I wonder if the key evolutionary development for intelligence was a way to reliably harness it for survival purposes. Chomsky thinks that there's a sharp divid

I wonder if the key evolutionary development for intelligence was a way to reliably harness it for survival purposes. Chomsky thinks that there's a sharp divide between language and non-linguistic communication, in that a language is infinite. Turning to formal languages, even regular languages are infinite, so I think he's more talking about Turing equivalent languages - and given just a little complexity, just about everything is Turing equivalent. Some people equate language with intelligence. But it's possible intelligence is a cause of language (or both are caused by something else).