What Are You Carrying?

[Xerographica]

So the dolphins you used as evidence were irrelevant to your argument all along?

Why do you try to bring up evidence that's irrelevant to your argument?

Ok, besides koalas, octopi, and humans, what else is known to tote around multiple things at one time?

Well, any marsupial really. If it has hands.

Also scorpions.

Would animals that carry multiple venoms that they adjust to match their prey count? Because, if so, add snakes and snails.

Do marsupials have hands or paws? I think raccoons have hands. Did you watch this clip of the raccoon grabbing the food and running away on its hind legs? With this type of food it's advantageous for the raccoon to be able to use its hands to carry the food while running away. In this case it's simultaneously carrying different pieces of the same food. But this specific problem isn't very complex because the raccoon is simply grabbing as much of the food as it can and running. If there had been different varieties of food available... then the benefit maximization problem would have been more complex. The more varieties of food available... the more complex the problem becomes. And the more complex the problem becomes... the more brain power/storage required to solve it.

[USS Monitor]

If carrying stuff leads to the evolution of intelligence, then why is everyone so surprised to meet a talking ship? I carry more stuff than all y'all.

[Frank Zipper]

It explains why so many mules are Nobel laureates.

[USS Monitor]

Well, any marsupial really. If it has hands.

Also scorpions.

Would animals that carry multiple venoms that they adjust to match their prey count? Because, if so, add snakes and snails.

Do marsupials have hands or paws?

Yes.

[Xerographica]

Do marsupials have hands or paws?

Yes.

But do they ever carry anything else in their pouch?

[Valaran]

So we can say that greater intelligence allowed for our ancestors to live in larger communities. But we clearly can't say that greater intelligence allowed our ancestors to simultaneously carry a wide variety of different resources.

There's no definite cause and effect. The meerkat analogy was an observational hypothesis, not an experimental one. The meerkat comparison is not exact,for there are differences between meerkats and early humans - not least size, diet, predation, opposable thumbs and 'the whites of one's eyes'.

I could use a similar observational hypothesis - crows have the ability to carry and pick up rudimentary tools. But is this what caused greater intelligence in them or its effect? Some species of ape can do similar. There's no reason not to assume that we needed greater intelligence first, so that we could then carry more complex objects.

First we started walking upright... which improved our ability to simultaneously carry different resources over greater distances... and then we became more intelligent. And the reason that we became more intelligent is that carrying became more complex. This complexity resulted in selection favoring greater intelligence.

So, really the basis of intelligence is walking upright then, since it enables the dietary changes, environmental changes, the necessity for large groups, and yes, linvoid. If you want a clearly defined 'root cause' of intelligence then, its not linvoid, its walking upright.

I can argue that Robin Dunbar gets cause and effect confused. But he can't argue that I get cause and effect confused. There's absolutely no way that more intelligence facilitated more linvoid.

Yet it is still possible that you mixed up the cause and effect of intelligence and linvoid (why can't brain some increased function develop before carrying, exactly?), the greater cause and effect mix up.

But he mistakenly

lol is he now?

From my perspective, linvoid was the cause and the larger groups were one of the many effects of greater intelligence being selected for.

And since we don't have a time machine, you will doubtless never cease to hold this theory, despite the multiplicity of other factors that could have caused intelligence, or indeed a combination thereof. I'd call this confirmation bias, in that anything that could support your theory must support your theory (even though it may also support other theories). You have a preconception, and you'll interpret the evidence in any way to assert that this is correct, whether this be truth or simply unknown. That is why I stopped replying earlier, because I consider this a somewhat futile exercise, without the use of the aforementioned time machine (that and your previous salt, which was uncalled for).

Thus, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure what other ways a debate between us could go.

[Alvecia]

So we can say that greater intelligence allowed for our ancestors to live in larger communities. But we clearly can't say that greater intelligence allowed our ancestors to simultaneously carry a wide variety of different resources.

There's no definite cause and effect. The meerkat analogy was an observational hypothesis, not an experimental one. The meerkat comparison is not exact,for there are differences between meerkats and early humans - not least size, diet, predation, opposable thumbs and 'the whites of one's eyes'.

I could use a similar observational hypothesis - crows have the ability to carry and pick up rudimentary tools. But is this what caused greater intelligence in them or its effect? Some species of ape can do similar. There's no reason not to assume that we needed greater intelligence first, so that we could then carry more complex objects.

I think that's what's important here.
It is perhaps acceptable to say that more intelligent creatures are more capable of carrying, or rather, making use of what they are carrying, but there is no real way that I can think of to determine if the carrying is simply a result of being more intelligent or if the intelligence is a result of being able to carry.
When I put it like that it seems to me that it being a result of intelligence sounds like it makes more sense.

