DrmDoc

Pardon my late arrival to your discussion. As I understand, Hoffman proposes that natural selection promotes and interfaces reality with expedient perceptions that do not necessarily reflect the true nature of reality. In support, Hoffman cited an example of male Australian jewel beetles attempts to sexually interface with beer bottles because of visual cues that mimic female beetles, which the males falsely perceive as reality. If I understand his theory correctly, I disagree. If we consider his beetle example, natural selection produced a survival strategy that was at some earlier point successful and based on true perceptions of the beetle's reality. At some point in their evolution, it was vital to the Julodimorpha bakewelli survival that the female of the species visually appeared exactly as they did although we may not now know why. Therefore, the perception of true reality was an effective and vital product of natural selection for those insects. The current dilemma of the Australian jewel beetle actually support my position. Something has changed in their environment, where the visual cues that once served their survival are now failing. That failure isn't because the visual cues are false, its because a dimension of their perception that wasn't important to their earlier survival has now increased in significances. Clearly these insects can distinguish size by the their attraction to the larger visual cues of the beer bottles. They have not yet adapted to the perception that larger visuals don't equal female or confer survival. Those members of their species that are able to adapt, will strength and insure their species future survival as their environment continues to evolve. Natural selection interfaces reality with true perception at the emergence of a survival strategy. The subsequent failure of that strategy is an indication that survival conditions have changed rather than an indication of natural selection's conditioning or production of realty interfaces that are independent or false perceptions of true reality--in my opinion.

I here that an Alabama judge, under similar circumstance, was previously removed from a prior office, then re-elected, and now faces removal again because of his stance on gay marriage--only in American .

Indeed you did, but I also recall the following: All things being equal, as I understood, you do equate encephalization with intelligence and that a "bigger brain comes out on top." Hence, my thoughts on the idea of equating brain size or volume with intelligence. Indeed, as I understand, Neanderthals had cold adapted bodies while our ancestors had warm adapted bodies when they arrived in Europe about 50,000 years ago. As you may know, within 10,000 years of our ancestors arrival, Neanderthals were extinct. Although I believe our early ancestors superior intelligence insured their survival, I also believe that other factors coupled with our ancestors arrival in Europe led to the extinction of the Neanderthals. Along with previous comments, I inserted a Wiki-link on the prefrontal cortex in my comments in response to your posted link on the relative growth of our frontal cortex compared to earlier hominids. However, this Neurskills link discusses the effects of frontal cortical damage, which I offer as way of understanding how the frontal cortex contributes to our intelligence and innovative behaviors. From the link: This Neurskill link and other frontal and prefrontal articles, provide functional insight into how this specific area of our brain contributes to our overall behaviors and capabilities. They describe how frontal function is critical to the thought processes and elements of behavior essential to invention, innovation, abstract thought, and associated learning. If brain size is experience dependent, then the larger size of our ancestors frontal brain relative to Neanderthals suggests that our ancestors were more frequently engaging in thoughts and behaviors associated frontal brain function. Admittedly, it is impossible to determine the details of Neanderthal brain function from their remains or endocranial casts but if the shape of those casts suggest their relative brain function, then the behaviors Neanderthals engaged were likely more physically and sensory oriented and not as analytical as our early modern ancestors. There's some evidence which suggests that Neanderthals brain were indeed more physically and sensory oriented. Although innovation isn't intelligence in your view, it is indicative of intelligence and a means by which we can measure and compare relative intelligence. Here's a link to innovation and intelligence research in orangutans, which appears to support my position. Even In sexual selection and social interaction, in my opinion, that selection and interaction process emerges from survival related pressures. In nature, animals select partners from displays that suggest survival fitness or dominance and there is, I believe, little disagreement that we are a tribal species because our ancestors understood the value of safety in numbers. If you accept the tenets of evolution, then you must accept that every form of persistent life does so because of natural selection shaped by survival pressures.

