PDA

View Full Version : Intelligent Life In The Galaxy Define Intelligent



Bosco D. Gamma
2004-Jul-10, 05:34 AM
How would you define intelligent life in the galaxy?

For example intelligence could be definded by the ability to leave your planet and travel into deep space.

Thanks

Tiny
2004-Jul-10, 06:32 AM
The beings that can survive under different condition, such as higher/lower temperature.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Jul-12, 11:59 AM
For example intelligence could be defined by the ability to leave your planet and travel into deep space.

Your definition may be too restrictive. The people of ancient Sumer, Egypt, Israel, Rome, Greece, and all civilizations prior to 1900 were intelligent but not capable of space travel. But they were on a technological improvement journey that led them to becoming capable of traveling through space.

It is the nature of evolution to produce technologically adept critters in each environment wherein it is not prohibited by that environment and at different rates as a function of the environment. The process is way too complex to be predictable with the tools currently at our disposal.

virtualutopia
2004-Jul-12, 12:34 PM
How about... beings who have the ability to build on the knowledge and experiences of others (whether they be contemporaries, ancestors, or another species).

GOURDHEAD
2004-Jul-12, 12:50 PM
Here (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1697&hl=cosmological+expansion) is more discussion on this subject.


How about... beings who have the ability to build on the knowledge and experiences of others (whether they be contemporaries, ancestors, or another species).

Right on!! That's us. Also search on the Drake equation here in the forum.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Jul-12, 12:59 PM
Here ( Click here: Universe Today Forums -> How Many Earthlike Planets ) is a reference to a modified ersion of the Drake equation.

Sp1ke
2004-Jul-12, 01:32 PM
I agree with Gourdhead that a specific technological achievement is not a measure of intelligence.

I'd say that intelligence is shown by anything aware of, and able to interact with, its environment.

Given enough time, anything that can manipulate its environment can evolve into a sophisticated species with the potential for reaching space. (Of course, whether they have the desire to is another question.)

Bosco D. Gamma
2004-Jul-12, 07:17 PM
Birds can survive under different conditions, many other species also, and without artificial help as humans require. Perhaps that should be a addendum to that criteria.

I understand the arugment of ancient civ's being signs of intelligence .. to us .. we are their product. Implied in my question is that we either are in a position to travel to other planets and observe other creatures, or observe them in other ways, such as, imagining the surface of a planet telescopically. Would we be able to recognize signs of intelligence? Turn the question around a bit, aliens orbit Earth, sees the cities, sees trains, planes, and cheese puffs, and says we have ants (or the alien equivalent) that do that much ... pppffff!! NEXT!

Ants, termites, birds, etc., construct habitats but can it be said they are "intelligent."? Yes they sense their surroundings, interface with it, and shape it BUT are they conscious? To aliens we may be seen as no more than termites, sophisticated termites we would like to think, but termites just the same. A SURE sign, to an alien, of consciousness and hense intelligence is the ability to travel in space, intersystem or interstellar. Space travel would require a conscious effort since the idea of space/space travel is not likely to occur to a species not capable of abstract thought beyond its immediate (if then) surroundings.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Jul-12, 07:58 PM
A SURE sign, to an alien, of consciousness and hense intelligence is the ability to travel in space, intersystem or interstellar. Space travel would require a conscious effort since the idea of space/space travel is not likely to occur to a species not capable of abstract thought beyond its immediate (if then) surroundings.

I believe we are in close agreement. I was trying to distinguish between intelligence in general and technology development toward a specific end such as interstellar travel to which intelligence is subservient.

DarkChapter
2004-Aug-24, 12:10 AM
I would have to say that intelligence is relative, and we can only judge things relative to us. We are more intelligent than birds, yet they are more intelligent than a centipede. Dolphins are considered "the second most intelligent" lifeform on earth. Where does basic intelligence start? is it the difference between a lifeform always following instinct, or going against its insticts to reach a specific goal.

mercury
2004-Aug-25, 10:53 AM
Intelligence can be defined as consciousness, itself, but in highly developed stage. The ancient empires of the world were intelligent, but they were in a transition phase, that is they were not sufficiently developed to carry out space exploration. They were too busy in capturing territory and making battles to give attention to scientific research which would benefit the whole of mankind. I call a species intelligent when they are the rulers of their home planet(like humans are of Earth), they are sufficiently well developed to make colonies on other planets their whole race is united for only 1 purpose:- to explore the universe, and develop scientifically.

xXxDarkSkyNitexzxXx
2004-Aug-26, 12:37 PM
beings who have temper. But will attack when provoked for example the terrorist, i don't know if did we good peoples ever provoked them. WE humans deep down our heart are kind. Everyone does not born out bad its the enviroment they are in, the way they are nutured. Human are sometimes selfish do the things they love. Human are intelligent able to invent things to help us do the things we can't. Like flying, travelling under and on water at fast speed. Now we can even go to space isn't it cool. If human can learnt not to be selfish and love everyone with an open heart we will be perfect and more things can be accomplish. Maybe we can even travel at the speed of light?? :D

Victoria
2004-Aug-31, 03:10 AM
Glad to respond. :ph34r: As my 'right' side would say, intelligence is inherited; though my 'left' side may sway; intelligence, comes from the heart.

Gajaal
2004-Sep-01, 12:05 AM
Greetings

Intellegence: Self Aware, Manipulates Environment, Communicates, Can See the Stars (????? and wants to go there), Has an Emotional Reaction to Its Environment, Learns from Experience, Can Programme a VCR. Can Read an Analog Watch.

Sorry to be trite. Ants are highly structured in their behaviour. Very successful at manipulating their environment, co-operate to a common goal, etc. But I don't think they are considered intellegent.

