4 ms·

My best reasoning for why we may conclude we’re the first civilization here is the brain sizes seen before us in the fossil record other biological features. Yo

by ianai 8y ago

My best reasoning for why we may conclude we’re the first civilization here is the brain sizes seen before us in the fossil record other biological features. You need big brains (in absolute volume), tool use, and culture forming. Of course, just a guess.

raverbashing 8y ago
Well, humans are not the ones with the biggest brain volume right now, but the question stands: why other animals have not evolved bigger intelligence before.
- ianai 8y ago
  Hence suggesting it’s more than just brain size that leads to civilization. Edit-this is also why I’ve never considered the threat of a singularity creating a malevolent super-AI to be serious. Larger brains do exist on earth and they only kill humans rarely.
- riffraff 8y ago
  in "the science of discworld"[0] this is touched upon through the nice example of: T-Rex have been on the planet for a few million years, they were huge, and we found a handful of their fossils. It is plausible (but not probable) that a civilization of smart lizards evolved and disappeared in 100k years without leaving any trace that we could find. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Discworld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Discworld
- deburo 8y ago
  You have to look at the brain-to-body mass ratio, but even that is not accurate by itself, you have to look at the encephalization quotient for a more accurate measure. As per the wikipedia's page on brain-to-body mass ratio.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
sgt101 8y ago
Interestingly birds (and by extension some dinosaurs?) have brain structures that are much denser than mammals and therefore may have different correlations of intelligence to brain size.
kragen 8y ago
Crows and parrots seem to have roughly as many neurons as some of the bigger-brained primates, despite being a small fraction of the volume; that's how crows can, for example, make and use tools. If you were a waterworld hyper-squid making this comment, you might be arguing that no life form with neurons measuring only microns in diameter could possibly respond fast enough to environmental stimuli to behave intelligently. We, with our myelinated neurons, know better; squid neurons aren't myelinated and do in fact need to be humongous to transmit signals quickly, but our myelinated neurons don't. If there was some kind of apparatus capable of signal-processing, control, homeostatic feedback, language and visual processing, and at times seemingly intelligent behavior, while using switching and storage elements only tens of nanometers in diameter, which operate a million times faster than the switching and storage elements in your head (assuming you're a human), you might see the flaw in your inference. That's about twelve orders of magnitude denser processing power per unit volume: six orders of magnitude higher speed and six orders of magnitude lower volume. Of course, a hypothetical alien signal processing device that small (call it an "omvindnojm") might only be capable of very simple operations compared to a neuron, but maybe several of them together could be a feasible substitute? Naw, who am I kidding? Such a thing is probably impossible. Your mammalian neurons are as good as it gets, kid.
JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Weren't hadrosaurs in the running?

by ianai 8y ago

raverbashing 8y ago

Well, humans are not the ones with the biggest brain volume right now, but the question stands: why other animals have not evolved bigger intelligence before.

ianai 8y ago
Hence suggesting it’s more than just brain size that leads to civilization. Edit-this is also why I’ve never considered the threat of a singularity creating a malevolent super-AI to be serious. Larger brains do exist on earth and they only kill humans rarely.
riffraff 8y ago
in "the science of discworld"[0] this is touched upon through the nice example of: T-Rex have been on the planet for a few million years, they were huge, and we found a handful of their fossils. It is plausible (but not probable) that a civilization of smart lizards evolved and disappeared in 100k years without leaving any trace that we could find. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Discworld https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Discworld
deburo 8y ago
You have to look at the brain-to-body mass ratio, but even that is not accurate by itself, you have to look at the encephalization quotient for a more accurate measure. As per the wikipedia's page on brain-to-body mass ratio.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

sgt101 8y ago

Interestingly birds (and by extension some dinosaurs?) have brain structures that are much denser than mammals and therefore may have different correlations of intelligence to brain size.

kragen 8y ago

Crows and parrots seem to have roughly as many neurons as some of the bigger-brained primates, despite being a small fraction of the volume; that's how crows can, for example, make and use tools. If you were a waterworld hyper-squid making this comment, you might be arguing that no life form with neurons measuring only microns in diameter could possibly respond fast enough to environmental stimuli to behave intelligently. We, with our myelinated neurons, know better; squid neurons aren't myelinated and do in fact need to be humongous to transmit signals quickly, but our myelinated neurons don't. If there was some kind of apparatus capable of signal-processing, control, homeostatic feedback, language and visual processing, and at times seemingly intelligent behavior, while using switching and storage elements only tens of nanometers in diameter, which operate a million times faster than the switching and storage elements in your head (assuming you're a human), you might see the flaw in your inference. That's about twelve orders of magnitude denser processing power per unit volume: six orders of magnitude higher speed and six orders of magnitude lower volume. Of course, a hypothetical alien signal processing device that small (call it an "omvindnojm") might only be capable of very simple operations compared to a neuron, but maybe several of them together could be a feasible substitute? Naw, who am I kidding? Such a thing is probably impossible. Your mammalian neurons are as good as it gets, kid.

JoeAltmaier 8y ago

Weren't hadrosaurs in the running?