[Xerographica]

So, really the basis of intelligence is walking upright then, since it enables the dietary changes, environmental changes, the necessity for large groups, and yes, linvoid. If you want a clearly defined 'root cause' of intelligence then, its not linvoid, its walking upright.

Well yeah... if we pretend that humans are the only bipeds.

And since we don't have a time machine, you will doubtless never cease to hold this theory, despite the multiplicity of other factors that could have caused intelligence, or indeed a combination thereof. I'd call this confirmation bias, in that anything that could support your theory must support your theory (even though it may also support other theories). You have a preconception, and you'll interpret the evidence in any way to assert that this is correct, whether this be truth or simply unknown. That is why I stopped replying earlier, because I consider this a somewhat futile exercise, without the use of the aforementioned time machine (that and your previous salt, which was uncalled for).

LOL... errrr... what? You stopped replying because you thought this exercise was futile. Ok, thanks for solving that mystery! Yet... here you are! Why did you start replying again? Ughh... you solved one mystery only to replace it with a new one!

Personally, in my mind, it sure doesn't feel like I'd continue to hold this theory if there was reasonably strong evidence/arguments against it. But it sure doesn't feel like you've really offered strong evidence/arguments against it. It doesn't even feel like you've come close to addressing the basic relationship between complex carrying and the evolution of intelligence.

Early humans migrated. Their survival depended on what they chose to carry with them. On the one hand, walking upright and having arms and hands allowed them to simultaneously carry a wide variety of resources. But on the other hand, more linvoid also increased the complexity of the choices that they were confronted with. This resulted in a greater disparity in the consequences of their carrying choices.

These days, how many people die because they carried the wrong things? In absolute terms... probably quite a few. In relative terms... probably not so many. But imagine a global SHTF scenario. Everybody has to grab what they can and flee for the hills. In this scenario... when everybody's life depends on grabbing and carrying the right things... relatively large amounts of people would die because they grabbed and carried the wrong things.

Right now, in most circumstances, the consequences of choosing and carrying the wrong things are not dire. But in a SHTF scenario... the consequences of choosing and carrying the wrong things would be dire.

From my perspective, this is really the only explanation for human intelligence that makes sense. Walking upright and having arms/hands gave early humans a built in bug-out-bag (BOB). And when the SHTF... some individuals/groups put the wrong things in their BOBs and they suffered the dire consequences. Other individuals/groups put the right things in their BOBs and... voila! Here we are! We have the intelligence to debate and discuss the possible explanations of human intelligence.

Thus, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm not sure what other ways a debate between us could go.

Well... you can challenge the timeline... "Hominins started walking bipedally long before the brain expanded". But since I'm the one that brought this point up... it's pretty fair to say that our debate would probably improve if you did a bit more homework on the subject.

[Valaran]

So, really the basis of intelligence is walking upright then, since it enables the dietary changes, environmental changes, the necessity for large groups, and yes, linvoid. If you want a clearly defined 'root cause' of intelligence then, its not linvoid, its walking upright.

Well yeah... if we pretend that humans are the only bipeds.

The nature of our form is different from other bipedal animals, as is the nature of our evolution.

LOL... errrr... what? You stopped replying because you thought this exercise was futile. Ok, thanks for solving that mystery! Yet... here you are! Why did you start replying again? Ughh... you solved one mystery only to replace it with a new one!

Its basically called irritation. You see it from time to time on here. The snark, is as always, much appreciated.

But it sure doesn't feel like you've really offered strong evidence/arguments against it.

I have made several argument, including cause and effect, the presence of other factors, and have offered several alternative theories that are both more popular in the scientific community, ad have greater supporting evidence. Moreover, I have deconstructed several elements in your argument, multiple times. You have not made your case effectively enough. Instead, you merely repeated your argument like a mantra (like you do below), which becomes irritating rather than productive.

And this is what I mean, also. You would never accept any argument I give; indeed you have not even recognised that I have made any. You instead, 'feel' I haven't made any. Becuase your argument 'makes sense' to you, and that's all that matters (your phrasing, in both cases). This is not good scientific process.

Their survival depended on what they chose to carry with them.

Their survival depended on a lot more than that, and a lot of these other factors may also be relevant for development of intelligence.

These days, how many people die because they carried the wrong things? In absolute terms... probably quite a few. In relative terms... probably not so many. But imagine a global SHTF scenario. Everybody has to grab what they can and flee for the hills. In this scenario... when everybody's life depends on grabbing and carrying the right things... relatively large amounts of people would die because they grabbed and carried the wrong things.

This is entirely irrelevant and actually goes some to attack your own point - if we developed intelligence becuase we chose to carry things, and yet so many of us would even now choose to carry the wrong thing, this doesn't suggest we have learned very much from this technique. Then again, the example is absurd, and so probably counts for little either way.

