From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Wed Aug 12 16:52:25 EDT 1992
Article 6564 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Memory and store/retrieve.
Message-ID: <1992Aug4.190225.30059@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 4 Aug 92 19:02:25 GMT
References: <1992Aug3.220654.20920@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <1992Aug4.165958.17775@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Aug4.181806.28275@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 19

In article <1992Aug4.181806.28275@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>In article <1992Aug4.165958.17775@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>>
>>  It is generally agreed that intelligence has evolved, and that it is
>>beneficial.  I admit the possibility that perhaps intelligence is not
>>beneficial at all, and it is due to mere homocentric hubris that we
>>assume that there is a benefit - but I intend ignoring this extreme
>>view.
>
>Why is this extreme ? If you buy into a generally neutral theory of
>genetic evolution, one would expect this to be the norm, and for
>"genuinely beneficial" developments (such as bipedalism, stereo vision
>and so forth) to be the exception.

  Surely you have answered your own question.  Bipedalism, which you
consider "genuinely beneficial" requires substantial increases in
intelligence just to maintain balance.  Stereo vision, which you also
consider beneficial, requires substantial intelligence.  Please note
that I do not equate "intelligence" with "conscious intelligence."