I was thinking about the idea that intelligence can be measured by brain volume or size. Given what we know about the larger volume of Neanderthal brains relative to early modern humans and if that larger brain idea is valid, our assumption should be that Neanderthals were likely smarter than their early modern competitors. However, the comparative evidence among Neanderthal artifacts and remnants of their settlements suggest that they likely were not as intelligent. Early humans had greater evidence of artistry and devised tools in varieties and sophistication exceeding those of the Neanderthals. Perhaps the best evidence for the superior intelligence of our ancestry is measured by how advanced our society has become relative to Neanderthals during a equal period of emergence and existence. The age of Neanderthals was twice as long as our ancestry, yet we have advanced much further in society and technology than they did. This forces us to consider what other factors might have contributed to Neanderthals having such a larger brain but not have greater intelligence. We know from earlier links in our discussion that experience can and does influence brain size. Domesticated animals have smaller brains because their experiences are not as rich and varied as their wild cousins. We also know that Neanderthals brains were larger by volume but not as frontally large as ours relatively. These differences in brain growth suggest a distinction between the experiences of Neanderthals and modern humans producing that growth. We can assess the distinct and different experiences between the two species from the behaviors suggested by their differing areas of brain development--assuming, of course, that their brains were functionally configured similarly. If Neanderthals brains were functionally configures as ours, there areas of superior parietal, temporal, and occipital growth suggest more sensory oriented behaviors and thought processes. Neanderthals had brains that favor their physical, sensory oriented lifestyle, which was a life of varied physical and sensory experiences. The superior frontal size of our ancestors brains suggests their greater dependency on thought processes such as problem solving, planning, and reasoning. This frontal cortical function favors a technology oriented and driven lifestyle. Evidence of this distinction between the two is suggested by their weaponry where Neanderthal favored close quarter weapons while early modern humans produced weapons that were lethal as a distance. Clearly, this suggests that early humans were more dependent on technology for their survival while the Neanderthals were more dependent on their physicality and sensory experiences. Indeed it may be oversimplification, but that is the nature of evolution where a species proliferation is survival dependent. The species that evolve better survival attributes and strategies will likely thrives beyond its competitors as we have beyond the Neanderthal.

Encephalization, without consideration of intelligence, is primarily experience dependent and driven. In my view, some early hominids had larger overall brain volumes than modern humans because their lives were more dependent on their experiences than their technologies. Our larger frontal cortex by comparison, I believe, is an effect of our dependency on our invention and use of technology. As I previously commented, I agree that aspects such as culture, artistry, and symbolism are indeed indicative of intelligence; however, I also believe that tool invention and use is indicative of intelligence as well. The OP, in prior comments, believes these aspects emerged from social influences and pressures (SBH); whereas, I believe they emerged from survival related influences and pressures (CVH) such as the need for food, shelter, and defense. So, which hypothesis is valid? I think that questioned is best answered by what may have been the primary impetus for forming social groups. I think we can agree that mating is instinct driven; however, we have evolved to have families and form social bonds because there was greater safety in numbers. The families, social bonds and connections our early ancestors formed were an effective strategy to support their survival. The culture, artistry, and symbolism we've inherited emerged from the survival needs of our early ancestors. But what about invention, innovation, and tool use? Did they emerge from socialization or some other influence? I think invention, innovation, and tool use would not have emerged among our ancestors without a need. So our question now becomes, did they emerge from a social need (needs of many) or some other more basic and compelling need? Those most compelling need our ancestors likely faced was that of survival. Whether tool invention and use addressed the needs of the group or an individual, survival was the impetus for that invention and use. It's difficult for me to say whether tool invention and use emerged before or after the emergence of social groups but I think the idea of tool use likely emerge from a solitary effort. A single individual in need devised a tool to satisfy that need. Being a group member, that tool was refined and put to greater use among other group members. In my view, invention, innovation, and tool use emerged from solitary efforts influenced by survival need, which were then refined and expound by social groups. Therefore, if invention and tool use are indicative of intelligence, then that aspect of our intelligence likely emerged from survival strategizing (CVH) and was subsequently refined and expound by social collaboration (SBH).

Absolutely!

