Does intelligence exist outside of cultural environment

[Noku]

We humans consider oursleves as intelligent beings, however is that a biological trait at all? Biological (or non-biological also) traits can be prerequisite for beings to become intelligent. I would claim that intelligent beings have to be social, able to communicate and able to memorize past experience.

There are many different ways to measure intelligence, however none of them are perfectly outside the effects of cultural environment. This probably means that intelligence is relative to the cultural background of the measurement (what kind of intelligence is measured). These measurements are usually relative to the demography of the people who are being measured. Time spent studying the cultural environment in which the measurement resides has usually pretty direct correlation on how well people succeed in the measurements.

Also animals have certain level of intelligence and culture. The justification for humans to call ourselves as intelligent beings is mostly based on the fact that our culture and learning reaches much further than one generation. There are some examples of more than one generation intellectual inheritance in animal kingdom also, but the scale is very much lighter. Animals with means of effective communication and thus better skills in sharing past experience tend to do better in utilizing intelligent inheritance. Being social animal makes it more likely that there is useful experience for sharing.

Discuss.

EDIT: Certain topics related could be

1) Could a human be intelligent as we see it wihtout education?
2) If we built a machine having artificial brain more powerful than humans could the machine be intelligent as we see it without education?
3) Could animals be intelligent as we see it if they were given education?
4) When we drop outside of the cultural environment we know, do our behavior change from intelligent one to unintelligent behavior?
5) Do we behave unintelligently even when inside our cultural environment?

Also we probably have to make a better and more clear definition for the "intelligence as we see it" in order to achieve intelligent discussion on the topic.

[die of starvation]

1. no not really
feral children are clever as far as the average animal goes but they arent intelligent

2. what of course not

3. apes sure but they aren't fairly considered animals

4. no
i dont get why you would ask this

5. depends on what you mean by intelligent
i would say yes sometimes

[Noku]

As for point two I do believe that some might believe that if the machine would be very effective in perceiving its environment it could learn intelligent behavior without formal education. However it might still be that formal education would do this more effectively. On the other hand we as humans learn intelligent behavior theough both, formal education and perception.

For point four I would claim that in such situation we would be behaving by instinct or experience, which in foreign cultural environment might be intelligent or just the opposite. We have learned to survive in many various hostile environments, mostly because the phenomenons which apply in there are known before hand. However, when the situation would be that we have no previous experience the intelligence in our behavior turns to instincts.

At point five I had in mind some behavior like crime or love. The dilemma being there that is our behavior driven by our past experience and thus could be considered intelligent or is our behavior biased by the emotional context making our behavior unintelligent.

[Jude]

We humans consider oursleves as intelligent beings, however is that a biological trait at all?

Yes. Completely. Learning happens via changes in biology. The biology has to be rigged up properly for learning to take place and culture to exist, and all changes wrought in the mind by experience and culture are reflected in biology.



1) Could a human be intelligent as we see it wihtout education?
Maybe not "as we see it," but the kind of education people get in today's cultural environment is certainly very different from what they would have gotten 10 or 20k years ago as hunter-gatherers, yet those ancestors of ours were also clearly intelligent. They wouldn't be able to make critical-thinking type decisions and consideration of complex geopolitical issues, for example, but that's hardly the exemplar of intelligence.


2) If we built a machine having artificial brain more powerful than humans could the machine be intelligent as we see it without education?
Absolutely

3) Could animals be intelligent as we see it if they were given education?
Not the animals that currently exist. They don't have the hardware for it. Again, though, lots of animals do things that are intelligent; they just don't win spelling bees or understand human social interactions. Again, those are just two examples of the myriad kinds of intelligence you can have.

4) When we drop outside of the cultural environment we know, do our behavior change from intelligent one to unintelligent behavior?
No.

5) Do we behave unintelligently even when inside our cultural environment?
If we're profoundly mentally retarded.


Also we probably have to make a better and more clear definition for the "intelligence as we see it" in order to achieve intelligent discussion on the topic.
Good luck on that one

[Noku]

Yes. Completely. Learning happens via changes in biology. The biology has to be rigged up properly for learning to take place and culture to exist, and all changes wrought in the mind by experience and culture are reflected in biology.

Well, I was just suggesting that intelligence is not a biological trait on its own but just a sum of the biological traits common to humans. Which enable the culture to be carried on for generations.

Maybe not "as we see it," but the kind of education people get in today's cultural environment is certainly very different from what they would have gotten 10 or 20k years ago as hunter-gatherers, yet those ancestors of ours were also clearly intelligent. They wouldn't be able to make critical-thinking type decisions and consideration of complex geopolitical issues, for example, but that's hardly the exemplar of intelligence.

Does the intelligence of hunter-gatherers differ so greatly from the intelligence we see in animal world? Also, didn't the hunter-gatherer societies already have certain culture and history to support their existance and didn't that also require more learning than we see in animal world?

Absolutely

Why intelligent machine would be free of education? How that machine could be intelligent in human processes if it has no idea what they are or what their purpose is?

Not the animals that currently exist. They don't have the hardware for it. Again, though, lots of animals do things that are intelligent; they just don't win spelling bees or understand human social interactions. Again, those are just two examples of the myriad kinds of intelligence you can have.

Well, there has been this chimp which was trained to learn sign-language (not sure of the correct english term but the language though for deaf people). With the sign-language the chimp became able to discuss with the scientists about how the chimp felt about the stray cat which had killed a bird at the backyard of the facility. The chimp clearly stated how immoral that behavior was for the cat according to the chimps moral standing. If that is not capability near human intelligence then what is? It is obvious though that in a chimp society this wouldn't be possible, but chimp might be able to be somewhat intelligent being if exposed to means of communications and human culture.

No.

I doubt that you could behave intellectually in completely new cultural environment, instead you would be driven by your past experience (which doesn't necessarily lead to intelligent decissions) and instincts.

If we're profoundly mentally retarded.

How about emotionally driven behavior?

[McP3000]

I dunno
/thread

[Jude]

Does the intelligence of hunter-gatherers differ so greatly from the intelligence we see in animal world?
Yes
Also, didn't the hunter-gatherer societies already have certain culture and history to support their existance and didn't that also require more learning than we see in animal world?
Uh yeah but that's still a result of their biology


Why intelligent machine would be free of education? How that machine could be intelligent in human processes if it has no idea what they are or what their purpose is?
Just because it's intelligent doesn't necessarily mean it understands human processes. Also, it could be pre-programmed to understand humans, just like (neurologically normal) humans are.


Well, there has been this chimp which was trained to learn sign-language (not sure of the correct english term but the language though for deaf people). With the sign-language the chimp became able to discuss with the scientists about how the chimp felt about the stray cat which had killed a bird at the backyard of the facility. The chimp clearly stated how immoral that behavior was for the cat according to the chimps moral standing. If that is not capability near human intelligence then what is? It is obvious though that in a chimp society this wouldn't be possible, but chimp might be able to be somewhat intelligent being if exposed to means of communications and human culture.
That's an extremely exaggerated account of the apes' linguistic and perceived cognitive abilities, blown out of proportion by people who worked with and hence have affection for the apes, and by people trying to prove points. Fact is, all the apes that have "learned language" in fact have an extremely tenuous grasp on language, far less than that of many retarded humans or toddlers. Any moral statements or complex statements of fact which are imputed into that language use are pure conjecture. Now, apes may have higher cognitive abilities of those kinds, but as they don't have a language capability of any real consequence, we can't know that from their sign language use.
Now, chimps are very intelligent compared to other animals, in a similar fashion that humans are in many ways, since they live in large social groups just like humans. But the reason they don't acquire the trappings of human culture the way humans do is because they don't have human brains.


