Intelligence and mitochondria

[mistermack]

You got no choice, Woodbutcher. No one can go live in space before the space cities are built.

However, humans are very adaptable. I have no doubt that a generation born in a space city would be entirely happy living there. Just like a person who lives in New York is happy there, preposterous though this might seem to the rest of us.

Sod New York. It's quite nice.
People actually live in Birmingham. Now that IS amazing.

[mistermack]

Re: Birds and reptiles - they likely are as intelligent as they'll ever be unless they start live birthing. Those little eggs just don't hold the energy needed to sustaing the growth of larger brains. Human babies use up a shit-load of energy compared to other mammals.

Yeh but, humans come from much SMALLER eggs than chickens.
And Dinosaurs grew ok. It takes more energy to build a giant dinosaur, than a human brain.
It's not down to live birth, it's the genes.
A dinosaur could easily grow a bigger brain than a human, with no change to it's diet. The spinal cord of an Argentinosaurus probably weighed more than a man.
It just didn't evolve a big brain.

[JimC]

Re: Birds and reptiles - they likely are as intelligent as they'll ever be unless they start live birthing. Those little eggs just don't hold the energy needed to sustaing the growth of larger brains. Human babies use up a shit-load of energy compared to other mammals.

Yeh but, humans come from much SMALLER eggs than chickens.
And Dinosaurs grew ok. It takes more energy to build a giant dinosaur, than a human brain.
It's not down to live birth, it's the genes.
A dinosaur could easily grow a bigger brain than a human, with no change to it's diet. The spinal cord of an Argentinosaurus probably weighed more than a man.
It just didn't evolve a big brain.

I think Ani means the brain size when born/hatched, which will have a large bearing on the chances of rapid early learning. The brain size at birth of human infants pushes hard on the limits allowed by the birthing process, all to maximise this vital early period of cognitive development. It would be hard for hatchling birds (with an adult size similar to humans) to have a brain size at hatching comparable to human infants.

[MiM]

Re: Birds and reptiles - they likely are as intelligent as they'll ever be unless they start live birthing. Those little eggs just don't hold the energy needed to sustaing the growth of larger brains. Human babies use up a shit-load of energy compared to other mammals.

Yeh but, humans come from much SMALLER eggs than chickens.
And Dinosaurs grew ok. It takes more energy to build a giant dinosaur, than a human brain.
It's not down to live birth, it's the genes.
A dinosaur could easily grow a bigger brain than a human, with no change to it's diet. The spinal cord of an Argentinosaurus probably weighed more than a man.
It just didn't evolve a big brain.

I think Ani means the brain size when born/hatched, which will have a large bearing on the chances of rapid early learning. The brain size at birth of human infants pushes hard on the limits allowed by the birthing process, all to maximise this vital early period of cognitive development. It would be hard for hatchling birds (with an adult size similar to humans) to have a brain size at hatching comparable to human infants.

Is there something that says, that the brain has to be big already at birth? Could there not possibly be an even more prolonged time of "infanthood", during which the brain of a hatchling would mature? That would naturally have its own drawbacks, but would it be impossible?

[JimC]

Re: Birds and reptiles - they likely are as intelligent as they'll ever be unless they start live birthing. Those little eggs just don't hold the energy needed to sustaing the growth of larger brains. Human babies use up a shit-load of energy compared to other mammals.

Yeh but, humans come from much SMALLER eggs than chickens.
And Dinosaurs grew ok. It takes more energy to build a giant dinosaur, than a human brain.
It's not down to live birth, it's the genes.
A dinosaur could easily grow a bigger brain than a human, with no change to it's diet. The spinal cord of an Argentinosaurus probably weighed more than a man.
It just didn't evolve a big brain.

I think Ani means the brain size when born/hatched, which will have a large bearing on the chances of rapid early learning. The brain size at birth of human infants pushes hard on the limits allowed by the birthing process, all to maximise this vital early period of cognitive development. It would be hard for hatchling birds (with an adult size similar to humans) to have a brain size at hatching comparable to human infants.

Is there something that says, that the brain has to be big already at birth? Could there not possibly be an even more prolonged time of "infanthood", during which the brain of a hatchling would mature? That would naturally have its own drawbacks, but would it be impossible?

