Were small-brained early humans intelligent? Row erupts over scientists’ claim(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Were small-brained early humans intelligent? Row erupts over scientists’ claim
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/jul/22/small-brained-early-humans-homo-naledi-cleverer-storm
14 comments
Human understanding of consciousness/intelligence is so full of bias due to all of our scientific knowledge being derived from human consciousness. We have set an impossible bar for animal and AI intelligence not on objective ontological premises, but largely on human primacy hubris. Hubris which considers the concentration and usurpation of resources more intelligent than the communal or even universal or natural distribution. Hubris which considers survival at all costs more intelligent than self sacrifice for the collective. Hubris which says, yeah, chimps can effortlessly remember way longer sequences than humans, but is that useful memory? Afterall they haven't tricked themselves into spending most of their waking hours staring at a blinking box.
> Hubris which considers the concentration and usurpation of resources more intelligent than the communal or even universal or natural distribution.
You're making this up. There were/are human (as in homo sapiens) societies based on communal distribution; we don't think of those humans as less intelligent. No serious intellectual in the humanities or sciences does.
> Hubris which considers survival at all costs more intelligent than self sacrifice for the collective.
"Self-sacrifice for the collective" has been an earmark of some societies, believed by their thinkers. Explicitly articulated in words that way, it's squarely a human idea. Just like it's a human idea that self-sacrifice for the collective is just idiotic group-think; the individual is supreme.
You're making this up. There were/are human (as in homo sapiens) societies based on communal distribution; we don't think of those humans as less intelligent. No serious intellectual in the humanities or sciences does.
> Hubris which considers survival at all costs more intelligent than self sacrifice for the collective.
"Self-sacrifice for the collective" has been an earmark of some societies, believed by their thinkers. Explicitly articulated in words that way, it's squarely a human idea. Just like it's a human idea that self-sacrifice for the collective is just idiotic group-think; the individual is supreme.
>we don't think of those humans as less intelligent. No serious intellectual in the humanities or sciences does.
Feels like No True Scotsman. Much of Western colonial policy for half a millennium was based on this very assumption, and their effects echo in their unreformed and unreparated posterity.
Feels like No True Scotsman. Much of Western colonial policy for half a millennium was based on this very assumption, and their effects echo in their unreformed and unreparated posterity.
"Much of Western colonial policy for half a millennium was based on this very assumption"
I am not so sure, especially about the "half a millennium" part. It seems you are extrapolating from specifically Anglo-Saxon justifications of slavery, where blacks were considered unequal-because-stupid. That's not the norm over the entire globe and half a millennium, though.
There isn't significant evidence that, say, the Spanish conquistadors considered the vanquished Amerindians stupid (and it would be indeed hard to pronounce the people who built Tenochtitlan or Cuzco stupid). Same with the English in India. Heathens, yes, stupid, no.
Obsession with intelligence, stupidity, heredity thereof and, subsequently, eugenics, mostly dates from post-Darwin times. It approximately matches the last century of colonialism, but not 500 years.
Prior to the 19th century, few people cared about sophisticated explanations of conquest and dominance. There just weren't enough intellectuals around for theoretical explanations to matter. You lost a war, you became someone's subject or slave, that was it. In Europe, in Arabia, in China, everywhere. If there was any theory at all in play, it was mostly theological ("the unbelievers lost, because God willed it so, or we lost, because we sinned and God wanted to punish us").
I am not so sure, especially about the "half a millennium" part. It seems you are extrapolating from specifically Anglo-Saxon justifications of slavery, where blacks were considered unequal-because-stupid. That's not the norm over the entire globe and half a millennium, though.
There isn't significant evidence that, say, the Spanish conquistadors considered the vanquished Amerindians stupid (and it would be indeed hard to pronounce the people who built Tenochtitlan or Cuzco stupid). Same with the English in India. Heathens, yes, stupid, no.
Obsession with intelligence, stupidity, heredity thereof and, subsequently, eugenics, mostly dates from post-Darwin times. It approximately matches the last century of colonialism, but not 500 years.
Prior to the 19th century, few people cared about sophisticated explanations of conquest and dominance. There just weren't enough intellectuals around for theoretical explanations to matter. You lost a war, you became someone's subject or slave, that was it. In Europe, in Arabia, in China, everywhere. If there was any theory at all in play, it was mostly theological ("the unbelievers lost, because God willed it so, or we lost, because we sinned and God wanted to punish us").
> Obsession with intelligence, stupidity, heredity thereof and, subsequently, eugenics, mostly dates from post-Darwin times.
Blame Social Darwinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) for this. Even today a lot of people (mainly in the Western world) try to promote this pseudoscience under any pretext possible.
Note : Despite the fact that Social Darwinism bears Charles Darwin's name, it is primarily linked today with others, notably Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics.
Blame Social Darwinism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) for this. Even today a lot of people (mainly in the Western world) try to promote this pseudoscience under any pretext possible.
Note : Despite the fact that Social Darwinism bears Charles Darwin's name, it is primarily linked today with others, notably Herbert Spencer, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics.
You are right, that is definitely not old Charles' fault.
There's this perception of Earth itself as a beautiful and perpetual utopia, because we live such absurdly brief lives. But this planet is brutal, and has killed most of everything living on it - repeatedly. [1] This will continue to happen endlessly in the future until the Sun itself extinguishes all life on the planet, permanently. Earth is essentially a bunch of short term 'surprise' death traps, and one very long term final death trap which we can at least see coming.
And there is no escape, except through intelligence of a certain sort, which happens to be the exact sort humans have developed, which will enable our species to eventually spread beyond just this one planet. The awesome thing about human intelligence though is not only will we ultimately use our intelligence to ensure our own perpetuation, but I suspect there's no doubt we'll have a "Noah's Ark" working to perpetuate the lives of many of our cohabitants who will literally all go extinct, permanently, without us - or without some unbelievably revolutionary change in their own intelligences.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#The_%22Big_Fi...
And there is no escape, except through intelligence of a certain sort, which happens to be the exact sort humans have developed, which will enable our species to eventually spread beyond just this one planet. The awesome thing about human intelligence though is not only will we ultimately use our intelligence to ensure our own perpetuation, but I suspect there's no doubt we'll have a "Noah's Ark" working to perpetuate the lives of many of our cohabitants who will literally all go extinct, permanently, without us - or without some unbelievably revolutionary change in their own intelligences.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#The_%22Big_Fi...
> Earth itself as a beautiful ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶p̶e̶r̶p̶e̶t̶u̶a̶l̶ ̶u̶t̶o̶p̶i̶a̶, ... But this planet is brutal, and has killed most of everything living on it
Why do these have to be in contention? I honestly find our world beautiful, same with space and the universe. Same with blackholes and quasars. But a grizzly bear can be majestic and beautiful while still capable, and likely, to rip you to shreds. Awe is probably a more apt word. Maybe the more archaic definition of awful or awesome.
Why do these have to be in contention? I honestly find our world beautiful, same with space and the universe. Same with blackholes and quasars. But a grizzly bear can be majestic and beautiful while still capable, and likely, to rip you to shreds. Awe is probably a more apt word. Maybe the more archaic definition of awful or awesome.
beautiful utopia not
> This will continue to happen endlessly in the future until the Sun itself extinguishes all life on the planet, permanently.
Btw, we can conceivable move the earth or keep the sun from going red giant.
The means for these two are currently beyond our technology, but not beyond our science. (Basically, for the latter you need to remove non-hydrogen elements from the sun. Red dwarf stars can last trillion of years, and they are smaller than the sun. So removing the right material from the sun should get us there.
The project would be a gigantic undertaking, but we'd also have tens or even hundreds of millions of years to do it.)
If humanity survives long enough, we are bound to become extremely powerful as science and technology march on.
Btw, we can conceivable move the earth or keep the sun from going red giant.
The means for these two are currently beyond our technology, but not beyond our science. (Basically, for the latter you need to remove non-hydrogen elements from the sun. Red dwarf stars can last trillion of years, and they are smaller than the sun. So removing the right material from the sun should get us there.
The project would be a gigantic undertaking, but we'd also have tens or even hundreds of millions of years to do it.)
If humanity survives long enough, we are bound to become extremely powerful as science and technology march on.
>Btw, we can conceivable move the earth or keep the sun from going red giant.
I think you are seriously underestimating or misconceptualizing how much energy that would take. Even in a very ideal timeline where we get FTL or near FTL travel technology there is no way conceivable way to do what you are talking about: both moving the earth or engineering the sun.
Just visually look at the size of the sun in comparison to Earth: https://www.universetoday.com/65356/how-many-earths-can-fit-...
And if we COULD (which again, very very unlikely) do those things we simply just wouldn't -- living on earth or in this solar system would be irrelevant.
I think you are seriously underestimating or misconceptualizing how much energy that would take. Even in a very ideal timeline where we get FTL or near FTL travel technology there is no way conceivable way to do what you are talking about: both moving the earth or engineering the sun.
Just visually look at the size of the sun in comparison to Earth: https://www.universetoday.com/65356/how-many-earths-can-fit-...
And if we COULD (which again, very very unlikely) do those things we simply just wouldn't -- living on earth or in this solar system would be irrelevant.
> I think you are seriously underestimating or misconceptualizing how much energy that would take.
No, I am not underestimating that. Yes, it takes a prodigious amount of energy to move the earth, but hundred million years is a long time, too; and the sun gives off a lot of energy.
Today, most of the energy that the sun gives off is wasted. We are not too far off the technology needed to build a swarm of satellites that catch an appreciable fraction of that energy. (It's called a Dyson swarm.) We could sacrifice eg Mercury to get the mass for that; the sun itself will deliver the energy needed to run the fabrication process. Ideally we figure out how to build self-replicating machines. But even if the process of building the swarm takes a few million years, that's fine for our purposes.
You could use the energy to eg run a crazy amount of ion drives on our moon's surface. You'd use the moon as a gravitational tuck to very slowly move the earth.
About engineering the sun, have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw20VbX1XCc
My sketch for how to move the earth is also inspired by videos from that YouTube channel. He has all the math that I didn't put in here. He also has some videos about how to move the sun. See also https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a10885/the... if you want to read rather than listen to a video. Or https://www.gregschool.org/gregschoollessons/2017/9/21/shkad...
No, I am not underestimating that. Yes, it takes a prodigious amount of energy to move the earth, but hundred million years is a long time, too; and the sun gives off a lot of energy.
Today, most of the energy that the sun gives off is wasted. We are not too far off the technology needed to build a swarm of satellites that catch an appreciable fraction of that energy. (It's called a Dyson swarm.) We could sacrifice eg Mercury to get the mass for that; the sun itself will deliver the energy needed to run the fabrication process. Ideally we figure out how to build self-replicating machines. But even if the process of building the swarm takes a few million years, that's fine for our purposes.
You could use the energy to eg run a crazy amount of ion drives on our moon's surface. You'd use the moon as a gravitational tuck to very slowly move the earth.
About engineering the sun, have a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw20VbX1XCc
My sketch for how to move the earth is also inspired by videos from that YouTube channel. He has all the math that I didn't put in here. He also has some videos about how to move the sun. See also https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a10885/the... if you want to read rather than listen to a video. Or https://www.gregschool.org/gregschoollessons/2017/9/21/shkad...