I doubt that you could behave intellectually in completely new cultural environment, instead you would be driven by your past experience (which doesn't necessarily lead to intelligent decissions) and instincts.
Huh? One great thing about humans is an ability to learn and adapt to new environments.


How about emotionally driven behavior?
in what way is that unintelligent

[die of starvation]

As for point two I do believe that some might believe that if the machine would be very effective in perceiving its environment it could learn intelligent behavior without formal education. However it might still be that formal education would do this more effectively. On the other hand we as humans learn intelligent behavior theough both, formal education and perception.

'formal education' and 'education' are different things
a machine isnt going to do anything, let alone wander about studying the world and applying reason to problems unless its programmed to do so


For point four I would claim that in such situation we would be behaving by instinct or experience, which in foreign cultural environment might be intelligent or just the opposite. We have learned to survive in many various hostile environments, mostly because the phenomenons which apply in there are known before hand. However, when the situation would be that we have no previous experience the intelligence in our behavior turns to instincts.
no if we're in an unfamiliar environment we'll still apply reason to problems
if our conclusion is wrong that doesn't make us intelligent it just makes us wrong

unintelligent animals dont have reasoned thoughts to begin with


At point five I had in mind some behavior like crime or love. The dilemma being there that is our behavior driven by our past experience and thus could be considered intelligent or is our behavior biased by the emotional context making our behavior unintelligent.
i dont think 'driven by past experience' necessarily equals intelligence
nor does bias by emotional context make behavior unintelligent
those parameters allow a goldfish to be intelligent

[1338 h4x0r]

a machine isnt going to do anything, let alone wander about studying the world and applying reason to problems unless its programmed to do so

......and we're biological machines

[Noku]

Yes

Care to explain?

Uh yeah but that's still a result of their biology

Their biology had a much more slimmer impact on their survival than their history as tool makers and experts of the hunting craft. Their biology made that possible in the first place, but their tribal history is outside of the Darwinist evolution. It is their cultural evolution which made it happen.

Just because it's intelligent doesn't necessarily mean it understands human processes. Also, it could be pre-programmed to understand humans, just like (neurologically normal) humans are.

If a machine would have artificial brain, wouldn't it consist of all the specialized brain sections which we as humans also possess?

Anyway could you elaborate a bit what is the intelligence if it is not the human process of intelligent behavior? This is in my opinnion the interesting part, which we should try to define.

That's an extremely exaggerated account of the apes' linguistic and perceived cognitive abilities, blown out of proportion by people who worked with and hence have affection for the apes, and by people trying to prove points. Fact is, all the apes that have "learned language" in fact have an extremely tenuous grasp on language, far less than that of many retarded humans or toddlers. Any moral statements or complex statements of fact which are imputed into that language use are pure conjecture. Now, apes may have higher cognitive abilities of those kinds, but as they don't have a language capability of any real consequence, we can't know that from their sign language use.

Now, chimps are very intelligent compared to other animals, in a similar fashion that humans are in many ways, since they live in large social groups just like humans. But the reason they don't acquire the trappings of human culture the way humans do is because they don't have human brains.

I wouldn't go as far as to claim that it is solely to the superiority of our brain which makes us possible to functions like moral decisions. Why we have higher level of moral intelligence and such is solely result of cultural evolution. In biological sense there is nothing which makes us more moral beast as chimps are.

Huh? One great thing about humans is an ability to learn and adapt to new environments.

Also animals adapt to new environments. Why our adaptation would be any more intelligent than is culturally possible for us?

in what way is that unintelligent

At least in a sense that is very animal-like behavior. What is it in human way to be socially emotional being that makes it intelligent beyond the animal capability, if it is not cultural?

[Noku]

'formal education' and 'education' are different things
a machine isnt going to do anything, let alone wander about studying the world and applying reason to problems unless its programmed to do so

Yes I agree with you in this one. However, wouldn't it be inside the definition of artificial brain that the being would be perceiving?

no if we're in an unfamiliar environment we'll still apply reason to problems if our conclusion is wrong that doesn't make us intelligent it just makes us wrong

unintelligent animals dont have reasoned thoughts to begin with

How about the intelligent animals who can reason in order to achieve their goals? There is evidence of the reasoning capabilities of animals outside the labs, what makes the human intelligence different?

i dont think 'driven by past experience' necessarily equals intelligence
nor does bias by emotional context make behavior unintelligent
those parameters allow a goldfish to be intelligent

True. How to better define the intelligence? What's the difference between the human intelligence and below human intelligence?

[Fuqueue]

tl;dr

but yes.

if i was the last person alive i would presumably still need my intelligence to survive.

[The Human Language]

We are entirely the result of our genes and surrounding environments during our development. As a result there are a certain types of individual for whom education will prove a waste of time and money, if the genes aren't there a certain intelligence cannot be molded as their is a clear barrier.

[1338 h4x0r]

shut up

you're a dirty bunghole

[The Human Language]

Must you persist?

Every time I find a bi-monthly allowance of time to log-on these boards and post you hound me to no end. I was kind enough to take you off my ignore list the first time, can you please not earn my ire again. Your co-operation on this matter will be appreciated.

[1338 h4x0r]

http://i29.tinypic.com/2m83wy8.jpg

FOOT PORN

[Noku]

With healthy genes we can be so much more inside a civilized culture than just our biology alone.

[1338 h4x0r]

Rational agency doesn't require culture ...... wtf

[Noku]

How to better define the intelligence? What's the difference between the human intelligence and below human intelligence?

^^ That then.

[The Human Language]

With healthy genes we can be so much more inside a civilized culture than just our biology alone.

I completely agree.

In a stifled environment, a failure to achieve the best out of ones potential will almost always occur. A figure such as Charles Dickens may an excellent example of where this is not the case, growing up in such poverty to become the literary giant he is known as today. However I would consider cases such as these truly conditional and a firm exception to the rule.

[Jude]

Care to explain?

What's to explain? Clearly the humans of 20 or 30k years ago had greater intelligence than any other species past or present.


Their biology had a much more slimmer impact on their survival than their history as tool makers and experts of the hunting craft. Their biology made that possible in the first place, but their tribal history is outside of the Darwinist evolution. It is their cultural evolution which made it happen.

Nothing is outside of evolution, in that it is only evolution that is responsible for giving us all our mental faculties, and for giving us the ability to have such a thing as cultural evolution in the first place. You don't see cultural evolution in other animals because they don't have the brains for it. All the technology that we've developed is there just because we have the evolved capacity to develop it and learn about it from others.


If a machine would have artificial brain, wouldn't it consist of all the specialized brain sections which we as humans also possess?
Uh, if its designers wanted it to. There's hardly only one way to make an intelligent being.

Anyway could you elaborate a bit what is the intelligence if it is not the human process of intelligent behavior?
Huh? Intelligence is an extremely diverse range of capabilities, not just limited to what humans can do, and not just a monolithic essence that humans have more or less of.



I wouldn't go as far as to claim that it is solely to the superiority of our brain which makes us possible to functions like moral decisions. Why we have higher level of moral intelligence and such is solely result of cultural evolution.
How many times do I have to say it, we could not have moral intelligence, or cultural, or cultural evolution, without the brains that we have? All those things take place using something created by evolution, and can't step outside the limits of what evolution created (short of genetic engineering, but strictly speaking there's no reason not to consider that part of evolution as well)

In biological sense there is nothing which makes us more moral beast as chimps are.
Yes there is. People have innate moral senses of right and wrong; people all over the entire planet consider a number of basic behaviors to be good and bad, and morally sanction them accordingly. A sense of morality, of being wronged and of cooperation being good, is something we evolved as highly social creatures with growing cognitive abilities.


