How might intelligence evolve?

[Mr Skeptic]

It seems that our intelligence started out from sensory processing (especially sight) and our internal communications system (neurons). In fact, that seems to be a common theme among animals, where animals with good eyesight like octopi and birds are quite intelligent, and that intelligence is based on the internal communication system (nervous system).

 

But is that the only way intelligence might have evolved? We have other forms of internal communication, for example. Hormones, for one, though these have way too low a bandwidth to be a basis for intelligence. On the other hand, we have very complex immune systems, that seem to have some ability to communicate with itself, as well as some form of chemical intelligence (highly adaptive response to antigens).

 

So I was wondering if it might be possible to have intelligence evolve from something other than neurons, like the immune system. Would we even be able to recognize a chemical intelligence?

[ecoli]

We're discussing a similar thing on the Ape evolution page, in terms of human intelligence. But that isn't to say 'intelligence' (whatever that means, anyway) couldn't evolve in different ways.

[iNow]

Easy. Those which were able to use their insight, experience, and creativity to avoid the pitfalls of life were more successful than those which did not.

 

 

We covered the "what is" in another thread, where I offered this:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=376128#post376128

[pioneer]

Defining intelligence is not always easy. For example, if we see a blood cell crawling along, chasing bacteria, we may call that intelligent. But that could be due to a complex feedback mechanism. For example, an auto-matron at Disney World may have voice recognition with a library of responses. But it is based on programming logic. This is not considered artificial intelligence. Or the robot vacuum cleaner that appears to avoid obstacles, even if we keep moving them around, looks like it has adaptive intelligence. But again this is not artificial intelligence but more like a feedback system.

 

Where the brain leaves simple computer feedback, is that it is like a living computer that can evolve itself. We learn, extrapolate, test, learn, extrapolate, learn, test, etc, with the system evolving. Part of that process involves motivation or different motivations so we collect data.

 

The brain generates energy that has to be used up. This gets off our duff, into some type of interactive action so the learning loop keeps gathering data so it can evolve. It can even add some fuel to the imagination. A simple motivation like desire, gets you to the nightclubs or even to the store to investigate. The ego sort of goes along for the ride helping to stir. Even if we are trying not to learn, the living computer is still picking stuff up, so we learn anyway even of it is subliminal.

 

There is a simple way to explain this. The synapses are the basic unit of memory storage. While synapses form when the dendrites and axons branch to form synaptic interfaces. The brain firmware of a child, it sort of like a seedling that will grow into an adult tree. In other words, the child is destined to become an adult in terms of the brain operation. The neurons are going to evolve anyway, in that direction, based on firmware templates. Creativity is sort of the tree continuing to grow on its own, using data we previously placed.

 

Our interaction is adding sensory data to the growing tree that wants to grow anyway. The result is we are always human but there is flexibility in the leaves. The ego can stir, so it can focus this natural learning potential to give these trees our own signature.

[iNow]

This isn't the speculations forum, pioneer.

[SkepticLance]

To Mr Skeptic

 

Intelligence based on hormones would be pretty damn slow. A new thought every millennium! Some science fiction writers have speculated about plant intelligence, which has the same problem - it would take forever to think through a puzzle.

 

On the other hand, an advanced computer could be both extraordinarily intelligent and extraordinarily fast. I read one short story in which intelligence had 'evolved' among silicon life forms that masqueraded as asteroids. Their silicon nature had resulted in the equivalent of 'natural' printed circuits. I must admit I was not very convinced as to its credibility.

[Mr Skeptic]

To Mr Skeptic

 

Intelligence based on hormones would be pretty damn slow. A new thought every millennium! Some science fiction writers have speculated about plant intelligence, which has the same problem - it would take forever to think through a puzzle.

 

I agree, that's what I meant by "way too low a bandwidth to be a basis for intelligence." However, we do have other chemical communication systems. Intracellular signaling could be smaller and quicker than intercellular signaling used by neurons. The immune system has something not too unlike intelligence and learning in the way it can recognize and respond to antigens. It even has a limited ability to "communicate" with other individuals (antibodies in breast milk, for example). Whether it might evolve into a more abstract intelligence capable of manipulating chemicals like we manipulate tools, I don't know. But it would certainly be interesting.

 

On the other hand, an advanced computer could be both extraordinarily intelligent and extraordinarily fast. I read one short story in which intelligence had 'evolved' among silicon life forms that masqueraded as asteroids. Their silicon nature had resulted in the equivalent of 'natural' printed circuits. I must admit I was not very convinced as to its credibility.

 

I agree that something like silicon chips would be very unnatural and unlikely to evolve due to the large size and incredible purity required, not to mention that it would still need to figure out how to move or be intelligent. But now "silicon intelligence" will have its chance, if not to evolve on its own, to be created by us.

