Easy Questions?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Titanium has a low but non-zero probability to ignite and burn away

TG some topic drift. It was beginning to feel like LibraLabrat was back !

I'd forgotten about him.  He's missed, surely.   Anyone know where he's at, and how he's doing?

[Griffin NoName]

Sorry, no, not me.

[Roland Deschain]

Not seen LibraLabRat for a while either. I hope he's ok.

[Griffin NoName]

Human's big brain is often attributed to us becoming meat eaters. If that were true why didn't animals (eg. lions) develope big brains?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Human's big brain is often attributed to us becoming meat eaters. If that were true why didn't animals (eg. lions) develope big brains?

I think they have the cause & effect reversed... we developed larger craniums, and then discovered we could eat more meat... (as result of being more clever than the meat we were consuming...)

All apes eat meat whenever they can get it; only humans eat it on a daily basis as a matter of routine.

[Swatopluk]

Lions have no need for a 'bigger' brain. Their bodies are fit for their 'job' and their brains are sufficient. They even manage (limited) cooperation.
In general predators seem to be smarter than their typical prey. Those that are not would not be successful enough to flourish longterm.
I am not an expert but I think humans (and maybe chimps) are the only example where the energy demands of the brain actually require dietary adjustment.
I think it is now mainly seen as a positive feedback loop. Higher developed (and thus energy hungry) brains better allow to acquire the necessary fuel (cheap oil breeds SUVs?). Once a critical limit has been passed going back to grass is/was not an option. But 'choosing' this option also led to scaling back on the body side making humans inferior in everything but long distance running. Lions (and tigers and bears*) kept their arsenal and thus can survive (under normal circumstances) with less gray matter.

*the only ones still keeping the vegetarian option, although only the (rather dim) panda went all the way there.

[Aggie]

I've heard the argument that control of fire lead to greater brain capacity, as it augments digestion and allows us to eat more difficult foods (fibrous tubers, dodgy meat, etc).

That still suggests that there was an initial intelligence boost, to make us able to use fire.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Predators (both mammal and avian) are smarter than credited, they have to develop complex strategies for hunting and frequently do so in groups, still the smarter species are not fundamental predators (there is a tendency for generalism) and have very complex social lives. IMO humans had a second jump from basic intelligence (jungle ape) to a more demanding savannah environment which forced a quick(er) brain development. That still doesn't answer why the ape (and most primates) was smart on the first place. The same question applies for the other intelligent groups (cetaceans, elephants, crows, parrots, cephalopods), we don't know what pressures enabled said intelligence, and what conditions allow (or prevent) the second jump on those species.

[Aggie]

Based on other outlandish evolutionary embellishments, it's possible that human intelligence evolved partly as a sexual attractant; it makes the most sense if this happened in an environmental setting where increased intelligence meant more resources. What starts as a practical consideration can become a marker for overall fitness on its own.

Just as elaborate plumage on male birds takes metabolic power to maintain and implies that the owner is doing well for himself, being smarter at a time where absolute brain capacity was directly linked to intelligence would probably make its owner sexier. We're very socially aware of how smart someone is relative to ourselves, and can roughly estimate intelligence for most people based only a few minutes of conversation. If smart=sexy entered the equation, that could be reason enough for sustained brain-boosting.  Throughout history, demonstrations of intellectual ability (poetry, song) have been quite as involved in seduction as demonstrations of athletic ability (dance, sport).

Intelligence is better than the peacock's tail, however, and we've benefited greatly from it.  However, it was probably just about getting it on.

[Swatopluk]

That was before intelligence became nerddom and its lack the new attractor.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Back to the question of "why"-- I think it's simple accumulation.

Once the brain-mass is sufficiently large, intelligence emerges automatically, as an emergent function of complex inter-connections possible with a brain-mass of sufficient size.

In short, I think it happens automatically.

The consequences of that, if true, obviously, is that at some point, machine intelligence will emerge on it's own, too.  Again, automatically, whether we wanted it or not.

I think Gene Roddenberry missed that bet, in his prediction/imaginary future.   He had incredibly sophisticated and complex machines in his world-- but none were self aware, apart from unique (and deliberate) anomalies such as Data.   He surmised humans would know how to limit the self-aware function in incredibly complex machines (i.e. deliberately keeping it out).

I think he was wrong-- any computer sophisticated and powerful enough to disassemble an object (or person) at the atomic level, store sufficient information about said disassembly such that it can be transmitted over a distance, and then (remotely too!) re-assemble an exact copy?  (or exact enough as makes zero difference from one point to the next)  (transporters, obviously)

Such a machine would be self-aware automatically, whether it's designers wished it were or not.  There'd be no choice, I think-- the machine would be thinking on a pretty grand scale, and manipulating informational bits on the order of complexity as is the universe itself.  There's 1 x 10²³ atoms in a given specific space--roughly the size of a liter (if I remember my physics), the "mole" measurement of a gas.  In a solid, the volume is considerably smaller.  Such that, a human being would consist of many of these "moles" put together.  If you factor in that you must also maintain the state of each atom, it's relationship to the adjacent atoms, including the energy states of the various electrons?  Each atom needs more than a byte of memory to represent-- in short, the memory-space of the "remembered" human in transport is more complex than the actual human was, originally...