As I now understand, you equate intelligence with evidence of culture, artistry, and symbolism rather than tool invention or their complexity. It is your belief, if I'm correct, that tool use and invention is an outcome of the abstract mental processes associated symbolism capabilities. Although I agree that qualities such as culture, artistry, and symbolism do indeed emerge from social influences, I do not agree that tool invention and, thereby, intelligence emerged from those influences. This seems to involve a question of whether the symbolism emerging from social pressures effected creativity and intelligence or whether the demands of survival is the impetus for that creativity leading to intelligence. I think we can answer that question clearly through the behavior of our primate cousins. At the very least, we know that tool use is indicative of the emergence of intelligence and that chimpanzees fashion and use several tools for foraging and aggression. Although they are not human, they do have social groups and share information but do not appear to have culture or symbolism as we understand. In answering whether intelligence emerges from social or environmental factors, we merely have to ask ourselves which of those factors likely led to the initial emergence of tool use by contemporary species that approximate early hominids. Did the advent of tool fashioning and use among chimpanzees emerge from some internal, symbolic life inspired by social element or pressures...or did their tool use emerge from a need driven by survival related pressures and influences? Primate tool use appear to have emerged through the problem solving associated with their survival efforts. This suggest that intelligence, creativity, and symbolism among early humans likely emerge in a similar way and under similar influences. Intelligence emerge through problem solving and the problems our early ancestors likely encountered were those associated with their survival. Even our social needs are subordinate to and a subset of our overall survival imperatives.

I agree and, regrettably, that is an unfortunate consequence of the greed capitalism nurtures.

In its purest form, capitalism is wealth building that supports and insures future stability and, ideally, favors a stabile economy and nation. While greed, in my view, is a pursuit of profit without consideration of interests or costs other than one's own. For me, it is a distinction between wealth building with consideration of other's interests and profit pursuit without consideration of harm to others and the system.

Unfortunately, capitalism is the source of our nation's wealth and power. Admittedly, it has been good for our citizenry compared to the citizens of certain other nations and political systems. The problem with capitalism is that it unleashes greed, which is a compelling, almost insurmountable force that will always find a way into system. It's a force that will never go quietly back into Pandora's box no matter the public benefit, not in America--in my opinion.

From your link and comments, it's my understanding that you perceive intelligence as a derivative of social interaction and that innovations evolve from those social experiences where information is passed from generation to generation or people to people. Therefore, as I understand, you favor the social hypothesis as likely the impetus for hominid encephalization. Indeed, innovations can and do arise from a sharing of information through social networks; however, innovations do not arise and become widespread without some need and someone with the intelligences to recognize and devise a tool or strategy to address that need. Innovations, in my opinion, are inventions of need that become more refined through social networking. Arising from need, the innovations of early hominids were likely first compelled by the evolving demands of their survival needs and conditions and were then further refined through their social interactions. Without the needs and demands of their survival, early hominids did not require the intelligence to create and innovate--which certainly favors a climate or environment related hypothesis. When assessing the comparative intelligence of early hominids, the comparative sophistication of their inventions and innovations is in my view is a reliable reflection of their intelligence distinction and the survival needs they addressed.

