Synapses in Animals

[Proteus]

If anyone comes across reports of the numbers of synapses in animal species (any at all) please let me know.

[iNow]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0270(97)00058-7

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9023726

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109690094/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

 

I just googled estimate synapse number in animals.

[Proteus]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0270(97)00058-7

 

Interesting ciphers. Not what I was looking for, but interesting. I want to compare primate to dolphin intelligence, however, and dolphins have no neocortex like land animals do.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9023726

 

I'm not paying.

 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/109690094/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

Error message. Says I have disabled cookies, which I have not.

 

I just googled estimate synapse number in animals.

 

Thanks! I'll try using those keywords.

[Mokele]

Don't just assume that synapse number equals intelligence, even in particular portions of the brain. Crocodiles and monitor lizards have brains smaller than a bean, and show some pretty cunning behaviors.

[Proteus]

Hm, yes, I was wondering if there really is any way of comparing intelligence based on brain morphology.

 

Isn't the number of synapses the best measure we have of intelligence? The brain size isn't correlated to the number of synapses, though. Women have smaller brains than men but have the same amount of synapses, increasing the number of synapses per neuron to compensate for the decrease in neuron somas.

 

Maybe it depends on what is meant by intelligence. With intelligence, I actually meant consciousness. An obvious misnomer, my bad. Crocodiles may exhibit cunning behaviors, but maybe these were genetically programmed into their brain, ie, instincts. It's a lot harder to consciously think of what you should do than to act on instincts. Sucklings have no idea why they suck the breast until they find that it feeds them. Maybe, similarly, crocodiles act on instinct when they stay low under the water and then suddenly take their prey by surprise, for instance.

[npts2020]

Hm, yes, I was wondering if there really is any way of comparing intelligence based on brain morphology.

 

Isn't the number of synapses the best measure we have of intelligence? The brain size isn't correlated to the number of synapses, though. Women have smaller brains than men but have the same amount of synapses, increasing the number of synapses per neuron to compensate for the decrease in neuron somas.

 

Maybe it depends on what is meant by intelligence. With intelligence, I actually meant consciousness. An obvious misnomer, my bad. Crocodiles may exhibit cunning behaviors, but maybe these were genetically programmed into their brain, ie, instincts. It's a lot harder to consciously think of what you should do than to act on instincts. Sucklings have no idea why they suck the breast until they find that it feeds them. Maybe, similarly, crocodiles act on instinct when they stay low under the water and then suddenly take their prey by surprise, for instance.

 

What do you do that is not "genetically programmed into your brain"?

[Mr Skeptic]

What do you do that is not "genetically programmed into your brain"?

 

Nearly everything, such as remember learned facts. For example, the fact that all the information contained in my DNA fits just nicely on a CD. Or the fact that I regularly play computer games that have more information than my DNA.

[Mokele]

Crocodiles may exhibit cunning behaviors, but maybe these were genetically programmed into their brain, ie, instincts. It's a lot harder to consciously think of what you should do than to act on instincts. Sucklings have no idea why they suck the breast until they find that it feeds them. Maybe, similarly, crocodiles act on instinct when they stay low under the water and then suddenly take their prey by surprise, for instance.

 

Some things are instinct - learning your name and basic commands within a few training instances isn't. Some reptiles seem to have learning on par with some mammals, and crocodiles have developed a particularly nasty reputation as fast learners and innovative hunters (often of their keepers).

 

Remember, "the brain" is a whole mess of stuff, parts for sensory processing, parts for motor coordination, parts for memory, etc. A bigger brain is meaningless to intelligence if it's because of a massively enhanced optic lobe.

[Proteus]

Again, I'm sorry to have misused the word intelligence while meaning consciousness. Consciousness would be the whole package of information-processing in the brain, whereas intelligence is constrained to problem-solving skills. It's basically impossible to compare intelligences from different species because each has a different kind of intelligence, which is why I would rather compare their total consciousness. Having a large optic lobe may not directly be useful as a means of problem-solving, but it may still give than an expanded visual awareness.

 

Do you know anywhere where I can find information about this extraordinarily high intelligence in crocodiles? I can't seem to find it anywhere. The size of the brain still doesn't tell how many synapses there are, however. Mice are pretty intelligent despite having a small brian, because they compensate with increased synapse count. They have been trained to detect landmines, and have even eluded their researchers during their training.

[Sisyphus]

How do you measure consciousness?

[npts2020]

Nearly everything, such as remember learned facts. For example, the fact that all the information contained in my DNA fits just nicely on a CD. Or the fact that I regularly play computer games that have more information than my DNA.

 

I disagree, the fact that you are able to do any of those things is because your genetics made your (and body) brain capable of doing them.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Some things are instinct - learning your name and basic commands within a few training instances isn't. Some reptiles seem to have learning on par with some mammals, and crocodiles have developed a particularly nasty reputation as fast learners and innovative hunters (often of their keepers).

