Amorphos wrote:Evolution fills the cavity - size of skull = size of brain. It only produces what it needs for the given species, and no excess to that.
With brains, it may be that bigger is more cumbersome, so you don’t get 7ft Einstein’s perhaps? though computers and artificial neurons wont be so limited.
While I think your first sentence is not quite right (the cavity and the filling evolved in parallel), I think you are right in your general point: there are many evolutionary pressures on the size and composition of the brain, so I shouldn't rely too heavily on the evolution of the human brain to make my point.
But I provide two additional reasons to think that intelligent individuals are at odds with intelligence groups. One is empirical: studies of human group intelligence indicate that smart individuals don't make for smart groups. The other is logical/mathematical: smarter individuals make communication more difficult and costly (by increasing the amount of information that needs to be transmitted in order to remove more ambiguity).
So there are three points to support the idea that individual intelligence and collective intelligence are in tension: 1) the logical/mathematical point that having more possible messages means needing more information to distinguish between them; 2) the observation that contemporary attempts to make intelligent groups show that smarter individuals make for dumber groups; and 3) the observation that evolutionary processes have similarly seemed to trade individual intelligence for collective intelligence.Trixie
, I would define intelligence as the ability to solve novel problems. That's only slightly more precisely defined than just saying "intelligence", but it is useful and is used in practice by scientists studying animal intelligence. Do your two-types map on to that, or is it a different paradigm completely? Maybe my definition could further define the types of novel problems that can be solved, and thereby distinguish intelligence into realist and abstract?WD
, the 10% figure is false, we definitely use 100% of our brains. There are ways you can word it to make it work (I think it was originally based on the claim that we only understand
what 10% of the brain is doing. It may also be correct that only a small number of neurons are actively firing at a given moment, or that most of our brain is axons or some other arguably lesser tissue such that we're doing the thinking with some smaller percent. But in the sense the claim seems to be interpreted and applied (e.g., the movie Lucy), it is false.
As for augmenting intelligence: in this thread, I mean it in the context of the rise of superintelligence described in Bostrom's book, where increasingly intelligent machines are able to alter their own code to increase their intelligence. The same notion can apply to humans as well: smart drugs and neural implants are the most direct analog (though also currently science fiction), but education does the same thing on a more modest scale.
And I suppose this too requires us to define intelligence. If it is the ability to solve novel problems, it does indeed fluctuate significantly.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.