Decius comments on How minimal is our intelligence? - Less Wrong

55 Post author: Douglas_Reay 25 November 2012 11:34PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (214)
Tags: iq civilization

Comments (214)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Decius 20 November 2012 06:06:28PM 1 point [-]

If fire and composting each count as one cluster, then electricity, electromagnetic radiation, and the relationship between the two are each one cluster. Also, I think that both Newtonian physics and Aristotelian physics count equally much as major developments, along with a very large number of developments that have been completely abandoned and forgotten. Combined with the developments that 'everybody knows' now (e.g. how to create and extinguish fires, till soil, make plants edible), I think that the rate of new discoveries has remained roughly proportional to the number of people alive and the degree by which they exceed subsistence living.

Granted, that is a huge increase in absolute rate, but it isn't strictly linked to an increase in intelligence or reasoning abilities.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 20 November 2012 07:39:55PM 0 points [-]

Even if it is an increase proportional to the population, that still means that a model where increased technology (which allows a larger population) is responsible for further increases. So the upshot is still the same, which is that it is highly plausible in that context that other species had enough intelligence to make civilization but never got the first few lucky technologies.

Comment author: Decius 21 November 2012 07:23:05AM 2 points [-]

A dolphin's ability to invent novel behaviours was put to the test in a famous experiment by the renowned dolphin expert Karen Pryor. Two rough-toothed dolphins were rewarded whenever they came up with a new behaviour. It took just a few trials for both dolphins to realise what was required. A similar trial was set up with humans. The humans took about as long to realise what they were being trained to do as did the dolphins. For both the dolphins and the humans, there was a period of frustration (even anger, in the humans) before they "caught on". Once they figured it out, the humans expressed great relief, whereas the dolphins raced around the tank excitedly, displaying more and more novel behaviours.

source

And cue the Douglas Adams reference.

Comment author: CAE_Jones 21 November 2012 10:17:08AM 2 points [-]

I have to wonder how much dolphin anatomy factors into their apparent lack of civilization-building. Then again, I haven't read anything about dolphins developing anything like agriculture (whereas some social insects seem to manage some impressive achievements, such as ants domesticating other insects, farming fungi, and building vast inter-connected colonies). Yet it seems pretty clear that social insects are nothing like intelligent in the way that primates and dolphins are.

Comment author: Decius 21 November 2012 05:46:21PM 1 point [-]

Well, there is the complex hunting behavior, and indications of limited tool use. Why is agriculture special?

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit