Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there any indication of increased intellegence over time within the Human species?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 99 (230169)
08-05-2005 12:32 PM


There was another thread, Message 1 that started out on Bones of Contention but where the issue of intellegence came up. I believe that the question is interesting enough for it's own thread.
First, I'm not sure there is a good definition of intellegence so as a working assumption I would describe intellegence as the capability to imagine a new way of performing a task.
In this thread I'd like to ask several questions.
  1. is there some minimal brain size needed?
  2. are there certain brain areas needed?
  3. is there a method of measuring intellegence based simply on brain size?
  4. is there any evidence to show that intellegence has increased over time?
This message has been edited by jar, 08-05-2005 11:32 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nwr, posted 08-09-2005 1:32 PM jar has not replied
 Message 5 by JavaMan, posted 08-09-2005 2:31 PM jar has replied
 Message 6 by Theus, posted 08-09-2005 4:05 PM jar has replied
 Message 27 by Dr Jack, posted 08-18-2005 9:49 AM jar has replied
 Message 63 by joshua221, posted 08-30-2005 1:09 PM jar has replied
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 10-01-2005 8:19 PM jar has not replied
 Message 84 by riVeRraT, posted 11-21-2005 10:05 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 2 of 99 (231206)
08-08-2005 11:07 PM


bump
NT

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 3 of 99 (231207)
08-08-2005 11:19 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 4 of 99 (231395)
08-09-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
08-05-2005 12:32 PM


The Flynn effect
On increase in intelligence, I thought I should mention the Flynn effect.
quote:
The Flynn effect is the continued year-on-year rise of IQ test scores, an effect seen in all parts of the world, although at greatly varying rates. It is named after New Zealand political scientist James R. Flynn, its discoverer. The average rate of rise seems to be around three IQ points per decade.
Flynn effect - Wikipedia
This may merely indicate that IQ is a poor measure of what we mean by "intelligence."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 08-05-2005 12:32 PM jar has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 5 of 99 (231449)
08-09-2005 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
08-05-2005 12:32 PM


1. is there some minimal brain size needed?
I'd like to pose this open question:
Which of the following organisms would you say had intelligence? (And why do you draw the line where you do?)
bacterium
mimosa
jellyfish
snail
mouse
dog
chimpanzee
human

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 08-05-2005 12:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 6:39 PM JavaMan has replied
 Message 10 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2005 9:17 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
Theus
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 99 (231497)
08-09-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
08-05-2005 12:32 PM


Partially satisfying ancestors, best taken with a pinch of salt
1. is there some minimal brain size needed?
Humans have a brain capacity of 1350 cc's. Chimpanzee's have a brain capacity of 350 cc's on average. Neandertals have 1500 cc's. In fact, the largest Neandertal brain is at 1700 cc's. This doesn't mean that any of the above are intelligent. It just means that their luggage case is large. And remember, brain's aren't the only things in our heads. We have cerebral fluid and the pituitary gland, and we're not fully sure of how they all work or what volumes they need to function in certain ways.
2. are there certain brain areas needed?
The frontal lobe is a great place to start, particularly Broca's area in the left frontal lobe which contains the center for language (a rough generalization). However, it's more appropriate to say that the connections to different areas in the brain are more important, such as the amygdala/hypothalamus interaction and how that affects emotion.
3.is there a method of measuring intellegence based simply on brain size?
No. But Leselie Aiello and Peter Wheeler came out with a fantastic idea called the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. Simply put, it is the energy put into the brain that really makes it tick. The brain of a human weighs 2 lb, yet it takes up 20% of our metabolic energy. That's expensive tissue! But that isn't free. Our intestinal tract is only operating at 60% capacity based on other primates. As such, we've super-powered our brains, rather than grow it larger. The increase in size is probably due to the additional fatty cells used to insulate these connections. Think of it like your CPU and the heatsink in your computer, large changes in speed will necessitate changes in the size of the heatsink... but not in a reliable manner. Particularly if you use the water-cooling systems, but I digress.
4. is there any evidence to show that intellegence has increased over time?
That's a loaded question. Ultimately, no. There are increasing forms of complexity in tool manufacturing over time, but these are not correlated with brain size. And even this data is highly suspect, because few of us could slash out a Acheulian handaxe, and that's 1.5 mya old technology!
In the end, remember that when we look at fossils, we see more into ourselves than we do in our ancestors.
Do Svidania,
Theus

