[ExI] Intelligence and specialization (was Re: Technology, specialization, and diebacks)

[lists1 at evil-genius.com]

On 11/13/10 4:00 AM, Mike wrote:
> I wasn't objecting.  I misread your original point, you clarified, I
> tried to explain my error.  I agree with you.  I thought to go in
> another direction.  I'd like to believe in the Hegelian principle of
> thesis-antithesis-synthesis.  It seems however that most people on
> lists are content to remain in antithesis and counterproductive
> arguments instead of dialog.  Note, I'm not accusing you of such,
> 'just commenting that the default mode of list-based discussion is
> argument rather than cooperation.  too bad for that, huh?

I apologize for getting unjustifiably hot in my last reply to you.

It *seemed* like you were just nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, 
without any ultimate goal or point of view -- something I associate with 
trolling.  (I'm still not sure I understand what point you're driving 
at...help me out here, please.)

>>> >>  Have you considered that perhaps intelligence is only secondarily
>>> >>  selected for? ?Perhaps the more general governing rule is energy
>>> >>  efficiency.
>> >
>> >  Everything is secondarily selected for, relative to survival through at
>> >  least one successful reproduction. ?I'm not sure that's a useful
>> >  distinction.
>> >
> I thought your original point was about the supremecy of intelligence.
>   I was attempting to posit that energy efficiency may be an easier
> rule to widely apply than intelligence.  It was just a thought.  I
> wasn't trying to counter your point; I had accepted it as given and
> was hoping to continue.  Thanks for reading.

My original point wasn't about the supremacy of intelligence...all I was 
trying to get across was that hunting and foraging required a level of 
intelligence sufficient to select for anatomically modern humans with 
anatomically modern brain size.

Re: efficiency

Efficiency is a good metric, but it encompasses a lot more than just 
intelligence.  Spiders might be extremely efficient in obtaining food, 
but that doesn't mean they are extremely intelligent.

In fact, it seems like intelligence is remarkably inefficient, because 
it devotes metabolic energy to the ability to solve all sorts of 
problems, of which the overwhelming majority will never arise.  This is 
the old specialist/generalist dichotomy again, where specialists do best 
in times of no change or slow change, and generalists do best in times 
of disruption and rapid change.

Unlike the long and consistently warm eons of the Jurassic and 
Cretaceous (and the Paleocene/Eocene), the Pleistocene was defined by 
massive climactic fluctuations, with repeated cyclic "ice ages" that 
pushed glaciers all the way into southern Illinois and caused sea level 
to rise and fall by over 100 meters, exposing and hiding several 
important bridges between major land masses.

These were conditions that favored the spread of generally intelligent 
species, and most likely helped select for what eventually became 
humans.  It may not be a coincidence that the major ice sheets first 
began to expand ~2.6 MYA -- which is also the earliest verified date for 
the use of stone tools by hominids.