The Turin (?????) Proposition of Computers & Robots is, broadly speaking, if their communications and reactions are indistinguishable from that of humans, then they can be said to have achieved "Intellegence". {If memmory serves}

Dogs are pretty smart and can be taught a great deal. Are they "more intellegent" than an Octopus? An Octopus can, on its first encounterd with a Crayfish in a caulked glass jar, workout how to get at its dinner.

"Intellegence" is a function of Nature, Nurture and Inclination. Humans have these factors in abundance, as a species, (Some Individuals are a challenge to identify with true Intellect) which have resulted in OUR place in the Web of Life. But in each domain in the biosphere of planet Earth there are scales of achievement that place a given species at the top of the "tree", (Submarine Lava Bome, whatever).

Maslo's Hierarchy of Needs defines 5 levels of Physical Needs, Security Needs, Affiliation Needs, ?? Recognition Needs and Self Actualisation.

I think it is the awareness of the last 2 Levels, and Our ability to seek and achieve them, that satisfies what WE would most likely call Proof of Intellegence.

Therefore, any other species that exhibits this Behaviour is Intellegent.

How's that sound?

Regards

GOURDHEAD
2004-Sep-01, 05:02 AM
I think it is the awareness of the last 2 Levels, [ Recognition Needs and Self Actualisation] and Our ability to seek and achieve them, that satisfies what WE would most likely call Proof of Intellegence.

Most multicellulars with an immune system can satisfy recognition needs. I'm not familiar with Maslo; what does "self actualization" mean? I must be completely out of the ball park in terms of context for understanding these allegations. Help me.

I think our ancestors exhibited intelligence 100,000 years ago and it has been a long hard slog from then to where we are today with intelligence increasing in microsteps as our accumulated knowledge grew over time. I hope we will respect the "critterhood" of such should we encounter them when we start exploring the galaxy.

Gajaal
2004-Sep-01, 05:40 AM
COURDHEAD

This is a quick reference:

http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM

Appologies, I got it slightly wrong. The Needs Are:

"Physiological" "Safety" "Love" "Esteem" & "Self-Actualisation"

Response to stimulii can appear to be an expression of awareness of ones environment. However, I don't think you would catagorise the closure of the Venus Fly Trap's "jaws" as an Intellegent response.

Chimpanzees, arguably Dolphins and Us demonstrate an awareness of self.

Quote: <The need for self-actualization is "the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.">

I think that We have expressed our respect for other critters by crashing a probe into Jupitor to avoid contaminating one of the noons. But then we have behaved pretty damned badly in respect of our atitude toward a broad range of Things on Earth, which doesn&#39;t bode well for "Close Encounters", down the time line a bit.

Educational Psychologists have enough trouble defining Intellegence (IQ) let alone agreeing upon what to measure and, then, how valid it is. (Not to mension a distinct discomfort about publishing the results anyway.)

Interesting how we are generally quite happy to measure everythingelse we do, with great elacrity & minute precision, (Higher, Farther, Faster).

How about we just treat everything with wonder & respect, including ET.

Regards

rahuldandekar
2004-Sep-02, 10:19 AM
Intelligence can be said to consist of

1) Conscoiusness. But the 35000 yer old humans had it too, can we say they were intelligent?
2) Invention ( or the ability to do so). This is clearly true for all inteligent biengs. A 2000 year old emperor may not have been scientifically advanced, but since he could invent war techniques, he clearly was intelligent.

3) An additional factor that may be added to distinguish between &#39;potential&#39; inteligences ( like the emperor) and advanced intelligences is that their inteligence is engaged in a pursuit of the right path ( possibly, us).
Who wants to define &#39;right path&#39; ? Scientific pursiut or artistic? Metaphysical or moralistic?

GOURDHEAD
2004-Sep-02, 02:29 PM
Quote: <The need for self-actualization is "the desire to become more and more what one is, to become everything that one is capable of becoming.".....How about we just treat everything with wonder & respect, including ET.

Here are some ideas of mine excerpted from other threads that point to intelligence as a continuum. We should apply differing levels of respect as appropriate to such other critters as we run into them.


Consciousness immensely affects the universe&#33;&#33; It&#39;s almost like a force unto itself. It&#39;s the universe attempting to get control of itself.

Consider the proto-stellar cloud in semi-stasis with collapse being initiated by a compression wave from a nearby explosion from a supernova. At first the controlling forces are those attributable to gravity, electricity, and magnetism (for now thermodynamics is considered to be a manifestation of the latter two interacting with gravity). Sometime later molecules with special electric charge controlled affinities for each other and being cast about in the mess form special conglomerates that eventually lead to living organisms (either in the cloud or, later, on the planets or moons).

These special conglomerates in the mess do not represent a new force, rather they introduce a special organizing process both causing and being dependent upon sets of strange attractors within the mess (directing the degree of order in the chaos) to produce a "quasi-discriminating" effect favoring the building of ever more complex carbon based molecules leading eventually to self replication. This causes the three dominant forces to be applied to the mess in a more orderly way and different from what was happening prior to the exercising of the affinities. Normally, we do not ascribe consciousness to this level of organization, but this prerequisite has put us on our way first to microbes thence to multicellulars thence to consciousness.

Sometime later (much, much later by human standards) some of the conscious critters develop technology and begin to mold the universe into configurations of their liking including the building of planets, the moving of stars, the unwrapping of black holes, configuration control of clusters of galaxies, managing cosmological expansion, etc.

It may be useful to consider that choice is enabled by consciousness in order to reduce the effects of chance (chaos) and to promote a tendency to order.