A further issue. Its generally understood that our intelligence did not result from flight or fight or other situations of extreme pressure, becuase this would not have given much scope for physically non-useful things, like an overly large cranium, and an organ that requires more energy than needed for basic survival (the brain). A brain of this size only becomes more useful in other situations, like in larger social groups, for instance.

individuals/groups put the right things in their BOBs and... voila! Here we are! We have the intelligence to debate and discuss the possible explanations of human intelligence.

But its not necessarily the carrying that made this so effective at creating intelligence. It might be that they killed more animals allowing their brains to have increased nourishment. It then becomes a self fulfilling process, but it wasn't the linvoid that was crucial as much as the tool itself.

And, once again, this ignores any other potential factor (for which numerous theories with at least some archaeological evidence exist), in favour of a simple linear process, that is, as yet, unsupported.

Well... you can challenge the timeline... "Hominins started walking bipedally long before the brain expanded". But since I'm the one that brought this point up... it's pretty fair to say that our debate would probably improve if you did a bit more homework on the subject.

From your own source:

A new analysis of the skull suggests that human brain evolution may have been shaped by changes in the female reproductive system that occurred when our ancestors stood upright.

There are other ways in which bipedalism could have led to increased brain size. It would, for example, have freed up the forelimbs, and this would likely have led to the expansion and reorganization of the sensory and motor brain areas that process sensation and control movement. Similarly, standing upright would have led to big changes in what our ancestors saw, which may have led to an expansion of the visual areas at the back of the brain.

The new findings suggest that further brain expansion, as well as reorganization of the prefrontal cortex, could have occurred as an indirect result of the pelvic modifications that followed the transition to bipedalism.

For someone who, uh 'does their homework', I'm not sure you read your source very well at all. It actually goes quite a long way to note the temporal and evolutionary links, albeit indirect, between bipedalism and brain development. Thanks, that was actually a great source!

[Xerographica]

Well yeah... if we pretend that humans are the only bipeds.

The nature of our form is different from other bipedal animals, as is the nature of our evolution.

We are a lot more linvoid than other bipedal animals. This is what put greater pressure on the selection of intelligence.

Its basically called irritation. You see it from time to time on here. The snark, is as always, much appreciated.

You started replying again because you were irritated? Sorry, I'm not following. Please clarify the connection between...

A. you starting to reply again
B. irritation

But it sure doesn't feel like you've really offered strong evidence/arguments against it.

I have made several argument, including cause and effect, the presence of other factors, and have offered several alternative theories that are both more popular in the scientific community, ad have greater supporting evidence. Moreover, I have deconstructed several elements in your argument, multiple times. You have not made your case effectively enough. Instead, you merely repeated your argument like a mantra (like you do below), which becomes irritating rather than productive.

And this is what I mean, also. You would never accept any argument I give; indeed you have not even recognised that I have made any. You instead, 'feel' I haven't made any. Becuase your argument 'makes sense' to you, and that's all that matters (your phrasing, in both cases). This is not good scientific process.

Where have you deconstructed complex carrying as the fundamental selection pressure on greater intelligence?

Their survival depended on a lot more than that, and a lot of these other factors may also be relevant for development of intelligence.

So make a detailed case for these other factors putting more...

Damn! Not sure if you read this thread... Identifying And Slaying Linvoids...

Honestly, I'd rather just use a phrase which expresses a meaning than a word if the word is ugly - especially if I don't need to express that particular meaning often. If the phrase does become inconvenient then I'll put some effort in crafting a decent word. I prefer a well-crafted word to a portmanteau constructed by just mashing words together.

phrase/meaning = selection pressure on intelligence

This meaning is central to this thread so we need to express it quite often. But from my perspective, it's getting inconvenient to use this phrase so often. What about from your perspective?

Here's my preference...

linvoid1 = the ability to simultaneously carry different resources
linvoid2 = selection pressure on intelligence

My argument is that more linvoid1 means more linvoid2.

Their survival depended on a lot more than that, and a lot of these other factors may also be relevant for development of intelligence.

So make a detailed case for these other factors putting more linvoid2.

This is entirely irrelevant and actually goes some to attack your own point - if we developed intelligence becuase we chose to carry things, and yet so many of us would even now choose to carry the wrong thing, this doesn't suggest we have learned very much from this technique.

We developed exceptional intelligence because our exceptionally intelligent ancestors chose to carry the right things. Does this mean that we're all exceptionally intelligent? As individuals we obviously can't all have above average intelligence. But our species certainly has above average intelligence. We're a lot smarter than the average animal.

So if the SHTF... then most of us would make carrying choices that are more intelligent than the carrying choices of the smartest chimpanzee. But this really doesn't mean that every human's carrying choices would be equally intelligent. Some people's carrying choices would be a lot more intelligent than other people's carrying choices. People who made more intelligent carrying choices would have greater chances of surviving (and passing on their genetic material) than people who made less intelligent carrying choices.

Personally, I don't have a BOB prepared and ready to go. Do you? I'm guessing you don't either...