Veri Omni Veritas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 08-05-2005 12:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 6:43 PM Theus has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 99 (231592)
08-09-2005 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by JavaMan
08-09-2005 2:31 PM


well, using the definition I siggeszted (and defining intellegence was always one of the biggest issues) I'd split them into two groups
(bacterium, mimosa, jellyfish' snail) and
(mouse, dog, chimpanzee, human).
The split would come on the issue of problem solving.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JavaMan, posted 08-09-2005 2:31 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by RAZD, posted 08-09-2005 9:13 PM jar has not replied
 Message 11 by JavaMan, posted 08-11-2005 8:24 AM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 99 (231594)
08-09-2005 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Theus
08-09-2005 4:05 PM


Re: Partially satisfying ancestors, best taken with a pinch of salt
In the end, remember that when we look at fossils, we see more into ourselves than we do in our ancestors.
I think that's a very important point. Knowledge has increased, but was the first person to chip an edge on a rock less intellegent than say, an atomic scientist? Was human success due to some increase in intellegence (once some threshold is passed) or to an increase in knowledge?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Theus, posted 08-09-2005 4:05 PM Theus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Ben!, posted 08-12-2005 1:58 AM jar has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 9 of 99 (231660)
08-09-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
08-09-2005 6:39 PM


minimum requirements for intelligence
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.html
Biologically 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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 6:39 PM jar has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 10 of 99 (231662)
08-09-2005 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by JavaMan
08-09-2005 2:31 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by JavaMan, posted 08-09-2005 2:31 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 11 of 99 (232199)
08-11-2005 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
08-09-2005 6:39 PM


Which organisms have intelligence?
well, using the definition I suggested (and defining intelligence was always one of the biggest issues) I'd split them into two groups (bacterium, mimosa, jellyfish' snail) and (mouse, dog, chimpanzee, human).
When I first made my list I would have plumped for the same answer as you (only mice --> men have intelligence), but having done a bit of research into snail psychology, I think they might sneak in as well. The following link describes some interesting research on learning and memory in snails:
Marine snail study gives insights into human brain
I would suggest that if an organism can learn then it can adopt novel ways of dealing with problems, which meets your definition of intelligence.
The case of Jellyfish is interesting. They have a very rudimentary nervous system, but I'm not sure whether it's sophisticated enough for us to say they're intelligent. The following link has a fascinating description of how the jellyfish nervous system works:
The Cnidarian Nervous System
Intelligent behaviour in mammals seems to be associated with areas in the brain called the association areas. These integrate signals from different sensory areas, and the motor and limbic areas (the limbic area is responsible for modulating emotional repsonse). In effect they seem to provide a mechanism for inhibiting or overriding immediate sensory/emotional responses, allowing the organism to apply learned knowledge to deal with a situation.
Here's a brief description of the association areas in the human brain:
Cognitive Functions
Interestingly, one of the things that distinguishes the human brain from the brains of other higher primates is that we have lots of connections between association areas (these association area to association area connections are very rare in higher primates). What this means is that we seem to have another level of response inhibition that other mammals don't share.
Here's a document that describes these higher-order association areas in the human brain:
The Cerebral Cortex
This message has been edited by JavaMan, 08-11-2005 12:25 PM
This message has been edited by JavaMan, 08-12-2005 07:20 AM
This message has been edited by JavaMan, 08-12-2005 07:20 AM

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 6:39 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 08-11-2005 9:13 PM JavaMan has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 99 (232444)
08-11-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by JavaMan
08-11-2005 8:24 AM


Re: Which organisms have intelligence?
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by JavaMan, posted 08-11-2005 8:24 AM JavaMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Ben!, posted 08-12-2005 1:38 AM RAZD has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 13 of 99 (232482)
08-12-2005 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
08-11-2005 9:13 PM


Re: Which organisms have intelligence?
what is interesting about the jellyfish is whether they have the capability to store information, and if so where that occurs.
I've never seen neurons that DON'T modify their connection strengths due to experience... so that they can habituate to something like constant poking. That's gotta be the case for jellyfish.
Also, what about plants? They store information by the manner in which they grow, right? They store information about the location of the sun. That's definitely adaptive behavior. Wherever the sun is, that's the direction in which they grow. Pretty good plan in my book.
Also seems to me that nobody's addressing artificial intelligence here. DeepBlue? Robots that navigate through rooms? It's not hard to program a robot to learn and develop new behavior patterns.
Just trying to get a better understanding of your thinking.
Thanks!
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 08-11-2005 9:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 08-13-2005 9:58 AM Ben! has replied

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1398 days)
Posts: 1161
From: Hayward, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 14 of 99 (232484)
08-12-2005 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
08-09-2005 6:43 PM