Consider humanity as an organism where each individual human is the equivalent of a cell in a multicellular organism and is loosely coupled to the total of humanity via "collective consciousness" (CC). CC is not being used here in any metaphysical sense though there is an influence from the practitioners of metaphysics. Until the proliferation of the internet, CC was fueled primarily by print media, radio and television and to a lesser degree by rabbis, priests, ministers, etc. Now the internet has provided a quantum leap in tightening of the cross-coupling of each human with a small subset of humanity consisting of close acquaintances and to a lesser degree to all of humanity. This provides a strong tendency to drive the thinking of each human toward a mean (average) set of premises and ideas with ever smaller deviations on the part of each human (less freedom via constructive brainwashing).

Consequently we can each arrive at a commonality of acceptance of the nature and severity of problems and the likelihood of the effectiveness of proposed solutions. This allows us to become increasingly aware of and agree on problems and to set priorities for their solutions in ever higher degrees of agreement. Our drive to survive and protect ourselves from the vagaries of the universe will propel us off the planet and on to the road to controlling the expansion of the universe and shaping its other characteristics as we discover them.

All this began when the effort of prokaryotes to eat each other ended in a tie producing eukaryotes leading to the multi-cellulars. Since there is no known uniqueness to our solar system (earth/moon distance and mass ratio notwithstanding), it’s reasonable to expect that this is happening throughout the universe.

Intelligence has survival value and to the extent that it leads to technological development it has proportionally enhanced survival value. Competition among species on earth has led humans to develop technology which has increased productivity enough to allow the additional technology development for contemplating the universe and the principles of physics that constrain, transform, and propel it. Programmed into our DNA is the drive to survive at each the individual and the species level which compels us to continuously search for more and more truth at ever increasing levels of completeness and accuracy over ever increasing fields of inquiry. Thus we are forced to know the truth and to the extent that we succeed, we shall achieve an ever increasing level of freedom.

The enormity of the effect of consciousness on the universe may be comprehendable; surely it is not currently so. Let&#39;s not fail to consider the effect of competition amongst whichever sentients may be loose in at least the Milky Way.

Metaphysical forces/concepts, except as a natural (not supernatural) attribute of consciousness do not exist. Darwin’s dangerous idea (see author Daniel Dennett) is more powerful than Darwin probably (we have no direct access to his mind) ever knew. Even now we have trouble grasping its range and depth. Consciousness has resulted from the mindless, purposeless, incessant fumbling of the evolutionary process as a collateral benefit to its possessors. Nature did not have to produce it; rather it was allowed (not prevented) to occur. Having occurred, it has become its own champion creating the feedback loops through technology that both cause and assist it to order the universe, sustain itself, and grow ever more complex. Yet another level of symmetry breaking comes to mind.
I am not asserting that the universe (indeed, not even humanity) is, or will become, alive in the sense of a single integrated unit; rather I assert that ever larger percentages of the mass within the universe will become incorporated into conscious critters and it, including them, will be subjected to their perception of order. Let’s hope their perceptions are sound and safe. There is no skyhook; it&#39;s cranes all the way down...and up.

Note that entropy applies to a closed finite system isolated from external inputs; I&#39;m not sure the universe qualifies. Did those who coined the second law of thermodynamics fully appreciate the complex interplay between gravity and electromagnetism under the influence of quantum effects....and consciousness?

If evolution is thought to be the master and us the slaves then revolution is eminent&#33;&#33; The genetic engineers are out of their cage and not all of madness has been gauged much less caged.


Who wants to define &#39;right path&#39; ? Scientific pursiut or artistic? Metaphysical or moralistic?

Let me. All of the above and then some.

mercury
2004-Sep-05, 02:38 AM
Scientifically we can define intelliget species as any living organism having genetic material and the machinery to use it. It should be an active organism(unlike viruses) whose cells have an alive nucleus.

StarLab
2004-Sep-05, 05:22 AM
In my view, an intelligent species is simply one that deviates from the natural order of things. As an example, we, humans, deviated from the control of Mother Nature; we&#39;ve built buildings, are developing resistance to diseases without altering our own bodies, and most importantly of all, we&#39;ve tamed other creatures. No, it&#39;s not symbiosis. We control them, for the most part.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Sep-07, 03:37 AM
In my view, an intelligent species is simply one that deviates from the natural order of things. As an example, we, humans, deviated from the control of Mother Nature;

Why do you believe that intelligent species deviate from the natural order? Rather they are a part of the natural order and by creating beneficial feedback loops direct the natural order to their liking. They are products of nature and are capable of fundamentally changing its characterisitcs and paths of progress.

StarLab
2004-Sep-07, 07:49 PM
If you read my entire post, GH, you would understand that&#39;s exactly what I was saying....we are manipulating nature to our liking.
By deviating from the natural order I meant separating themselves (or ourselves) fromt the original natural system.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Sep-08, 01:47 PM
By deviating from the natural order I meant separating themselves (or ourselves) from the original natural system.

I thought that is what you meant, and we are manipulating nature to our liking as we should . I&#39;m a stickler for increasing our awareness of being an integral part of nature; sort of an extrapolation into reality from the myths that native (uncivilized) peoples are at one with nature. I&#39;m inordinately fond of oneness, unity....omega = 1. I prefer tangible acknowledgement that we are a natural phenomenon that will change the universe, intentionally as well as unintentionally, as did our anaerobic microbic ancestors change the earth. Change is inevitable; we must decide whether to steer. Either way, we are inseparable from nature.