Also animals adapt to new environments. Why our adaptation would be any more intelligent than is culturally possible for us?
Huh?


At least in a sense that is very animal-like behavior. What is it in human way to be socially emotional being that makes it intelligent beyond the animal capability, if it is not cultural?
Is English your first language? I'm having trouble understanding some of your sentences. Anyway, it's pure nonsense to say that acting based on emotions is somehow less intelligent or more "animal-like" than acting based on "intelligence." For one thing, emotion is the basis of all human motivation, from the very basic ones such as eating, sleeping and ****ing, to the "higher" ones such as cooperating, trading, inventing, writing poetry, and so on.

The idea that we were just beasts with uncontrolled emotions and no intellect until "culture" came along and gave us thoughts and morality is gibberish, albeit gibberish that's endorsed by a large number of social scientists. Fortunately that viewpoint is on the way out as real science is making its way into the study of humans. Our intelligence doesn't come from culture; it is what allows culture to exist.

How about the intelligent animals who can reason in order to achieve their goals? There is evidence of the reasoning capabilities of animals outside the labs, what makes the human intelligence different?

The fact that it's more complex and consists of a larger variety of problem-solving mechanisms.

What's the difference between the human intelligence and below human intelligence?
A very fuzzy line, inhabited by certain species of ape at times, and mentally retarded humans.



Basically, Noku, you appear to be basing your assumptions on what's sometimes called the "Standard Social Science Model" which is quite prevalent in anthropology and has been prevalent in psychology, but which, like I said, is on its way out. The ideas of this model are that people are kind of born with minds completely formless and empty, which are then filled by "culture" to create real humans. This flies in the face of everything that real science has ever shown about people, not to mention it has the problem of infinite regress - how did this magical essence of "culture" ever develop in the first place?

The shift to viewing culture as a result of human intelligence and human nature, instead of as the cause, will make your thinking much clearer.

[1338 h4x0r]

His first language is Finnish

[Jude]

oic

[die of starvation]

......and we're biological machines
ya and
we come programmed with genes and instincts that tell us to eat and breathe and whathaveyou

if you were to erase a human neurological system the way you can erase a hard drive then they would do literally nothing

[die of starvation]

Yes I agree with you in this one. However, wouldn't it be inside the definition of artificial brain that the being would be perceiving?

i have no idea what this means


How about the intelligent animals who can reason in order to achieve their goals? There is evidence of the reasoning capabilities of animals outside the labs, what makes the human intelligence different?

we're qualitatively different from apes (and whatever other animals you believe to be capable of reason) because we have true language
we're also quantitatively way better at reasoning than they are by like orders of magnitudes

[Jude]

we're qualitatively different from apes (and whatever other animals you believe to be capable of reason) because we have true language


along with many, many other things but yeah we are qualitatively different

[Fuqueue]

Did somebody say

FOOT PORN

?

[Noku]

Is English your first language? I'm having trouble understanding some of your sentences.

Yeah my first is Finnish and well I was watching a movie while writing that, not paying much continuous attention to either. Sorry for that.



I've been mostly provocative not arguing for what I believe just trying to get some conversation to mature this thread for the real things to discuss.

Well I attended to study social psychology before getting in media technology and I do have a bit more interest in social side of things than the biologistic... it's just more useful in my field. Neuroscience today is pretty interesting but I usually get my dose from popular science journals. The popular view there tends to claim there is pretty much similarities in our neurology, and our behavior gets much more similiar when food rewards are replaced by money. Some could claim that it tells something about us being more like apes than we have previously understood, more critical reader could just claim that there is no good way to measure our similarities if there is no way to have common reward system.

Anyway, I do think that human evolution has much more interesting phases than other apes. I think that the aquatic ape theory is interesting and explains some aspects of us pretty well, though I have never paid attention on its creditability. I believe that our biological traits - which made us social beings, made us able to memorize the past and most importantly enabled us to communicate by using something which later came out as languages, - gave us the possibility to become very intelligent. The intelligence paired with the ability to make tools made us the superior beings. I think that maybe the ability to make tools is what differs us from dolphins in the capability to build more useful culture.



The more interesting things to discuss would be ther differences in human level of intelligence, their relations to culture and whether or not there is other constructs which affect to intelligence than the culture and history. The idea for this thread came from the discussion about whether or not a machine can think... but let's keep that there. Sorry for long post.

[Jude]

I haven't heard too many people endorse the "aquatic ape" theory, I think it's sort of a fringe thing.

One thing about tool use is that our brains expanded far earlier than the earliest tool remains are found. Now, it's only stone tools that last long enough to be found by archaeologists, but still - it seems tools weren't what spurred the expansion of our brains. I personally buy into the idea that brain expansion was the result of runaway sexual selection, like a peacock's tail or male elephant seals being four times the size of females.

[Noku]

The tools were a perfect target for using our ability to reason. I'd bet that if dolphins were given the opportunity of being able to make tools they might actually develop a high civilization eventually.

How runaway sexual selection could have had effect on our brain expansion?

I like the aquatic ape theory because it covers so many non-ape traits we have and probably dolphins and whales have had similiar evolutionary paths, humans just returned on the ground or should I say didn't go to oceans.

What do you think lead to the writing skill?

[Jude]

The tools were a perfect target for using our ability to reason. I'd bet that if dolphins were given the opportunity of being able to make tools they might actually develop a high civilization eventually.
I mean maybe. But my point was that we have no record of tools being used until a LONG time AFTER the brain already enlarged to its current size, or near that. And like I said, it's possible people were using non-stone tools of some kind before that, but since we have no record of that we can't assume it.


How runaway sexual selection could have had effect on our brain expansion?

Easy - advanced cognitive powers require more neural connections, which means more neurons, which means a larger brain...if those advanced cognitive powers made a human ancestor more desirable for mates or more able to acheive the things that got them mates, then they would be more successful in mating and their genes would spread. And so on. Moreover, once a trend is in place of smarter (gradually bigger-brained) people being successful at mating, then just the fact of a potential mate being smart makes them more desirable, regardless of the survival value of intelligence. This is because when a female is choosing a husband, it makes sense for her ( in evolutionary, not necessarily conscious, reasoning) to pick a husband whose genes will produce children who have that same desirable trait or tendency, merely because all other females are looking for the same thing.

This is the kind of process that probably produced the male peacock's fancy tail - a tail may be an unfakeable indicator of good genes, but the fact that all females are looking for fancy tails is reason enough for any female to pick a male with a nice tail - because his sons will also have nice tails, and thus be picked by females, etc. Same thing with intelligent brains.


What do you think lead to the writing skill?
A coming together of several of our mental modules or skills; presumably ones for symbolic language (which we use in speech innately), and thinking in pictures, which people also do innately, and fine motor skills to create pictures, which people can learn to do quite well because our hands are already built for fine motor tasks.

[Fuqueue]

I don't think intelligence is really something that gets you laid, nor has it ever been throughout natural history. What we look for in a mate is almost entirely physical. Intelligence ploliferates by stopping people who possess it from doing stupid things that get them killed, thus enabling them to pass on their genes.

I mean we've all heard the saying 'only stupid people are breeding', we've all seen idiocracy etc. And it's quite true. Young mothers are almost entirely chav/ladettes from the outer suburbs whose boyfriends wear ADIDAS. A lot of them are dumb enough to repeat the mistake twice before they've even left their teens.

[Jude]

I don't think intelligence is really something that gets you laid, nor has it ever been throughout natural history. What we look for in a mate is almost entirely physical.
Are you kidding?


