Future evolution of intelligence

[arkain101]

Margay all the way.. If the world isnt taken over by these guys, I don't know what will. :evil:

 

Margay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

 

 

 

[Boerseun]

If you take humans out of the equation, then I guess the next species in line for World Domination via Intelligence would probably be some sort of a primate. They've got it all - opposable thumbs, inquisitiveness, the lot. But considering primates is no fun - they're like Humans Lite as it is.

 

So, I suggest we remove primates from the conversation entirely.

 

Just for fun.

 

And in that case, my first contender will be either rats or mice. They are very inquisitive, and they use their hands to manipulate their environment. Given the right conditions, they might very well evolve towards a species capable of landing on the moon!

[Moontanman]

If you take primates out of the equation then I like meerkats for the job, or otters. meerkats would seem to have the social organization and a high degree of intelligence. A million years down the road I can see meerkats as intelligent, social tool users.

 

Meerkat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Otters, specifically South American giant river otters have some real intelligence and some social organization as well. Other otters do use tools.

 

Giant Otter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[paigetheoracle]

What species we know of today show promise for evolving into the another intelligent species after humans have left the Earth? My favorite along these lines is the Meercat, these lovable animals would seem to be poised to follow in the foot steps of our own species. Any other ideas?

 

Is this really the right forum for this subject? It's nothing to do with language is it old buddy?

 

Having said that, you may be onto something about Meercats and intelligenceCompare the Meerkat

[Moontanman]

I have no clue page, someone must have moved at some point, I am pretty sure I didn't put it there to start with.

[paigetheoracle]

I count my self of the futurist/extropian school, so expect and hope that humans will someday sooner than later have most of our population off Earth. However, I doubt that we’ll abandon Earth, any more than Europeans have abandoned Europe for the Americas in the past four centuries. This is to say, like most biological life, we’re population area expanders, not movers.

 

Still, over a long time period, I suspect that humans may disappear from the terrestrial ecosphere, or adopt such a low-impact way-of-life as to effectively stop participating significantly in it, clearing our niche as top eater/maker for other species to evolve into. I’d be a poor extropian if I didn’t mention another possibility, that we’ll utterly consume Earth in a very short time (biologically speaking), rendering it unlivable to large animals or even disassembling/blowing it to smithereens altogether, but that’s a possible future history branch better for another thread.

 

What if it's a bit of both? That is we drift off into space but so mess up the planet that we are forced to abandon it. This leaves us having to planet hop as we progress across the universe. Given enough time maybe nature will repopulate the planet with new life and we'll revisit our old haunts again. I'm an extropian/ futurist too but I also believe Von Daniken et al, may have been onto something because if we could do this, others may have done this before too (but that's another subject altogether): Planets as eggs and rockets as sperm anybody?

 

Disclaimers done, I’d say the next preambling step in answering MTman’s question is, as several previous posts have pointed out, defining a clear threshold criteria for what we mean by “intelligent”. I’ll go with “launches artifacts into space” – that is, building rockets or some more novel spacecraft. On an individual and collective level, this criteria seems a bit arbitrary - just as there are very intelligent people who have next to no rocket science skills, and advanced intellectual cultures with no interest in shooting stuff into space, one can conceive of a very smart, communicative, social, information-storing, tool-making non-human culture with no interest that way – but I suspect that, given enough time, shooting stuff into space is one of those “if you can do it, eventually you will” activities

 

Preamble done, to the ideas.

 

Dismissing the Lovecraftian idea of the evolution of a species evolving that can physically and without the assistance of tools fly into space as fantasy, though imagination stirring :lol: I think this thread has focused over much on the biological aspects of the question - big, active brains, mostly – to the exclusion of the many somewhat randomly conspiring environmental and evolutionary coincidences that appear responsible for the rise of humans to meeting the specified intelligence criteria. In no particular order, a few of them:

 

As for Lovecraft - Cthulu was an octopus headed God was he not?

 

 

Language, time binding, and all that. To live any other way than (as Steven Hawking/Pink Floyd put it) “just like animals”, you’ve got to great communicators. Beyond merely effective, even nuanced “help”, ”come and get it”, ”run/fight for your lives” / “wanna mate?” vocalizations, you’ve got to be symbolic. Eventually, if you hope to make spacecraft, you’ve got to be able to write stuff down and do math.

