Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

There's really only one way to find out, though. Surely with the number of people we create every day for no particular reason at all who don't fit in, one who's sure to have institutional support to make up for any shortcomings doesn't seem THAT unlikely to be in a worse way than normal, and there is quite a bit of potential to learn, to really discover new things here. I support the idea, but on a very trial basis at first - small numbers, which means we'll probably have twenty to thirty years before we have enough data to even consider more than that, if we find any reason to do so. We should be responsible where possible, but we shouldn't let the potential for things to maybe go wrong in some way that doesn't really do all that much harm comparatively (normal science kills people pretty regularly after all, the key is reasonable precaution).

Also, PanH, your logic is terrible. You go with something because it actually mirrors, or at least correlates with, what you are trying to measure, not simply because it's "easy". Thats bullshit reasoning. Simply measuring intelligence with "brain size" is the exact opposite of science.

[PanH]

Also, PanH, your logic is terrible. You go with something because it actually mirrors, or at least correlates with, what you are trying to measure, not simply because it's "easy". Thats bullshit reasoning. Simply measuring intelligence with "brain size" is the exact opposite of science.

Right, because that's not what I said.
You want to know something, but you can't. You take the closest thing that is related and measurable. And when you talk about the intelligence of a specie, it is brain size.

[10ebbor10]

Brain size doesn't determine intelligence.

It's still the only measure that can be used.
Either you define intelligence as something abstract, and then you have no means of comparing (and then no brain layout either), either you measure it scientifically, with brain size.
While "intelligence" isn't maybe the good word (or the opposite), that's how you measure it.

A completely nonsensical measurement, sadly. Or it would mean that males on average are like 5-10% smarter than females. (Brain weight comparison, ie density of cells). Also, whales would be true masterminds.

It would be saying the same thing as saying that counting the amount of capital letters per post would allow you to measure the usefullness of said post.

The way you really measure "intelligence" is by the average amount of neural cell connections and their activity, not by weighting it, or looking at it's size.

And really, Neaderthalers won't be able to fit in. As said before, stuff hints that they aren't really capable of abstract thought. Meaning that anything from simple mathematics, to the understanding of our entire societal system, to a large part of communication will be entirely impossible for them.

Stuff doesn't hint at shit. We don't know anything about the actual thought process of Neanderthals. Skull shape is irrelevant. We can barely discern how our own brains work through stuff, and that's with billions of case studies all around us. Intellect is impossible to measure without having a living member of the species, especially with an unambiguously sapient species like the Neanderthals.

It's not. I believe it was the frontal lobe that was important for this kind of abstract though. Amongst other stuff. Since our brain layout is rather similair amongst all ape species(maybe even all mammals), we can probably estimate that it would be the same for the Neanderthal. Since the skull of the Neanderthall only allows for a smaller frontal lobe, it's logic to estimate that their frontal lobe is indeed smaller.

Pre post edit: Just a note, but it appears that this point is based on currently outdated science. Human frontal lobes are not significantly larger than other ape/ humanoid species at time. Still, skull layout--> vague brain shape--> vague hint of  intellectual capabilities is still kinda valid reasoning.

Also, PanH, your logic is terrible. You go with something because it actually mirrors, or at least correlates with, what you are trying to measure, not simply because it's "easy". Thats bullshit reasoning. Simply measuring intelligence with "brain size" is the exact opposite of science.

Right, because that's not what I said.
You want to know something, but you can't. You take the closest thing that is related and measurable. And when you talk about the intelligence of a specie, it is brain size.

Unfortunately, brain size is not related to intelligence. Not directly. As said before : Whales.
Average amount of neural Connections and layout is what matters.
Just because there's a vacuum of good information doesn't mean that you can just fill the gap and support your reasoning by what is avaible.

[Owlbread]

Ceann mor air duine glic, ceann crion air amadan.

A large head on a wise man, a little head on a fool.

[Sheb]

Actually, while sheer brain size ain't a good indicator of intelligence, the brain size/body size ration isn't too bad.

[Moghjubar]

Humans have also done some pretty crazy head modifications via skull shaping to try and (at least what I'm guessing) enhance the brain size/power.  At least, unless they thought they were thinking thru their livers and the head was just some kinda balancing thing.

It actually gets pretty complicated, because there's formation of neural pathways, presence or absence of hormones/materials thru development, things like where a large portion of a brain can be removed and the other side can compensate if its done early enough, pollutant/foreign materials that can affect development, etc.

[10ebbor10]

Actually, while sheer brain size ain't a good indicator of intelligence, the brain size/body size ration isn't too bad.

Not enough proof/reason to make any assumptions about the Neanderthaler though.

[Sheb]

Probably not, while it's a good indicator across vertebrate species, us and Neanderthal are to near that you can tell much. We also both very much the outliers.

[lorb]

There are perfectly healthy and normal homo sapiens with an IQ of 75 and some with an IQ of 125 and there is not much physiological difference in their brain.
If minuscule differences in our brains make huge differences there really isn't much basis to make predictions on a vague knowledge of volume and/or shape. Could be anything from superhumanly gifted to dwarven stupidity.

[10ebbor10]

You could discuss the useability of IQ tests though.

[Dutchling]

You could discuss the useability of IQ tests though.

Try discussing it with someone with an IQ of 50.

[scriver]

I'd like to point out to all those going "look at whales" that whales are pretty damn intelligent critters. Relatively speaking. Also look at crow birds, and the magpie in particular. It's widely considered the most intelligent bird, outsmarting most mammals by lengths, and they also have the biggest brain-to-body ratio. Likewise, our bigger brains seem to have developed at the same time as our intelligence.

So yeah. Brain size doesn't directly correlate to intelligence, but it's a pretty good place to start. I doubt we could make any assumptions based on neanderthal versus human brain sizes, though. Were a little to closely related anyway. All their brain size tell us is that yeah, they were very likely intelligent. Not to what exact extent.

[PanH]

You have to correlate both brain size and brain to body size, as a bigger body necessarily requires a bigger brain.

You could discuss the useability of IQ tests though.

IQ isn't meant to be used alone, and even less as a universal indicator.

If minuscule differences in our brains make huge differences there really isn't much basis to make predictions on a vague knowledge of volume and/or shape. Could be anything from superhumanly gifted to dwarven stupidity.

I was talking about the intelligence of a specie, not an individual.

[Frumple]

You have to correlate both brain size and brain to body size, as a bigger body necessarily requires a bigger brain.

... does it? Didn't some of the largest land based creatures our world has seen have rather impressively small brains?

[Helgoland]

I'd like to point out to all those going "look at whales" that whales are pretty damn intelligent critters. Relatively speaking. Also look at crow birds, and the magpie in particular. It's widely considered the most intelligent bird, outsmarting most mammals by lengths, and they also have the biggest brain-to-body ratio. Likewise, our bigger brains seem to have developed at the same time as our intelligence.

Pigs are supposed to be pretty intelligent too.
I tried to find a way, but apparently it is virtually impossible to keep a pig in a dorm. Meh, it'll just have to wait until I'm done studying.