I mean we've all heard the saying 'only stupid people are breeding', we've all seen idiocracy etc. And it's quite true. Young mothers are almost entirely chav/ladettes from the outer suburbs whose boyfriends wear ADIDAS. A lot of them are dumb enough to repeat the mistake twice before they've even left their teens.

You realize modern American society is nothing like the hunter-gatherer society we evolved in right

[Fuqueue]

Are you kidding?
I'm talking about real life

You realize modern American society is nothing like the hunter-gatherer society we evolved in right
Yeah but we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking we're any less of an animal.

[The Flying Barron]

Yes without culture we become stoopid. AS you see America has the least amt. of culture thats why the ppl thurr are so dumb and ask retarded questions like these.

[Jude]

I'm talking about real life

You really think people don't consider intelligence, personality, common sense, talent, and so forth when choosing mates


Yeah but we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking we're any less of an animal.

what i'm not saying anything like that

[die of starvation]

women choosing their mates is new and weird
in the old days the strong guys would fight each other to impress women and the smart guys would just rape rape rape all day long
so our brains got bigger

[Mr. Ron]

exactly

[pedro durruti]

not that speculating about prehistorical gender relations is a very knowable thing to do but i'm sure male dominance was also a cultural development and MATE SELECTION hehehe wasn't so unbalanced but mostly it might have probably was...
might
have
probably
was

i mean some tribal societies have more misogynist tendencies than others, though most are primarily male-dominated.. MAHAHA

[Mr. Ron]

well in modern day societies (western ones) women are the selectors for the most part.

[pedro durruti]

that not what i told your mom

[1338 h4x0r]

This thread sux tbh

[Smokey D]

well in modern day societies (western ones) women are the selectors for the most part.

If you're an ug.

[pedro durruti]

patriarchy!! that's the word we're looking for. a penisocracy or what'd you call it 133b haxor? a dickstitutionictionary? i was talking to an 11 year old girl the other day and i was with my sister and she repeated these masculininist(?) values saying girls oughtta not wear shorts because they're girls and if that's not the penetration of a penisocracy i don't know what is because the skirt is besides being a wonderful thing for girls to wear is a tool of the RULING CLASS!! hahahaha and it is promoted against the overall* good of women

[1338 h4x0r]

shitocracy sounds better

Every where you go, the leaders SUCK

[pedro durruti]

the peniscrats are the most violent poopthrowers

[1338 h4x0r]

Horseshit ...... women are equally awful

[Jude]

In most mammal species the females are the selectors, in humans it's more balanced because males are also quite picky (compared, say, to chimpanzees and a lot of birds, who will **** anything female, and in the case of some birds, dummy models that look like females).

This would explain why both genders have big brains, since if it was only females selecting, then men would have huge brains and intellectual abilities but women would be about as smart as chimps.

[pedro durruti]

Horsepoop ...... women are equally awful
yo, men are still the oppressors, tho that's not to say that there arent omnibuscrats... there certainly are, there certainly are

it's funny though that people who are asses are called "dicks"
though also dicks are also called squirrels (kunts)

haha omnibuscrats... vajinacrats

[Elitist Douche Bag]

This would explain why both genders have big brains, since if it was only females selecting, then men would have huge brains and intellectual abilities but women would be about as smart as chimps.

What?

[Mr. Ron]

If you're an ug.
not really

men chase, women choose for the most part. If you're some model then maybe its the other way around

[Smokey D]

Um, there's lots of competition amongst females for mates.

[Mr. Ron]

Um, there's lots of competition amongst females for mates.
I don't deny that, however, usually it is the male who chases and the female that ultimately chooses to be with said male.

[Smokey D]

I don't deny that, however, usually it is the male who chases and the female that ultimately chooses to be with said male.

Both sexes choose. What are you talking about.

[Mr. Ron]

Both sexes choose. What are you talking about.
well wait, are you talking about just hooking up or people genuinely looking for a long term relationship?

[Iskandar]

Ron what is this sexist bullpoop. Women chase men as much as we do.

[Smokey D]

well wait, are you talking about just hooking up or people genuinely looking for a long term relationship?

At every stage in the courting process both sexes choose unless one of them decides to rape the other.

Just because men are more likely to choose to have sex with ugs doesn't mean there isn't selection going on.

[Mr. Ron]

no what I'm saying is that a lot of women prefer for the men to chase them for a while before choosing to be in any sort of relationship

[Smokey D]

no what I'm saying is that a lot of women prefer for the men to chase them for a while before choosing to be in any sort of relationship

And men choose to chase. So what.

[Mr. Ron]

And men choose to chase. So what.
there are different stages. thats what i'm getting at.

[Smokey D]

there are different stages. thats what i'm getting at.

What.

[Mr. Ron]

Never mind smokey I am obviously too much of a ladies man 4 u 2 comprehend

[Iskandar]

no what I'm saying is that a lot of women prefer for the men to chase them for a while before choosing to be in any sort of relationshipLots of men do too. I don't see any difference in the mating preferences of each sex besides what we've constructed in our heads.

[Smokey D]

Never mind smokey I am obviously too much of a ladies man 4 u 2 comprehend

Coz you have to do all the chasing?

Smoove playa.

[Iskandar]

Ron if you profess to be a ladies' man, you'd get a lot more skirt by not treating women like the object of a day's hunt.

[1338 h4x0r]

Hey, it works in Long Island

[Mr. Ron]

Ron if you profess to be a ladies' man, you'd get a lot more skirt by not treating women like the object of a day's hunt.
lol are you sure

Have you been on a campus lately :lol:

My freind, getting to bed down with a female for the night is purely a hunt and purely a game. However, it is different if you're looking for a serious relationship, which is far more rewarding and doesn't require these things.



Coz you have to do all the chasing?

Smoove playa.
Nope, I've been pursued by a few separate women this past semester, in fact. However, there are situations where you have to give the woman a sense of the chase to get her excited. Other times you have to have yourself be the one that is being chased. Its purely situational.

[Mr. Ron]

ok I realize i come off as a douche sometimes but trust me, we'd get along and be best bros irl

[1338 h4x0r]

Herr Ron ist mein Held

[Mr. Ron]

<3333


I think I also give off the wrong idea about what I think about women...I don't like one night stands. They're not meaningful or fulfilling in any way, tbh. I'm going to be 22 relatively soon, and I need to start planning for the long term. relationship wise. The selection of women on my campus...though....is....well, slim pickings when it comes to finding a woman with class and manners.

[1338 h4x0r]

Herr Ron we should go cruise Northern Europe after we graduate, there's a lot of classy good-looking women there

[Iskandar]

lol are you sure

Have you been on a campus lately :lol:

My freind, getting to bed down with a female for the night is purely a hunt and purely a game. However, it is different if you're looking for a serious relationship, which is far more rewarding and doesn't require these things.Okay I'm not looking for either but I am definitely not looking for random hookups. In these cases though it's not chasing skirt so much as making your intentions clear at which point you can either be rejected or accepted. That applies to women too. When they flirt with you (assuming they do - ouch) you make up your mind on whether you're interested or not. It works both ways.
Nope, I've been pursued by a few separate women this past semester, in fact. However, there are situations where you have to give the woman a sense of the chase to get her excited. Other times you have to have yourself be the one that is being chased. Its purely situational.Okay that's all I meant. You seemed to imply that men do all the pursuing. That's not true.

[Mr. Ron]

Okay I'm not looking for either but I am definitely not looking for random hookups. In these cases though it's not chasing skirt so much as making your intentions clear at which point you can either be rejected or accepted. That applies to women too. When they flirt with you (assuming they do - ouch) you make up your mind on whether you're interested or not. It works both ways.
Okay that's all I meant. You seemed to imply that men do all the pursuing. That's not true.
nah I didn't mean men had to pursue all the time, glad we cleared that up.