 

I'd agree with this point too and the need for sociability and co-operative projects - think of ants building their own houses and bridging obstacles as well as working together to bring home the bacon

 

You’ve gotta have good hands – or tentacles, or whatever. We humans have amazing hands, able to do things from spinning husks into thread and weaving it into rope and cloth to chucking sharp sticks dozens of meters to smashing stones to gravel using other stones. Add a bit of smarts and creativity, and there’s not telling what may … actually, there is telling, what can happen: human prehistory and history happened.

 

Hands are obviously better than most other forms of manipulative instruments but maybe you can adapt to overcome claws and tentacles but not wings, unless you're angels perhaps!

 

Crows and octopi may have impressive claws and tentacles, but they can’t do macramé, swing a bat, and pitch a fastball (even a tiny, crow-scale one). Chalk up another top-of-the-chart position for H.Sap.Sap – though some of the other primates do well in the hand department, too.

 

Finally (though I’ve certainly left a lot of important requisites out of this short list), you can’t be to comfortable. If you have great thermal control – a thick body, nice fur, etc – that just lets you plop down and be comfortable wherever you are after a day of top-of-you-niche hunting/scavenging/foraging/grazing, what’s your motivation for inventing language, fire, houses, agriculture, etc. - and, eventually, rocket science?

 

Another good point - the naked ape hypothesis

 

Taken altogether, I’m awed by the long string of unlikely coincidences we humans had to meet to get where we are now, a string of successes that another species filling our niche would have to, at least in part and likely in new areas, match.

 

Almost makes you think of a god in the background or a brain at least in the Buddhist tradition (unconscious organizing principle)

 

Throw into the future mix that, on a time scale of millions of years, the Earth is likely to be an environmentally very different place – our star’s evolution is in for long, gradual, inexorable increase in brightness (about 1%/100,000,000 years) that, unchecked by artificial efforts, will lead to such dramatic changes as the evaporation of the oceans (in about 2 billion years). Given how finely-tuned the environmental coincidences were for the ascent of humans, it seems to me that the future may favor some physically very different occupants of our niche – or, possibly, there will never be another evolutionary story like ours in the history of the Earth.

 

To me it seems life is opportunist. This includes intelligence. When things coincide that allow particular things to happen, they do (plants grow in spring/ summer - life evolves/ industrial revolution occurs etc).

[paigetheoracle]

As for dolphins - they recognize their own images in mirrors but I seem to remember chimps don't (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong). Do meercats and giant Amazonian river otters? This shows a subjective appreciation that even young children don't have.

[Moontanman]

As for dolphins - they recognize their own images in mirrors but I seem to remember chimps don't (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong). Do meercats and giant Amazonian river otters? This shows a subjective appreciation that even young children don't have.

 

Chimps know themselves in a mirror but I couldn't find any info a meerkate or otter does.

 

Monkeys, mirrors and the self

[modest]

As for dolphins - they recognize their own images in mirrors but I seem to remember chimps don't

 

:singer:

 

Chimps know themselves in a mirror

:singer:

 

I have no clue page, someone must have moved at some point, I am pretty sure I didn't put it there to start with.

 

Sorry 'bout that mate.

 

Not MoonTan's fault.

 

~modest

[Moontanman]

To be sure birds seem to show lots of promise, except for the thumbs part. But birds do bring up the idea of "do brains have to be big to house intelligence?" Are bird brains somehow different than mammal brains? Which of course brings up the idea did dinosaurs have more smarts than their brain size would indicate? Wow maybe another thread altogether?

[andylee]

Elephants also recognise themselves in a mirror and infer from their reflection if someone painted a mark on their forehead.

 

Meanwhile, back to the thread...

I think it remains to be seen whether intelligence actually gives an evolutionary advantage in the long term, for any species.

 

It appeared to work for us until now while the Earth had enough resources to sustain everyone, but that situation is changing rapidly, and collectively we are destroying the things that sustain us, not just because of ignorance, but because of greed and the hardwired need to survive and procreate and have a bigger car than the neighbour...