... okay, I've wandered off a bit here, but my point is, I think intelligence is a natural, emergent property of any given neural mass of sufficient density.  Is a cockroach intelligent?  Certainly, when compared to a rock!  And so on up the ladder of complexity-- apes are nearly as intelligent as humans, and the difference is not nearly as vast as we'd love to pretend, either.  

I don't think there is a magical threshold, either-- I think it's a pretty smooth curve from ameoba, who's intelligence is entirely held in it's genome-structure up to humans, who's brains are the seat of their intelligences.

The difference seems greater, as when you reach a certain level of intelligence, you can achieve selfless abstract thought-- which in turn, lets you engage in activity that won't see completion in your or your offsprings' foreseeable lifetimes.  Such abstraction is what civilizations are made of, after all.  But I do not think that the apes are all that less than we, just because they lack such abstractions-- it may be possible to teach it to them, given sufficient time.  The evolutionary pressure to "breed" smarter apes/chimps will do the rest, although the project could take thousands of years... (or not, if we learn how to bypass the normal, slow process of natural selection, in favor of direct intervention).

[Aggie]

The evolutionary pressure to "breed" smarter apes/chimps will do the rest, although the project could take thousands of years... (or not, if we learn how to bypass the normal, slow process of natural selection, in favor of direct intervention).

We've been doing this for a few thousand years at least, which is much more time than is required. With a concerted program, I'd expect that a hundred years of selective breeding would make a noticeable difference (the chief difficulty is that chimpanzee generation times are ~10 years at a minimum). Human-level brainpower would of course take longer, as you'd need to co-select for females with wide pelvises, although assisted birth could eliminate the problem ensure a population that would have difficult reproducing naturally.


If we ever get to transporter-level technology, this will be a moot point, as a brilliant enough computer will be able to simply assemble any variant of being you could want by assembling new or modified forms instead of simple transcribing of data. The computer, if it had sufficient understanding of neurophysiology, could literally rewire neural pathways to change memories, behaviour, personality, beliefs of a transported being.  A transporter is really just an atomic-level 3D printer, isn't it? 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

....  A transporter is really just an atomic-level 3D printer, isn't it? 

Indeed it is.

Once that sort of technology is achieved (if it's even possible-- quantum uncertainty may be an impossible barrier), then actual, Hollywood style cloning becomes possible...

... need a copy of yourself?  Beam yourself once, then re-send the beam a 2nd time, for an exact copy... who gets what may be a wee bit problematical.

Another thing?  Nothing will have any intrinsic value any longer.  Nothing.   Need more gold?  Beam bars of it to your desired location.   Need more unobtainium?  Reconfigure the transmitting engine to produce it to your specification, even so far as the finished product.

Manufacturing?  Gone-- create a prototype, then use the beam to make exact duplicates.   You can even fab-up the prototype with the beam, too-- have it lay down to your specs, the device in question.  Didn't work out as planned?  No problem-- re-transmit it, applying the corrections to the destination. 

Special delivery?  No problem:  a quick communique to the maker, and they'll beam one over in minutes.   The payment process will take more time than manufacture/delivery.

A society that invents matter transmission as per Star Trek, will be a very different one that anything we have now-- money?  Meaningless.   Farming?  Why bother-- use the matter beam to "ingest" a pile of garbage, re-configure the output to be an already-cooked hot dinner for two (or four or eight or even one).

Oooh... too bad... the little kid was hit (and killed) by a runaway car.  No problem:  he had just beamed home from a visit to gran'ma's yesterday, so re-beaming him a 2nd time, and little Timmy is back... minus a day.  No big dealio.

Poor gran'ma's heart is failing?  No problemeo-- beam gran'ma back and forth, applying heart-modification such that she has the heart of an 18 year old's.   And while we're at it? A new body to match-- even her brain is youthened, you just apply the old interconnections you saved to the new brain, so that no memories/personality is lost.   Instant immortality...

... trash/garbage/toxic waste?  No big dealio-- you beam the unwanted mass to somewhere else, saving it as inert (but dense--to save space) matter, to be used the next time you need something. 

Need fuel?  No big deal-- transmat that pile of useless junk mail into fresh fuel cylinders--already charged and ready to go, too.

Seems far-fetched?   Well, yeah-- it does.   And likely is.    Quantum fluctuation and all that.

But we've discovered that something close enough to a match is the same as the original.... so even quantum effects may not matter at all.   

... of course, there may be entropy effects:  poor gran'ma's been beamed one too many times, and her memories are becoming a wee bit scrambled, from accumulating all those minute quantum-level errors ....

[Griffin NoName]

... of course, there may be entropy effects:  poor gran'ma's been beamed one too many times, and her memories are becoming a wee bit scrambled, from accumulating all those minute quantum-level errors ....

Just a new form of dementia.

[Swatopluk]

Apart from problems with quantum effects energy demands would be enormous for such devices. Take your gold example. Either gold is already there or it has to be synthesized by fusion or fission. Creatio ex nihilo is theoretically possible but who would pay for a cup of tea that costs as much energy to produce as a large nuke yields  (1 g matter equivalent is roughly equal to the Hiroshima bomb; the cup of tea would be in the megaton range)?
Duplication of objects from stored material would still require the breaking and forming of chemical bonds on a scale that the pure energy demand would make it economically unfeasible. And no, the energy from formed bonds cannot be simply used to break others.