The universe does not permit stasis.

rahuldandekar
2004-Sep-09, 07:56 AM
Some civilisations like the Mayans were very advanced but had not deviated much from nature. Infact, we have, in modern times deviated from the natural path only as a mistake. Unless every intelligent civilisation makes this mistake, &#39;Deviating from nature&#39; will not be a good definition for them.

aries_4_5_48
2004-Sep-10, 05:21 AM
....SLab: would cows and hogs and chickens miss us more than we would miss them? The controlled soon controll the controller, everytime&#33; :o

"If humans became extinct the rats and flies would miss us, but the rats would miss us the most...... :ph34r:

GOURDHEAD
2004-Sep-10, 02:27 PM
"If humans became extinct the rats and flies would miss us, but the rats would miss us the most

The cultural dimensions of a concept like "missing" is out of reach to flies and rats especially across several generations.

aries_4_5_48
2004-Sep-10, 04:51 PM
....OK,how about, our absence from the rats and flies environment would have more of an impact on the daily existence of the rat population than that of the flies, possibly to the extent of having a major impact of unknown proportions on each, respectively...... :rolleyes:

ASEI
2004-Sep-10, 09:09 PM
Infact, we have, in modern times deviated from the natural path only as a mistake.

Nope. Railroads, canals, heat in the winter, roofs to keep out rain, air conditioning, all these things were pretty deliberate.

Calling a car engine a mistake: you might as well call the Sistine Chapel a "mistake" while you are at it. sheesh.

rahuldandekar
2004-Sep-11, 10:35 AM
I didn&#39;t mean a mistake in that way. I meant that ecologically, we have made mistakes. It is possible to not deviate from nature ( be &#39;one&#39; with nature), and still use computers and aeroplanes.

By the way, mistakes are deliberate thing that we do, but which we shouldn&#39;t have. I wouldn&#39;t call forgetfulness a mistake, because it&#39;s natural, and not deliberate.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Sep-11, 09:23 PM
By the way, mistakes are deliberate thing that we do, but which we shouldn&#39;t have. I wouldn&#39;t call forgetfulness a mistake, because it&#39;s natural, and not deliberate.

I choose to believe that none of us deliberately do things to "foul our nest". Much of what we do and are likely to do has unintended consequences that we are slow to recognize. Due to the time dispersion of how quickly each of us recognizes a detrimental unintended consequence, arguments arise amongst us as to what is the problem as well as what to do about it e.g., global warming. Eternal vigilance is a requirement and objective assessment of each effect is a jewel, if not a joule, of great price.

eburacum45
2004-Sep-12, 09:24 AM
I would hestitate to say that the Mayans had no effect on their environment; they built quite extensive irrigation networks, but these will have suffered from the same problems as all simple irrigation networks;

the dissolved salts in the water supplied build up in the soil irrigated by this system, and then need to be removed; to remove this kind of build up requires more water still, and you start to get diminishing returns.

There is some evidence that Mayan society was damaged by drought; I think it entirely possible that the Mayans themselves were responsible for over-use of water, and caused this drought themselves.

I believe it is better to have continued environmental research and development than expecting low tech societies to solve environmental problems with limited data.

rahuldandekar
2004-Sep-12, 12:34 PM
OK, I was wrong with that example. But, my point was that we can become a society which has less effect on the environment than we do now, but still retain our technology.

I think that stands true even now.

kashi
2004-Sep-12, 02:17 PM
If my memory serves me correctly, the drake equation defines an "intelligent civilisation" as one that is able to produce radio transmissions through space. Hence, according to this definition we have been an intelligent civilisation for around 100 years now.

Personally I think this is a silly measure of intelligence. I agree with the general sentiment here that technological advancement and intelligence are two separate things.

davwavs
2004-Sep-12, 07:39 PM
LET ME THROW THIS DOWN&#33;YOU CANNOT STOP LIFE.LIFE IS EVERYWHERE.THERE ARE OLDER PLANETS THAN OURS EVERYWHERE.THINK OF THE MOST ADVANCED LIFE ON ANY GIFTED PLANET,THEN THINK OF THESE PLANETS AS BEING 1,000,000 YEARS OLDER THAN US,OR 10,000,000 YEARS OLDER.BELIEVE THAT THE MOST ADVANCED LIVING BREATHERS ARE 1,000 YEARS MORE ADVANCED THAN US.HOW ABOUT 10,000 YEARS&#33; THERE IS LOTS OF LIFE OUT THERE,SO MUCH THAT THERE IS A BREATHER OUT THERE RIGHT NOW THAT LOOKS JUST LIKE ME.

StarLab
2004-Sep-13, 03:22 AM
OK, cool your blasting jets, Dave&#33; Sheesh&#33; One rule on this forum is no caps, because it&#39;s metaphoric to yelling, so you can make a point without the caps (and with better punctuation and diction, too :lol: :P )&#33;

GOURDHEAD
2004-Sep-13, 02:27 PM
Personally I think this is a silly measure of intelligence. I agree with the general sentiment here that technological advancement and intelligence are two separate things.

They are not totally separate. Intelligence is a prerequisite to technology development. Once manifested the curiosity factor of intelligence drives technology development forming a feedback loop that more closely couples the two and accelerates the enhancement of each. Those 4 million year old stone tools came from technology development.

Even on a Europan world where the stimuli which engender their concept of the universe are much limited compared to ours, intelligence and technology development may cause them to break free from that encapsulated environment.


OK, cool your blasting jets, Dave&#33; Sheesh&#33; One rule on this forum is no caps, because it&#39;s metaphoric to yelling,

Although I seldom use all caps, I can see some value in using them to depict various strengths of emphasis. Where/when did the myth of equating total caps to shouting originate? I neither use nor receive them in that manner. In the case of faded printing total caps seem easier to read...but then my eyes are getting quite old.