If humanity becomes capable of either of those feats Earth would be an item of notalgia, not vital to our survival. We will be well and truly on to different challenges by then.
>If humanity survives long enough, we are bound to become extremely powerful as science and technology march on.
If children survive long enough, they will surely grow infinitely tall?
If children survive long enough, they will surely grow infinitely tall?
Human growth slows down fairly quickly.
Getting started on building a Dyson swarm of power satellites is already very possible, if we were to put say 50% of world GDP into it. They don't need to be any more high tech than what we already have, just more of it, lots more.
Of course, that's economically infeasible at the moment. But as we grow GDP everything becomes more feasible.
Getting started on building a Dyson swarm of power satellites is already very possible, if we were to put say 50% of world GDP into it. They don't need to be any more high tech than what we already have, just more of it, lots more.
Of course, that's economically infeasible at the moment. But as we grow GDP everything becomes more feasible.
Everything is relative. We have seen thousands of other planets (And millions of other stellar objects) and this planet is a hell of a heaven compared to every single one of them. According to our observations so far anyway (to the chagrin of ufo lovers).
Humans as a necessary evil to make a small Noah's ark of some of what's on earth_ That's a very positive view, thanks for sharing.
If we can. most of endeavors which try to build a smaller ecosystem has failed.
> this planet is brutal
There isn't a nicer spot around for untold light years.
Earth is a beautiful utopia, without measure or equal. Shatner saw that clearly, on his trip off planet.
> ... when I looked in the opposite direction, into space, there was no mystery, no majestic awe to behold . . . all I saw was death.
> I saw a cold, dark, black emptiness. It was unlike any blackness you can see or feel on Earth. It was deep, enveloping, all-encompassing. I turned back toward the light of home. I could see the curvature of Earth, the beige of the desert, the white of the clouds and the blue of the sky. It was life. Nurturing, sustaining, life. Mother Earth. Gaia. And I was leaving her.
> Everything I had thought was wrong. Everything I had expected to see was wrong.
> I had thought that going into space would be the ultimate catharsis of that connection I had been looking for between all living things—that being up there would be the next beautiful step to understanding the harmony of the universe. In the film “Contact,” when Jodie Foster’s character goes to space and looks out into the heavens, she lets out an astonished whisper, “They should’ve sent a poet.” I had a different experience, because I discovered that the beauty isn’t out there, it’s down here, with all of us. Leaving that behind made my connection to our tiny planet even more profound.
- https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/william-shatner-space-boldl...
We're the worst thing to happen to this planet in 65 million years. On that list of extinctions you posted, the only one caused by an 'intelligent' agent is the one we're in now; the one caused by us. And we're still doing it.
If ever a Noah's ark is sent into space, it's vastly more likely to be because we fucked up the planet somehow.
There isn't a nicer spot around for untold light years.
Earth is a beautiful utopia, without measure or equal. Shatner saw that clearly, on his trip off planet.
> ... when I looked in the opposite direction, into space, there was no mystery, no majestic awe to behold . . . all I saw was death.
> I saw a cold, dark, black emptiness. It was unlike any blackness you can see or feel on Earth. It was deep, enveloping, all-encompassing. I turned back toward the light of home. I could see the curvature of Earth, the beige of the desert, the white of the clouds and the blue of the sky. It was life. Nurturing, sustaining, life. Mother Earth. Gaia. And I was leaving her.
> Everything I had thought was wrong. Everything I had expected to see was wrong.
> I had thought that going into space would be the ultimate catharsis of that connection I had been looking for between all living things—that being up there would be the next beautiful step to understanding the harmony of the universe. In the film “Contact,” when Jodie Foster’s character goes to space and looks out into the heavens, she lets out an astonished whisper, “They should’ve sent a poet.” I had a different experience, because I discovered that the beauty isn’t out there, it’s down here, with all of us. Leaving that behind made my connection to our tiny planet even more profound.
- https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/william-shatner-space-boldl...
We're the worst thing to happen to this planet in 65 million years. On that list of extinctions you posted, the only one caused by an 'intelligent' agent is the one we're in now; the one caused by us. And we're still doing it.
If ever a Noah's ark is sent into space, it's vastly more likely to be because we fucked up the planet somehow.
> which happens to be the exact sort humans have developed
I disagree. Climate crisis, pure ignorance for destruction of nature, and not even a backup colony of our moon.
If we really were that intelligent as a species, we would value the survival of our own much more than a fictive self-invented imaginary value called "money" which actually has no meaning at all in the universe.
I disagree. Climate crisis, pure ignorance for destruction of nature, and not even a backup colony of our moon.
If we really were that intelligent as a species, we would value the survival of our own much more than a fictive self-invented imaginary value called "money" which actually has no meaning at all in the universe.
We are absolutely not perfect, and the climate (and biosphere, and non-renewable resource depletion) are all indicators of our imperfections.
Nevertheless, no other life has made it to the moon (let alone "and back") by its own design.
I would love for us to have a backup colony on the moon; but until Starship (or equivalent) actually gets rolled out enough to make that affordable — or, better yet, a launch loop etc. — we have to make do with the Terran backups in the form of having settlements in every continent from Tamanrasset in the Sahara to Yakutsk in Siberia.
Money is indeed fictional, but it's a very useful fiction that helps us make deals with each other and with ourselves at different times in our own lives. Just so long as we don't make the mistake of, for example, thinking we can feed people just by taking money from the rich without any extra thought given to where food comes from in the first place — as the saying attributed to some Native American tribal chief goes, you can't eat money.
Nevertheless, no other life has made it to the moon (let alone "and back") by its own design.
I would love for us to have a backup colony on the moon; but until Starship (or equivalent) actually gets rolled out enough to make that affordable — or, better yet, a launch loop etc. — we have to make do with the Terran backups in the form of having settlements in every continent from Tamanrasset in the Sahara to Yakutsk in Siberia.
Money is indeed fictional, but it's a very useful fiction that helps us make deals with each other and with ourselves at different times in our own lives. Just so long as we don't make the mistake of, for example, thinking we can feed people just by taking money from the rich without any extra thought given to where food comes from in the first place — as the saying attributed to some Native American tribal chief goes, you can't eat money.
> consciousness/intelligence
intelligence (noun)
(1) the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations, the skilled use of reason
(2) the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
(3) mental acuteness, shrewdness
consciousness (noun)
(1) the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
(2) the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought
(3) the totality of conscious states of an individual
These two things are very different and entirely separate concepts. Thinking about them as the same thing has caused immeasurable amounts of confusion when trying to classify LLMs recently. Animals can be intelligent, plants can be too, even single celled organisms, or a single if statement as long as it encodes a decision based on reasoning. It has nothing to do with consciousness which is so loosely defined that it can't even be measured. And it's also the term that should've been used in the title, of couse any hominid or living being for that matter obviously makes intelligent decisions constantly to get food and evade predators.
I suppose it is a result of thinking in an anthropocentric way as you mention because humans typically make intelligent decisions using consciousness, but it's far from a universal requirement. People always assume that AI stands for 'artificial consciousness' and it drives me up the wall.
intelligence (noun)
(1) the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations, the skilled use of reason
(2) the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
(3) mental acuteness, shrewdness
consciousness (noun)
(1) the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself
(2) the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought
(3) the totality of conscious states of an individual
These two things are very different and entirely separate concepts. Thinking about them as the same thing has caused immeasurable amounts of confusion when trying to classify LLMs recently. Animals can be intelligent, plants can be too, even single celled organisms, or a single if statement as long as it encodes a decision based on reasoning. It has nothing to do with consciousness which is so loosely defined that it can't even be measured. And it's also the term that should've been used in the title, of couse any hominid or living being for that matter obviously makes intelligent decisions constantly to get food and evade predators.
I suppose it is a result of thinking in an anthropocentric way as you mention because humans typically make intelligent decisions using consciousness, but it's far from a universal requirement. People always assume that AI stands for 'artificial consciousness' and it drives me up the wall.
Most people don't know that forests are actually a vast network of underground fungi "highways" that communicate, analyse and distribute resources across the whole forest.
Dying trees literally distribute their resources to healthy ones, and trees that lack nitrogen get it from other trees whose roots and bacteria produce too much.
Bacteria use those highways to distribute themselves, where bacteria is needed for fertilization.
Plant life and natural intelligence is right in front of us, we are just too stubborn to admit it.
The more you research about fungi, the more you see how nature really works.
Dying trees literally distribute their resources to healthy ones, and trees that lack nitrogen get it from other trees whose roots and bacteria produce too much.
Bacteria use those highways to distribute themselves, where bacteria is needed for fertilization.
Plant life and natural intelligence is right in front of us, we are just too stubborn to admit it.
The more you research about fungi, the more you see how nature really works.
> analyse and distribute resources across the whole forest
> Dying trees literally distribute their resources to healthy ones,
I'm struggling to imagine how such genes could possibly reach fixation.
Want to explain?
> Dying trees literally distribute their resources to healthy ones,
I'm struggling to imagine how such genes could possibly reach fixation.
Want to explain?
The evolution of altruistic behaviours is unclear. There is no single universally accepted reason. The most common argument is probably that it was selected for in the same way your genes would have a survival advantage even if you die while helping your cousin or sibling or just fellow human survive. Because they're almost genetically identical to you, their survival is almost the same as your survival, from the gene's perspective.
> Want to explain?
[1] and [2] are introductions to the mycorrhizal networks and how they work on a chemical and biological basis, [3] and [4] are really nicely presented talks about it, by renominated researchers.
It's so ridiculous that they even found evidence that the connections between seedlings and their mother trees are stronger and more reliant than to others; which seems to suggest that they recognize their own offspring once it grows up.
There's also a huge organization that focusses on research of mapping those vast networks, called SPUN (society for protecting underground networks) [5]
On a darwinistic level I'd argue that once there probably was a stage in evolution when plants could not survive on their own in harsh weather conditions, the ones that survived were able to communicate and exchange "goods" for their own benefits; like exchanging sugar against nitrogen in case you had too much of it that you wouldn't need anyways.
(I'm no biologist so don't take my advice on anything on the topic, I am only building algae-fungi based bio reactors to try to find a way to bind carbon dioxide and put it into proteins as a food source as a hobby project)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhizal_network
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kHZ0a_6TxY
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un2yBgIAxYs
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpCERNXtvMA
[5] https://www.spun.earth/
[1] and [2] are introductions to the mycorrhizal networks and how they work on a chemical and biological basis, [3] and [4] are really nicely presented talks about it, by renominated researchers.
It's so ridiculous that they even found evidence that the connections between seedlings and their mother trees are stronger and more reliant than to others; which seems to suggest that they recognize their own offspring once it grows up.
There's also a huge organization that focusses on research of mapping those vast networks, called SPUN (society for protecting underground networks) [5]
On a darwinistic level I'd argue that once there probably was a stage in evolution when plants could not survive on their own in harsh weather conditions, the ones that survived were able to communicate and exchange "goods" for their own benefits; like exchanging sugar against nitrogen in case you had too much of it that you wouldn't need anyways.