Then again, the example is absurd, and so probably counts for little either way.

Right now we're gambling that the shit won't hit the fan any time soon. But for all we know... this is a stupid gamble. It's entirely possible that it's a smart gamble to have a BOB ready to go...

I am glad there are all types of people in the world. I am glad that there are crotchety, contrarian, cynical old reporters who constantly feel like everything is hurling off the precipice into Hell, because when things are actually hurling off the precipice into Hell, these people are the first to notice. In the same way, I am glad that there are dedicated survivalists who stockpile canned food in underground shelters in case of the nuclear apocalypse, because if there is ever an actual nuclear apocalypse, these people will survive and rebuild the human race. - Scott Alexander, Book Review: Chronicles of Wasted Time

A further issue. Its generally understood that our intelligence did not result from flight or fight or other situations of extreme pressure, becuase this would not have given much scope for physically non-useful things, like an overly large cranium, and an organ that requires more energy than needed for basic survival (the brain). A brain of this size only becomes more useful in other situations, like in larger social groups, for instance.

All organisms are confronted with fight/flight situations. It has to be the case that this results in some linvoid2... but clearly it can't be the case that it results in enough linvoid2 to produce exceptional intelligence. In order for humans to have ended up exceptionally intelligent, it's a given that our ancestors must have been subjected to exceptionally large amounts of linvoid2.

linvoid3 = exceptionally large amounts of linvoid2

You're guessing that the source of linvoid3 was larger social groups. I'm guessing that the source of linvoid3 was linvoid1.

Now we're juggling three variables...

1. linvoid1 = the ability to simultaneously carry different resources
2. linvoid2 = selection pressure on intelligence
3. linvoid3 = exceptionally large amounts of linvoid2

Do we need the third linvoid? It's not too inconvenient to say "exceptional linvoid2". And you would correctly assume that I was referring to exceptionally large amounts of linvoid2? You wouldn't incorrectly assume that I was referring to exceptionally small amounts of linvoid2?

But its not necessarily the carrying that made this so effective at creating intelligence. It might be that they killed more animals allowing their brains to have increased nourishment. It then becomes a self fulfilling process, but it wasn't the linvoid that was crucial as much as the tool itself.

Walking upright turned us into more efficient killers... which provided us with more food... which allowed us to become more intelligent? I don't see linvoid2... which means that I certainly don't see linvoid3 (it was easier to write "linvoid3" than "exceptional linvoid2"). Walking upright did turn us into more efficient killers... but only because linvoid1 resulted in linvoid3.

And, once again, this ignores any other potential factor (for which numerous theories with at least some archaeological evidence exist), in favour of a simple linear process, that is, as yet, unsupported.

I perceive the existence of plenty of support. Linvoid1 was the cause of linvoid3. You have yet to argue that linvoid1 would not cause linvoid3.

From your own source:

A new analysis of the skull suggests that human brain evolution may have been shaped by changes in the female reproductive system that occurred when our ancestors stood upright.

There are other ways in which bipedalism could have led to increased brain size. It would, for example, have freed up the forelimbs, and this would likely have led to the expansion and reorganization of the sensory and motor brain areas that process sensation and control movement. Similarly, standing upright would have led to big changes in what our ancestors saw, which may have led to an expansion of the visual areas at the back of the brain.

The new findings suggest that further brain expansion, as well as reorganization of the prefrontal cortex, could have occurred as an indirect result of the pelvic modifications that followed the transition to bipedalism.

For someone who, uh 'does their homework', I'm not sure you read your source very well at all. It actually goes quite a long way to note the temporal and evolutionary links, albeit indirect, between bipedalism and brain development. Thanks, that was actually a great source!

Well... it provided some "evidence" both for and against my argument.

Here's where we're at. I don't see how...

A. becoming more efficient killers (more nourishment for larger brains)
B. using fire to cook (more nourishment for larger brains)
C. living in larger groups

... resulted in linvoid3. So either you don't think linvoid3 is necessary for exceptional intelligence... or you do perceive that these other causes did result in linvoid3. If it's the former... then we're definitely not on the same page. If it's the latter... then we are on the same page... but we're reading it very differently. So you'll have to explain in decent detail how A, B or C resulted in linvoid3.

[Quokkastan]

Well, any marsupial really. If it has hands.

Also scorpions.

Would animals that carry multiple venoms that they adjust to match their prey count? Because, if so, add snakes and snails.

Do marsupials have hands or paws? I think raccoons have hands. Did you watch this clip of the raccoon grabbing the food and running away on its hind legs? With this type of food it's advantageous for the raccoon to be able to use its hands to carry the food while running away. In this case it's simultaneously carrying different pieces of the same food. But this specific problem isn't very complex because the raccoon is simply grabbing as much of the food as it can and running. If there had been different varieties of food available... then the benefit maximization problem would have been more complex. The more varieties of food available... the more complex the problem becomes. And the more complex the problem becomes... the more brain power/storage required to solve it.