StarLab
2004-Sep-13, 07:46 PM
It&#39;s OK to use caps in phrases to emphasize various points, true, but not the entire post.

davwavs
2004-Sep-14, 03:27 AM
Dear Forum Police,
Liberty of expression is a hallmark of intellegence.It&#39;s probably no accident that freedom of speech mentioned in the First Amendment...make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.Calls for censorship threaten to erode free speech.
I thank you for your persuasion to my offensive,controversial and obnoxious rant in CAPS.

Wouter
2004-Sep-18, 11:12 AM
I say intelligent life is life with the ability to learn something and share that knowledge with others. Then, the only thing you need is time to build up a civilisation, which will automaticly lead to the ability to produce radio waves or any other thing that is needed to call a lifeform intelligent.

StarLab
2004-Sep-19, 03:56 PM
And what kind of &#39;knowledge&#39; would that be, Wouty?

astromark
2004-Sep-21, 12:32 PM
:unsure: NO&#33; or do I mean no. No niether,... Well anyway, no. Technoledgy is not a good tool for measuring intelagance. An advanced life form may not require technoledgy. I beleave that long term evolution may bring a spiecies to a point where they no longer want for technoledgy. On this planet our race for technoledgy has usually been asociated with our want to blow the pajesus out of somebody. Our evolution is short. We are the servivors of several major impact avents. If the dinosours still walked the earth, would we. Its a good question to wunder what would have evolved out of the &#39;Raptor&#39;. I&#39;m sounding a warning here. Maybe we should stop trying to atract the attention of alians. we might be lunch.

GOURDHEAD
2004-Sep-21, 02:25 PM
If the dinosours still walked the earth, would we (1). Its a good question to wunder what would have evolved out of the &#39;Raptor&#39; (2). I&#39;m sounding a warning here. Maybe we should stop trying to atract the attention of alians. we might be lunch (3).

(1) Yes earlier and smarter.

(2) The raptor is believed to have been an efficient killer that needed no technology more than that with which nature outfitted it. It&#39;s fatal shortcoming along with that of the myriads of efficient killers evolution has sprinkled around the earth over time is that it could not imagine how many ways the universe could do it in and take the mediating action to ensure its survival.

(3) Sometimes our imagination generates a level of paranoia that can be crippling leading to an overloading of our technology with weapons of war. The contest between the Europeans that first explored the Americas and the aboriginal population should be viewed as a classic case of contact between cultures of widely different technologies. Remembering this event should motivate us to develop our technology to its most optimal levels assuming we can figure out what that is.

Those aliens that would like us for lunch either figuratively or physically will find us whether we try to attract them or not.

My guess is that the smaller versions of raptors, since our ancestors at that time were mouse sized or smaller, accelerated our evolution by thinning the herd of both over and under contemplative "monks". Mosasaurs and their cousins would have taken care of the marine "monks". If any of these ferocious killers returned to the modern scene, they would be the thinees not the thinners. It is somewhat ironic that our most likely deadly enemies are microscopic, a class of predator about which neither the raptor nor the mosasaur likely were aware.

Our continued existence is tightly coupled to technology development.

Wouter
2004-Sep-21, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by "StarLab"
And what kind of &#39;knowledge&#39; would that be, Wouty?
Knowledge on how to use objects to do things that would take a lot longer without those objects and the knowledge on how to make those objects. With &#39;objects&#39; I refer to rocks as in the stone age. These could be used for a lot of things, like making fire, making cutting easier and so on. I think that once one object is utilized in an unnatural way, the rest will follow.

astromark
2004-Sep-21, 09:29 PM
:blink: Never mind the detail.. read the mesage.

pranab
2006-Apr-18, 02:33 AM
What is an intellegence?
Exact defination of Intelligence is abscent in all text books & reference books of Neuromedicine, Neurology and Neropathology. However according to me it is the neuro physiological state of the human brain, particularly of the cerebral cortex[ mostly in frontal ,temporal,cortex] ,which includes culmination of cognitive abilities that includes auditory perception, 3D object recognition, speech perception, languages, skilled/ unskilled behaviour, goal directed planning, problem solving, attention, reasoning, and memory function of the human brain. The intellegence can be tested by IQ test which includes verbal IQ and performance scale IQ[ Revised Wecheser adult and child intellegence scale II] IQ score represent the age adjusted scaling of an individual intellectual performance. There are many other tests for intelligence performance like Raven's test, Revised and wide range achievement test etc. All these tests depend upon ability of communication of a person with the test performer. So by term Intellegence I can say that an intellegent man is able to communicate effectively and resonably in a language that he/she understands and able to speak with a test performer. The neurophysiology of intellegence is a big chapter, involves many neuronal tracts comminications, many nuerochemicals[ GABA, Acetelcholine,endorphinetc], manyreceptors, many synapses, several areas of brain and nucluiie, genes, development of brain perfectly in the utero and in childhood, social and economical environment
DR. Pranab Kr Bhattacharya
Mr Rupak Bhattacharya & Mr Ritwik Bhattacharya
www.unipathos.com

mugaliens
2006-Apr-23, 06:28 PM
Ummm... Did my intelligent reply to this thread just get deleted? I don't see it here...

tony1967
2010-Jul-10, 07:23 PM
I'm unsure exactly what Intelligence is, however the encephalization level ( brain mass / body mass ) has increased at a constant increasing rate with time ( ignoring the mass extinction events ).
Also the encephalization level also seems to directly relate to the number of “technologies” a species uses. It's difficult to know if the rules of biological evolution are the same everywhere but if we assume they are then any planet capable of allowing evolution will eventually end in technological based life. I suppose the problem is what planets can allow that level of evolution.

