[ExI] Technology, specialization, and diebacks...Re: I, love the world. =)

[Mike Dougherty]

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM,  <lists1 at evil-genius.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/10 4:00 AM, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:21 PM,<lists1 at evil-genius.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>> >  The fact people forget is that late Pleistocene hunter-foragers had
>>> > larger
>>> >  brains than post-agricultural humans! ?(And were taller, stronger, and
>>> >  healthier...only in the last 50 years have most human cultures
>>> > regained the
>>> >  height of our distant ancestors.)
>>
>> By comparison the Apple IIc I had when I was ten years old was more
>> than twice as powerful as the computer i'm currently using to type
>> this email.  Perhaps fossil evidence shows a larger brainbox but can
>> say nothing about the neural density / efficiency of the brain
>> contained therein.  Are you suggesting that a sperm whale is 5x
>> smarter than the average human only because of its larger brain?
>
> I believe you mean "more than twice as large" (not "twice as powerful"), so
> I'll address that point.

Let me clarify.  Typically when we speak of larger brains we're
talking about more intelligence as in, "That evil-genius is a
large-brain individual compared to us normally small-brain people."
I went on what I assumed was your suggestion that Pleistocene
hunter-foragers had "larger brains" than modern humans.  I would
follow the thinking that modern technology has made it possible for
the average human to grow dumber with each generation while a
decreasing population of opportunist smarties continue to benefit from
this imbalance.

> The comparison is between late Pleistocene hunter-foragers, of 10,000-40,000
> years ago, and the post-agricultural humans that were their immediate
> descendants.  Claiming that their brains were substantially different in
> "neural density/efficiency" requires substantial justification (that appears
> nowhere in the scientific literature).  Comparing them to a sperm whale is
> simply specious.

No justification is possible without a cryotank full of preserved
Pleistocene brains.  ... and if that ever shows up it'll raise many
more questions than answers.  Of course the sperm whale comment was
specious.  ;)

> McDaniel, M.A. (2005) Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the
> relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence. Intelligence,
> 33, 337-346
> http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mamcdani/Big-Brained%20article.pdf
> Even if you don't buy that argument, it will be difficult to claim that a
> slightly bigger brain made our immediate ancestors *dumber*.

I think the margin of error in measuring intelligence is far higher
than the performance differences between the various models.  Even
with some magical means of copying the structural bits of a brain, the
fuel going into it probably has similar performance impact as any
other machine.  ex:  High octane fuel & perfect maintenance regimen on
a racecar yields significantly better output than lower quality
fuel/care on an engine identically machined to within five-nines
tolerance.  Given the range of energy metabolism, food quality, brain
usage training, etc. it's almost impossible to compare two modern
brains let alone distant time period brains.

>
> The anatomically modern human was selected for by millions of years of
> hunting and foraging.  (Orrorin, Sahelanthropus, and Ardipithecus -> Homo
> sapiens sapiens)  Any subsequent change due to a few thousand years of
> agricultural practices is sufficiently subtle that it hasn't affected our
> morphology -- and, in fact, we're still arguing over whether it exists.
>
> My point stands: intelligence must have been not just valuable, but
> *absolutely necessary* for hunter-foragers -- otherwise we wouldn't have
> been selected for it.  (Brain size of common human/chimp/bonobo ancestors:
> ~350cc.  Brain size of anatomically modern humans: ~1300cc.)

Modern human was also selected for running away from things that we
couldn't kill first.  Probably a considerable amount of our
cooperative behaviors came from the discovery that many small animals
are able to overpower a large threat when they work together -
utilizing that prized possession: intelligence.

Have you considered that perhaps intelligence is only secondarily
selected for?  Perhaps the more general governing rule is energy
efficiency.  The intelligence to do more work with less effort
facilitates energy efficiency, so it has value.  Tools make difficult
tasks easier, so they become valuable too.  Is a back-hoe inherently
valuable?   Only if the job is to dig.   Without the task, that tool
is a liability.  Nature doesn't need overt intelligence for the the
energy efficient to proliferate; and by doing so the environment is
made more competitive.