Yes.

The problem, as I see it, is that the ability to hold and carry multiple objects isn't limited to humans. And humans aren't even necessarily the best at it.

You've side-stepped the issue by saying that the mental faculties required to see value in multiple items, in holding on to them, and in combining them in creative ways, also counts. But that essentially is human intelligence. An enormous part of it in any case.

So what you're ultimately arguing is that human intelligence created human intelligence.

[Deamonopolis]

dna evidence

[Xerographica]

The problem, as I see it, is that the ability to hold and carry multiple objects isn't limited to humans.

But I've never argued that humans are the only animals with linvoid1. I've argued that humans are the most linvoid1.

And humans aren't even necessarily the best at it.

What animals are more linvoid1 than humans?

You've side-stepped the issue by saying that the mental faculties required to see value in multiple items, in holding on to them, and in combining them in creative ways, also counts. But that essentially is human intelligence. An enormous part of it in any case.

So what you're ultimately arguing is that human intelligence created human intelligence.

I'm arguing that our exceptional intelligence is the result of linvoid3... which is the result of linvoid1.

Take a look at this photo...


Carnivorous Cattleya by Epiphyte, on Flickr

The large white flower is from a Cattleya orchid that is growing on my tree. A honey bee visited the flower and died as a result. The Cattleya didn't intentionally kill the bee. There aren't any carnivorous orchids. The bee entered the flower and got stuck to the orchid's built in "glue". The bee wasn't able to free itself and died. If the bee had been able to free itself... then it would have continued deeper into the flower where it would have been rewarded with some nectar... or been tricked? Some orchids are notoriously deceptive. In any case, the bee would have turned around and, just as it was about to exit, the flower would have deposited its pollen onto the bee's gluey back. When the bee entered into the next orchid flower... the pollen on its back would have gotten stuck exactly where the bee had gotten stuck to.

The bee essentially died during sex. Well... it died while it was attempting to facilitate orchid sex. The same thing could have been said for me if I had fallen out of the tree while attempting to pollinate the Cattleya.

Neither the orchid nor the bee are native to California or to the US. The orchid is a hybrid but its ancestors are all native to the Americas. The bee isn't even native to the Americas.

Maybe you find this story fascinating but you're wondering what it has to do with the evolution of human intelligence. Well... the bee died because it wasn't strong enough to extricate itself from the flower's sticky part. This is an example of selection pressure. In this case... we're not talking about linvoid2 (selecting for intelligence)... we're talking about selecting for strength. The bee was killed because it was too weak. It wasn't strong enough to survive the orchid's "gauntlet".

Right now California doesn't have very many people who grow Cattleya orchids outdoors. This means that the pressure that Cattleyas exert on California bees is vanishingly small. It's imperceptible. But we can imagine that... if more and more people in California started growing Cattleyas... the selection pressure would grow more and more perceptible. More and more bees would be killed by Cattleyas. If everybody in California had Cattleyas blooming on their trees... would this kill all the bees in California? Probably... not.

It's a given that no two bees are equally strong. Why is it a given? Because "difference" is the very point of sexual reproduction. "Difference" allows species to hedge their bets. "Difference" helps species adjust to constantly changing conditions/circumstances. More and more people growing Cattleyas is an example of changing conditions. As more and more weaker bees are killed off... more and more exceptionally strong bees would survive to pass on their genetic material... and the population of bees in California would shift accordingly.

It might help to read this passage...

Sex responds instead to a different mandate, which I will call the mandate of genetic diversity. Evolution requires imperfect reproduction. In simple organisms with extremely large populations, such as bacteria, genetic mutation supplies the necessary imperfection. In species with more limited populations, including most multicellular organisms, mutation does not occur rapidly enough to permit evolution to operate at high enough speeds to allow species to adapt effectively to changing environmental conditions (in particular, to quickly evolving viruses, bacteria, and other parasites). Here sex - the production of offspring through the mixing of genetic material - comes to the rescue. Populations of creatures that reproduce sexually will be far more genetically diverse than populations of similar size that reproduce without such genetic mixing. When environmental conditions change, it is more likely that some portion of the sexually reproducing population will already carry the genes necessary to deal with that change. In other words, sex allows us to evolve to meet changing conditions more quickly.