Infinitenight2093
2010-Jul-10, 07:58 PM
any being that has instincts of survival and self-awareness (too some degree). Although the levels of intelligence included there are not much to speak of. Complex intelligent life would at least have the ability to construct simple tools.

"for example intelligence could be definded by the ability to leave your planet and travel into deep space"

microbes traveling on asteroids are also able to do this

baric
2010-Jul-10, 09:31 PM
I'm unsure exactly what Intelligence is, however the encephalization level ( brain mass / body mass ) has increased at a constant increasing rate with time ( ignoring the mass extinction events ).

This is a remarkable claim. Do you have citations to support this?

Nereid
2010-Jul-11, 07:10 AM
I'm unsure exactly what Intelligence is, however the encephalization level ( brain mass / body mass ) has increased at a constant increasing rate with time ( ignoring the mass extinction events ).
Also the encephalization level also seems to directly relate to the number of “technologies” a species uses. It's difficult to know if the rules of biological evolution are the same everywhere but if we assume they are then any planet capable of allowing evolution will eventually end in technological based life. I suppose the problem is what planets can allow that level of evolution.
Welcome (again?) to BAUT, tony1967! :)

This is a very old thread, started in 2004 and resurrected in 2006.

There's a more recent thread, with perhaps a more pertinent discussion, here in the Life in Space section: Intelligent life in space - an evolutionist's perspective (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/105269-Intelligent-life-in-space-an-evolutionist-s-perspective). You may find that interesting.

"Encephalization level" as I understand it refers solely to animals, and within that kingdom, mostly to the Chordata phylum (which is mostly vertebrates); I haven't heard of this term being used for the largest animal phylum, the Arthropoda (i.e. insects, spiders, crabs, etc) - have you?

In any case, there's no evidence to suggest that life on an Earth-like planet would evolve in such a way that eukaryotes arose, much less chordates (except for the sole example of the Earth itself).

BTW, what's the encephalization level of the many thousand ant, termite, and bee species? How many "technologies" do they use?

Also, I'm not sure what you're thinking of wrt "the rules of biological evolution", but these are pretty broad, and simple, aren't they?

tony1967
2010-Jul-11, 10:26 AM
This is a remarkable claim. Do you have citations to support this?

My knowledge comes from lay proof reading of evolutionary psychology papers, I can't upload any but a quick goggle you will find quite a few papers, I found this graph, which is similar to textbook examples http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/elevel.jpg

tony1967
2010-Jul-11, 10:55 AM
Hi Nereid, thanks for the welcome as far as I can tell encephalization level refers to most advance animals *, there's certainly a few of papers on Octopus family ( just goggle ). Obviously animals which have not evolved a brain don't have this index.

Again this was all background reading to human evolutionary psychology, but I did think it important to show that there is academic evidence for increased animal encephalization, and that it might suggest that "intelligence" offers a evolutionary advantage (the rule I was talking about was the natural selection one). If this rule is true for here then I think there is either 100% chance it is right for everywhere or we are such a freak it is close to 0%. However I think if planetary conditions are right life will try to increase in complexity, multicellular, sense organs, larger and larger CPU...

* animals with brains, there are as far as I understand some exceptions , recent work on insects as individuals ( they have a "different" type of brain) and group animals, show far higher intelligence than they should. To paraphrase something I read "a larger brain may just mean a larger harddrive not a larger CPU". So insect mushroom bodies may act as a better cpu than some larger "animal" brains.

Nereid
2010-Jul-11, 09:25 PM
My knowledge comes from lay proof reading of evolutionary psychology papers, I can't upload any but a quick goggle you will find quite a few papers, I found this graph, which is similar to textbook examples http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/elevel.jpg
Do you have a reference for this? Also, which of the Google hits would you suggest are good to read?

I'm interested in which phyla (etc) the species the various data points represent are in. If the data points are monophyletic, then convergent evolution may not be a factor, and, in the 'replay the tape' scenario, the trend is not necessarily indicative of anything other than the evolution of one line.

In a way, possibly similar to Eurarya; the mitochondria in all present day eukaryotes have the same DNA (same descent, no evidence of convergent evolution), suggesting that the evolution of the super-group(s) is due to a one-off.

Nereid
2010-Jul-11, 09:48 PM
Hi Nereid, thanks for the welcome as far as I can tell encephalization level refers to most advance animals *, there's certainly a few of papers on Octopus family ( just goggle ). Obviously animals which have not evolved a brain don't have this index.
It's not clear whether there is a trend in the Paleozoic, at least not from the data you've posted so far.

And I doubt that anyone would have much in the way of data for the Neo-Proterozoic!

For the evolution of complex, multi-cellular life, on Earth, the four eras are clearly very distinct, which seems to point to the profound importance of the ecological niches available as key factors in the evolution of such life (beyond the geophysical or oceanographic environments).


Again this was all background reading to human evolutionary psychology, but I did think it important to show that there is academic evidence for increased animal encephalization, and that it might suggest that "intelligence" offers a evolutionary advantage (the rule I was talking about was the natural selection one).
It may, for selected phyla/classes/orders, within the chordates; it clearly does not for other kinds of complex, multicellular life (e.g. plants, Cnidaria, most Lophotrochozoa).

If the tape were replayed, what are the chances that something like Chordata would emerge? No one can say!