(I'm no biologist so don't take my advice on anything on the topic, I am only building algae-fungi based bio reactors to try to find a way to bind carbon dioxide and put it into proteins as a food source as a hobby project)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycorrhizal_network
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kHZ0a_6TxY
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Un2yBgIAxYs
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpCERNXtvMA
[5] https://www.spun.earth/
[deleted]
The problem is, self sacrifice for the "collective" is usually self sacrifice for some dude who has all of the power.
Farming and settling were big mistakes. Should have killed the first person who planted stuff.
I don’t think it is a really useful take. Nobody is going to pass on a food source, particularly when there is such pressure as for hunters-gatherers. Also, it was not some brutal change from nomadic hunters to sedentary farmers. Each step was itself a small evolution (like “it’s funny, the seeds we threw away last year gave some useful plants” to “let’s throw away seeds on purpose” to “these seeds are more likely to be useful if we put them in specific locations”, etc). So there was not really a “first person who planted stuff”.
You need to compare the situation across centuries or millennia to really see the large changes, and humans without a writing system and some kind of stable authority to keep records are not really equipped for that.
Now, it’s impossible to voluntarily stop using a system without which most of humanity would starve. You’re again up against self preservation and each time humans will choose a solution that prevents them from dying.
So yeah, you can disapprove but it’s all academical as it was more or less bound to happen.
You need to compare the situation across centuries or millennia to really see the large changes, and humans without a writing system and some kind of stable authority to keep records are not really equipped for that.
Now, it’s impossible to voluntarily stop using a system without which most of humanity would starve. You’re again up against self preservation and each time humans will choose a solution that prevents them from dying.
So yeah, you can disapprove but it’s all academical as it was more or less bound to happen.
You think it was just one person? A single event that didn't get rediscovered multiple times in different regions? And that another person wouldn't have planted stuff? Or that there is a clear dividing line between the pure hunter/gatherers and the farmers?
Nope, it was necessary for our survival in that it allowed us to get energy-dense food (in combination with cooking) instead of wasting all our energy in gathering food with little nourishment at the end of the day.
We are Coctivores more than Omnivores - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7EccYugxhQ
We are Coctivores more than Omnivores - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7EccYugxhQ
I think there is certainly some truth to this. I think the same when I watch dolphins play, it truly makes me wonder about “intelligence”. My opinion is that it’s really just a tool to help life become enjoyable and to help the body protect itself. Kind of like the immune system, but…it’s not operating correctly in us because we’re using it to destroy and not necessarily to thrive, hence climate change.
Boffins like Kurzweil seem to think it’s the end goal but even if you had an IQ of 500, or wouldn’t necessarily mean you enjoy life more by default.
Edit: Kurzweil also emphasis that love is an amazing thing, which is cool, I think the guy means well. I just wonder if we and people like him overemphasize it's importance.
Boffins like Kurzweil seem to think it’s the end goal but even if you had an IQ of 500, or wouldn’t necessarily mean you enjoy life more by default.
Edit: Kurzweil also emphasis that love is an amazing thing, which is cool, I think the guy means well. I just wonder if we and people like him overemphasize it's importance.
yeah, despite popular views, intelligence is a gradient. Also you have to distinguish between memory, reflective reach and other skills which can vary drastically in their proportions across species.
You're defining intelligence as a moral good. That is not part of its definition. So your criticism is misplaced. The conventional measures of intelligence are perfectly appropriate, as they are not seeking to determine what traits have the most universal utility, i.e. are the most morally good.
These “we all think this, we all do that” arguments are cartoonish nonsense. Just because you can find some people that think X and Y that doesn’t mean we, the human species, think X and Y.
Do ‘we’ as a species think that centralisation do resources is more intelligent than ‘natural’ distribution, really? Do ‘we’ really think that personal survival is more intelligent than self sacrifice? Are alternative view and philosophies of life really not found in human society? You seem to have no problem articulating them.
You’re not even arguing for any particular view, just complaining that some extreme caricatures of opposing views do, or have ever existed by presenting them as the universal default. It’s just nonsense. There’s nothing to get any intellectual traction on here.
Do ‘we’ as a species think that centralisation do resources is more intelligent than ‘natural’ distribution, really? Do ‘we’ really think that personal survival is more intelligent than self sacrifice? Are alternative view and philosophies of life really not found in human society? You seem to have no problem articulating them.
You’re not even arguing for any particular view, just complaining that some extreme caricatures of opposing views do, or have ever existed by presenting them as the universal default. It’s just nonsense. There’s nothing to get any intellectual traction on here.
I don't think anyone thinks collective self-sacrifice necessarily unintelligent. But in the context of human psyche and society, seriously advocating for such a thing could only occur if the people making the decisions did not know if they were committing themselves to self sacrifice or not. It's oh so easy to send a million soldiers to the front when the one making the decision knows they need not bear the risk of that decision.
> We have set an impossible bar for animal and AI intelligence not on objective ontological premises
I'm not saying you're not wrong, but also what is an objective ontological premise with respect to intelligence. We've really been unable to define intelligence for thousands of years and I'm willing to claim that this definition is more complex than that of life.
I'm not saying you're not wrong, but also what is an objective ontological premise with respect to intelligence. We've really been unable to define intelligence for thousands of years and I'm willing to claim that this definition is more complex than that of life.
That's his point we've been unable to define it as any prospective definition is disputed. We keep raising the bar to ensure human primacy in it's measurement, obviously it's the case that many of these measures were not factoring in something important, intelligence is on a gradient line (as said by rf15) but many humans are not comfortable without humans sitting on the top of the gradient without a wide chasm between us humans and whatever else.
The relevant peer-reviewed preprint, from eLife [0]. It is worth reading the peer reviews (spoiler: they're brutal) [1].
[0]: https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/89106 [1]: https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/89106/reviews#t...
[0]: https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/89106 [1]: https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/89106/reviews#t...
> An analysis also needs to start by testing a null hypothesis, not deciding on the conclusion and setting out to "prove" it.
> I do not think that in its present form, the evidence presented in this study is as robust as it should be.
> the manuscript in its current condition is deemed incomplete and inadequate, and should not be viewed as finalized scholarship.
I mean they sound polite, but if you strip back the polite language and understatements they're pretty much calling the authors quacks.
> I do not think that in its present form, the evidence presented in this study is as robust as it should be.
> the manuscript in its current condition is deemed incomplete and inadequate, and should not be viewed as finalized scholarship.
I mean they sound polite, but if you strip back the polite language and understatements they're pretty much calling the authors quacks.
Which is fair. Scratch marks around the cave were said to be attempts at art. The fact that the bones were in a cave made them conclude that they were "burying" their dead rather than the more plausible conclusion that they died in the cave as a result of some water or gas flooding.
The original paper is just garbage
The original paper is just garbage
Kudos to eLife for pioneering publishing peer review along with paper.
Appreciate the note to check peer reviews, it certainly does cast these findings in a new light.
Tried reading the paper and it was surprisingly hard to understand, probably because I don't know anything about the field. That said, I think the critiques make sense. Still, both the peer review and the response in the articles seem so extreme, I wonder if there is something else going on here. Is there some political or ideological divide in this field?
Is this article journalistic dramatization or do we have actual PIs in a field saying nonsense like "be careful what you wish for?" Was that taken out of context somehow? Maybe it's just the difference between physics and this field, but I'd never dare to respond to "your evidence is insufficient, and there seem to be problems with your methodology" with a statement like, "oh yeah? I'll show you evidence, be careful what you wish for." As if the ask is somehow unreasonable or unprecendented.
I agree, it does seem like an arrogant response. The kind that comes from one who drinks the kool-aid.
Possibly they have more evidence and findings to be published?
Possibly they have more evidence and findings to be published?
"Be careful what you wish for" is a bizarre response.
The reviewers asked for more evidence. The authors say they will provide more evidence. Great, that's exactly what the reviewers want. "Be careful what you wish for" implies that getting more evidence would somehow be a bad thing.
The reviewers asked for more evidence. The authors say they will provide more evidence. Great, that's exactly what the reviewers want. "Be careful what you wish for" implies that getting more evidence would somehow be a bad thing.
When I read that he said that and that he had a Netflix show about this my spidey senses were raised.
It’s also very childish. As if not talking about something would make it not happening.
Why is it so hard to believe that early humans possess these qualities? After all, nonhuman animals like elephants possess many of the qualities we assume to be unique to human spirituality, like making long journeys to remember and mourn their dead even years after the fact. Or anyone who has witnessed the astounding behavior that dogs are capable of would certainly consider them intelligent in many of the same ways. So why can’t a primitive human also demonstrate these qualities?
> Why is it so hard to believe that early humans possess these qualities?
I's not. I don't think any of the involved scientists reject the idea right away. But that is besides the point. The point is to try and prove it in a scientific process so that we can know it, not merely believe.
I's not. I don't think any of the involved scientists reject the idea right away. But that is besides the point. The point is to try and prove it in a scientific process so that we can know it, not merely believe.
The problem I see with this is that although not assuming something until you have strong evidence to 'prove' it is good policy for scientists, it's often not good policy for people in the general case.
A scientist may struggle to rigorously define nebulous concepts like 'love' in an empirical manner, and will particularly resist applying such terms to the behavior of non-human animals. They call doing so anthropomorphism, and rail against it. It's not scientific to assume dogs have human emotions, so they need to be careful about incorporating such assumptions into their scientific work. But then you get laymen picking up on this and saying things like "love is a human emotion and dogs aren't human. what seems to be love to you is merely food-seeking behavior." But this is not the appropriate way for dog owners to think about their dogs. In everyday contexts, people should be making these sort of intuitive assumptions about the way other people and animals feel, even though they aren't necessarily scientific beliefs.
A scientist may struggle to rigorously define nebulous concepts like 'love' in an empirical manner, and will particularly resist applying such terms to the behavior of non-human animals. They call doing so anthropomorphism, and rail against it. It's not scientific to assume dogs have human emotions, so they need to be careful about incorporating such assumptions into their scientific work. But then you get laymen picking up on this and saying things like "love is a human emotion and dogs aren't human. what seems to be love to you is merely food-seeking behavior." But this is not the appropriate way for dog owners to think about their dogs. In everyday contexts, people should be making these sort of intuitive assumptions about the way other people and animals feel, even though they aren't necessarily scientific beliefs.
I don't quite agree. In fact I'd argue what would be good policy for more people would be more of a scientific, skeptical, realistic mindset and definitely not less.
And the argument that goes like 'a scientist cannot use emotions (or whatever) because it cannot be scientifically explained' makes no sense. Could be that one key part you're missing is: when a scientist cannot easily prove something that doesn't make it non-existing nor unusable, but a scientist doesn't have to turn to belief for that: a scientist can simply admit to not knowing and not caring how something works yet use it, likewise scientists are allowed to make assumptions. It's just that they'll always realize it's an assumption.
I'm for instance very well aware that my pets seem to love me and I know that me providing them food plays a big role in that and that it's likely (likeley, because assuming certain animals have no emotions would be equally wrong plus by now proven false already IIRC) very different kind of love than the one between humans. I fail to see how that is in any way not appropriate though. Despite realizing that the enjoyment of interaction between me and my pets is based on certain hormones being released in my body when I'm around them, my pets give me great joy, I do a lot for them, and I'm grieving for days if not weeks if one of them passes away.