If genetic diversity is adaptive, we ought to observe the mandate of genetic diversity operating in our choice of mates. And we do. Despite sex, we could reproduce more perfectly, and thereby respond more effectively to the mandate of reproduction, by mating with our closest genetic kin - in other words, through incest. The mandate of genetic diversity, however, predicts the evolution of inhibitions to incest; and, indeed, we all carry such inhibitions, both genetic and learned. The mandate of genetic diversity also predicts that our mating choices will be somewhat random; and, indeed, we often fall in love with unexpected, sometimes even objectively unsuitable, partners. As Pascal observed: "Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait point." ("The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows not.") - Theodore P. Seto, Reframing Evil in Evolutionary and Game Theoretic Terms

If, in the future, California has exceptionally strong bees, then the cause would be the exceptional selection pressure that millions of Cattleyas put on the bees. Are humans exceptionally strong? Nope. But we are exceptionally intelligent. The cause of our exceptional intelligence was linvoid3 (exceptionally large amounts of linvoid2 (selection pressure on intelligence)).

In the example of the Cattleyas and the bees... the bees changed because their circumstances/conditions changed (more and more Cattleyas were grown in California). But with our early ancestors... linvoid3 wasn't the result of changing conditions... it was the result of our ancestors themselves changing. They became more and more bipedal.

With all of this in mind... let's take another look at your argument...

You've side-stepped the issue by saying that the mental faculties required to see value in multiple items, in holding on to them, and in combining them in creative ways, also counts. But that essentially is human intelligence. An enormous part of it in any case.

So what you're ultimately arguing is that human intelligence created human intelligence.

We both agree that our ancestors became more and more bipedal. We also both agree that this helped them to become more linvoid1. Becoming bipedal freed up their hands and arms to simultaneously carry different resources (linvoid1). You're under the impression that I'm arguing that our ancestors became more intelligent because they were more intelligent. But, as you pointed out, this would be a circular reasoning.

What I'm actually arguing is that linvoid1 caused linvoid3. Walking upright forced our ancestors to confront complex carrying choices. How many different things would they have wanted to carry with them when they migrated? Here are some pretty basic things...

- children
- food
- tools
- weapons

Being able to simultaneously carry more than one thing made this problem very complex. It wasn't a relatively simple problem of children OR food OR tools OR weapons... it was a complex problem of children AND/OR food AND/OR tools AND/OR weapons.

The complexity of this problem resulted in linvoid3. Whenever anybody went anywhere... they were confronted with a complex math problem. Individuals that were exceptionally good at solving these complex math problems were more likely to survive and shift the population in the direction of more intelligence.

The complex math problem is, more specifically, a complex economic problem. The problem is how to allocate resources in order to maximize benefit.

All organisms are confronted with the problem of how to allocate resources... even plants. The Cattleya on my tree has to decide how to allocate its limited resources between growing and blooming (reproducing). Insects can allocate more resources than plants can. This means that insects are confronted with more complex economic problems than plants. Mammals can allocate more resources than insects can... which means that mammals are confronted with more complex economic problems than insects. Out of all the mammals... humans can allocate the most resources... which means that humans are confronted with the most complex economic problems.

The more complex the economic problems.... the more intelligence required to solve them. Humans are the most intelligent animals... which reflects the fact that humans solve the most complex economic problems. Our ability to solve the most complex problems reflects the fact that we can allocate the most resources. And what, exactly, allows us to allocate the most resources? Linvoid1.

In theory we could select for raccoons that are more and more bipedal. Doing so would make them more linvoid1... which would result in linvoid3 and voila! Raccoons would be just as intelligent as we are. The first thing you saw when Seldon resurrected you would be a raccoon checking your vitals.

[Quokkastan]

The problem, as I see it, is that the ability to hold and carry multiple objects isn't limited to humans.

But I've never argued that humans are the only animals with linvoid1. I've argued that humans are the most linvoid1.

And humans aren't even necessarily the best at it.

What animals are more linvoid1 than humans?

You've side-stepped the issue by saying that the mental faculties required to see value in multiple items, in holding on to them, and in combining them in creative ways, also counts. But that essentially is human intelligence. An enormous part of it in any case.

So what you're ultimately arguing is that human intelligence created human intelligence.

I'm arguing that our exceptional intelligence is the result of linvoid3... which is the result of linvoid1.

Take a look at this photo...


Carnivorous Cattleya by Epiphyte, on Flickr

The large white flower is from a Cattleya orchid that is growing on my tree. A honey bee visited the flower and died as a result. The Cattleya didn't intentionally kill the bee. There aren't any carnivorous orchids. The bee entered the flower and got stuck to the orchid's built in "glue". The bee wasn't able to free itself and died. If the bee had been able to free itself... then it would have continued deeper into the flower where it would have been rewarded with some nectar... or been tricked? Some orchids are notoriously deceptive. In any case, the bee would have turned around and, just as it was about to exit, the flower would have deposited its pollen onto the bee's gluey back. When the bee entered into the next orchid flower... the pollen on its back would have gotten stuck exactly where the bee had gotten stuck to.

The bee essentially died during sex. Well... it died while it was attempting to facilitate orchid sex. The same thing could have been said for me if I had fallen out of the tree while attempting to pollinate the Cattleya.