Flirting is v v fun alex we should flirt more

[Iskandar]

nah I didn't mean men had to pursue all the time, glad we cleared that up.

Flirting is v v fun alex we should flirt moreYeah and women should flirt with us more. Cast off the shackles of the double standard. Be assertive.

[Mr. Ron]

idk I don't have a problem with women flirting with me :confused:

[Iskandar]

Be that as it may, surely you concede it can't hurt for them to flirt with you more.

[Mr. Ron]

Be that as it may, surely you concede it can't hurt for them to flirt with you more.
they already flirt with me enough, idk I've never had a problem getting women. If you mean women should be more assertive in flirting, then yeah that would be cool. Nothing wrong with that.

[1338 h4x0r]

Sweden

Finland

Singapore

tbh

[Iskandar]

If you mean women should be more assertive in flirting, then yeah that would be cool. Nothing wrong with that.Yeah I did mean that. Or make that everyone should.
Sweden

Finland

SingaporeOne of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong.

[Noku]

Sweden

Finland

Singapore

tbh

Free health care? Use condoms and you don't have to worry about STDs (sorry, I am bored).

In most mammal species the females are the selectors, in humans it's more balanced because males are also quite picky (compared, say, to chimpanzees and a lot of birds, who will **** anything female, and in the case of some birds, dummy models that look like females).

This would explain why both genders have big brains, since if it was only females selecting, then men would have huge brains and intellectual abilities but women would be about as smart as chimps.

I don't quite support this theory, many mammals if they want to have sex will have sex, whether the partner is male or female. The possibility to get offspring is the status symbol for the alpha male (or clever enough competing males).

The second part of the post is a bit goofy since not all genes are gender specific, quite the opposite.

[1338 h4x0r]

One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong.

Women hit on men in all of them, that's what we were concerned with

[Iskandar]

Are condoms even legal in Singapore. I'm amazed they haven't banned them due to littering concerns, like chewing gum or something.

[Jude]

It's a fact not a theory
[quote]
The second part of the post is a bit goofy since not all genes are gender specific, quite the opposite.

What? Are you not aware of sexual dimorphism?

[Noku]

It's a fact not a theory

At this point I would ask for credible evidence in form of research papers.

What? Are you not aware of sexual dimorphism?

Actually that is pretty much the reason I don't buy this theory. In situations where sexual dimorphism is at place the differences tend to be significant, which is not the case in human brains.

Just because "intellectual selection" would require certain cognitive skills from both sexes doesn't mean our brains evolved as a result of it. I would even claim that the evolution of our brain is only result of more complex social structures and cognitive requirements to survive in the tribal/herd culture: intelligence was a useful trait to have if you wanted to get in good position at the society, not a way to come up with the best pick up lines.

[Jude]

At this point I would ask for credible evidence in form of research papers.

TBQH I can't point to a paper that proves this, as it would be kind of like asking me to find a paper that proves the brain is the information processing organ in the body

One good book on a related topic is Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen" but that takes the fact for granted, since it's just that, a fact that's been established so that everyone takes it for granted


Actually that is pretty much the reason I don't buy this theory. In situations where sexual dimorphism is at place the differences tend to be significant, which is not the case in human brains.
There's a huge range in sexual dimorphism. Humans are very sexually dimorphic compared to some species (certain birds, for example) and extremely NOT sexually dimorphic compared to other species, like peacocks or elephant seals - in both cases the males' physiology is taken to extremes by sexual selection. Our own dimorphism indicates sexual selection is present, but has either declined from previous levels or is just not as powerful as it is in some other species since more human males get a chance to mate.


Just because "intellectual selection" would require certain cognitive skills from both sexes doesn't mean our brains evolved as a result of it. I would even claim that the evolution of our brain is only result of more complex social structures and cognitive requirements to survive in the tribal/herd culture: intelligence was a useful trait to have if you wanted to get in good position at the society, not a way to come up with the best pick up lines.
That too. However, it's an elaboration on what I'm saying - getting a good position in the society is an important part of getting laid.

[Noku]

TBQH I can't point to a paper that proves this, as it would be kind of like asking me to find a paper that proves the brain is the information processing organ in the body

One good book on a related topic is Matt Ridley's "The Red Queen" but that takes the fact for granted, since it's just that, a fact that's been established so that everyone takes it for granted

If something can be presented as a fact there usually is good amount of research to prove it. If there is not, then it might just as well be only a theory or a claim. Not denying it's credibility, but funny thing with your personal view of credibility for new ideas is that new things are hard to believe if all that the other party can provide is just "It was presented in this book".

When it comes to human evolution, there is plenty of seemingly sound theories which lack the empiristic proof. At this point I would claim that the theory you presented is no more credible than the Aquatic Ape theory.

There's a huge range in sexual dimorphism. Humans are very sexually dimorphic compared to some species (certain birds, for example) and extremely NOT sexually dimorphic compared to other species, like peacocks or elephant seals - in both cases the males' physiology is taken to extremes by sexual selection. Our own dimorphism indicates sexual selection is present, but has either declined from previous levels or is just not as powerful as it is in some other species since more human males get a chance to mate.

Of course. What I am suggesting is that the sexual selection had slimmer result on our evolutionary path than the more complex social systems in which humans lived in the past. When you are in environment where sharing experience by communication is vital you tend to survive better with those skills, even though they wouldn't be sexually attractive for the opposite sex.

That too. However, it's an elaboration on what I'm saying - getting a good position in the society is an important part of getting laid.

But it also has other benefits.

[Jude]

I keep trying to write a reply and for some reason it wont let me so **** it

[1338 h4x0r]

Are condoms even legal in Singapore. I'm amazed they haven't banned them due to littering concerns, like chewing gum or something.

No they're required for sanitary purposes, meaning that you have to break them on purpose if you want kids

(Having kids is still very controversial in Singapore)

[Iskandar]

Singapore is a quasi-fascist state.

[StreetlightRock]

its a very nice quasi facist state

[sweboy]

ATTN thread-starter: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_and_chimp_brain.png

[1338 h4x0r]

sweboy how cum u never on MSN anymo?

[jaredong]

singapore's all kinds of awesome

[P13]

singapore's got it down

no long haired guys = no hipsters

[Iskandar]

its a very nice quasi facist stateWhy would anyone want to live there no matter how nice it is.

[Light Flantastic]

singapore is just a different kind of free

[Light Flantastic]

and singaporeans vote for that stuff anyway so i suppose they like it

[StreetlightRock]

Why would anyone want to live there no matter how nice it is.

because its nice? idk i mean i did for 5 years and the state didn't rape me

[McP3000]

because its nice? idk i mean i did for 5 years and the state didn't rape me
BUT ITS NOT SWITZERLAND OR SOCIALIST HOW DOES IT FUNCTION ON A DAILY BASIS

.z.

[StreetlightRock]

its facisocialist its wonderful

[DxRocker]

The way I see it, "intelligence" is sperate from education and cultural background.
Knowing a lot of things (=result from education) is being "smart", wich is something else imo. Intelligence is a more abstract thingy. Imo, it says more about the "potential" of a species.

What I would define as "intelligent life" is basicly very simple.

In my world view, we are all animals, including humans. The reason we make a distinction is based on one thing, commonly refered to as we being more intelligent.
But at the heart of this lies a more specific difference...

"animals" adapt to their environment. We however, adapt the environment to what we want it to be. Every time we work the land for agriculture, construction,... every time we create something (=process materials into something usefull), our energy sources (electricity) are all based on that thing: adapting our environment for our benefit.

So "intelligent life" to me, is the life that does not adapt to its environment but wich adapts its environment to whatever the organism wants it to be.