Not impossible, but I think there would always be a comparative advantage to cognitive development (particularly language acquisition) happening as soon as possible after birth.

[mistermack]

I don't think that a brain HAS to be the size of the human brain, to be of equal intelligence.
We have big brains, because they evolved from Chimp-like brains in a VERY short time. about 5 million years. It was the only way for intelligence to increase so quickly.

But if birds evolved more intelligence over 100 million years, instead of 5 million years, they could be as intelligent as us, even with a tiny brain. We don't actually use much of our brain for thinking. It could be a lot smaller, and just as intelligent, given more time. Just as computer chips are increasing in power, and decreasing in size, so could brains.

An Argentinasaurus probably had enough nerve tissue to make ten human brains, by the time it was five. But it didn't evolve much intelligence.

[MiM]

Re: Birds and reptiles - they likely are as intelligent as they'll ever be unless they start live birthing. Those little eggs just don't hold the energy needed to sustaing the growth of larger brains. Human babies use up a shit-load of energy compared to other mammals.

Yeh but, humans come from much SMALLER eggs than chickens.
And Dinosaurs grew ok. It takes more energy to build a giant dinosaur, than a human brain.
It's not down to live birth, it's the genes.
A dinosaur could easily grow a bigger brain than a human, with no change to it's diet. The spinal cord of an Argentinosaurus probably weighed more than a man.
It just didn't evolve a big brain.

I think Ani means the brain size when born/hatched, which will have a large bearing on the chances of rapid early learning. The brain size at birth of human infants pushes hard on the limits allowed by the birthing process, all to maximise this vital early period of cognitive development. It would be hard for hatchling birds (with an adult size similar to humans) to have a brain size at hatching comparable to human infants.

Is there something that says, that the brain has to be big already at birth? Could there not possibly be an even more prolonged time of "infanthood", during which the brain of a hatchling would mature? That would naturally have its own drawbacks, but would it be impossible?

Not impossible, but I think there would always be a comparative advantage to cognitive development (particularly language acquisition) happening as soon as possible after birth.

Why

[Blind groper]

Re intelligence and brain size

It is true that an animal can be very intelligent and have a small brain size. The video attached shows the antics of a kea parrot. This is the bird that David Attenborough calls the smartest of all birds. Its brain is no bigger than your thumb.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRW4ztbY8Ok
This bird may be smarter than chimps. Behavioural studies suggest that.

The human brain grew as quickly as it did partly as the result of gene duplications. We did not evolve new and special genes for big brains, as far as my reading would suggest. Just that some of the genes which determine brain growth doubled, or more than doubled.

[mistermack]

The thing with evolving greater intelligence is that there has to be a survival benefit for every tiny incremental increase, otherwise it won't happen.
Evolution has no way of working towards future benefits that might happen, once you get to a certain standard. Water buffalo would benefit from higher intelligence, if they could reach a standard that allowed them to work out that forming and keepin in a circle was the best defence against lions, or hyenas.
But a tiny incremental increase wouldn't bring that benefit.
So it might be very unlikely that Buffalo will ever achieve that kind of intelligence. Their food doesn't take much intelligence to find or process.

Humans must have had a very unusual factor driving our evolution. Individuals who were a tiny bit more intelligent than others must have had a real survival advantage, for five million years continuously, because the brain size grew steadily and constantly for all of that period, whereas Chimpanzees and Gorillas etc hardly changed at all.

[Svartalf]

Sure enuff! Imagine not being able to get dirty.

Heh... I'd be able to get dirty in a white room... incredible what can happen with food and drink combined with extreme clumsiness.

[Blind groper]

Humans must have had a very unusual factor driving our evolution. Individuals who were a tiny bit more intelligent than others must have had a real survival advantage, for five million years continuously, because the brain size grew steadily and constantly for all of that period, whereas Chimpanzees and Gorillas etc hardly changed at all.

I have a personal speculation on that.
Wild chimps use tools at a very basic level, such as breaking open nuts between two rocks.

My speculation is that the human ancestral line split off because it started to make use of tools (and weapons) to a far greater amount. Imagine, for example, an early pre-human finding a rock that was accidentally ideal for digging out grubs, and deciding to keep it. This pre-human now runs around with a rock in one hand. It is only a matter of time before it finds other uses for it, like whacking the alpha male over the head....