Neither the orchid nor the bee are native to California or to the US. The orchid is a hybrid but its ancestors are all native to the Americas. The bee isn't even native to the Americas.

Maybe you find this story fascinating but you're wondering what it has to do with the evolution of human intelligence. Well... the bee died because it wasn't strong enough to extricate itself from the flower's sticky part. This is an example of selection pressure. In this case... we're not talking about linvoid2 (selecting for intelligence)... we're talking about selecting for strength. The bee was killed because it was too weak. It wasn't strong enough to survive the orchid's "gauntlet".

Right now California doesn't have very many people who grow Cattleya orchids outdoors. This means that the pressure that Cattleyas exert on California bees is vanishingly small. It's imperceptible. But we can imagine that... if more and more people in California started growing Cattleyas... the selection pressure would grow more and more perceptible. More and more bees would be killed by Cattleyas. If everybody in California had Cattleyas blooming on their trees... would this kill all the bees in California? Probably... not.

It's a given that no two bees are equally strong. Why is it a given? Because "difference" is the very point of sexual reproduction. "Difference" allows species to hedge their bets. "Difference" helps species adjust to constantly changing conditions/circumstances. More and more people growing Cattleyas is an example of changing conditions. As more and more weaker bees are killed off... more and more exceptionally strong bees would survive to pass on their genetic material... and the population of bees in California would shift accordingly.

It might help to read this passage...

Sex responds instead to a different mandate, which I will call the mandate of genetic diversity. Evolution requires imperfect reproduction. In simple organisms with extremely large populations, such as bacteria, genetic mutation supplies the necessary imperfection. In species with more limited populations, including most multicellular organisms, mutation does not occur rapidly enough to permit evolution to operate at high enough speeds to allow species to adapt effectively to changing environmental conditions (in particular, to quickly evolving viruses, bacteria, and other parasites). Here sex - the production of offspring through the mixing of genetic material - comes to the rescue. Populations of creatures that reproduce sexually will be far more genetically diverse than populations of similar size that reproduce without such genetic mixing. When environmental conditions change, it is more likely that some portion of the sexually reproducing population will already carry the genes necessary to deal with that change. In other words, sex allows us to evolve to meet changing conditions more quickly.

If genetic diversity is adaptive, we ought to observe the mandate of genetic diversity operating in our choice of mates. And we do. Despite sex, we could reproduce more perfectly, and thereby respond more effectively to the mandate of reproduction, by mating with our closest genetic kin - in other words, through incest. The mandate of genetic diversity, however, predicts the evolution of inhibitions to incest; and, indeed, we all carry such inhibitions, both genetic and learned. The mandate of genetic diversity also predicts that our mating choices will be somewhat random; and, indeed, we often fall in love with unexpected, sometimes even objectively unsuitable, partners. As Pascal observed: "Le coeur a ses raisons, que la raison ne connait point." ("The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows not.") - Theodore P. Seto, Reframing Evil in Evolutionary and Game Theoretic Terms

If, in the future, California has exceptionally strong bees, then the cause would be the exceptional selection pressure that millions of Cattleyas put on the bees. Are humans exceptionally strong? Nope. But we are exceptionally intelligent. The cause of our exceptional intelligence was linvoid3 (exceptionally large amounts of linvoid2 (selection pressure on intelligence)).

In the example of the Cattleyas and the bees... the bees changed because their circumstances/conditions changed (more and more Cattleyas were grown in California). But with our early ancestors... linvoid3 wasn't the result of changing conditions... it was the result of our ancestors themselves changing. They became more and more bipedal.

With all of this in mind... let's take another look at your argument...

You've side-stepped the issue by saying that the mental faculties required to see value in multiple items, in holding on to them, and in combining them in creative ways, also counts. But that essentially is human intelligence. An enormous part of it in any case.

So what you're ultimately arguing is that human intelligence created human intelligence.

We both agree that our ancestors became more and more bipedal. We also both agree that this helped them to become more linvoid1. Becoming bipedal freed up their hands and arms to simultaneously carry different resources (linvoid1). You're under the impression that I'm arguing that our ancestors became more intelligent because they were more intelligent. But, as you pointed out, this would be a circular reasoning.

What I'm actually arguing is that linvoid1 caused linvoid3. Walking upright forced our ancestors to confront complex carrying choices. How many different things would they have wanted to carry with them when they migrated? Here are some pretty basic things...

- children
- food
- tools
- weapons

Being able to simultaneously carry more than one thing made this problem very complex. It wasn't a relatively simple problem of children OR food OR tools OR weapons... it was a complex problem of children AND/OR food AND/OR tools AND/OR weapons.

The complexity of this problem resulted in linvoid3. Whenever anybody went anywhere... they were confronted with a complex math problem. Individuals that were exceptionally good at solving these complex math problems were more likely to survive and shift the population in the direction of more intelligence.

