You can't be serious, can you?

Post #63,659 by Arkadiy 11/18/02 4:37:12 PM Reply	You can't be serious, can you? Please say you aren't. Things like spears arrows and stone cutters, and use of sinew to sew and fire and domestication of animals- they were all feats of intelligence. Our megahertz count advances are just pale shadow of that intelligence. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #65,078 by mhuber 11/26/02 2:32:00 AM Reply	100% serious. I agree that the advancements of prehistoric people reflect intellectual acheivements that make our technological wonders look pathetic. And that they have survival value. But in the huge span from the brain of a badger to that of something able to grok the value of saving a good pointed stick for later, much less sharpening it, a big brain is good only for dealing with other members of your pack. Not that the advantage is entirely sexual - a smarter social animal is often able to get a bigger share of the food, a sleeping spot next to a cliff where there is less rain, etc. But for raw survival against the rest of the world? Nah. ---- Whatever
Post #65,149 by Arkadiy 11/26/02 11:12:14 AM Reply	In that huge span brain was used mostly as signal processing instrument. Dolphin's brain is huge, and 2/3 of it is dedicated to echolocation. Do you think it has no survival value for dolphin? The appearance of stereo vision required a huge growth in brain power. Do you think it has no survival value for predators? You seem to assume that animal brains are used for thinking. I don't think so ( :) ). Every major advance in capablities requires some more processing power to control it. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #65,167 by mhuber 11/26/02 1:24:50 PM Reply	What advance in capabilities? Other than intelligence, humans are remarkable in: 1) Manual dexterity - unless compared to other primates. 2) Color vision 3) extreme endurance in a patheticaly slow run None of which seems to me to require the hardware capabilities that make Einstein and Mozart possible. Granted, binocular color vision requires some rather major signal processing capabilities. But not enough to explain a brain that big. And what does that signal processing buy you in the wild? Particularly when driven by relatively weak eyes and ineffective predatory capabilities. A human without tools is a lousy enough predator that binocular vision is an almost complete waste. Prey that is slow enough and close enough that you or I can kill it without tools we can find with one eye. We'd get lots more milage, as predators, out of better fingernails. Actualy, there is one raw survival capability that a big brain could give a non-tool-user: orienteering. A smart critter can go places - and get back - better than one that is only able to outsmart a yam and realize a large predator is trouble. But there are lots of ways to develope that capability without going to the trouble of a brain size large enough to commonly kill a mother in the birth process. No, I'm pretty sure that our species has big brains for, well, politics. That they are also good for arts and sciences is a happy accident. ---- Whatever
Post #65,171 by Arkadiy 11/26/02 1:35:58 PM Reply	You're mixing 2 discussions here... First, what was driving brain size before humans. My answer - things like stereo color vision and echolocation and dexterity. Kind of hard to live in trees without binocular vision. Easy to miss a branch. Second, whether another wave of brain size increase, between monkeys and humans provided humans with some survival advantages. My answer is yes, see a post above. -- We have only 2 things to worry about: That things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.

Welcome to IWETHEY!