And the argument that goes like 'a scientist cannot use emotions (or whatever) because it cannot be scientifically explained' makes no sense. Could be that one key part you're missing is: when a scientist cannot easily prove something that doesn't make it non-existing nor unusable, but a scientist doesn't have to turn to belief for that: a scientist can simply admit to not knowing and not caring how something works yet use it, likewise scientists are allowed to make assumptions. It's just that they'll always realize it's an assumption.
I'm for instance very well aware that my pets seem to love me and I know that me providing them food plays a big role in that and that it's likely (likeley, because assuming certain animals have no emotions would be equally wrong plus by now proven false already IIRC) very different kind of love than the one between humans. I fail to see how that is in any way not appropriate though. Despite realizing that the enjoyment of interaction between me and my pets is based on certain hormones being released in my body when I'm around them, my pets give me great joy, I do a lot for them, and I'm grieving for days if not weeks if one of them passes away.
What applies to dogs also applies to other humans. Do you go around 'not knowing' whether other people might be p-zombies, or do you normally operate under the assumption that other people have subjective qualia comparable to your own? Probably the latter. Little leaps of faith like these are necessary to avoid the tarpit of solipsism. And as for your dog, wondering if your dog really loves you or if he's just a piece of meat mimicking the appearance of love to get food is not a recipe for a healthy relationship with your dog.
Avoiding the anthropomorphism of animals is important when you're actively researching animals. But otherwise, leave that attitude in the lab.
Avoiding the anthropomorphism of animals is important when you're actively researching animals. But otherwise, leave that attitude in the lab.
do you normally operate under the assumption that other people have subjective qualia comparable to your own? Probably the latter.
Not sure why you bring that up, because that is not really an assumption, it's almost the definition of a species. And otherwise: yes. But again: realizing that it would be an assumption is healthy, imo.
But otherwise, leave that attitude in the lab.
Sorry, but hard no. It's not even an attitude, it's realism. Can you please try to understand that it's perfectly possible to realize what anthropomorphism is at all times, yet at the same time take great care of pets and have a typical pet-human relationship?
Not sure why you bring that up, because that is not really an assumption, it's almost the definition of a species. And otherwise: yes. But again: realizing that it would be an assumption is healthy, imo.
But otherwise, leave that attitude in the lab.
Sorry, but hard no. It's not even an attitude, it's realism. Can you please try to understand that it's perfectly possible to realize what anthropomorphism is at all times, yet at the same time take great care of pets and have a typical pet-human relationship?
My take on this is that the uproar is less about the conclusion and more about the way the conclusion was reached.
The evidence does indeed seem quite flimsy for such grand conclusions:
> It was unclear how their remains got deep into the cave system, however. There were no signs that predatorsbrought them into the chamber or that underground streams swept them there. So Berger’s team concluded that the bones had been deliberately placed
> It was unclear how their remains got deep into the cave system, however. There were no signs that predatorsbrought them into the chamber or that underground streams swept them there. So Berger’s team concluded that the bones had been deliberately placed
I watched the documentary on Netflix the narrow passageway that the bodies were found require climbing up an incline before reaching the chute. Also one of the children had a tool placed in it's hand. The idea that small brains can not be intelligent is wrong, how the brain is connected and shaped determines intelligence to a higher degree. Neanderthals had larger brain masses than modern humans but were less intelligent. And look at Bird brains have more than twice the neurons per unit mass as mammals making parrots/crows have the same number of neurons of as primates despite being much smaller and highly concentrated in the forebrain which is why they are able to make compound tools despite not having hands and more complex communication and social structures.
Right!
> Or anyone who has witnessed the astounding behavior that dogs are capable of would certainly consider them intelligent in many of the same ways
Interestingly enough, even in the 60's people thought humans were the only animals with intelligence and emotions. Here's an excerpt from Jane Goodall's PIMA interview[0]
> GOODALL: Yes. And when these Cambridge professors told me that only humans had personalities, minds, and emotions, I knew they were totally wrong because I had this great teacher when I was a child. That was my dog, Rusty. You can’t share your life in a meaningful way with a dog, a cat, a rabbit, a horse, a bird, and not know that we are not the only beings on this planet who are sentient and sapient.
Later...
> GOODALL: When I started in 1960, nobody had studied chimps in the wild. No scientist, that is. If, at that time you had gone into some of the indigenous people living deep in the rainforest, they would’ve told you chimpanzees used to make tools. They knew it. But, of course, now we are back on the scientific bandwagon. ... But there’s a wonderful book written by a psychologist, called The Mentality of Apes, Wolfgang Köhler, and he studied this colony of captive apes, and he described so many innovative uses of objects. But at that time, the scientific community said, “Oh, well, these were chimpanzees in captivity. Therefore, our human characteristics had rubbed off onto them. It’s nothing to do with what they, as wild individuals, would be capable of.” ...
Even now there are a lot of people who believe that there is a certain magic when discussing brains. Quite a lot of people think it would be impossible to build one, theoretically. I'll say it loud and clear, unless there's magic, there's no reason we can't -- theoretically -- build a brain. It must follow the same principles of physics that the rest of the universe does. I'll also say that a fuck ton of life is intelligent, even my idiot cat. Just look at how they dream, you can tell that tiny dumb brain can simulate its environment (or else they wouldn't try to eat, run in their sleep, or wake up to nightmares). I know AI can do a lot of things right now, but boy is it not close to this incredible thing that the smallest and stupidest mammal is doing with magnitudes lower computational budget. It really is quite impressive. But this is also why AI research should be so interesting, because there's still so much left that we haven't even scratched the surface of. It is possible to be highly critical in one hand and hold curiosity in the other. The details are important though and we must not be tricked by statistics. But the area we're moving into now is going to get murky really fast and I'd warn anyone from trusting metrics as a way to measure performance more than a guide, because there's a lot we don't know. But that's the fun of it all, the puzzle, the draw to research in the first place.
[0] https://freakonomics.com/podcast/jane-goodall-changed-the-wa...
Interestingly enough, even in the 60's people thought humans were the only animals with intelligence and emotions. Here's an excerpt from Jane Goodall's PIMA interview[0]
> GOODALL: Yes. And when these Cambridge professors told me that only humans had personalities, minds, and emotions, I knew they were totally wrong because I had this great teacher when I was a child. That was my dog, Rusty. You can’t share your life in a meaningful way with a dog, a cat, a rabbit, a horse, a bird, and not know that we are not the only beings on this planet who are sentient and sapient.
Later...
> GOODALL: When I started in 1960, nobody had studied chimps in the wild. No scientist, that is. If, at that time you had gone into some of the indigenous people living deep in the rainforest, they would’ve told you chimpanzees used to make tools. They knew it. But, of course, now we are back on the scientific bandwagon. ... But there’s a wonderful book written by a psychologist, called The Mentality of Apes, Wolfgang Köhler, and he studied this colony of captive apes, and he described so many innovative uses of objects. But at that time, the scientific community said, “Oh, well, these were chimpanzees in captivity. Therefore, our human characteristics had rubbed off onto them. It’s nothing to do with what they, as wild individuals, would be capable of.” ...
Even now there are a lot of people who believe that there is a certain magic when discussing brains. Quite a lot of people think it would be impossible to build one, theoretically. I'll say it loud and clear, unless there's magic, there's no reason we can't -- theoretically -- build a brain. It must follow the same principles of physics that the rest of the universe does. I'll also say that a fuck ton of life is intelligent, even my idiot cat. Just look at how they dream, you can tell that tiny dumb brain can simulate its environment (or else they wouldn't try to eat, run in their sleep, or wake up to nightmares). I know AI can do a lot of things right now, but boy is it not close to this incredible thing that the smallest and stupidest mammal is doing with magnitudes lower computational budget. It really is quite impressive. But this is also why AI research should be so interesting, because there's still so much left that we haven't even scratched the surface of. It is possible to be highly critical in one hand and hold curiosity in the other. The details are important though and we must not be tricked by statistics. But the area we're moving into now is going to get murky really fast and I'd warn anyone from trusting metrics as a way to measure performance more than a guide, because there's a lot we don't know. But that's the fun of it all, the puzzle, the draw to research in the first place.
[0] https://freakonomics.com/podcast/jane-goodall-changed-the-wa...
Dogs are clearly intelligent but as with people some are incredibly stupid and some are pure geniuses. Same applies for cats. Different cognitive abilities, different characters, different personalities.
[deleted]
> I'll say it loud and clear, unless there's magic, there's no reason we can't -- theoretically -- build a brain.
I don't believe there is magic, but I do believe that the amount we do not know about the brain dwarfs by a magnificent margin that which we think we know. I'd be surprised if our understanding of the brain is even at 0.0001% of what it is actually doing.
I don't believe there is magic, but I do believe that the amount we do not know about the brain dwarfs by a magnificent margin that which we think we know. I'd be surprised if our understanding of the brain is even at 0.0001% of what it is actually doing.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think we're close to building a human like brain. There's a reason I stressed the word "theoretically".
Exactly, also 3year olds are capable of language.
How do you prove that something that lived 300.000 years ago could communicate?
How do you prove that something that lived 300.000 years ago could communicate?
Proof is tough, but there are approaches to reasoning about it. One is statistical models of phoneme development which indicates that languages in Africa started diversifying up to about 150,000 years ago.
However I think it seems likely that our cognitive ability to reason about linguistic structures is an adaptation of our ability to reason about making and using tools. Tools leave physical evidence, so if we can figure out an evolutionary relationship with language development we might make traction that way.
However I think it seems likely that our cognitive ability to reason about linguistic structures is an adaptation of our ability to reason about making and using tools. Tools leave physical evidence, so if we can figure out an evolutionary relationship with language development we might make traction that way.
With difficulty, but that's not really relevant to the issue here is it? Nobody is arguing that early humans couldn't have communicated.
> The Rising Cave research is not just the work of one or two scientists but is backed by dozens of researchers. “Their scientific opinions should not be outweighed by two or three or four reviewers. That is not the way it works,” Berger said.
Actually yes it is the way it works. If a single person has a worthy conflicting opinion or evidence or skepticism it very well can bring the whole thing down.
Science is not a democratic exercise. It’s the search for truth and any claim to truth that can’t stand up to scrutiny isn’t worth a dime even if 99% of scientists want it to be true.
Actually yes it is the way it works. If a single person has a worthy conflicting opinion or evidence or skepticism it very well can bring the whole thing down.
Science is not a democratic exercise. It’s the search for truth and any claim to truth that can’t stand up to scrutiny isn’t worth a dime even if 99% of scientists want it to be true.
I think parrots, crows and Octopus have demonstrated a small brain can still create and execute intelligent ideas. YMMV
A blue whale's brain weighs in at around 15lbs. Mine is roughly 3.3lbs. I suspect size isn't everything. You are unlikely to receive a response from a blue whale. Can you imagine trying to type on a keyboard with
As you say, corvids, octopi and others have recently been interacted with in such a way as to be shown to demonstrate unexpectedly complex behaviour. Brain size doesn't seem to be quite as important as you might think.