To do this, you need a whole range of skills wich could be deemed as being "symptoms" of intelligence. We need to be able to communicate in an advanced manner, we need organising skills, synchronisation skills, creativity, rational reasoning, planning far ahead (like years instead of hours), etc.

[Noku]

Well that started out well but I don't agree with the distinction of animals adapting to their environment and humans adapting the environment. First of all, the ability and reason to adapt our environment for our needs is consequence of cultural evolution. Second, we do have to adapt to our environment, mostly because of other humans that affect to our lives through strong and complex social structures in which we live today, which again has cultural background.

[Jude]

First of all, the ability and reason to adapt our environment for our needs is consequence of cultural evolution.

OMG no it's not you could be raised by wolves and still have the ability to adapt to your environment

[SugarCoatedSour]

you mean adapt your environment?

[Noku]

OMG no it's not you could be raised by wolves and still have the ability to adapt to your environment

Yes but you wouldn't be able to adapt your environments for your needs. You should have read the post twice.

[Jude]

Uh yes you would be able to adapt your environment

you just wouldn't be able to speak any language and would be pretty shitty at socializing with people

[die of starvation]

ya and you wouldn't have thoughts or identity or be a person

[Jude]

uh you would have plenty of thoughts and identity they would just have to do with surviving and wolves

[die of starvation]

that's actually wrong

[Noku]

Uh yes you would be able to adapt your environment

In what way someone raised by wolves would try to adjust their environment? Would they start to farm? I don't think so.

[Jude]

Since when is farming a requisite of intelligence

[SugarCoatedSour]

who flushed all the relativity?

[Noku]

Since when is farming a requisite of intelligence

Farming is adapting your environment for your needs.

[Jude]

OK and apparently it's the only way of adapting the environment for your needs

[Noku]

Well is there anything considered as the human way of shaping the environment for their needs which could be concluded by a wolf child. Farming is pretty simple but still out of scope for wolf child.

[die of starvation]

farming is not simple at all

banging a rock against another rock is simple
at wolf child wouldn't figure that one out

[SugarCoatedSour]

banging a rock against another rock isn't simple. There's appendages at stake. A wolf child taught by wolves with no opposable thumbs can't figure it out.

[Jude]

Well, unless one of you wants to spend the next 13 years creating and then studying a wolf child, we'll never know, but it wouldn't really matter for my point that biological pre-equipping is necessary for intelligent behavior and is what makes learning possible.

[Mr. Ron]

Well is there anything considered as the human way of shaping the environment for their needs which could be concluded by a wolf child. Farming is pretty simple but still out of scope for wolf child.
you have never farmed before

[Smokey D]

Well, unless one of you wants to spend the next 13 years creating and then studying a wolf child, we'll never know, but it wouldn't really matter for my point that biological pre-equipping is necessary for intelligent behavior and is what makes learning possible.What do you mean by biological pre-equipping?

[Noku]

farming is not simple at all

banging a rock against another rock is simple
at wolf child wouldn't figure that one out

But is there other ways we humans adapt our environments for our needs than farming, which also predates it. Perhaps shelters and fire? Though if we are precise both could be considered as tools for adapting to your environment rather than shaping your environment for your needs.

[Jude]

What do you mean by biological pre-equipping?

That your genes give you the biology needed to be able to learn things

[Noku]

How is that related to anything? Most biological beings can learn or at least adapt to the information available about your environment.

[Jude]

Yeah and most biological beings are not humans and cannot do the things humans can do or learn the things humans can learn...because we have a particularly suited biology for those things

There are also limits on what we can do and learn, in the same way a chimp or a dog can't learn language and we can't dead reckon location by stars the way birds do

[Noku]

I think it is about the ability to perceive things in the world which makes learning different for different beings. Humans are able to learn complex things because we can communicate effectively with symbols, not because our brains would be fine tuned for grasping things faster which I think they are not. On the other hand the two are pretty close to each other, since brains enabling effective communications for a being do also aid learning.

[Jude]

I think it is about the ability to perceive things in the world which makes learning different for different beings. Humans are able to learn complex things because we can communicate effectively with symbols, not because our brains would be fine tuned for grasping things faster which I think they are not. On the other hand the two are pretty close to each other, since brains enabling effective communications for a being do also aid learning.

They're fine tuned for grasping some things faster
And symbolic learning is another consequence of our complex cognitive abilities not the cause of it

[Noku]

They're fine tuned for grasping some things faster
And symbolic learning is another consequence of our complex cognitive abilities not the cause of it

Is there any scientific evidence for that or is it just your assumption?

[Jude]

there's a **** ton of scientific evidence it's another thing that nobody even argues over anymore

[Noku]

Well, then it probably isn't too hard to provide a study in which the areas of our brain which are responsible for higher cognitive abilities predates the parts responsible for symbolic communication. I have one study which states that symbolic communication was developed right after bipedalism and I bet our higher cognitive abilities developed later on.

[SugarCoatedSour]

culture in the many forms composes what is uniquely "intelligence" that which is outside is a free collective of intel.

[Jude]

Well, then it probably isn't too hard to provide a study in which the areas of our brain which are responsible for higher cognitive abilities predates the parts responsible for symbolic communication. I have one study which states that symbolic communication was developed right after bipedalism and I bet our higher cognitive abilities developed later on.

Symbolic communication is one of our higher cognitive abilities, of which there are a whole slew, and most of them probably evolved at different times. Also, if the study STATES that, rather than suggests it or explores the possibility of it, then I wouldn't put much credence in it.

[Noku]

Symbolic communication is one of our higher cognitive abilities, of which there are a whole slew, and most of them probably evolved at different times.

Try to decide wheter symbolic communication is on of our higher cognitive abilities or only a consequence of them. First you claim the other and then you claim another.

Also, if the study STATES that, rather than suggests it or explores the possibility of it, then I wouldn't put much credence in it.

The study is based on brain scans and the evolutionary phases of human brain development.

And I am still waiting for that paper for this

there's a **** ton of scientific evidence it's another thing that nobody even argues over anymore

because there is no base for abstract though without symbolic language in society and without society why someone would need abstract thought, meaning here abstract in the sense of non-animal capability. Abstract thought becomes benefical only with symbolic communications. I don't believe that a chimp might actually be a poet, which just has to develop means to communicate it. And neither is a wolf child.

[Jude]

because there is no base for abstract though without symbolic language in society
I think this might be the root of the problem. Why the heck do you think that?


and without society why someone would need abstract thought,
meaning here abstract in the sense of non-animal capability.
That's a bad definition of abstract thought first of all. But working with it, they wouldn't. HOWEVER, that is NOT to say that it's society which creates our capacity for abstract thought. Instead, the existence of society created selection pressures for the biological evolution of brains which eventually became the beloved chunks of goop that are supervising our internet-posting behaviors today. You can't take a brain inherently incapable of "abstract thought" and make it capable of that; it has to have the inherent developmental capacity for it.


Abstract thought becomes benefical only with symbolic communications. I don't believe that a chimp might actually be a poet, which just has to develop means to communicate it. And neither is a wolf child.
Here's my point though - if the wolf child were raised by humans, it WOULD have the capabilities for abstract thought of a normal human. If the chimp were raised in the exact same way, it would NOT have those capabilities - because the genetics of the just aren't such that a brain can be created with human capacities.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that while being around other humans is a crucial part of cognitive development, having a human brain also is, and ultimately, the mind is not separate from the brain. That's why you can't treat "culture" as an entity in itself which shapes people's minds; what's really going on is that human brains (and not other brains) extract certain information from the environment and shape THEMSELVES according to certain means, which were bequeathed to them by their genetics.

