Posted: Oct 22, 2014 11:56 pm
Zadocfish2 wrote:Perhaps I am failing to explain this clearly, so let's try it a different way. Why don't you attempt to provide a definition of intelligence that is universally applicable and I will show you the problems that arise from it. What are the characteristics of intelligence that would let us recognise it as such?
I think maybe we don't understand the basic point the other is trying to make.
I believe I understand the point you're trying to make and that I have addressed it in detail.
Zadocfish2 wrote: I'm saying that what life would look like outside of earth is hard to imagine, and size is one of the things that might surprise us.
Yes, I know, and I am saying that there are hard limitations based on universal properties of the universe. This is something you haven't contended, yet forms 1 prong in the dual criticism I have made of your position.
Zadocfish2 wrote: More specifically, I think that a mouse-sized creature capable of "sapience" is possible.
Yet the basis for your belief is entirely internal and has no grounding in evidence. Quite the contrary to your belief, the evidence shows that intelligence is at least partly the result of the multiplication of neurons - more area = more potential neurons = more interconnections = more potential intelligence. A good example of this is the difference between say a cat and a human brain - aside from the massive neocortex in humans which amounts to 85%-90% of the brain's matter and is directly related to the type of intelligence associated with human behavior, cat brains lack the sulci - the deep ridges which increase the brain's surface area and which are most accentuated in humans of all the species we know. This relates to the point - larger brains provide more area within which functions can occur. If intelligence is the result of a number of functions cooperating, then a larger brain provides more potential intelligence.
Further, your claim rests on undisclosed assumptions - are you even aware of how the brain works? Do you know the brain's anatomy? Have you even studied comparative morphology? I am not trying to belittle you, but point out that an uneducated guess has no more value than any other grammatically correct sentence. The universe's workings are not something you can simply intuit.
Zadocfish2 wrote: I'm under the impression that you are saying that this is physically impossible.
I think I have been quite clear that a) firstly definitions of intelligence are fraught with complexity and b) that a human style intelligence would be impossible in a brain the volume of a rat's.
Zadocfish2 wrote:As for a definition of intelligence: A creature that can make something that looks like something that is in its environment. Like cave art, something that implies active thought, and I suppose that this could be called the most primitive form of "art".
Which means that only humans on our planet are intelligent according to your description.
Zadocfish2 wrote:The obvious problem is that a creature with human-like intelligence wouldn't necessarily be artistic or even self-expressive.
Yep - this is part of a sack full of problems. Taking a characteristics of human behavior and elevating it to a yard-stick of intelligence is termed, slightly tongue in cheek, as 'chauvinism'. That's particularly the case when, as with your definition, it rules out every single other organism on this planet as possessing intelligence.
Zadocfish2 wrote: The problem with theoretical biology is that predicting the mays and maybes is difficult-to-impossible... I don't think there is a "litmus test" for sapience, to be honest. However, artistry could very well be an excellent indicator.
Actually, as I've already mentioned, there is a whole body of work on this - it's not as if we know nothing. The problem is that we have no real way of evaluating the worth of our bucket list of apparently intelligent types of thinking or behavior. I can rattle off the list if you like - my area of expertise is humans rather than other animals, but it's actually quite an important part of my field because we have to account for the differences between our species and our ancestral hominid brethren, in terms of behavior, material culture, geographical distribution, and general 'success'.