Note my brain is about a fifth the size of a blue whale's brain. Now I am absolutely useless at living within the sea and I have no idea how complicated it is but I suspect that based on our relative brain size, that it can be very complicated compared to what we land lubbers get up to. Evolution doesn't leave rubbish lying around unless it does not impair things.
As you say, corvids, octopi and others have recently been interacted with in such a way as to be shown to demonstrate unexpectedly complex behaviour. Brain size doesn't seem to be quite as important as you might think.
Note my brain is about a fifth the size of a blue whale's brain. Now I am absolutely useless at living within the sea and I have no idea how complicated it is but I suspect that based on our relative brain size, that it can be very complicated compared to what we land lubbers get up to. Evolution doesn't leave rubbish lying around unless it does not impair things.
I think most of the brain manages the physical body. This is why it's size is roughly proportional to the body weight.
I don'y know how much of the brain is used for "thinking", and I suspect science doesn't either.
I don'y know how much of the brain is used for "thinking", and I suspect science doesn't either.
I don't think it's quite that bad. I don't have my copy of Richard Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale handy, but I remember it discusses research into the relationship between brain size and body size. The two key findings that I remember are:
(1) The scaling law. One might think brain size should scale as body size, if the key is simply weight, or number of neurons; or one might think brain size should scale as the 2/3 power of body size, if one takes into account the square-cube law. The research Dawkins describes found that the actual scaling was in between the two: brain size generally scales as the 3/4 power of body size.
(2) Differences between groupings of animals. This basically affects the constant that multiplies (body size to the 3/4 power) in the equation for expected brain size. IIRC primates have the largest constant, cetaceans have the second largest, but octopuses and squids also have a fairly high constant. I don't remember seeing any data on corvids.
(1) The scaling law. One might think brain size should scale as body size, if the key is simply weight, or number of neurons; or one might think brain size should scale as the 2/3 power of body size, if one takes into account the square-cube law. The research Dawkins describes found that the actual scaling was in between the two: brain size generally scales as the 3/4 power of body size.
(2) Differences between groupings of animals. This basically affects the constant that multiplies (body size to the 3/4 power) in the equation for expected brain size. IIRC primates have the largest constant, cetaceans have the second largest, but octopuses and squids also have a fairly high constant. I don't remember seeing any data on corvids.
This kind of scaling applies well beyond brain. I recommend checking out the book Scale by Geoffrey West[1] for more examples.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31670196-scale
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31670196-scale
Adding a drive-by comment about those stories you read where a person has had a significant X% of their brain removed due to illness, and they still function normally.
All is not what it seems.
All is not what it seems.
I suspect what makes humans special is our combination of intelligence and communication. Society is kind of like a superorganism, we get to learn from the sum of all human knowledge.
Most of the things I know came from other humans who died long before I was born. I get to benefit from all their brainpower indirectly. I'd be much dumber on my own.
Most of the things I know came from other humans who died long before I was born. I get to benefit from all their brainpower indirectly. I'd be much dumber on my own.
Humans are certainly the absolute kings of tool usage. Examples in the animal world that we find impressive are things that even a human infant will trivialize in short order. And if you think about it in this context, communication itself is really just another tool. It's taking something that's not particularly useful, the ability to make the same sounding grunt repeatedly, and turning it into something useful.
Any animal that can move its body in a consistent way, make the same noise repeatedly, or do any other sort of repeated 'thing' has the ability to create an arbitrarily complex language. But they lack something enabling them to do that, and it seems whatever this something is - it probably wouldn't be terribly far from the same thing that enables meaningful, complex, and intricate tool creation.
Any animal that can move its body in a consistent way, make the same noise repeatedly, or do any other sort of repeated 'thing' has the ability to create an arbitrarily complex language. But they lack something enabling them to do that, and it seems whatever this something is - it probably wouldn't be terribly far from the same thing that enables meaningful, complex, and intricate tool creation.
Right, but how many of these tools could you have invented (or even learned to use) by yourself, with no prior knowledge about tools to guide you? Even "primitive" tools like wooden bows and stone arrowheads are the result of generations of accumulated knowledge.
You are as smart as you are because other humans taught you.
You are as smart as you are because other humans taught you.
More than generations. The hand axe, a sharpened rock with no handle, was the apex of human technology for over one hundred thousand years. Even fire took tens of thousands of years to become a widespread tool.
> More than generations. The hand axe, a sharpened rock with no handle, was the apex of human technology for over one hundred thousand years. Even fire took tens of thousands of years to become a widespread tool.
With `s/humans/homo sapiens/g` in the above paragraph, I believe that H sapiens was around for approx 300k - 400k years, and thrived in a variety of environments that would have killed them off if they did not have fire or sharpened rocks (skin animals for rudimentary clothing).
This suggests, to me anyway, that your estimates might be erring on the side of caution.
[WARNING: pure speculation ahead]
Earliest H. sapiens remains in Africa date to approx 300k years ago. Around 150k years ago the climate was cold, dry and harsh (https://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercAFRICA.html).
If H. sapiens did not enter that climate already prepared, with generational knowledge of fire and sharp tools, they would have died out.
This makes me think that they had already had widespread use of fire and sharp tools, plus sophisticated enough communications to pass this knowledge down for multiple generations prior to the climate change.
With `s/humans/homo sapiens/g` in the above paragraph, I believe that H sapiens was around for approx 300k - 400k years, and thrived in a variety of environments that would have killed them off if they did not have fire or sharpened rocks (skin animals for rudimentary clothing).
This suggests, to me anyway, that your estimates might be erring on the side of caution.
[WARNING: pure speculation ahead]
Earliest H. sapiens remains in Africa date to approx 300k years ago. Around 150k years ago the climate was cold, dry and harsh (https://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercAFRICA.html).
If H. sapiens did not enter that climate already prepared, with generational knowledge of fire and sharp tools, they would have died out.
This makes me think that they had already had widespread use of fire and sharp tools, plus sophisticated enough communications to pass this knowledge down for multiple generations prior to the climate change.
Back in the day human populations very absolutely tiny, supposedly being reduced to 10-30k as late as 75k years ago.
I would expect opportunities for any meaningful innovation to be very limited at such low densities. Anything “invented” would likely stay within your group and be lost in a few generations. Then it would have to be rediscovered several times until it caught on amongst a larger population.
I would expect opportunities for any meaningful innovation to be very limited at such low densities. Anything “invented” would likely stay within your group and be lost in a few generations. Then it would have to be rediscovered several times until it caught on amongst a larger population.
Interestingly, even small and isolated human groups tend to have very rich oral culture. Why do people "innovate" their story-telling and songs so much faster than their tools?
Because one is a vector for storing information which mutates over time while still preserving.
Physical tools are more complicated, exist as discrete physical instances and knowledge depending upon skill to make it, component availability (needing flint for example), and mutation can occur seperately. Just because you used a partially burnt piece of wood to make a better spear doesn't mean you have the techniques for fire-hardening wooden weapons down.
Physical tools are more complicated, exist as discrete physical instances and knowledge depending upon skill to make it, component availability (needing flint for example), and mutation can occur seperately. Just because you used a partially burnt piece of wood to make a better spear doesn't mean you have the techniques for fire-hardening wooden weapons down.
Communication is still pretty special as a tool. Humans evolved specific hardware to support it. While humans have evolved hands for tool usage, that's way more generic...
Intelligence and communication and versatile hands.
If crows had hands at their disposal, they might have developed towards a civilized species earlier than us.
With advanced enough genetic engineering, we may yet see someone to actually try giving them hands. Not soon, certainly, but in 2050, who knows.
Edit: Look at this video.
https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/156yuj5/...
It took the guy longer to assemble the test than the raven to solve it. These are smart creatures, and they like to communicate and cooperate as well. With hands and somewhat more capable vocal chords, nothing would stop them from developing a civilization.
If crows had hands at their disposal, they might have developed towards a civilized species earlier than us.
With advanced enough genetic engineering, we may yet see someone to actually try giving them hands. Not soon, certainly, but in 2050, who knows.
Edit: Look at this video.
https://www.reddit.com/r/therewasanattempt/comments/156yuj5/...
It took the guy longer to assemble the test than the raven to solve it. These are smart creatures, and they like to communicate and cooperate as well. With hands and somewhat more capable vocal chords, nothing would stop them from developing a civilization.
I think there's a distinct possibility that orcas are more intelligent than us. They have culture and could have very sophisticated philosophies. But without thumbs and the ability to use fire underwater, they have no chance at developing technology.
Also the way octopi can adapt their camouflage and topography of octopi brains/nerve cells suggest their brains may not work like ours, and that Pitt, et al paper about frog vision https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4065609 strongly hints our first intuitive assumptions about how things work may not be correct.
Brain size correlates to cognitive ability quite well within a species. Outside of species, it gets much murkier on account of glial:neuron ratios among other confounds. As for whale brains, well who knows. Evolution isn't an optimizing force as you appear to believe, rather it is the tyranny of the merely adequate. The oceans are full of remarkably stupid creatures that haven't changed in hundreds of millions of years on account of having a lot of teeth and swimming well has proved sufficient.
And of course there's the interesting question of size efficiency. Vacuum tubes are considerably bigger than transistors, which in turn are considerably bigger than ICs. Perhaps raw size isn't really an interesting metric for cross-architectural brains either?
And of course there's the interesting question of size efficiency. Vacuum tubes are considerably bigger than transistors, which in turn are considerably bigger than ICs. Perhaps raw size isn't really an interesting metric for cross-architectural brains either?
> Brain size correlates to cognitive ability quite well within a species.
Not quite; it is much more nuanced and not settled - https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-do...
Not quite; it is much more nuanced and not settled - https://neuroscience.stanford.edu/news/ask-neuroscientist-do...
0.3-0.4 is a decent correlation, though obviously there are other bigger factors.
The very next para points to the problems associated with forming such a correlation;
To be honest, I find these correlation a bit unsettling. Clearly, there is more to intelligence than brain size, or classic geniuses like Albert Einstein, who had an average-sized brain, would have been out of luck! It is important think about how we should actually define intelligence, and to keep in mind that the studies cited above only show a correlation between brain size and a person’s score on an intelligence quotient test. Although IQ is historically the most widely used intelligence measure, by no means does it account for all aspects of human intelligence, nor is it an entirely consistent readout of cognitive ability between individuals. Furthermore, a closer look at the results of the gene-association study reveal that most of the relationship the authors found between HMGA2 gene variations and cranial size could be accounted for by the fact that the gene is also correlated with human height. Correlational studies have only established a weak to moderate linear relationship between brain size an intelligence, which is enough fuel to ensure that the brain size and intelligence hypothesis doesn’t burn out, but does little to explain the true basis of human cognitive capacity.
You might also want to look at the paper Decreases in Brain Size and Encephalization in Anatomically Modern Humans i have linked here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36833133
To be honest, I find these correlation a bit unsettling. Clearly, there is more to intelligence than brain size, or classic geniuses like Albert Einstein, who had an average-sized brain, would have been out of luck! It is important think about how we should actually define intelligence, and to keep in mind that the studies cited above only show a correlation between brain size and a person’s score on an intelligence quotient test. Although IQ is historically the most widely used intelligence measure, by no means does it account for all aspects of human intelligence, nor is it an entirely consistent readout of cognitive ability between individuals. Furthermore, a closer look at the results of the gene-association study reveal that most of the relationship the authors found between HMGA2 gene variations and cranial size could be accounted for by the fact that the gene is also correlated with human height. Correlational studies have only established a weak to moderate linear relationship between brain size an intelligence, which is enough fuel to ensure that the brain size and intelligence hypothesis doesn’t burn out, but does little to explain the true basis of human cognitive capacity.
You might also want to look at the paper Decreases in Brain Size and Encephalization in Anatomically Modern Humans i have linked here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36833133
The whole IQ is only one measure argument really misses the main lesson from psychometrics. It’s entirely well known that IQ test taking is a specific skill. However it’s also known that there is a g factor that predicts about 50% of performance on basically all tasks with a cognitive component. The other 50% is indeed skill specific. So someone with a slightly above average g factor could still be a world class composer or quarterback. Contrariwise someone with an extremely high g might be very good at many different tasks, but not world class at any. So when one talks about measuring intelligence in a general sense, one ought to be talking about g.
The entire field of Psychometrics is suspect and is a pseudoscience. It came into existence in the early days when ideas from Social Darwinism, Racism and Eugenics were mainstream in the Western world. People ascribed an importance factor to traits which they considered successful in their culture/society/environment and then started making universal and general inferences from it without regard to its validity. These were then codified as tests, published and propagated to the detriment of all.
Today we know better; Humans are highly adaptable and everything only exists in the context of a specific environmental/cultural/social context. Genetics vs. Epigenetics, Nature vs. Nurture, Nutrition, Economic strata etc. are all inputs when it comes to our "fitness" for a particular task. We play "roles" which are context-dependent from which you cannot generalize to the "whole person".
Psychometrics has been called a "Pathological Science" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
This article named The Myth of Measurement brings a bunch of research together to show why - https://paulenglert.com/the-myth-of-measurement/
Today we know better; Humans are highly adaptable and everything only exists in the context of a specific environmental/cultural/social context. Genetics vs. Epigenetics, Nature vs. Nurture, Nutrition, Economic strata etc. are all inputs when it comes to our "fitness" for a particular task. We play "roles" which are context-dependent from which you cannot generalize to the "whole person".
Psychometrics has been called a "Pathological Science" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
This article named The Myth of Measurement brings a bunch of research together to show why - https://paulenglert.com/the-myth-of-measurement/
If the field makes testable predictions that prove true then it cannot be a pseudo science.
And indeed, one can predict with accuracy better than chance how well someone will perform in a software developer job (for example) from an IQ test.
This same test may do less well in predicting the ability to hunt an antelope across the serengeti, but that still wouldn't make psychometrics pseudoscience.
Also, if there wasn't a g factor that would be fairly weird, as there are numerous little slightly deleterious mutations one could have that can minorly affect neuronal functioning. You'd genuinely expect there to be a decent correlation here.
And indeed, one can predict with accuracy better than chance how well someone will perform in a software developer job (for example) from an IQ test.
This same test may do less well in predicting the ability to hunt an antelope across the serengeti, but that still wouldn't make psychometrics pseudoscience.
Also, if there wasn't a g factor that would be fairly weird, as there are numerous little slightly deleterious mutations one could have that can minorly affect neuronal functioning. You'd genuinely expect there to be a decent correlation here.
When the characteristics that a test is supposed to measure are completely ill-defined (there is no concept of a "Measurable Intelligence" independent of a context, leaving aside biological retardation) they are a measure of nothing definitive and any correlations/predictions are subject to bias and/or randomness.
Here is Nassim Taleb;
1) IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle - https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...
2) Fooled by Correlation: Common Misinterpretations in Social "Science" - https://www.academia.edu/39797871/Common_Misapplications_and...
3) Correlation videos - https://nassimtaleb.org/tag/correlation/
See also :
a) The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2967209
b) Pseudoscience and Mental Ability: The Origins and Fallacies of the IQ Controversy. - https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED164662
Here is Nassim Taleb;
1) IQ is largely a pseudoscientific swindle - https://medium.com/incerto/iq-is-largely-a-pseudoscientific-...
2) Fooled by Correlation: Common Misinterpretations in Social "Science" - https://www.academia.edu/39797871/Common_Misapplications_and...
3) Correlation videos - https://nassimtaleb.org/tag/correlation/
See also :
a) The Pseudoscience of Psychometry and The Bell Curve - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2967209
b) Pseudoscience and Mental Ability: The Origins and Fallacies of the IQ Controversy. - https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED164662
You don't need an exact definition in order to be able to measure something approximately.
In fact, one could taboo the word "intelligence" entirely and merely say "that thing we observe where people who do better at these tests seem to also do better at these jobs and are more likely to win board games[1].". While the tails do come apart eventually, the correlation is observable up to at least 130 (there was a strong correlation at my previous work place between those who did well at board games and those who got a lot of good technical work done, these people also tended to have +2sd test scores compared to the +1sd average).
Btw: I've read Taleb's charged essay before and found it rather unconvincing. Very much "given these particular papers it's possible high IQ scores correlate with nothing other than high test scores".
[1] I'm not just basing this off my own observations, good chess players seem to have 130 level IQs: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...
In fact, one could taboo the word "intelligence" entirely and merely say "that thing we observe where people who do better at these tests seem to also do better at these jobs and are more likely to win board games[1].". While the tails do come apart eventually, the correlation is observable up to at least 130 (there was a strong correlation at my previous work place between those who did well at board games and those who got a lot of good technical work done, these people also tended to have +2sd test scores compared to the +1sd average).
Btw: I've read Taleb's charged essay before and found it rather unconvincing. Very much "given these particular papers it's possible high IQ scores correlate with nothing other than high test scores".
[1] I'm not just basing this off my own observations, good chess players seem to have 130 level IQs: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01602...
Out of curiosity are you espousing that differences in intelligence don't actually exist, or just that we need to come up with better ways to measure them?
I wonder how many Fields medalists score one or two standard deviations below average on the Stanford-Binet. If the measure is meaningless then roughly half should, right?
Also while I certainly respect Mr. Taleb's insights and the mass market appeal of his punchy authorial persona, based on various writings of his I conclude that he views intelligence very narrowly in the "good at trading options" sense, which coincidentally is an area where he has demonstrated ability. Funny that. And to be fair in my own trading I benefitted quite a bit from his maxim that the first goal is survival.
I'd bet that Fat Tony would probably score well above average on an IQ test too, he just wouldn't be caught dead taking one. And I don't blame him; the kind of people who mistake aptitude for achievement are generally insufferable.
I wonder how many Fields medalists score one or two standard deviations below average on the Stanford-Binet. If the measure is meaningless then roughly half should, right?
Also while I certainly respect Mr. Taleb's insights and the mass market appeal of his punchy authorial persona, based on various writings of his I conclude that he views intelligence very narrowly in the "good at trading options" sense, which coincidentally is an area where he has demonstrated ability. Funny that. And to be fair in my own trading I benefitted quite a bit from his maxim that the first goal is survival.
I'd bet that Fat Tony would probably score well above average on an IQ test too, he just wouldn't be caught dead taking one. And I don't blame him; the kind of people who mistake aptitude for achievement are generally insufferable.
> Out of curiosity are you espousing that differences in intelligence don't actually exist, or just that we need to come up with better ways to measure them?
Yes and No to both.
Simply put;
1) There is nothing called "General Intelligence" beyond what enables a Human to survive in his/her environmental niche (including cultural/social since we are social animals). Leaving aside obvious biological retardation, if Extraversion/Introversion, Agreeableness/Disagreeableness, etc. enables one to survive, they are equally "Intelligent". Trying to rank these attributes on a ordinal scale and do quantitative calculations on them is nonsense. See Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man) for convincing arguments.
2) Humans are highly adaptable and exhibit dynamic behaviour in different contexts. This "role" and hence the "exhibited intelligence" is specific to that context but if that adaptation subsumes the need for another related context then obviously one will be intelligent in both the contexts. For example London Taxi drivers actually grew their hippocampus and became more intelligent in both spatial navigation and memory recall - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memor...
3) We know that gene expression can be influenced by the environment via Epigenetics over generations (see the documentary The Ghost in your Genes). Environment (cultural/social/nutritional/economic) now becomes of paramount importance and thus a person's "fitness" for a role is dependent on Nature, Nurture and his unique Family Past history. He will now be intelligent in certain roles not so in others.
4) Wrong understanding and misuse of Statistical methods in the above scenarios. This is where Taleb's writing/videos help one to separate the wheat from the chaff.
- Notes on Taleb's article - https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Taleb:_IQ_is_a_pseudoscientific_...
- IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence - https://supermemo.guru/wiki/IQ_is_a_dismal_measure_of_intell...
Yes and No to both.
Simply put;
1) There is nothing called "General Intelligence" beyond what enables a Human to survive in his/her environmental niche (including cultural/social since we are social animals). Leaving aside obvious biological retardation, if Extraversion/Introversion, Agreeableness/Disagreeableness, etc. enables one to survive, they are equally "Intelligent". Trying to rank these attributes on a ordinal scale and do quantitative calculations on them is nonsense. See Stephen Jay Gould's The Mismeasure of Man (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Man) for convincing arguments.
2) Humans are highly adaptable and exhibit dynamic behaviour in different contexts. This "role" and hence the "exhibited intelligence" is specific to that context but if that adaptation subsumes the need for another related context then obviously one will be intelligent in both the contexts. For example London Taxi drivers actually grew their hippocampus and became more intelligent in both spatial navigation and memory recall - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/london-taxi-memor...
3) We know that gene expression can be influenced by the environment via Epigenetics over generations (see the documentary The Ghost in your Genes). Environment (cultural/social/nutritional/economic) now becomes of paramount importance and thus a person's "fitness" for a role is dependent on Nature, Nurture and his unique Family Past history. He will now be intelligent in certain roles not so in others.
4) Wrong understanding and misuse of Statistical methods in the above scenarios. This is where Taleb's writing/videos help one to separate the wheat from the chaff.
- Notes on Taleb's article - https://supermemo.guru/wiki/Taleb:_IQ_is_a_pseudoscientific_...
- IQ is a dismal measure of intelligence - https://supermemo.guru/wiki/IQ_is_a_dismal_measure_of_intell...
Odd then that intelligence psychometrics is far less affected by the replication crisis than the other social sciences. The person that invents a useful intelligence test that doesn't display any politically inconvenient bias is going to make a whole lot of money.
On the importance or supposed profundity of the g factor, here's Cosma Shalizi:
http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html
(If you like, skip to "Correlations explain g, not the other way around").
http://bactra.org/weblog/523.html
(If you like, skip to "Correlations explain g, not the other way around").
Interesting read. I’m not inclined to critique it much beyond observing that the author clearly set out with an objective in mind and argued well to that end. My brief response is that the fact that we can find similar patterns in noise doesn’t actually show that the discovery of patterns indicates the data is noise.