The complex math problem is, more specifically, a complex economic problem. The problem is how to allocate resources in order to maximize benefit.

All organisms are confronted with the problem of how to allocate resources... even plants. The Cattleya on my tree has to decide how to allocate its limited resources between growing and blooming (reproducing). Insects can allocate more resources than plants can. This means that insects are confronted with more complex economic problems than plants. Mammals can allocate more resources than insects can... which means that mammals are confronted with more complex economic problems than insects. Out of all the mammals... humans can allocate the most resources... which means that humans are confronted with the most complex economic problems.

The more complex the economic problems.... the more intelligence required to solve them. Humans are the most intelligent animals... which reflects the fact that humans solve the most complex economic problems. Our ability to solve the most complex problems reflects the fact that we can allocate the most resources. And what, exactly, allows us to allocate the most resources? Linvoid1.

In theory we could select for raccoons that are more and more bipedal. Doing so would make them more linvoid1... which would result in linvoid3 and voila! Raccoons would be just as intelligent as we are. The first thing you saw when Seldon resurrected you would be a raccoon checking your vitals.

My god you ramble.

What would falsify this?

I know it's difficult, but try to restrain yourself to a sentence or two. If you need more you're not communicating effectively.

[Icthyia]

Stop trying to make your own words.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

If carrying stuff leads to the evolution of intelligence, then why is everyone so surprised to meet a talking ship? I carry more stuff than all y'all.

Dammit, you beat me to this one. Now I am also carrying sadness.

[Xerographica]

What would falsify this?

If the raccoons didn't become more intelligent.

[Lady Scylla]

Usual stuff; Wallet, phone, keys.

...khakis

[Luziyca]

I'm usually carrying a wallet, phone, and some keys, as well as a sense of weariness.

[Zaldakki]

I'm alone in my bedroom only carrying my phone. That's it. I'm not even wearing clothes right now.

[Alvecia]

Maybe you should make a word for someone who cannot effectively make a point in less than two paragraphs.

[Xerographica]

Maybe you should make a word for someone who cannot effectively make a point in less than two paragraphs.

Errr... "author"?

Here's my nutshell explanation that I just posted on Greg Stevens' blog entry... Evolution Q&A: Why did only humans become intelligent?

You really did the theory of evolution justice! I, on the other hand, really suck at doing theories justice. Watch...

So... humans are exceptionally intelligent. What is exceptional intelligence good for? It's good for solving exceptionally hard problems. But why did early humans, out of all the animals, need to solve exceptionally hard problems? It's because out of all the animals, early humans had the greatest ability to (simultaneously) allocate the widest variety of resources. This exceptional ability was the result of having hands, arms and... walking upright.

With quadrupeds... all four limbs are primarily dedicated to allocating a single resource... the animal itself. But this specialization is a continuum that ranges from horses to raccoons to chimps. Horses obviously have four legs. All their limbs are quite specialized to allocating only the horse itself. None of the horse's limbs are remotely capable of allocating other resources. What about raccoons? Do they have four legs? Well, their front limbs are reasonably capable of allocating other resources. Chimps definitely do not have four legs. They have two legs and feet and two arms and hands. They are quite capable of allocating other resources with their arms and hands.

As front limbs become less dedicated to only allocating the animal itself and more generalized to allocating other resources... there's an increase in the total variety of resources that can be (simultaneously) allocated. This creates a more difficult/complex allocation problem.... which requires more brain power/storage to optimally solve. Well... a distinct advantage is given to exceptionally intelligent individuals.

Since you're fond of using lions as an example... let's compare them to zebras. It would seem that the front limbs of the lion aren't as specialized to self-allocation as the front limbs of the zebra are. Lions certainly use their front limbs to allocate themselves... but they also use their front limbs to allocate their prey. But perhaps the biggest difference is that the mouths of lions are quite capable of carrying/allocating resources (food, cubs, other?). Do zebras use their mouths to carry anything? Not so much? Therefore, lions are faced with more complex (allocation) problems than zebras.... and we should suspect that lions are more intelligent as a result.

So.... for lack of a better word... more "resourceful" body types put greater selection pressure on intelligence. Humans are the most intelligent animals because our body types are the most "resourceful".

[Dakini]

So the dolphins you used as evidence were irrelevant to your argument all along?

Why do you try to bring up evidence that's irrelevant to your argument?

Ok, besides koalas, octopi, and humans, what else is known to tote around multiple things at one time?

Well, any marsupial really. If it has hands.

Also scorpions.

Would animals that carry multiple venoms that they adjust to match their prey count? Because, if so, add snakes and snails.

Also lots of rodents. Have you seen how much food a hamster can cram into its tiny little face?

[Internationalist Bastard]

I....what?

[The Two Jerseys]

Maybe you should make a word for someone who cannot effectively make a point in less than two paragraphs.

There's one already: "incoherent".