As for symbolic communication, it's really a moot question of when it emerged; we don't know yet. However, it's assuming too much to insist that we would be unable to think without it. It's also assuming too much to assume that we do know exactly how the mechanics of thinking work, so it's not really worth getting into...I'll get back to you in 7 or 8 years when I have my doctorate.

[Noku]

I think this might be the root of the problem. Why the heck do you think that?

If there was no society there wouldn't have been any need for developing skills for higher cognitive skills or symbolic language. The ability to share expreiences makes our cognitive skills usefull.

That's a bad definition of abstract thought first of all. But working with it, they wouldn't. HOWEVER, that is NOT to say that it's society which creates our capacity for abstract thought. Instead, the existence of society created selection pressures for the biological evolution of brains which eventually became the beloved chunks of goop that are supervising our internet-posting behaviors today. You can't take a brain inherently incapable of "abstract thought" and make it capable of that; it has to have the inherent developmental capacity for it.

The bolded piece of text states exactly what I think. For the last sentence of your message I would say that you have to take in consideration all the research on apes, in which the apes which have been thaught for symbolic communication have been abel to communicate higher cognitive concepts than the apes which haven't.

Here's my point though - if the wolf child were raised by humans, it WOULD have the capabilities for abstract thought of a normal human. If the chimp were raised in the exact same way, it would NOT have those capabilities - because the genetics of the just aren't such that a brain can be created with human capacities.

But, the chimp raised the same way tend to have higher cognitive abilities than the chimps which were not raised to understand the symbolic communication.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that while being around other humans is a crucial part of cognitive development, having a human brain also is, and ultimately, the mind is not separate from the brain. That's why you can't treat "culture" as an entity in itself which shapes people's minds; what's really going on is that human brains (and not other brains) extract certain information from the environment and shape THEMSELVES according to certain means, which were bequeathed to them by their genetics.

Okay, but what made other civilizations more dominant than the others, if not the culture. It is not that they possessed better human brains but the fact that they possessed better culture.

As for symbolic communication, it's really a moot question of when it emerged; we don't know yet. However, it's assuming too much to insist that we would be unable to think without it. It's also assuming too much to assume that we do know exactly how the mechanics of thinking work, so it's not really worth getting into...I'll get back to you in 7 or 8 years when I have my doctorate.

But, we have the ability to perform brain scans when people are stimulated by certain actions, which very reliably tell which parts of our brains get stimulated by certain actions. Also we have very reliable chronological mappings of the human brain development based on the structure of our ancestors brains. And we do know that symbolic communication was amongst the very very first phases of development of our cognitive abilities and there is plenty of research to support the fact that our cognitive abilities are sum of our ability to communicate very abstract things.

[Jude]

If there was no society there wouldn't have been any need for developing skills for higher cognitive skills or symbolic language. The ability to share expreiences makes our cognitive skills usefull.
[quote]
Language, yes. "Higher cognitive skills," it's hard to tell, but yes, it almost certainly was social pressures that spurred the evolution of those.
What I was saying is that the two don't necessarily have to go together.


[quote]For the last sentence of your message I would say that you have to take in consideration all the research on apes, in which the apes which have been thaught for symbolic communication have been abel to communicate higher cognitive concepts than the apes which haven't.
That is heavily debated. Perhaps training apes with symbols can enable them to communicate somewhat, but that doesn't show that the use of symbols expanded their cognitive capacities, only that it enabled them to communicate their thoughts to humans.


But, the chimp raised the same way tend to have higher cognitive abilities than the chimps which were not raised to understand the symbolic communication.

Again, just because they are able to communicate those things in a way humans can understand, doesn't mean other apes can't think the same things.


Okay, but what made other civilizations more dominant than the others, if not the culture. It is not that they possessed better human brains but the fact that they possessed better culture.
And a better physical environment - see Jared Diamond.
Also, that doesn't refute what I said. You can discuss "culture" as an abstract in sociological terms, but it ceases to be applicable when you get down to the individual level and entirely loses all relevance once you are discussing neurology. Remember - culture doesn't shape brains. Brains shape themselves after filtering certain environmental information from the outside world.



But, we have the ability to perform brain scans when people are stimulated by certain actions, which very reliably tell which parts of our brains get stimulated by certain actions. Also we have very reliable chronological mappings of the human brain development based on the structure of our ancestors brains. And we do know that symbolic communication was amongst the very very first phases of development of our cognitive abilities and there is plenty of research to support the fact that our cognitive abilities are sum of our ability to communicate very abstract things.
Perhaps. I don't have any definitive opinions on this anyway.

[Noku]

[QUOTE=Noku;17386291]Language, yes. "Higher cognitive skills," it's hard to tell, but yes, it almost certainly was social pressures that spurred the evolution of those. What I was saying is that the two don't necessarily have to go together.

That is heavily debated. Perhaps training apes with symbols can enable them to communicate somewhat, but that doesn't show that the use of symbols expanded their cognitive capacities, only that it enabled them to communicate their thoughts to humans.

Again, just because they are able to communicate those things in a way humans can understand, doesn't mean other apes can't think the same things.

This is pretty much a chicken and egg situation where it is hard to tell. Does the ape possess abilities to think about the abstract things which some individuals have expressed in experiments, I think not. Does the ape possess the ability to use symbols and concepts for communication, I think yes, apes have even been able to create their own symbols.

For some reason apes do not use and create symbols in the same manner in nature than in labs. In labs though, the apes are taught symbols systematically and on purpose just like in our society we teach childs to communicate. Have we always thought the childs to communicate or just in modern cultural environment is a good question.

Why we humans started using more symbolic communication than apes in our everyday life might be that we had easier means of making symbols by better controlled voice and perhaps we needed language more to maintain social relationships after losing the possibility to groom each others fur.

In social environment of early humans the importance for symbolic communication and expression of "insightful" thoughts probably were very important traits to possess for gaining good status in the group, which created the peer pressure which enhanced these traits through evolution.

As a side product we gained the ability to think artisticly and create artistic gifts. This trait in evolutionary sense is not a useful trait (the group is wasting energy in something which doesn't make its survival rate better). However, these kind of traits are usually useful for sexual selection, the males who have time (and abilioty) to waste on artistic craftery are most probably the healthiest individuals of the group.

Remember - culture doesn't shape brains. Brains shape themselves after filtering certain environmental information from the outside world.

But culture creates most of the outside world for us humans and culture sets the peer pressure for certain directions for evolution. However though, it is interesting that how much impact the brains ability tap certain traits - enabled by our herited genes after the birth - affected our evolution. If I recall correctly the active genes in our body are more likely carry on to next generation than the ones which are passive (not meaning the recessive genes). I can't recall the correct term for this but probably you know what I mean, and probably you also pointed towards the same phenomenon.

[Morbus]

culture in the many forms composes what is uniquely "intelligence" that which is outside is a free collective of intel.

How come none of your posts are ever intelligible

[Jude]

For some reason apes do not use and create symbols in the same manner in nature than in labs. In labs though, the apes are taught symbols systematically and on purpose just like in our society we teach childs to communicate. Have we always thought the childs to communicate or just in modern cultural environment is a good question.
Not just like. You have to laboriously train the ape using rewards and behavior modification. The kid just picks it up naturally and without explicit teaching. You can probably guess why.


In social environment of early humans the importance for symbolic communication and expression of "insightful" thoughts probably were very important traits to possess for gaining good status in the group, which created the peer pressure which enhanced these traits through evolution.

As a side product we gained the ability to think artisticly and create artistic gifts. This trait in evolutionary sense is not a useful trait (the group is wasting energy in something which doesn't make its survival rate better). However, these kind of traits are usually useful for sexual selection, the males who have time (and abilioty) to waste on artistic craftery are most probably the healthiest individuals of the group.

