The humanoid body - wierd design, but the only way to become truly intelligent

[procyon]

But really aren't we talking about human-scale intelligence in this thread?  Brain size isn't solely determinative of intelligence, but it does play a large part.  Crows can't develop larger brains because everything else about their design prevents it.  They're at a dead end as far as intelligence goes.  Problem solving skills?  Sure.  Simple tool use?  Sure.  But they can never develop more complex tools, because they don't have the ability to manipulate them.  They can't communicate complex ideas, because they don't have the vocal chords for it.  The changes necessary to make a crow have a higher intelligence would be so significant that it would likely decrease their ability to survive before they ever saw any benefit.

I think you are missing something.

You assume that humans are, and always have been, at this level of capability.  And that anything less - could never be.

 

You want to check on humanity, say, 200,000+ years ago - and see just how much better we were than crows?

Our level of tool use wasn't much better than what a crow is now.  In other words, we just took what we had around and made very small 'improvements' or harnessed existing 'occurences'.

Nothing that a crow isn't doing now.  And if nothing was around to prevent it - a million years might see it become a tool using and intelligent species.

 

Just like has been said, "keep banging the rocks together..."

Worked for us.

[薔薇語]

At the end of the day, they're still very simple tool users.

 

[snip]

 

It's all quite impressive, for a bird.

 

But really aren't we talking about human-scale intelligence in this thread?  Brain size isn't solely determinative of intelligence, but it does play a large part.

 

[snip]

They are using variations on stick use, variations on understanding displacement, and so much more. But it isn't that they are using sticks that is impressive, it is that they are thinking critically about multi-step problem solving. a 1 or 2 year old has the physical ability to do a great many more things than a bird yet doesn't. Why? Well, simply put, they lack the intelligence to KNOW what to do or PLAN what to do. Children as old as 4 or 5 still are not aware of a blindingly simply fact: what they know is not universal - a basic theory of mind. This is something crows have been shown to grasp. Evolution is pushing crows to compete with less than fully developed humans. This isn't something we should ignore.

 

As for the "for a bird" comment, might I add that it is impressive even for every other animal in the world (sans humans). It is impressive even for human children.

 

Brain size is not the biggest issue for intelligence. Current humans don't have the biggest brain size of other creatures in the world. We don't even have the largest brain sizes as a percent of body mass. If I recall correctly, other offshoots of our ancestors had larger brain cavities than us and yet likely are less intelligent than us. There is something far more important in play than simple size. And to harp on about them not having the correct size is to ignore that core truth.

 

While it is a lie to say that we only use 10% of our brain, it is far more accurate to say that we don't NEED 100% of our brains. There are inefficiencies in our set up. There is left over that we could do without. There are likely ways our bodies could streamline certain functions to better utilize space and energy. Luckily, since humans are not struggling to survive and the evolutionary pressures against us tend to be more social rather than survival, there is little evolutionary need to develop better streamlined brains. So to assume that somehow our current setup (large brain with built in redundancy and antiquated programming) should be the standard by which we judge other species ability to match us is rather egocentric.

 

To expand on this, lets think about how much of the human brain is dedicated to handing the very basic pan-species requirements for existence: regulating hormones, triggering bodily functions like respiration and bowel movements, interpreting extraneous signals like temp, light, sound, etc. Creatures across the board can do this and many of them have brain sizes far smaller than humans. Not only that, but the amount of brain mass we have devoted to those functions is higher than a simple mouse. Why? Just a quirk of evolution.

 

Ravens and such need to develop more acute awareness of their surroundings and, if they haven't already (I believe not), develop an intricate language system. Something that allows them to more accurately, quickly, and sustainability transfer knowledge, reflect on past and possible future events. We do not know what is exactly needed for language to develop. We only have ourselves as examples, after all. It could very well be that we are inefficient in our use of brain space for language.

 

Lastly on this subject, I welcome our new Raven Overlords.

 

Foreign Orchid.

[megaplayboy]

A larger brain is not necessarily a more complex brain. I would wager that human brains are likely more complex than our primate and cetacean counterparts.

[Cancer]

I think you'd lose that bet (once you controlled for brain mass) but I also suspect the requisite research has not yet been done.

[Old Man]

But people get upset when I try to look at their brains.

[薔薇語]

But people get upset when I try to look at their brains.

 

No, people get angry when you charge at them with large rocks and start chucking them at the whippersnappers. 

 

Foreign Orchid. 

[Ragitsu]

Without the intervention of genetic engineering, is it possible for humans to eventually evolve another set of arms?

[薔薇語]

There are people born with weird extra appendages and such. If there existed a sexual benefit to that (survivability, sexual appeal, ect), then a group od humans with ever varying extra limbs could come about but I don't look at this as likely.

 

Foreign Orchid.

[Ragitsu]

I had in mind the need to quickly manipulate a variety of nearby input devices that require a high degree of manual dexterity.

[薔薇語]

Well, if the sexual prominence of third arm individuals continues and then inside that group this is a sexual preference for individuals with dexterous third arms, then those people will have a distinct chance to come about. But this is a long, multi-generational issue. You and I, and our children, and their children, and their children so on and so forth will likely never see such people with fully functioning third arms and hands even if the progenitor was born right now. 

 

Foreign Orchid. 

[massey]

I had in mind the need to quickly manipulate a variety of nearby input devices that require a high degree of manual dexterity.

 

Basically that would never happen.  We'll just modify the input devices.  That's the whole point of tools -- you modify the world to suit your needs.  You don't modify yourself to suit the world.

[Cancer]

I think we'll evolve digital neural interface jacks before we get fully functional additional arms or hands.

[Ragitsu]

Oh, i'm aware of both those (much more feasible) options. I just wondered if it were possible is all.

[massey]

Oh, i'm aware of both those (much more feasible) options. I just wondered if it were possible is all.

 

I don't really see any way for it too happen.  Evolution isn't smart.  It just tries a bunch of different options over and over until one of them gives a better result.  Without intentionally genetically engineering something, I don't see how growing two extra arms would be advantageous.  There are too many evolutionary steps between "guy has mutant deformed third arm" and "guy has two more fully developed and functional appendages that he uses to be awesome at video games or something" for it to work.  That I can see anyway.  

 

We live in a world where basically anyone with functioning reproductive organs can have children.  You can be tall or short, thin or fat, beautiful or ugly, gay or straight.  There's somebody who will breed with you.  You'd almost need a world where people would choose to breed with the guy with the deformed third arm exclusively so that that trait became dominant.  But currently people without that trait are having no problem at all reproducing.

 

 

Ladies, you'll be sleeping with that guy instead of Brad Pitt.  I just don't see it happening.  Remember, it isn't enough that that guy produces an heir -- you need other people to not reproduce as well.