Well, in my travels this weekend (Milano and that secret gem Brescia – at least it was secret to me) I found myself thinking on the origins of human intelligence. Why? Can’t say I remember. It’s just one of those things. I take off the leash and the mind goes romping merrily down all the dark alleys of the cerebellum through seldom-used neural pathways and jumping over the tenuously juxtaposed synapses.
Anyway, on with the show.
There are several ideas I’ve had, partly from observation, partly from reading and partly from thoughtful extrapolation, that come together here. Many of these may, as of yet, have little or no support from scientific experiments, although (and some it would be very difficult to do) but I feel there is a good chance the ideas would be born out, if the experiments could be/were performed.
First, it is my own observation young children (0-2), ie: before the development of the ego, are not any more intelligent that your average pet. The advantage they have is that the share the same language and ability to speak as we do and thus have the potential to communicate more easily. However, it is very clear to me that my cat often tries to talk to me, and when I try and “speak cat” to him, occasion he reacts as if I’ve said something significant (or offensive). So I believe that humans are born with the potential to develop intelligence, sentience, but do not come into the world with anything inherent. Moreover, I believe that a child left untrained, that is, left alone or only with other similar children, in most cases would not develop any greater intelligence or sentience than any other higher animal.
Humans, however, do have the potential for sentience and that likely comes from not only brain size : body weight ratio but, more importantly in my opinion, high neuronal density. Unfortunately, I’m not aware of any studies on the latter so, in fact, I have no idea whether it is true. However, it seems likely to me when extrapolating from computers and parallel processing, for instance. It seems to me that the brain could be considered as a very advanced parallel processor with self-programming capabilities. Clearly heuristic development – learning – is very important to the development of sentience in humans and, to my mind, is quite likely why the ego (the key feature of sentience) doesn’t develop until between 2-3 years of age. It is my belief that at this time the child has acquired the required amount of experience to form the neural patterning necessary for the progression to sentience.
And so we come to the crux of the issue. If I am correct, children develop sentience largely due to the experiences that get from their parents and other sentient humans (since very few one-year-olds go on back-packing trips across Europe) and thus, in most cases, it would seem likely that they would not develop sentience without that contact. Now, when we think to the development of the modern human species, the homo spapiens, we come to a similar problem. If I was in any way typical of the average person’s thoughts on the issue, then the understanding of human evolution goes something like this: after the long evolution to primates, through all the squishies and slimies, we get to Neanderthal man. Neanderthal man probably stays with the IQ of a modern two year old, maybe slightly more advanced. Then at least two groups branch off the evolutionary tree. One of them, us homo sapiens, magically develops intelligence and outsmarts its competition in to oblivion. In fact, as a scientist, I feel somewhat ashamed that I haven’t though more on this prior to now, but does anyone really believe that one day a child was born that was immensely smarter than the rest and gave rise to the entire species? I would think it more likely that such a child had a greater potential. However, the original homo sapiens may not have had that much greater intelligence that its parents. Since it likely also did not suffer any deficiencies, the species would be continued through standard mating, such that the genetic advantage became incorporated into a certain percentage of the population. Here is where we need one other observation.
It is clear from looking at people through history, and certain people now, that there is a small but significant group of the homo sapiens population that are naturally gifted above all others. I’m speaking in particular about those child geniuses that can play piano at 3 and can write concertos at 5 or graduate med-school at 9. They accomplish things that cannot be explained solely by different parenting. These people are genetically gifted and advanced from the rest of us. They tend to have a natural curiosity and understanding that dwarfs that of most average and even many exceptional people. It is my belief that interest and genuine insatiable curiosity are two strong factors in the development of a strong mind, strong memory and high intelligence. Thus, I feel that the highly gifted people I mentioned would be prone to spontaneous development of intelligence.
Therefore, while it could have been possible that the first homo sapiens was also a highly gifted person who developed sentience spontaneously, I think it more likely that evolution went one step at a time, laying in place the genetics and the beginning of the species separation. Then the second step, sentience, would come in the form of an individual advanced even for the new species. This advanced personal would then start the entire chain of sentience by teaching the others of its group. The other homo sapiens would then develop sentience much as a two year old does, while the Neanderthals would not and then, in the harsh, dog-eat-dog world of the world, there can be only one. The rest, as they say, is history.
Void Surfer
No comments:
Post a Comment