This is probably spot on; anything that translates into increased mating opportunities is a potential driver for evolution.


But culture creates most of the outside world for us humans and culture sets the peer pressure for certain directions for evolution.
This is an interesting point. We definitely do have to adapt foremost to the social environment, which means an infinitely continuing competition (see "The Red Queen," great book by Matt Ridley on this topic).

It's important to remember that the cultural diversity we see in humans today is NOT reflective of the human past. Today there are such an immense number of humans, living in ways and in places that are so far removed from the places where we evolved, that today's human cultural diversity surely massively outstrips the diversity of our Pleistocene ancestors.

While it's impossible to reconstruct past cultures, we can be fairly sure that they resembled some types of human society more than others (namely small, foraging/hunting, devoid of wealth and of anything we would call an institution, probably polygamous, lacking people dedicated to art, music, science, religion, economics and so on, and almost certainly without values such as gender equality and enlightenment and progress). And yet biologically these people were essentially the same as us. That biology was shaped without any influence from most aspects of modern-day culture in most human societies.


If I recall correctly the active genes in our body are more likely carry on to next generation than the ones which are passive (not meaning the recessive genes). I can't recall the correct term for this but probably you know what I mean, and probably you also pointed towards the same phenomenon.
I haven't heard about this actually but I'll have to read up on it

[DxRocker]

Hmmm... are you guys really arguing about how intelligent a wolf child would be and wheter or not he would start farming? :s

Anyhow... 12.000 years ago, primitive humans discovered farming by themselves. I don't see why a primitive human today couldn't do the same.
Also keep in mind that by the time they've discovered farming... they were allready cooking their freshly hunted down fish, beef, chicken, etc - all with the help of primitive weapons like spears, bows & arrows,... For thousands of years before farming, humans were creating "knives" of stone, to easily "skin" the animals they hunted down and made "clothes" or blankets with that skin. The knives were also used to cut the meat and hand it out to the rest of the tribe/family, wich was then cooked over a nice cozy artificially made fire.

I'm not saying a "wolf child" (lol) will do all these things, but there is absolutely NO reason to assume that that person wouldn't re-discover some of these things. Even if he rediscovers nothing at all... he would still act like an intelligent being. He would be able to reason and think ahead. While his wolf "parents" might run over highly unstable ground, his human reasoning abilities might make a red light light up in his head to not do stupid things. Certain traits (like reasoning) are so deeply rooted in the human genome that there is absolutely no reason to assume that a "wolf child" wouldn't be able to use it.

Next to that, since I saw a lot of talk about "culture" here, your "culture" is nothing more or less then the knowledge of your ancestors. "Culture" is the knowledge and "life wisdom" passed down to you by your parents.

Every animal on this planet has some form of culture. We excell in our learning abilities because we learn everything there is to learn, especially the "useless" stuff.

You can't teach a chimp how to chop wood, create a sulfar based substance to create the end product: matches. Because he doesn't see the point of it. Chopping that wood doesn't immediatly bring food in its mouth, so he allready lost interest right then and there.

Humans are different. We learn by copying everything blindly of our parents and other figures of "authority". We accept that authority blindly. And that is why chimps are still in trees throwing fecies at eachother and we are building skyscrapers. We learn everything, not just what immediatly brings food to the table.

[Jude]

Hmmm... are you guys really arguing about how intelligent a wolf child would be and wheter or not he would start farming? :s

No read the thread

Good points in the rest of the post though except that culture also comes from peers and other sources besides parents

[Noku]

Hmmm... are you guys really arguing about how intelligent a wolf child would be and wheter or not he would start farming? :s

Anyhow... 12.000 years ago, primitive humans discovered farming by themselves. I don't see why a primitive human today couldn't do the same.
Also keep in mind that by the time they've discovered farming... they were allready cooking their freshly hunted down fish, beef, chicken, etc - all with the help of primitive weapons like spears, bows & arrows,... For thousands of years before farming, humans were creating "knives" of stone, to easily "skin" the animals they hunted down and made "clothes" or blankets with that skin. The knives were also used to cut the meat and hand it out to the rest of the tribe/family, wich was then cooked over a nice cozy artificially made fire.

I'm not saying a "wolf child" (lol) will do all these things, but there is absolutely NO reason to assume that that person wouldn't re-discover some of these things. Even if he rediscovers nothing at all... he would still act like an intelligent being. He would be able to reason and think ahead. While his wolf "parents" might run over highly unstable ground, his human reasoning abilities might make a red light light up in his head to not do stupid things. Certain traits (like reasoning) are so deeply rooted in the human genome that there is absolutely no reason to assume that a "wolf child" wouldn't be able to use it.

Next to that, since I saw a lot of talk about "culture" here, your "culture" is nothing more or less then the knowledge of your ancestors. "Culture" is the knowledge and "life wisdom" passed down to you by your parents.

Every animal on this planet has some form of culture. We excell in our learning abilities because we learn everything there is to learn, especially the "useless" stuff.

You can't teach a chimp how to chop wood, create a sulfar based substance to create the end product: matches. Because he doesn't see the point of it. Chopping that wood doesn't immediatly bring food in its mouth, so he allready lost interest right then and there.

Humans are different. We learn by copying everything blindly of our parents and other figures of "authority". We accept that authority blindly. And that is why chimps are still in trees throwing fecies at eachother and we are building skyscrapers. We learn everything, not just what immediatly brings food to the table.

Unfortunately I don't have enough time to answer everything, but the basic thing you are missing is the fact that learning to farm requires the wisdom from past generations, just the fact that you might spit some seeds on **** doesn't make you a farmer, when you know certain things grow better in certain environment makes you a farmer.

[Noku]

Not just like. You have to laboriously train the ape using rewards and behavior modification. The kid just picks it up naturally and without explicit teaching. You can probably guess why.

The teaching process of children is really laborious, we spend at least fifteen years to teach our children in average.

This is an interesting point. We definitely do have to adapt foremost to the social environment, which means an infinitely continuing competition (see "The Red Queen," great book by Matt Ridley on this topic).

It's important to remember that the cultural diversity we see in humans today is NOT reflective of the human past. Today there are such an immense number of humans, living in ways and in places that are so far removed from the places where we evolved, that today's human cultural diversity surely massively outstrips the diversity of our Pleistocene ancestors.

Yes, but again the culture which was passed on to the next generations enabled this development.

While it's impossible to reconstruct past cultures, we can be fairly sure that they resembled some types of human society more than others (namely small, foraging/hunting, devoid of wealth and of anything we would call an institution, probably polygamous, lacking people dedicated to art, music, science, religion, economics and so on, and almost certainly without values such as gender equality and enlightenment and progress). And yet biologically these people were essentially the same as us. That biology was shaped without any influence from most aspects of modern-day culture in most human societies.

But still that culture created the environment for such development as we see today.

[Jude]

The teaching process of children is really laborious, we spend at least fifteen years to teach our children in average.
Not teaching them language.

Not teaching them NATURAL language, that is. The reason people have trouble learning the rules of (for example) Standard English is because nobody speaks Standard English so kids don't pick it up the way they pick up whatever dialect of English their family and community speaks. But kids don't have to be explicitly taught natural language, that's the point I'm making. Kids don't go to English class to learn how to speak English, they go to learn how to use the prescriptive rules of a version of English that isn't spoken and hence has to be learned in a different way than naturally.



Yes, but again the culture which was passed on to the next generations enabled this development.

But still that culture created the environment for such development as we see today.
I know. And biological evolution created the possibility for that culture to exist. I don't really think we're even disagreeing anymore.