If this rule is true for here then I think there is either 100% chance it is right for everywhere or we are such a freak it is close to 0%. However I think if planetary conditions are right life will try to increase in complexity, multicellular, sense organs, larger and larger CPU...
Well, multicellularity seems to be evolutionarily advantageous, in the history of the Earth's environments and ecosystems ... but only for the Eukarya - Bacteria and Archaea show no such trends - and only for some of the Eukarya groups (not even super-groups); in fact, AFAIK, none of these trends are found in most Eukarya groups (e.g. there are no complex Porifera with sense organs, CPU, etc).

And in the broad, life on Earth started with the Age of Bacteria* ... and it has never changed!


* animals with brains, there are as far as I understand some exceptions , recent work on insects as individuals ( they have a "different" type of brain) and group animals, show far higher intelligence than they should. To paraphrase something I read "a larger brain may just mean a larger harddrive not a larger CPU". So insect mushroom bodies may act as a better cpu than some larger "animal" brains.
What about the intelligence of plants?

* maybe Archaea have played is minor role too

tony1967
2010-Jul-12, 09:07 AM
Just right click the jpg ;)

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/elevel.jpg

It's also repeated on a NASA page *

It's a fairly well used in evolutionary biology / psychology in various forums there's lots of examples in academic papers all over the net and in journals**

I totally agree with you about needing the right environment and about many older lifeforms not evolving, but my wife described it like this " microbe A has not changed or become more intelligent than it was 3 billion years ago, but it has. It evolved in to micro B, just because A still exists doesn't mean some didn't mutate. It's like I try to open a burger joint, but I'm up against McD's and BurgerKing, the local bank won't give me any money. However I might get a chance if one of the two goes bust ( extinction event ) or if I come up with a better idea for a take away, rather than burgers I'll make tortillas. My bank manager likes this gives me the money. I now might go bust ( evolutionary dead end) or succeed become a new super chain. McD and BurgerKing still exist. Sorry the above is the way it was described to me it's not meant to be insulting :)
So micro A has cornered the market, micro B has to take over, or find a new nitch, better intelligence allows you to find more nitches.


* http://history.nasa.gov/cp-2156/ch4.3.htm
** http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995ASPC...74...72M
**

Nereid
2010-Jul-12, 10:31 AM
Just right click the jpg ;)

http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/elevel.jpg

It's also repeated on a NASA page *

It's a fairly well used in evolutionary biology / psychology in various forums there's lots of examples in academic papers all over the net and in journals**

I totally agree with you about needing the right environment and about many older lifeforms not evolving, but my wife described it like this " microbe A has not changed or become more intelligent than it was 3 billion years ago, but it has. It evolved in to micro B, just because A still exists doesn't mean some didn't mutate. It's like I try to open a burger joint, but I'm up against McD's and BurgerKing, the local bank won't give me any money. However I might get a chance if one of the two goes bust ( extinction event ) or if I come up with a better idea for a take away, rather than burgers I'll make tortillas. My bank manager likes this gives me the money. I now might go bust ( evolutionary dead end) or succeed become a new super chain. McD and BurgerKing still exist. Sorry the above is the way it was described to me it's not meant to be insulting :)
So micro A has cornered the market, micro B has to take over, or find a new nitch, better intelligence allows you to find more nitches.


* http://history.nasa.gov/cp-2156/ch4.3.htm
** http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995ASPC...74...72M
**
Thanks for this.

I think you mean niche (not nitch).

I think you also probably need to be a little more careful with the analogies; evolution is blind (species do not search for niches, for example). It is very common to write about evolution using anthropomorphic metaphors, even among the pros; however, the pros rarely (not never!) take the analogy too far, but taking it too far is extremely common in the general public's discussions (not saying you're doing this, but it seems you're getting very close).

More later.

tony1967
2010-Jul-12, 11:54 AM
Sorry links copied from papers rather than web and links don't work, these should!
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995ASPC...74...73M
http://history.nasa.gov/CP-2156/ch4.3.htm

I should say all the above is paraphrasing my wife ( she works in psychology and was doing some work on evolutionary psychology earlier in the year ), so might not be exactly how she explained it, but it is the basic idea.
Yes niche damn auto spell checker on Debian Iceweasel or maybe my plain stupidity!

Nereid
2010-Jul-12, 05:50 PM
Sorry links copied from papers rather than web and links don't work, these should!
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995ASPC...74...73M
http://history.nasa.gov/CP-2156/ch4.3.htm
Thanks! :)


I should say all the above is paraphrasing my wife ( she works in psychology and was doing some work on evolutionary psychology earlier in the year ), so might not be exactly how she explained it, but it is the basic idea.
I know nothing about evolutionary psychology (so I can't comment further), but in evolutionary biology a species can evolve to be better suited to a new environment if the necessary adaptations do not involve 'crossing a chasm': imagine fitness, in some abstract sense, as being correlated with height, then the 'adaptive landscape' will be like terrain - valleys, mountains, peaks, ridges, etc. Evolution will drive species to the peaks; however, a nearby peak may be out of reach, even though it is much higher ... species have no way to descending from heights, crossing valleys, and then climbing neighbouring peaks*.

Adaptively desirable greater (relative) encephalization seems to be accessible to some complex, multi-cellular animal species, but it is not accessible to most.

Just as multi-cellularity was accessible to some (many) species of now-long-extinct eukaryotes, but seems to have never been to all bacteria and archaea.



Yes niche damn auto spell checker on Debian Iceweasel or maybe my plain stupidity!
Yeah, you'd think they'd be smart enough by now to read your mind and know what you intended to type! :razz:

* note that the adaptive landscape is dynamic, and quite different for different species (or, perhaps, families or orders); for example, the arrival of a new species in the environment may result in a new valley being created, for all sorts of reasons

forrest noble
2010-Jul-12, 07:47 PM
Bosco D. Gamma


........for example intelligence could be defined by the ability to leave your planet and travel into deep space

To successfully communicate I believe one has to go with the normal definition(s) of words such as "intelligence" and "life." Beyond that there may be life-like entities and intelligences out there somewhere that may not fall under our normal definitions but may have similarities to either life, intelligence, or both.