 

Intelligence led to more destructive weapons, more efficient ways of stripmining the Earth, and more ways of making people unemployed.

 

If anything, judging by the comments on You Tube and newspaper feedback columns, the intelligence of the majority of our species is declining! :singer:

 

What use is intelligence, if the intelligent don't see the point in reproducing because the world is just so full of idiots? We'll die out! :singer:

 

How do you measure evolutionary success? It is ONLY the ability to reproduce, and as a species we are far too successful, (but what role does intelligence play in choosing a mate?).

Also what will happen when we ultimately control mortality?

 

A truly intelligent species would manage its own population for the comfort of all inhabiting lifeforms and replace what it consumes, whilest having time to chat on bulletin boards...

 

Intelligence could also take the form of deciding not to make an 'intelligent' decision or invention that could ultimately lead to mass unemployment or give such an advantage to a group as to destabilise society. Globalization had this effect - as outsourcing grew, a company had a temporary competitive advantage until its competitors caught up, to the same relative position as before, but in a poorer economy. Doesn't seem so be very intelligent behaviour to me, but what goes around comes around.

 

It is also worrying that the efficient society that we have built is so fragile - if the infrastructure collapses and food doesn't get to the stores, then millions could die out, as few have enough land or survival knowledge to support themselves. Intelligence created this the ability to artificially sustain a population beyond available resources, but it also created its vulnerability.

 

We are living on a tiny blue petri dish in space, and it is the only place we have as a home. There is no other within trillions of miles, so I hope intelligence will really be useful one day in finding a way to get us out of the mess we are making for our descendents!

[HydrogenBond]

There is a difference between intelligence and being able to use technology to create a similar effect. Technology can only create a universal market, if it is easy to use and does not require super intelligence to operate. Children take to technology, like a duck to water, because one only needs a toy mentality. If one needed an IQ of 150 to use any form of technology, like the days of old, very few people would be able to use it, and technology could never help drive a growing economy. To get everyone on board, to maximize the economy, we need to design for lower IQ, but with the technology able to create effects sort of like someone at IQ=150, without technology. We get more output using less brain power.

 

This technical prosthesis will have an impact on the evolution of intelligence. Picture if we put special braces on the arms, that gave one the strength of an Olympic weight lifter. What would become of the evolution of the arms? It is likely the arms would get skinnier and weaker, since the machine is doing all the work. If we took off the machine, way in the future, to see what nature is doing, one may have skinny t-rex arms, but can still create the illusion of hercules as long as the machine is attached. The arms would evolve for the machine since this is the environmental stress.

 

Like the arms in the machine, if one wished to evolve the arms to be biologically better, one would need to make more physical use of the arms, not less. To make the brain evolve more intelligence, one needs to make more use of the brain, making it exercise in new ways that push the limits of the brain. Letting a machine do the work, would evolve the brain to the needs of machine. Humans could end up having pea brains, smoothly interfaced to big machines, with the big machine creating the illusions the humans beneath are more evolved. One would only have take away the machine, to see what has become of the human brain.

 

The idea of machines taking over the world would be less do with smarter machines as stupider humans, who become overly dependent on the machine to do everything for them. Anything out of the ordinary by the machines, would appear like the revolt of the machines, since one can't take it off, since there is not much left.

[paigetheoracle]

I have no clue page, someone must have moved at some point, I am pretty sure I didn't put it there to start with.

 

Sounds like they didn't know what to do with it either!

[Getting A Life]

There is a difference between intelligence and being able to use technology to create a similar effect. Technology can only create a universal market, if it is easy to use and does not require super intelligence to operate. Children take to technology, like a duck to water, because one only needs a toy mentality. If one needed an IQ of 150 to use any form of technology, like the days of old, very few people would be able to use it, and technology could never help drive a growing economy. To get everyone on board, to maximize the economy, we need to design for lower IQ, but with the technology able to create effects sort of like someone at IQ=150, without technology. We get more output using less brain power.

 

This technical prosthesis will have an impact on the evolution of intelligence. Picture if we put special braces on the arms, that gave one the strength of an Olympic weight lifter. What would become of the evolution of the arms? It is likely the arms would get skinnier and weaker, since the machine is doing all the work. If we took off the machine, way in the future, to see what nature is doing, one may have skinny t-rex arms, but can still create the illusion of hercules as long as the machine is attached. The arms would evolve for the machine since this is the environmental stress.