 

Remember, "the brain" is a whole mess of stuff, parts for sensory processing, parts for motor coordination, parts for memory, etc. A bigger brain is meaningless to intelligence if it's because of a massively enhanced optic lobe.

 

How are instincts related to genetics?

[Sisyphus]

Nearly everything, such as remember learned facts. For example, the fact that all the information contained in my DNA fits just nicely on a CD. Or the fact that I regularly play computer games that have more information than my DNA.

 

I disagree, the fact that you are able to do any of those things is because your genetics made your (and body) brain capable of doing them.

 

I think it just depends on how loosely you define "instinct." Specific behaviors for specific circumstances vs. tools for developing behaviors for novel situations. But there isn't really a clear line between them, I don't think, as any action of any animal would seem to have elements of both.

[Mr Skeptic]

I disagree, the fact that you are able to do any of those things is because your genetics made your (and body) brain capable of doing them.

 

There is no evidence that I instinctively knew how long my DNA is. While learning and recall may be instinctive, what is learned and recalled most definitely is not. There isn't enough room on the DNA to hold that information anyways.

 

And in fact, I can learn how to learn, and also learn how to recall, so then I'm not even using genetically programmed actions nor facts.

[Proteus]

Instinct is any innate information that is present before birth and before being memorized. There's no way our DNA could contain everything we would only later learn in advance. My point was that some abilities may not be acquired later in life but instead be available from birth, giving an illusive image of intelligence.

 

How do you measure consciousness?

 

Good question. My idea was that consciousness is a degree of complexity, and therefore should be correlated to the degree of complexity in the brain, at least the areas that are part of the conscious mind. Methought the number of connections between nerve endings was a decent measure of that degree of complexity.

[Sisyphus]

Instinct is any innate information that is present before birth and before being memorized. There's no way our DNA could contain everything we would only later learn in advance. My point was that some abilities may not be acquired later in life but instead be available from birth, giving an illusive image of intelligence.

 

There's no way a bee's DNA could contain everything it would later have to successfully navigate. It just has tools for dealing with it. As do humans, though our tools are far more complex. My doubt is that there is a non-arbitrary line to be drawn.

 

Good question. My idea was that consciousness is a degree of complexity, and therefore should be correlated to the degree of complexity in the brain, at least the areas that are part of the conscious mind. Methought the number of connections between nerve endings was a decent measure of that degree of complexity.

 

I think that's problematic, because we mean a specific phenomenon by "consciousness" already, so simply defining it as "complexity" leads to a false equivocation. Case in point: the universe as a whole contains everything else, thus must necessarily be the most complex entity in existence, therefore must not only be conscious but the "most conscious."

 

I know, what you really mean is complexity in the brain, which is narrower but still not sufficient. Why does complexity in the brain = "amount of consciousness." Measuring complexity in the brain is only measuring complexity in the brain, unless you demonstrate it directly corresponds with something else.

[Mr Skeptic]

Good question. My idea was that consciousness is a degree of complexity, and therefore should be correlated to the degree of complexity in the brain, at least the areas that are part of the conscious mind. Methought the number of connections between nerve endings was a decent measure of that degree of complexity.

 

But complexity has nothing do do with either intelligence nor consciousness. A mud puddle is extremely complex, but has no intelligence nor consciousness. A snowflake is more interesting: it has both organization and complexity. However, it is still not intelligent nor conscious. A sleeping person is as complex as an awake person, but the sleeping person is not conscious. Etc.

[Proteus]

A sleeping person is conscious, especially in REM sleep. A puddle of mud is by far not as complex as the human brain. A puddle of mud is complex on atomic scale, but the human brain even more so.

 

With the complexity of the brain, I refer to the amount of information contained in it. Clearly, the more synapses, the more information can be processed in the brain, and one would assume this amount of information to be correlated to the degree of consciousness, since consciousness is basically the interpretation of that information.

[Mr Skeptic]

But the organization in the human brain reduces its complexity, since as part of the rules of organization knowing where one bit is will tell you where the other bits are. For example, knowing a certain string of amino acids may be enough for you to deduce where the rest of the amino acids in that protein are. As such, the information contained in a brain is less than that which could be contained in a mud puddle, where there is no organization. Unlike the brain, however, the mud puddle is itself unable to process information.

[npts2020]

There is no evidence that I instinctively knew how long my DNA is. While learning and recall may be instinctive, what is learned and recalled most definitely is not. There isn't enough room on the DNA to hold that information anyways.

 

And in fact, I can learn how to learn, and also learn how to recall, so then I'm not even using genetically programmed actions nor facts.

 

Yes, but DNA affects you whether or not you even know it is there. DNA does not need to hold every possible bit of information any more than a computer program needs to know the outcome of every possible mathematics problem. All that is required is understanding and being able to use the methodology needed to arrive at the correct answer. The fact that you can learn and how much is directly related to your genetics.