It was my understanding that your question regarded influences on brain size and development, which includes measures of intelligence. Although I don't equate size with intelligence, I do equate experience with size and certain types of experience with developments and distinctions in the modern human brain that are associated intelligence. I accessed the link you provided to a paper discussing Neanderthal technologies relative to humans in Africa. As I understand, the paper purports Neanderthals had a rate of tool innovation comparable to early modern humans but not necessarily more advanced. Although their Mousterian tool development preceded the Aurignacian tools of early modern humans, they weren't as refined or innovative. The distinction between the two is that modern humans in early Europe adapted and innovated their African technologies beyond those in use by their Neanderthal competitors. Early modern humans brought new and superior technologies to Europe when they arrived. I don't equate the Neanderthal's larger visual cortex, eye sockets, and likely enhanced spatial acuity with greater intelligence in their tool development. These attributes may merely suggest they were likely more nocturnal in habits and better twilight or nighttime hunters that early humans. I think the Neanderthals were very well adapted for the fauna upon which they subsisted and the strategies they used to obtain subsistence. The fossil evidence, as I recall, suggests that they sustained considerable injuries, which some have associated with the likely physical nature of their hunting strategies. In my opinion, the dominant reasons for the Neanderthals demise are probably linked to their smaller social groups and an inability to adapt to a decline in the megafauna they hunted, which was likely precipitated by climate change and the arrival of early humans in Europe. I think technology is indicative of intelligence particularly when that technology demonstrates the thoughtful nature of its development and its superiority to similar technologies (e.g., a sharpened wood spear versus a Clovis point). I don't believe a smaller brain volume relative to other hominids suggest that they were smarter than us anymore than I consider wolves as particularly smarter than dogs. Brain size is associated with experience and certainly other hominids and wolves had experiences that, in my opinion, modern humans and domesticated animals no longer have or endure. Our technologies, education, and domestication gave us conveniences that lessen demands on regions of our brain not as vital to our survival as they were or are to other species. We have devised strategies and technologies that more efficiently facilitate our survival and do not require the enhanced mind/body acuity of a hunter-gatherer. Although comparable areas of our brain may be shrinking consequently, our larger frontal cortex suggests how our early ancestors ability to communicate, foresee and prepare for their future survival needs might have uniquely favored their survival success.

I agree. Most likely not into us but indeed something vaguely familiar or primate-like. Evolving modern humans, I think, would likely require conditions favoring or promoting some specific element of intelligence as a survival skills.

If your question regards which hypothesis had the greater impact on human intelligence, I think a critical distinction between modern humans and Neanderthals gives us a clue. As I understand, there is evidence that Neanderthals may have shared social bonds, had culture, and used tools much like modern humans. However, there is a critical distinction suggested by the nature of Neanderthal tools that further suggest something I consider crucial about their brain development, which directly relates to a distinction in the survival pressures (e.g., social, climate, etc.) promoting modern human brain development and intelligence over Neanderthals. Neanderthals predate modern humans by about 200,000 years. Almost from the beginning of the their tool use and until about 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals tools remain not as sophisticated as modern humans would go on to develop during a shorter period of time. This is reasonable since Neanderthals were made of sturdier stuff than modern humans with thicker bones and a more muscular built. Modern humans had to devise strategies to compensate for their more fragile, less muscular frame to survive. Through out early modern human development, survival for them required a capacity to continually devise strategies to satisfy the emergent and evolving survival conditions and demands not met by their weaker physique. Tool and paleo evidence suggests that Neanderthals hunters/gathers didn't change or have to change their survival strategies significantly. The variety and refined nature of early modern human tools suggest that they more frequently than Neanderthals used their brains to devise survival tools and strategies. More than Neanderthals, I think modern humans had to plan and think more about their future and innovate tools to meet the demands of that future. In our brain, the prefrontal cortex is where we find activity associated evaluating consequential experience. The prefrontal is where we assess the future consequences of our actions and experiences. It gives us the ability to innovate and strategize based on the consideration of future possibilities. As your link provides "our frontal lobe is growing." So, in answer to your query, the hypothesis that likely had the most impact on human intelligence is the one whose elements likely demanded continual development of survival tools and strategies--in my opinion.

Regarding human evolution in the shadow of dinosaurs, my opinion is based on conditions favoring dinosaurs that remaining stable and unchanged. I agree that environmental changes that decrease predation and promoted new survival skills would likely have favored the further evolution of animals ancestral to humans.

Now that I have a little more information, I believe that elements of both hypotheses likely contributed to increases in early human brain size; therefore, I didn't vote one hypothesis over the other. My perspective, however, isn't based on the particulars of those hypotheses but more so on what I recall of a comparative brain study among wild and domesticated animals. That study showed that domesticated species of certain animal groups have smaller brains than their wild cousins. As I recall, the author of that study suggested that the larger brain sizes of the wild animals was likely a result of the more varied experiences of those animals and the complex adaptive strategies they must assimilate to survive beyond that of domesticated spieces. Unfortunately, this dated link to a book chapter on brain size variances between dogs and wolves was the only article I was able to immediately find to support my recollection. Essentially, brain size is experience dependent but not necessarily indicative of intelligence. Perhaps the best evidence that size doesn't confer intelligence involves our Neanderthal cousins. Endocranial casts of Neanderthals suggest a brain size of greater volume than modern humans but nearly equal in encephalization. This distinction in brain size between modern humans and the Neanderthals suggests other survival factors may have compelled our superior intelligence. I believe those other survival factors compelled developments in significant regions of our brain that Neanderthals didn't require because of their more muscular physique and likely greater dependency on physical rather than intellectual strength.