And of course intelligence is a real and observable thing. Some people really are considerably smarter than others. They have better recall, learn faster, and are able to reach correct conclusions either more quickly or with less information than less intelligent persons. Reducing that difference to a single factor almost certainly is a simplification, but just as we can usefully talk about height without getting caught up on difference in leg, torso, and neck length, we can talk about intelligence similarly.
And of course intelligence is a real and observable thing. Some people really are considerably smarter than others. They have better recall, learn faster, and are able to reach correct conclusions either more quickly or with less information than less intelligent persons. Reducing that difference to a single factor almost certainly is a simplification, but just as we can usefully talk about height without getting caught up on difference in leg, torso, and neck length, we can talk about intelligence similarly.
The article addresses this: for instance, if you were to create a "sound mind and body" score that included "hot or not" results, and the results of the Presidential fitness test, you would inevitably come up with a score that was even more predictive of life outcomes than IQ or g.
Physical attractiveness correlates with many good things like fertility and genetic health. Not to mention beautiful people benefit from the halo effect. The causality there though is likely that the relative superiority of attractive persons causes the halo effect to exist. There’s a pretty obvious set of mechanisms that offer causal reasons why attractiveness leads to better outcomes.
As for the presidential fitness exam, well that’s true but quite facile. Much like how people who have taken the Wonderlic test are considerably more likely than the general populace to be or have been in the NFL.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if taking aptitude tests at all regardless of score predicts above average outcomes because of a selection effect.
As for the presidential fitness exam, well that’s true but quite facile. Much like how people who have taken the Wonderlic test are considerably more likely than the general populace to be or have been in the NFL.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if taking aptitude tests at all regardless of score predicts above average outcomes because of a selection effect.
The point is that you can drag a lot of unrelated things together and get an increasingly predictive metric, despite the underlying factors being unrelated, which simply means that "being predictive" is not by itself dispositive of some underlying mechanism. It doesn't mean prediction isn't real! The problem is people going from "prediction" to "inferred ground truth" --- which is exactly what happens in the "g" discussions.
I'd say that "intelligent or not" isn't a binary threshold. Every form of life shows varying amounts of intelligence - even slime molds can solve mazes.
I think the whole discussion around intelligence suffers from a lack of clear definitions. And people often tie it to other ideas like consciousness or moral personhood, which only muddies the water further.
I think the whole discussion around intelligence suffers from a lack of clear definitions. And people often tie it to other ideas like consciousness or moral personhood, which only muddies the water further.
To be fair, I've seen large brained mammals exhibit (homo walmartus) completely inane and stupid behavior.
I have a feeling many others here have also witnessed those actions in their natural environment.
I have a feeling many others here have also witnessed those actions in their natural environment.
It honestly astonishes me that some people still think "more brain = more smart" or a similar reductionist belief. It's so Victorian - like believing human flight will happen by furtively flapping ones arms connected to giant canvas wings.
But they are right, and you are wrong. Brain volume is positively correlated with intelligence in humans. In other species, larger brains as a proportion of body size is a sign of selection pressure for intelligence, in ways beyond just size.
By intelligence you are probably talking about IQ, and the studies you are talking about probably didn't normalize for things like childhood nutrition availability or economic class background - which lead to both poorer test performance AND smaller sizes and thus smaller brains.
You could use any correlated metric then and make the same claim - people with more expensive shoes performed better - or bigger feet.
Demonstrating that people who grew up impoverished performed poorer than people who grew up wealthy, by using the proxy of the mass of their heads, isn't very convincing.
You could use any correlated metric then and make the same claim - people with more expensive shoes performed better - or bigger feet.
Demonstrating that people who grew up impoverished performed poorer than people who grew up wealthy, by using the proxy of the mass of their heads, isn't very convincing.
So you're pretending there's a problem with the research instead of there actually being problems.
Have fun playing make believe.
Have fun playing make believe.
No. You're pretending that 100 year old research from racist eugenicists is valid science.
Nutrition correlation? Yes. Access to education? Yes. Low stress from high income and fewer cognitive loads? Yes. These all lead to taller adults that then have "bigger brains" ... and that's it - that's why it's only detectable at all (and that's questionable depending on the metric), at very large population sizes, if any.
It's not like people who win the Nobel Prize and Fields Medals are 8 feet tall giants. We also don't see someone that's say 5'0" and 90 lbs and think "they can't possibly have anything intelligent to say! Look at their stature!"
Nutrition correlation? Yes. Access to education? Yes. Low stress from high income and fewer cognitive loads? Yes. These all lead to taller adults that then have "bigger brains" ... and that's it - that's why it's only detectable at all (and that's questionable depending on the metric), at very large population sizes, if any.
It's not like people who win the Nobel Prize and Fields Medals are 8 feet tall giants. We also don't see someone that's say 5'0" and 90 lbs and think "they can't possibly have anything intelligent to say! Look at their stature!"
There is recent research into intra-race correlations.
You need to stop lying. First to yourself. Try having a factual basis for the words that you write.
You need to stop lying. First to yourself. Try having a factual basis for the words that you write.
I knew the scepter of "race science" would come up from one of the "big brains = smart" people. Cool. Let's end this now. I'm done responding.
Thinking that “intra-race” – a sociological concept – is a meaningful concept in biology, is a brown M&M. It suggests the research probably isn't any good.
Sure, in places like the US, or Apartheid-era South Africa, “race” might have enough of an impact on people's lives that controlling for it is a quick and easy way to clean up your data. But absent social factors, by itself, there's no reason to believe that it's something you need to control for; and if you have access to that information, there are always more direct factors you can control for.
Sure, in places like the US, or Apartheid-era South Africa, “race” might have enough of an impact on people's lives that controlling for it is a quick and easy way to clean up your data. But absent social factors, by itself, there's no reason to believe that it's something you need to control for; and if you have access to that information, there are always more direct factors you can control for.
The concept of "race" is social, and not used in science. The vast majority of biologists will laugh you out of the room if you start blabbering about "race".
To go from genes varying the amount of melanin in your skin to then divide humans into "races" is crazy. I've worked all over the world through all of my long career, with people from all over, and if there's one thing I have learned it's that people are people, everywhere, you find all kinds of personalities, but the thing is - it doesn't matter if you're looking in your neighbourhood street or somewhere on the other side of the globe.
To go from genes varying the amount of melanin in your skin to then divide humans into "races" is crazy. I've worked all over the world through all of my long career, with people from all over, and if there's one thing I have learned it's that people are people, everywhere, you find all kinds of personalities, but the thing is - it doesn't matter if you're looking in your neighbourhood street or somewhere on the other side of the globe.
I understand what the poster is trying to suggest but it's still not normalizing the right things.
Children with "bigger brains" perform better because they've matured faster and have better executive control than their peers.
That's why you can strongly correlate childhood academic performance on birth month. The ones that do better don't have "larger" brains as adults.
If you take people with equal economic opportunities and the same social advantages, you cannot stratify that population based on brain mass and correlate it with anything meaningful.
Besides, if this was true then, say the staff at MIT would be NBA sized giants working their big brains and little persons would all have severe cognitive impairments. None of this is the case.
Even on strict IQ, which is what these people like to use, it still doesn't work. The highest IQ scorers are normal sized, normal shaped people. They aren't walking around with giant deformed skulls
The logical implications of the hypothesis simply don't exist and every study I've seen that tries to demonstrate it gets criticized as actually just showing a proxy measurement for things like nutrition, age, economic status, etc
It's also why the phenomena only appears in large population studies. Taller people, on average, grew up with more advantages and access to resources which is why they're taller. As a population, they will do better then their disadvantaged peers. Duh.
Children with "bigger brains" perform better because they've matured faster and have better executive control than their peers.
That's why you can strongly correlate childhood academic performance on birth month. The ones that do better don't have "larger" brains as adults.
If you take people with equal economic opportunities and the same social advantages, you cannot stratify that population based on brain mass and correlate it with anything meaningful.
Besides, if this was true then, say the staff at MIT would be NBA sized giants working their big brains and little persons would all have severe cognitive impairments. None of this is the case.
Even on strict IQ, which is what these people like to use, it still doesn't work. The highest IQ scorers are normal sized, normal shaped people. They aren't walking around with giant deformed skulls
The logical implications of the hypothesis simply don't exist and every study I've seen that tries to demonstrate it gets criticized as actually just showing a proxy measurement for things like nutrition, age, economic status, etc
It's also why the phenomena only appears in large population studies. Taller people, on average, grew up with more advantages and access to resources which is why they're taller. As a population, they will do better then their disadvantaged peers. Duh.
Not true at all. Brain volume correlates with intelligence after stratifying by socioeconomic status, and the relationship can be seen by doing within-family comparisons.
Such a correlation is a very repeated finding in all sorts of data sets.
Maybe you could chase down some of the references at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence#... .
One interesting fact I found on that page right now is that the correlation has also been found in Chimpanzees.
Such a correlation is a very repeated finding in all sorts of data sets.
Maybe you could chase down some of the references at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_intelligence#... .
One interesting fact I found on that page right now is that the correlation has also been found in Chimpanzees.
Even there, the most solid study would be the twin one, which is here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7440690/
The two population cohorts are 11-year olds and 17-year olds so regardless of what they say, we're still just measuring shoe size.
I'm guessing they published these two groups because their adult cohorts showed zero difference and that's not a publishable paper.
In fact, they admit it
"Two previous studies taking this approach, each with a sample size of about 35 sibling pairs, failed to find a significant correlation"
Right before they say "chill, let's cheat":
"We reexamined this empirical issue in a Human Connectome Project (HCP) (Van Essen et al., 2012; Van Essen et al., 2013) sample of 1,022 young adults"
^ it's a shoe size study from here out so of course they find something.
The two population cohorts are 11-year olds and 17-year olds so regardless of what they say, we're still just measuring shoe size.
I'm guessing they published these two groups because their adult cohorts showed zero difference and that's not a publishable paper.
In fact, they admit it
"Two previous studies taking this approach, each with a sample size of about 35 sibling pairs, failed to find a significant correlation"
Right before they say "chill, let's cheat":
"We reexamined this empirical issue in a Human Connectome Project (HCP) (Van Essen et al., 2012; Van Essen et al., 2013) sample of 1,022 young adults"
^ it's a shoe size study from here out so of course they find something.
The concept of there existing groups of humans with divergent genes is well established, its just that the classical "racial" groupings are quite bad and we can do way better.
Humans have divergent genes, it's just that there's no particular grouping to talk of. You can find that generally speaking people from Thailand are mostly lactose intolerant while people from India are mostly not, to take one example. But you don't find general correlations between more than samples of certain genetic features. We haven't been through selective breeding like dogs have. And the genetic diversity between humans as a whole is quite low, lower than for many other primates - presumably due to a population bottleneck before "out of Africa" even happened. Chimpanzees are much more diverse genetically than humans (https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/13/11/evab247/6426081), ref. the common "two humans from across the globe are closer genetically than two chimps from the same forest".
The research I'm referring to, with intra-race comparisons, as I stated, would avoid the question of racial factors affecting or not affecting the results.
So your reply is a complete non sequitor.
So your reply is a complete non sequitor.
What you're saying makes no sense. Humans don't have "races". So there's nothing to compare in the first place.