Re: Partially satisfying ancestors, best taken with a pinch of salt
Jar,
I'm replying to this post, but really replying to your OP as well as this post. I hope I can pull my thoughts together enough here.
Intelligence?
This is such a tough area... and personally, I think separating knowledge and intelligence is probably a bad move. But I don't know, it's a really hard question to ask. I'm not sure the terms can be formulated well enough.
But given your definition of intelligence,
as a working assumption I would describe intellegence as the capability to imagine a new way of performing a task.
The capability to imagine a new way of performing a task is certainly dependent on your knowledge. If you don't agree, I could spell it out explicitly.
Maybe you want to ask about cognitive abilities? But all cognitive abilities are dependent on knowledge as well.
Maybe you want to ask about computational power of the brain. Actually, I think this is what you really want to know. Is the computational power of the brain dependent on (questions 1-4). I think that's a good question. Let's assume the brain is a set of interconnected neural networks; I think a mathematical definition of computational power can be derived from that.
And I think Theus did a good job addressing this in post 6.
Comparisons
I think that's a very important point. Knowledge has increased, but was the first person to chip an edge on a rock less intellegent than say, an atomic scientist?
In the way I reformulated your question (for the purpose of eliminating dependencies on knowledge), I think this is an empirical question that we just don't have the answer to. What has the evolution of the human brain looked like? Unfortunately, as they say, brains don't fossilize...
Was human success due to some increase in intellegence (once some threshold is passed) or to an increase in knowledge?
Now take the answer I just gave you, throw it away, and let me try to answer this non-scientifically.
Clearly knowledge is a big factor in our "success." A good question to ask then, is, "what is it that allows us to build and maintain our knowledge?" And, "was that dependency around when people were making arrows from stone?"
There's a smart group of people who believe that the development of is what allowed us to increase our knowledge. Traditionally, we might say that language allowed us to communicate advances in technology, thus allowing ancestors to continue developing, instead of having to start from scratch or being stuck with artifacts but no knowledge or understanding how to make them.
However, maybe that's the whole story. It's possible that language is what ALLOWS us to have abstract thought. By labeling things, we are able to abstract away details, and treat the labeled groups or labeled generalizations as simple objects themselves. In this way, we build up the ability for high-level symbolic thought.
Was this ability present in stone-chipping man? I don't know. It's been shown to be present in chimpanzees, but it doesn't look like it's used. That would seem to say it was present in a common ancestor, so it would be common in stone-chipping man.
I'm tired. I'm cutting this short to go to sleep.
Thanks,
Ben

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 6:43 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by JavaMan, posted 08-12-2005 8:17 AM Ben! has replied

  
JavaMan
Member (Idle past 2319 days)
Posts: 475
From: York, England
Joined: 08-05-2005


Message 15 of 99 (232542)
08-12-2005 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Ben!
08-12-2005 1:58 AM


Re: Partially satisfying ancestors, best taken with a pinch of salt
personally, I think separating knowledge and intelligence is probably a bad move
I'd like to take issue with your claim that knowledge and intelligence are equivalent. It's clear from research on problem-solving that knowledge is required for success (I'm assuming Jar's definition of intelligence here). The more knowledge you have about a particular domain, the more chance you have of successfully solving problems in that domain.
But what we normally mean by intelligence is something more than having a lot of knowledge about a particular domain. For example, imagine we have two atomic scientists, one who's been working in his particular field for 25 years, and another who has just started his career. When thinking about their relative intelligence I think most of us would agree that we could imagine the novice being more intelligent than the expert. So what do we mean by more intelligent in this case? Do we mean that the novice has more knowledge about general problem-solving strategies than the expert? Or do we mean that the hard-wiring in the novice's brain makes him innately better at solving problems than the expert?
Take another example. Imagine we compare our expert atomic scientist with a master carpenter, and let's assume that our atomic scientist isn't a genius - he's got an excellent knowledge of the facts in his domain and has a disciplined approach to gathering his data, but doesn't have a particularly imaginative way of interpreting that data. On the other hand, our master carpenter is equally knowledgable in his own domain, but also has a reputation of coming up with imaginative solutions to construction problems. Would we be justified in saying the master carpenter was more intelligent?
My final point is that the general intelligence of individuals isn't necessarily increased by either their own, or their culture's accumulation of knowledge in particular academic domains. The kind of problems that neolithic man had to address would leave your average atomic scientist on the verge of starvation within a few days!
This message has been edited by JavaMan, 08-12-2005 08:21 AM
This message has been edited by JavaMan, 08-12-2005 08:22 AM
This message has been edited by JavaMan, 08-12-2005 08:24 AM

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Ben!, posted 08-12-2005 1:58 AM Ben! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Ben!, posted 08-12-2005 9:48 AM JavaMan 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