Perhaps you should add a little more about each hypothesis, for those of us who are unfamiliar, so that we might make a more informed vote--that is unless you are only interested in the votes and feedback of those who are informed.

It's difficult to disagree. Regrettably, there was a time in early America when larger displays of protests were routinely allowed--particularly in southern states. I've asked myself how I might react if an attorney's lapel pin bore some other symbol almost universally divisive and offensive, such as a swastika. If I were a judge in that case, I would have the pin and the person banished from my court because I would be unable to rule fairly for or against that individual in our proceedings. In the courtroom, I agree that no rights of free speech exist beyond that permitted by the court.

I posted the following to a BLM discussion and thought it might be relevant to this discussion as well: Here's a link to a Review-Journal video report about a defense attorney ordered to remove a BLM pin from her lapel by a Las Vegas judge. The judge said the pin represented a political statement that was inappropriate for court, while the attorney believed the judge was infringing on her free speech. The attorney refused and her cases were delayed pending resolution of this issue. Although I do believe the attorney was making a political statement, I think the judge may have erred in what seems his assessment that wearing a small BLM pin might compromise the just and lawful proceedings of his court. However, in America, judges are well within their authority to remove protestors and protest displays from their courtrooms regardless of display size and who displays the protest. So, do you think it was a political statement inappropriate for court or a violation of the attorney's free speech privilege?

Oh...I see...nevermind

Although you appear to be asking for answer in physics, there are also physiological answers. If that is also your interest, you might want to consider how our cerebellum actually manages how our body moves and how our motor cortexes manage motor information, initiate and control our motor responses.

Here's a link to a Review-Journal video report about a defense attorney ordered to remove a BLM pin from her lapel by a Las Vegas judge. The judge said the pin represented a political statement that was inappropriate for court, while the attorney believed the judge was infringing on her free speech. The attorney refused and her cases were delayed pending resolution of this issue. Although I do believe the attorney was making a political statement, I think the judge may have erred in what seems his assessment that wearing a small BLM pin might compromise the just and lawful proceedings of his court. However, in America, judges are well within their authority to remove protestors and protest displays from their courtrooms regardless of display size and who displays the protest. So, do you think it was a political statement inappropriate for court or a violation of the attorney's free speech privilege?

I agree with Ophiolite in that humanity could not have evolved without extinction of the dinosaurs. The animals ancestral to humans were likely prey and their smaller size was a survival advantage that probably would have persisted if the dinosaurs had survived as they were. Also, I think the environment that would have favored dinosaur survival would also have likely favored survival conditions that didn't require ancestral animals to be any bigger or smarter than they were. Dinosaurs thrived for hundreds of millions of years without needing or evolving technology suggesting the measure of sophistication humanity has gained in just a couple of hundred thousand years. For humans to have evolved on a dinosaur dominated planet, it would have required a lack of predation on human ancestry to achieve a larger size and a competitive environment where survival demands compel mental adaptions and development.

Of course I would want to know. On that final day I'd pull out my lawn chair, pour myself a nice tall glass of ice tea with a wedge of lemon, put CCR's Bad Moon Rising on repeat, a pair of sunglasses, settle back, and enjoy the show--which I'm sure would be amazing!

I also wrote, "...there's distinction between what I conceive and what I believe. What I conceive isn't evidence of fact or probability as what I decide to believe surely must be." I conceive an isotropic bubble as something smooth and equally distributed along its surface...more bubble-like than how I envision anisotropy. My concept is based on a perspective for which I agree there is insufficient support. NOTE: Discovered this recent DNews video entitled "What is Beyond The Universe?" It discusses some of what we've talked about here and also mentioned the Physical Review article I posted a link to previously.