The comparisons, being intra-race, are between people of the same race.
How does that mean there's nothing to compare?
How does that mean there's nothing to compare?
I mean, that would be possible, if our shoulder muscles were about ten times as strong as they are, and we built strong enough wings (about ten meters long!). But what's the analogous component for the shoulder muscles in operating a brain?
The point was that systems are multi-faceted, complicated, nuanced, and work by mechanisms and principles that are not obvious. Experts have a really hard time nailing down a working definition of intelligence to begin with, even when given thousands of pages to describe it - the idea that such an elusive thing is simply, directly correlated to the size of an object, is frankly, fairly unbelievable.
It used to be used all the time. For instance, to defend the idea that women and asians weren't as intelligent as anglo saxons because they were smaller in stature. There's plenty of other ludicrous nonsense claims that were made based on this supposed principle.
We all agree that the conclusions are nonsense but somehow we hold on to the premise.
It used to be used all the time. For instance, to defend the idea that women and asians weren't as intelligent as anglo saxons because they were smaller in stature. There's plenty of other ludicrous nonsense claims that were made based on this supposed principle.
We all agree that the conclusions are nonsense but somehow we hold on to the premise.
What is unbelievable is your theory of vestigial brain matter, which you just made up.
Total nonsense. I'm not going to reply to your appeals to group people into "races" and then do phrenology on them to assign them intelligence numbers on this thread either. Have a good evening.
Why else have humans evolved such giant brains that it puts both mother and baby at serious risk and consumes huge amounts of energy?
There's also correlations between brain size and various intelligence metrics, which, while certainly not definitive, is still strong evidence.
Of course it's not just a simple matter of size, particularly across species (e.g. a blue whale isn't smarter than a human). But it helps/enables.
There's also correlations between brain size and various intelligence metrics, which, while certainly not definitive, is still strong evidence.
Of course it's not just a simple matter of size, particularly across species (e.g. a blue whale isn't smarter than a human). But it helps/enables.
See also Decreases in Brain Size and Encephalization in Anatomically Modern Humans - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36833133
If you reformulate the idea to "more complex brain = more smart", it actually seems to be close to what we observe in mammals.
Now birds and octopodes etc. are a completely different story.
Now birds and octopodes etc. are a completely different story.
And yet here we are scaling transformer models.
by that logic, the SAGE computer from 1957, being the biggest computer ever built, should be the one to run it on.
The difference is that in mammals, neurons are approximately the same size, so bigger brains tend to have more connections and exhibit more complexity. (To be sure, that is a correlation, not an iron law.)
In computers, the basic building block, an individual transistor, has shrunk by orders of magnitude since 1957.
If we, theoretically, built a computer of the size of the SAGE computer from contemporary M2 chips, it would be very computationally powerful indeed.
In computers, the basic building block, an individual transistor, has shrunk by orders of magnitude since 1957.
If we, theoretically, built a computer of the size of the SAGE computer from contemporary M2 chips, it would be very computationally powerful indeed.
Correct. You can't use a single number to accurately measure something that takes more than a single number to express.
It's reductionist and impossible.
All kinds of animals are far better then us at specific core brain functions with way smaller brains.
Mantis shrimps are way better at vision than we are and lyre birds are way better at vocalization. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y)
You can find all kinds of vastly superior aspects of systems in the animal world. Ants, termites and bees for instance, are probably better at socializing.
Some supercolonies span thousands of miles with hundreds of millions of ants - rivaling the size of human countries. Ants, 0.25mg brains. So brain size doesn't seem that important in organizing or building complex networks. We're certainly not 5.2 million times better (which is our difference in brain mass)
Ants even "farm" with things like aphids and keep those colonies alive. Look it up. It's fascinating what they can do with 0.25mg.
We're the only animals that have built rocketships and computers - so there's certainly something there but it's fleeting and complicated. Reducing it to a single measurement is inherently inaccurate in the same way you cannot describe the material, color, shape and volume of 3 dimensional objects with 1 number. Brain size alone cannot be a complete or useful metric.
It's reductionist and impossible.
All kinds of animals are far better then us at specific core brain functions with way smaller brains.
Mantis shrimps are way better at vision than we are and lyre birds are way better at vocalization. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VjE0Kdfos4Y)
You can find all kinds of vastly superior aspects of systems in the animal world. Ants, termites and bees for instance, are probably better at socializing.
Some supercolonies span thousands of miles with hundreds of millions of ants - rivaling the size of human countries. Ants, 0.25mg brains. So brain size doesn't seem that important in organizing or building complex networks. We're certainly not 5.2 million times better (which is our difference in brain mass)
Ants even "farm" with things like aphids and keep those colonies alive. Look it up. It's fascinating what they can do with 0.25mg.
We're the only animals that have built rocketships and computers - so there's certainly something there but it's fleeting and complicated. Reducing it to a single measurement is inherently inaccurate in the same way you cannot describe the material, color, shape and volume of 3 dimensional objects with 1 number. Brain size alone cannot be a complete or useful metric.
You will like this : https://karger.com/bbe/article/96/2/64/821534/Decreases-in-B...
Size of the neurons matter, but ultimately we don't know enough about biological cognition to say anything about existing animals, let alone long extinct ones.
I started watching this documentary. First 5 minutes is mind-blowing, stating that they found deliberate burials in these inaccessible caves.
Thereafter, it's just speculation. "We can imagine h. naledi has fire since other early humans did". They start a small fire in the cave to show what it may have looked like. Plenty of animations of what the scientists imagine may have happened there. Speculation how most societies have some kind of religious or spiritual leader so h. naledi, perhaps, definitely had one too.
The dark spots which were definitely maybe fire were also there.
Even for popular science it felt very flakey.
Thereafter, it's just speculation. "We can imagine h. naledi has fire since other early humans did". They start a small fire in the cave to show what it may have looked like. Plenty of animations of what the scientists imagine may have happened there. Speculation how most societies have some kind of religious or spiritual leader so h. naledi, perhaps, definitely had one too.
The dark spots which were definitely maybe fire were also there.
Even for popular science it felt very flakey.
The documentary felt a bit staged & had that modern anti-mainstream academia vibe (i.e. our findings are so revolutionary they rewrite history and so we wish they weren’t so revolutionary because we will not be taken serious and will become the enemy of mainstream science).
That said, unless the site is somehow staged or wildly misinterpreted, I think there is more evidence of potential use of fire than:
"We can imagine h. naledi has fire since other early humans did".
Even without finding evidence of fire in the cave, assuming the body was intentionally placed (big assumption) light would have been required to access that part of the cave.
The only alternatives I can think of are the species had more sensitive optics than modern human enabling them to see in a dark cave, or much more likely the body wasn’t placed there as part of a burial ritual but died down there.
Part of the problem is, if the evidence pointed to the later, they give off the vibe they would have created another spectacular narrative like this was evidence of an early legal system where someone was tried of a crime and sentenced to confinement in the cave, the “tool” and scratches in the cave wall being the first evidence of an attempted jail escape, demonstrating early hominids desire to be “free” just like modern humans.
That said, unless the site is somehow staged or wildly misinterpreted, I think there is more evidence of potential use of fire than:
"We can imagine h. naledi has fire since other early humans did".
Even without finding evidence of fire in the cave, assuming the body was intentionally placed (big assumption) light would have been required to access that part of the cave.
The only alternatives I can think of are the species had more sensitive optics than modern human enabling them to see in a dark cave, or much more likely the body wasn’t placed there as part of a burial ritual but died down there.
Part of the problem is, if the evidence pointed to the later, they give off the vibe they would have created another spectacular narrative like this was evidence of an early legal system where someone was tried of a crime and sentenced to confinement in the cave, the “tool” and scratches in the cave wall being the first evidence of an attempted jail escape, demonstrating early hominids desire to be “free” just like modern humans.
Light could have been provided by phosphorescent organisms in the caves
determining if "dark spots" are actually a hearth is a known process, nobody ran the chemical composition before publishing? dark spots indeed.
Discussion here a month ago on one of the contested papers:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36344397
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36344397
"Large brains mean intelligence" is one of those ideas from the Eugenics-and-phrenology era of science that we just can't seem to get rid of.
So if their brains are, you know, only eleventy times the size of a crows, how could they possibly have mastered the supreme technology of "broken sharp rocks" or "sometimes you can keep a fire going from embers and use it to burn shit"? Our best geniuses with IQs of 140+ can barely manage those tricks.
The assumption should be, going forward, that if you deem them closely enough related to our own species that you're putting them in the same genus, they were probably at least as intelligent as the bottom quintile of H. sapiens, with exceptional individuals up above that. Anything else is just bizarre prejudice.
So if their brains are, you know, only eleventy times the size of a crows, how could they possibly have mastered the supreme technology of "broken sharp rocks" or "sometimes you can keep a fire going from embers and use it to burn shit"? Our best geniuses with IQs of 140+ can barely manage those tricks.
The assumption should be, going forward, that if you deem them closely enough related to our own species that you're putting them in the same genus, they were probably at least as intelligent as the bottom quintile of H. sapiens, with exceptional individuals up above that. Anything else is just bizarre prejudice.
Two-year-olds qualify as early small-brained-humans; many can talk and count.
The relationship between brain size and intelligence it tenuous. The human brain is not the largest.
The smallest (known) woman in the world, Jyoti Amge, isn't noted for any intellectual disability. Her head is obviously tiny compared to the average adult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyoti_Amge
The relationship between brain size and intelligence it tenuous. The human brain is not the largest.
The smallest (known) woman in the world, Jyoti Amge, isn't noted for any intellectual disability. Her head is obviously tiny compared to the average adult.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyoti_Amge
At first I was really wowed by this. But when I learned that another inteligent human species was around (I can't recall if that was specifically Homo Sapiens or another.) it suddenly felt far too believable that this could have been done by someone else.
The find is real and they have great footage of it, but for their presentation to ignore evidence against them and/or alternate explanations is disappointing.
The find is real and they have great footage of it, but for their presentation to ignore evidence against them and/or alternate explanations is disappointing.
alternate explanations, such as these were domesticated pets, cherished by thier owners and given full respects after death.
A good hypothesis to test, however why wouldn’t we observe human burials in the same (massive) cave system?
It would seem odd to develop a ritualistic burial for pets and skip the burial for humans. Reaching the burial spot is extremely difficult for human bodies.
It would seem odd to develop a ritualistic burial for pets and skip the burial for humans. Reaching the burial spot is extremely difficult for human bodies.
we currently separate pets from humans, we know they are different than us, but respect the undefinable qualia.
difficult to reach isnt impossible.
i think we would need to see evidence of parallel existence of feral, and domestic populations.
difficult to reach isnt impossible.
i think we would need to see evidence of parallel existence of feral, and domestic populations.
It is not easy to do this research, or research on animal intelligence, without pissing on the Third Rail of Race and Intelligence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
Well at some point in our evolution we had to be less intelligent, or were arguing every primate and in fact every species is equal to humans, no?
And if so.... well our food system is evil beyond measure....
And if so.... well our food system is evil beyond measure....
It is a good rule of thumb to have serious doubts about any science reported in mia stream media. Serious scientists don't promote their research in the media that way.
It sure aint no corvid court