Once the whole pre-human tribe get into the act, and this behaviour passes down through generations, suddenly a whole lot of changes become adaptive advantages. Upright stance. Stronger legs. Hands better able to manipulate. Bigger brains etc. The adoption of simple technology will suddenly stimulate a whole raft of evolutionary change.

[Tero]

I would not limit life to the OP event. As long as you have c n o etc, multiple solutions to organic molecules are possible.

[MiM]

The thing with evolving greater intelligence is that there has to be a survival benefit for every tiny incremental increase, otherwise it won't happen.
Evolution has no way of working towards future benefits that might happen, once you get to a certain standard. Water buffalo would benefit from higher intelligence, if they could reach a standard that allowed them to work out that forming and keepin in a circle was the best defence against lions, or hyenas.
But a tiny incremental increase wouldn't bring that benefit.
So it might be very unlikely that Buffalo will ever achieve that kind of intelligence. Their food doesn't take much intelligence to find or process.

Humans must have had a very unusual factor driving our evolution. Individuals who were a tiny bit more intelligent than others must have had a real survival advantage, for five million years continuously, because the brain size grew steadily and constantly for all of that period, whereas Chimpanzees and Gorillas etc hardly changed at all.

That sounds like a creationist talking against evolution of any major ability: mobility, eyes, flight... Why would intelligence be so special?

[mistermack]

The thing with evolving greater intelligence is that there has to be a survival benefit for every tiny incremental increase, otherwise it won't happen.
Evolution has no way of working towards future benefits that might happen, once you get to a certain standard. Water buffalo would benefit from higher intelligence, if they could reach a standard that allowed them to work out that forming and keepin in a circle was the best defence against lions, or hyenas.
But a tiny incremental increase wouldn't bring that benefit.
So it might be very unlikely that Buffalo will ever achieve that kind of intelligence. Their food doesn't take much intelligence to find or process.

Humans must have had a very unusual factor driving our evolution. Individuals who were a tiny bit more intelligent than others must have had a real survival advantage, for five million years continuously, because the brain size grew steadily and constantly for all of that period, whereas Chimpanzees and Gorillas etc hardly changed at all.

That sounds like a creationist talking against evolution of any major ability: mobility, eyes, flight... Why would intelligence be so special?

No, it's actually what you would be likely to read in any textbook on evolution.
It explains why certain features DON'T evolve, even though they are desirable.
It's the difference between a designer and evolution. A designer can see what can be achieved, evolution is blind.

[MiM]

The thing with evolving greater intelligence is that there has to be a survival benefit for every tiny incremental increase, otherwise it won't happen.
Evolution has no way of working towards future benefits that might happen, once you get to a certain standard. Water buffalo would benefit from higher intelligence, if they could reach a standard that allowed them to work out that forming and keepin in a circle was the best defence against lions, or hyenas.
But a tiny incremental increase wouldn't bring that benefit.
So it might be very unlikely that Buffalo will ever achieve that kind of intelligence. Their food doesn't take much intelligence to find or process.

Humans must have had a very unusual factor driving our evolution. Individuals who were a tiny bit more intelligent than others must have had a real survival advantage, for five million years continuously, because the brain size grew steadily and constantly for all of that period, whereas Chimpanzees and Gorillas etc hardly changed at all.

That sounds like a creationist talking against evolution of any major ability: mobility, eyes, flight... Why would intelligence be so special?

No, it's actually what you would be likely to read in any textbook on evolution.
It explains why certain features DON'T evolve, even though they are desirable.
It's the difference between a designer and evolution. A designer can see what can be achieved, evolution is blind.

The first part "The thing with evolving greater intelligence is that there has to be a survival benefit for every tiny incremental increase, otherwise it won't happen.
Evolution has no way of working towards future benefits that might happen, once you get to a certain standard." Is standard textbook stuff, and mostly ok (although there are things like genetic drift, and pure chance playing in too).

But it's your conclusions I think resemble creationist shit. Many species have evolved some sort of intelligence. How did the Buffalo learn to make a ring, if that would be unlikely for the Water Buffalo. I see no barrier (except, perhaps the pre-existence of humans) for chimps or parrots to develop human like intelligence.