Clever Corvids: the cortical equivalent in many birds (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, September 26, 2020, 20:36 (1300 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Saturday, September 26, 2020, 20:42

DAVID: their current brain complexity allows what they can do. Which translates into my view that what level of mental complexity occurs is based on the number of neurons and their networks complex design. One can only work with what is given. We work with a brain given to us at least 315,000 years ago and its complexity allowed what has subsequently happened.

I agree that the brain’s complexity, neuron numbers and networks allow what any of us can DO and determine what we can work with. The great question is whether they allow what any of us can THINK, and surprisingly you argue that they are the base which determines the level of mental complexity. “Surprisingly” because this clashes with the dualism you always claim to espouse. '''perhaps we can shorten it with a simple question: do you believe the thoughts of your dualist’s soul are restricted by the numbers of neurons and their networks?

Why ask again: I've always said the soul can only work with the brain it is given, complexity of concept limited by brain complexity. My dualism has not changed.

dhw: What is weird is that according to you, the driving force behind corvid intelligence and that of every other form of intelligence was your God's one and only desire to design sapiens intelligence. They were all "part of the goal of evolving humans". I would suggest that in all instances, the driving force was the urge of the cell communities to improve their chances of survival by using the intelligence your God may have provided them with from the beginning.

DAVID: My same disagreement. Apes survived just fine without morphing into our big brains.

dhw: And bacteria survived just fine without morphing into apes and dinosaurs and the duck-billed platypus. How does that prove that every organism that ever lived was “part of the goal of evolving humans”?

Your usual backwards approach. All of evolution was designed by God to eventually reach the goal of humans.

DAVID: The other point is it is the volume of neurons that make a difference. Size, by itself, is not a major guide to brain capacity as the first bold shows.

dhw: Just to link this to our "brain expansion" thread: there is a limit to the number of cells each skull can contain. A corvid presumably wouldn’t be able to fly if its head doubled in size, and so I have proposed that the human skull eventually stopped expanding because further expansion would have created problems for the rest of the anatomy. For other implications concerning volume, see my first comment above.

DAVID: Based on corvid brain size and what they can do, as I think with humans, a slight skull enlargement is anatomically possible but not necessary because the current brains work so well. Your harping on skull size is a side issue. Neanderthal skulls were much bigger and our earlier brains were also larger. So what! Our brains are at final size since IMHO speciation is over as is major evolution. All that is left are minor adaptations.

dhw: I was only referring to the question of why our brains stopped expanding. This is an integral part of the discussion on the subject of brain expansion.

QUOTE: "With our study we show that cognitive abilities cannot be generalized, but that
species instead differ in domain-specific cognitive skills," says Claudia Fichtel, one of the two first authors of the study funded by the German Research Foundation. "Accordingly, the relationship between brain size and cognitive abilities cannot be generalized.'"

DAVID: The corvids show it is not bulk size but neuron count and network complexity But as humans show overall bulk does help if enough neurons and networks are added. The elephants and whales lack that additive.

dhw: The bold is an important observation in the context of my speculations about evolution and intelligence. Firstly, there are different types of intelligence, and the fact that ants, for instance, only have tiny brains does not mean they do not have the intelligence to work out their own strategies for survival. But I would go even further. Bacteria and other single cells don’t have brains at all, but as you know, I propose that they do have intelligence, i.e. that somewhere within that tiny space is the equivalent of a brain. And that would explain how single cells can also differ in “domain-specific cognitive skills”.

We haven't see bacterial brains as yet with the finest of the newest technical methods but we can follow individual molecules as they work within systems, and we know whole bacteria or cells follow exact instructions for the processes or how they respond to stimuli, all from information in the complexity of the genomes that we are still unearthing. They simply look intelligent and that is all we know at the moment. domain-specific cognitive skills are just that for cells and whole organisms as we observe. It does not mean they use their own innate intelligence or are subject to intelligent information instructions. I believe the latter and you the former. That will not change as long as you remain agnostic.