Comments on: Cooperation and the evolution of intelligence

By: NakedApe

NakedApe — Thu, 19 Apr 2012 02:52:19 +0000

To reinforce the idea of sexual selection, particularly the female’s selection of the male for his intelligence, let me suggest that societies which give greater reproductive freedom to women give rise to more intelligent males. Conversely, societies which oppress women through, say, genital mutilation or stoning for sexual misbehaviour, give rise to very stupid men. The women in such societies just don’t have the freedom to choose their mates. Since intelligence is also transferred between the sexes through genetic recombination, it will also percolate to increase women’s intelligence and thus the population as a whole. Have you noticed that societies which give greater freedom to women are more productive and more enjoyable to live in while societies where women are brutalized tend to have men who are given to superstition, brutality and stupidity? This is just my hypothesis but could be tested by some social scientists or anthropologists, I suppose.

By: Lord Penguin

Lord Penguin — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 03:33:22 +0000

The brain does not compute with quantum data (the electrical impulses are either 0 or 1 at any given moment), so any quantum interaction at the synapse could be modeled by a probabilistic system.

That’s not to say quantum computers wouldn’t be very useful in creating AI as intelligent as, or more intelligent than humans.

By: GatorALLin

GatorALLin — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 17:58:29 +0000

…this article had me thinking about the Borg from star trek

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(Star_Trek)

By: eldras

eldras — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 22:51:32 +0000

as this has been demonstrated these things now follow:

1. That human brain simulation may best be done as groups and therefore require more processing power than we’ve planned for.

2. That one human brain is part of a network and almost meaningless alone.

The latter means to construct artificial intelligence necessitates group interaction for which much of the brain may exist. Reverse engineering is not of course the only way of constructing superintelligent systems, many of which will arrive by intelligence amplification as Verner Vinge’s NASA paper predicted in 1993.
A caveat is that Hammerhoff-Penrose quantum brain: although quantum gravity interaction at the synapse seem against ockham’s law, such actions have now been found in plants. If consciousness requires these the order of complexity is factored up and may require quantum computers to replicate it.

By: Jonathan Cole

Jonathan Cole — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:30:43 +0000

I see evidence that individuals who are greater risk takers have an edge in procreation. Does it seem that a little bit of ‘crazy’ makes a potential mate more desireable?

By: Rob Fleming

Rob Fleming — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:05:51 +0000

OK, the world is complex and everything is connected. But I would suggest that cooperation is a response to selection pressure that becomes self-reinforcing. EG, the more the organism selects cooperation over, say, bigger teeth, the more it needs to cooperate to survive and those that don’t cooperate don’t pass on their genes. This leaves us hard-wired for social interaction, which may explain why social media can become as addictive as alcohol and drugs. So environmental pressure and the response to it are linked, but let’s not confuse the two.

By: Kelsey473

Kelsey473 — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:47:27 +0000

It seems to answer why many apes etc would develop `intelligence` but not why one ape `us` is so so far ahead of the rest.
Best guess I would say it Miller`s `Sexual Selection` – The Mating Mind – as to why we make the `extra` jump once the ground work is in place.