy I do not need to assume this but I had generated much conversation as a teen-ager in a herpetology club precisiely within the bioloigcal difference of warm and cold blooded animals but that at such an elite instituion only a prof who later went to Scripps was able to see this in me is beyond the pale that events that occurred their then are not even religously interesting but amount to some issue about publishing some data I had on number of salamanders under number and size of rocks for the mind of a herp and fish CAN be compared to a bird and mammal simply by putting the things in a roating can with a false bottom and watching if they cicade the eyes, turn the head or locomote. Frogs do not look as smart as lizards. But who knows this in their mind and not by what they were taught?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Me, posted 09-02-2002 12:40 PM Me has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Me, posted 09-05-2002 8:56 AM Brad McFall has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024