 

Like the arms in the machine, if one wished to evolve the arms to be biologically better, one would need to make more physical use of the arms, not less. To make the brain evolve more intelligence, one needs to make more use of the brain, making it exercise in new ways that push the limits of the brain. Letting a machine do the work, would evolve the brain to the needs of machine. Humans could end up having pea brains, smoothly interfaced to big machines, with the big machine creating the illusions the humans beneath are more evolved. One would only have take away the machine, to see what has become of the human brain.

 

The idea of machines taking over the world would be less do with smarter machines as stupider humans, who become overly dependent on the machine to do everything for them. Anything out of the ordinary by the machines, would appear like the revolt of the machines, since one can't take it off, since there is not much left.

 

Hear Hear. Use it or lose it. Brains and brawn. But in evolution?

 

When speaking of evolving, we know that Dad pushing weights does not give son bigger arm genes. In that respect Dad not pushing weights does not make a wimpy son or pass on wimpy arm genes.

 

The only way a machine that does our lifting would create humans with skinny weak arms is if weak skinny armed people got laid more often than strong armed people. It would have little to do with the prosthetic, only our opinion of the mating desirability of those with the prosthetic.

 

We are dumbing ourselves down through television, not calculators. Television reinforces stupidity and big strong arms as desirable. Stupid people think they're hot in their calvin kleins and they pump weights and each other and more stupid people are made. Clever people don't get laid often enough. They're too busy, and rarely watch television where they might learn to act stupid so as not to stand out as a skinny armed freak, and get themselves laid.

 

I have a calculator, but I hate not understanding the proof and math behind it, not really doing math punching buttons is it. Just a stupid illusion. Stupid people sell their calculator as soon as they don't have more math classes and they never understood any of it anyways.

 

Seems off topic a bit, but the topic title fits it.

[freeztar]

This technical prosthesis will have an impact on the evolution of intelligence. Picture if we put special braces on the arms, that gave one the strength of an Olympic weight lifter. What would become of the evolution of the arms? It is likely the arms would get skinnier and weaker, since the machine is doing all the work. If we took off the machine, way in the future, to see what nature is doing, one may have skinny t-rex arms, but can still create the illusion of hercules as long as the machine is attached. The arms would evolve for the machine since this is the environmental stress.

 

Can you please provide support for your ideas? They are counter to current theories and require support beyond speculation.

[HydrogenBond]

Has anyone ever done a study that compares the brain doing arithmetic, within the head and/or with pencil and paper, to someone using a calculator, to see which one uses more of the brain and burns more brain calories? The calculator is easier, and only requires hand-eye coordination, so I would guess the old way gives more of a brain workout. One can always do the calculator, but basic math begins to atrophy if not exercised. The calculator can help one grow brain love handles with respect to a arithmetic belly.

 

But on the other hand, if anyone has ever belonged to a health club, there are all types of machines, which help you get into better shape, compare to not having such machines. Although one could improvise with things around the house, without these machines, and achieve the same results, but this would take more effort. I suppose there are also brain machines that help exercise the brain but they require conscious effort to get the most out of the machine.

 

There are also some health clubs which use machines, where the machine goes through the motion and you get strapped in. Like the old fashion belly belt machine that helps you loose those love handles. This machines takes less effort, since the machine is driving you. This is sort of like the TV. But still, since it stimulates muscles that one may not use anyway, there can be net gain. But not as much as a machines where one is driving the machine.

 

The scientist may push their computer until it yells "uncle", like the stationary bicycle on level 15. But many people in a production setting, are driven by a belly be gone tech machine. If one was a mental athlete and had to use that machine, they could actually begin to lose conditioning.

 

Not all situations are created equal. If the data doesn't reflect the pros and cons, science is deck stacking. It is hard to complete the scientific method without resources. By distributing the resources a given way, one can help some science fall short and other science complete the task. Once you see how the deck is stack, you then see who provides the funding and what would benefit them.

[Moontanman]

HB, this thread is about the evolution of non human intelligence not human intelligence in the future.