Nereid
2010-Jul-12, 08:52 PM
Sorry links copied from papers rather than web and links don't work, these should!
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995ASPC...74...73M
http://history.nasa.gov/CP-2156/ch4.3.htm

[...]
One sentence, in the first link (a paper - ? - from 1995) seems rather too extreme: "Nevertheless, we can safely conclude that, for whatever reasons, there has been a consistent trend among organisms on this planet towards bigger, fancier, and faster brains."

I am still looking, but Marino (the author) does not seem the least bit concerned that his definition of "organisms on this planet" can refer to only a tiny minority of species, and excludes most phyla/classes/etc.

There's also this: "[...] the trend towards increased relative brain size and higher intelligence has never been reversed within any major group on this planet." Yet the evidence presented seems utterly underwhelming; for example, the number of "major groups" reported (as having been studied) seems - to me - to be a trivial minority of all "major groups", even of those with clearly defined brains. Has this trend been shown in the Platyhelminthes, for example? Are there not a great many examples, in this phylum, of a highly successful adaptive strategy (i.e. parasitism)? And hasn't parasitism, in general, been shown to involve exactly the opposite trend (stated in the Marino quote)?

Then there's this (bold added): "The bottom line, therefore, is that increasing information processing complexity may be the primary way to escape the restrictions of the physical environment and yet continue to change, sometimes dramatically, in response to shifting selective pressures throughout time." I don't know of any evidence, from any of a large number of Eukarya phyla (other than a few animals) to support this breathtakingly broad statement.

The second source is much older; I couldn't find a date, but none of the references is later than 1979. Given the radical changes in the understanding of the diversity of life since then*, especially its genetic basis, I'm not sure this material is of much more than historical interest.

* for example, the Archaea - one of the three Domains of life - weren't identified until 1977 (and remained controversial for some time afterwards)

Gomar
2010-Jul-13, 03:17 AM
As far as I know only 1 species on Earth has the ability to make fire. Then, using tools to kill prey. All other animals
use only their teeth. When you have that, you go on to written language and numbers.

Spoons
2010-Jul-13, 04:18 AM
Tools are used by our chimpy chums too.

linkius wikius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals)

Research in 2007 shows that chimpanzees in the Fongoli savanna sharpen sticks to use as spears when hunting, considered the first evidence of systematic use of weapons in a species other than humans. It has also been observed in the 1970s that some chimpanzees/bonobos use sticks as probes to collect ants and termites.

There is a lot of other use of tools for various purposes, but I'm not sure how many animals use tools specifically for killing prey. Birds use them for nest-building.

Jens
2010-Jul-13, 04:50 AM
Bosco D. Gamma


Just to let you know, you probably shouldn't expect a response, because this thread was recently necromancized and I think you responded to a post from 2004.

tony1967
2010-Jul-13, 08:19 AM
The second source is much older; I couldn't find a date, but none of the references is later than 1979. Given the radical changes in the understanding of the diversity of life since then*, especially its genetic basis, I'm not sure this material is of much more than historical interest.


Hi Nereid I really don't know anything about the papers, I was just pointing to them as an example of the graph. The graph is seems to be used in a lot of work ( evolutionary psychology ) though mostly to do with only one branch of life, these were just a couple of examples. The graph has a name but I can't remember it, sorry I know that's bad, but it's not my subject.

So do you not think the EQ of earth species has increase/evolved with time? Leading to new species with greater EQs?
I always thought adapatabillity would offer a major advantage in evolution, and increased intelligence would allow an organism an advantage. I'm sure you know all the arguments.

Nereid
2010-Jul-13, 12:33 PM
Hi Nereid I really don't know anything about the papers, I was just pointing to them as an example of the graph. The graph is seems to be used in a lot of work ( evolutionary psychology ) though mostly to do with only one branch of life, these were just a couple of examples. The graph has a name but I can't remember it, sorry I know that's bad, but it's not my subject.
Thanks.

I'll see if I can find some more up to date material; I expect that more recent papers would not be so, um, sweeping in their conclusions.


So do you not think the EQ of earth species has increase/evolved with time?
I think you mean something like 'the species of certain clades (or monophyletic groups) tend to show an increase in EQ, over time'.


Leading to new species with greater EQs?
Assuming my restatement, then there certainly seems to be some strong evidence for this, for a small number of clades.


I always thought adapatabillity would offer a major advantage in evolution, and increased intelligence would allow an organism an advantage. I'm sure you know all the arguments.
And that does seem to be the case ... but only for a modest number of monophyletic groups!

Of course, as you pointed out earlier, there is a major exception to this: mass extinctions. The species which seem to have survived such seem to be the boring, small, generalist species in various groups, not the big, glamorous, high EQ ones. This is particularly the case for the PT mass extinction. So, on a planet where mass extinctions were much more common than on Earth, it may be the a high relative EQ would be selected against; it would be a mal-adaptation.

It would be interesting to know if the intense selection pressure Homo sapiens is putting on large ocean fish species is producing extinction rates which are far greater for high (relative) EQ fishes.

forrest noble
2010-Jul-21, 11:53 PM
Jens,


Just to let you know, you probably shouldn't expect a response, because this thread was recently necromancized and I think you responded to a post from 2004.

thanks Jens, I don't usually expect a response to my comments, often only wish to just add my two cents. Cool word "necromancized." Are you an English or language major over there in Japan?