[thedarkshade]

Well neurons make up the control center of the organism, they control everything, the release of hormones too. Everything just turns out to be controlled by brain, where the neurons are. So I think that any kind of evolution of intelligence should probably start with neurons.

[iNow]

Sorry to have to do this to you, but others might be confused.

 

Well neurons make up the control center of the organism

You are equivocating the concept of a "neuron" with the concept of a central nervous system. It is the system which controls, not the individual neurons within.

 

 

they control everything, the release of hormones too.

This would be more appropriately ascribed to the endocrine system. The neurons are just the carriers of the signal sent.

 

Just because the post office helps you to transport the letters you write does not mean that the post office controls which letters get written and sent.

 

 

Everything just turns out to be controlled by brain,

Again, you mean to say central nervous system, not "brain." Also, your statement leaves out the very concept of hormones and autonomic responses, homeostatic regulating systems, etc.

 

 

[by brain] where the neurons are.

Neurons are found throughout the body, not just the brain. You have neurons in your toes, your nose, and everything in between.

 

 

So I think that any kind of evolution of intelligence should probably start with neurons.

 

What you said above does not lead to this conclusion. You could just as easily say that the chemistry of molecules leads to the evolution of intelligence. You need to solidify your case much more robustly to have that claim taken seriously, as right now, it is simply an assumption and is not very well supported.

[Mr Skeptic]

thedarkshade, I have to go with iNow on this one. While neurons are in charge of much of a body's system-wide responses, the vast majority of controlled activity is done by individual cells. An amoeba, for example, is capable of sensing and directed movement, despite having no neurons. Colonial amoebas are able to form a slug-like group that can move cooperatively, based on chemical messaging alone. Our cells are able to do things like summoning immune cells without involving the nervous system, and countless other examples exist.

 

I think we agree in principle, though, that intelligence would have to result from an organism's internal communication systems.

[thedarkshade]

iNow, thanks for clarifying, I really appreciate it:-). I am aware of what you said and it is my mistake for not being clear enough! I was trying to say that any kind of evolution of intelligence should start from the internal communication system, as Mr Skeptic points out, and since neurons are part of this systems it should start with neurons too, disregarding those organisms who do not use neurons to transmit signals.

 

...that intelligence would have to result from an organism's internal communication systems.

Absolutely! Well said:-)

[lucaspa]

The brain generates energy that has to be used up.

 

That isn't how it works. Rather, the brain generates energy because there are tasks that need doing. Notice that animals that we do not consider "intelligent" also have brains that generate energy, but they don't generate as much.

 

In evolution, generating energy has a cost. Individual animals that generate energy for no reason -- which your scenario would entail happening first -- have costs that individuals that do not generate the energy don't. Therefore, the individuals that do not generate the energy have less cost and are at a selective advantage.

 

There is a simple way to explain this. The synapses are the basic unit of memory storage.

 

Before you posit "simple ways" in public, you need to check with the data. Synapses are not the basic unit of memory storage.

 

It seems that our intelligence started out from sensory processing (especially sight) and our internal communications system (neurons). In fact, that seems to be a common theme among animals, where animals with good eyesight like octopi and birds are quite intelligent, and that intelligence is based on the internal communication system (nervous system).

 

some brids have impressive cognitive skills, particularly crows and ravens. However, these are not the birds with the best eyesight. There is a reason why "bird-brained" is in the lexicon denoting non-intelligent behavior.

 

Dolphins and other cetaceans are considered to be quite intelligent (whatever that word precisely means) but do not have good eyesight. Yes, they have sonar, but that is not as good as eyesight.

 

I strongly suggest a book called The Origin and Evolution of Intelligence edited by Schliebel and Schopf. It's a small book but it gives an introduction to a very large field of study.

[Mr Skeptic]

some brids have impressive cognitive skills, particularly crows and ravens. However, these are not the birds with the best eyesight. There is a reason why "bird-brained" is in the lexicon denoting non-intelligent behavior.

 

Dolphins and other cetaceans are considered to be quite intelligent (whatever that word precisely means) but do not have good eyesight. Yes, they have sonar, but that is not as good as eyesight.

 

Good points there. I didn't mean that eyesight was equivalent to intelligence, but rather that since good senses like eyesight requires significant calculating power, some of this calculating power could spill out to other areas. More easily than if the brain portions dedicated to senses weren't there, anyhow.

 

I strongly suggest a book called The Origin and Evolution of Intelligence edited by Schliebel and Schopf. It's a small book but it gives an introduction to a very large field of study.

 

That sounds like just what I was looking for. I'll see if my libraries have a copy.