Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!satisfied.elf.com!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Computers--Next stage in evolution? Hmmmmmm.....
Message-ID: <jqbD42Io3.GM@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3hgj4q$di7@news.u.washington.edu> <3hl4sj$d02@mp.cs.niu.edu> <jqbD40Kuo.99F@netcom.com> <3hrn95$m8q@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 1995 00:57:39 GMT
Lines: 129
Sender: jqb@netcom11.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:27525 comp.ai.philosophy:25591 comp.ai.alife:2451

In article <3hrn95$m8q@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>In <jqbD40Kuo.99F@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>>In article <3hl4sj$d02@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>>>In <D3vEJ5.72s@indirect.com> spaceboy@indirect.com (s p a c e b o y) writes:
>
>>>>I do agree with you upon this point.  Humans have definitely not evolved 
>>>>well physically.  One interesting point of research has been upon 
>>>>birthing of young in many species.  When humans began to walk more and 
>>>>more upright throughout history, this had the effect of changing the 
>>>>geometry of the pelvis, causing the birth canal to become much more 
>>>>narrow.  Over the eons this caused human young to be born more and more 
>>>>premature since the babies' head develops very rapidly and would not pass 
>>>>through the pelvis unless birth occured more early.
>
>>>Quite evidently, this is wrong.  In normal circumstances, babies
>>>are not born premature.  They may be very immature, but that is
>>>a different matter.
>
>>This seems like a quibble.  ...
>
>>>By implication, you are suggesting that the immaturity of the human
>>>infant is an evolutionary mistake.
>
>>That's a mistaken interpretation flowing from a teleological POV.
>
>I'll call a foul on that.
>
>Spaceboy used the word 'premature'.  My interpretation is that, by
>using the word 'premature' rather than 'immature' he was saying that
>it was an evolutionary mistake.  In addition, spaceboy prefaced the
>quoted remark with another comment which supports my interpretation:
>
>	Humans have definitely not evolved well physically.  One
>	interesting point of research has been upon birthing of young
>	in many species.
>
>But you declare my comment on prematurity a quibble, thereby erasing
>the context, and on that basis jump to the conclusion that I was
>making a teleological assertion at this point.

I'm not saying that you are making a teleological assertion; especially not
when you already said one cannot make these sorts of teleological arguments.
I am rather saying that you are interpreting spaceboy's comments
teleologically.  I'll concede that spaceboy's "not ... well" introduced
normative concepts.  I may have missed it the first time around.  But I think
that labelling a particular evolutionary development that precluded other
developments, such as longer gestation times with big heads, as "not
... well", is quite different from calling it a mistake, especially if you
then argue that it wasn't a mistake *because* it led to other "desirable"
developments, such as intensive caregiving.  For instance, one can say that
the cheetah has not evolved well, because it is subject to extinction due to a
restricted gene pool.  It isn't a "mistake", it is simply a fact.  Of course
the restricted gene pool came about in concert with the development of great
speed.  But the great speed is no longer sufficient, given the changed
environment, to sustain the population.

>>>This
>>>evolutionary "mistake" allows a significantly larger part of the
>>>infant's development to occur in a far richer environment than would
>>>be possible in utero.  Without this "mistake" we should probably be
>>>rather more like apes than like humans.
>
>>I'm not too sure of the value of this sort of second guessing.
>
>It is not entirely second guessing.  I refer you to the article
>"Linguistic Experience Alters Phonetic Perception in Infants by 6
>Months of Age," by Kuhl et al, Science, Jan 31 1992.  The evidence in
>that article is strongly suggestive that language acquisition begins
>early.

Of course; I said nothing to the contrary.  The point about second guessing is
that you imply that what has happened is different from what would have happened
under different circumstances.  Give a citation that shows that we would not
have had early language acquistion had the pelvic structure allowed longer
gestation times but all other human characteristics (cranial size, upright
posture, opposable thumb, etc.) were unchanged.

>>                                                                Had it been
>>possible for human brains to continue to grow in size during gestation, babies
>>might have been born after 18 months with a much richer but equally malleable
>>cortex, with at least as rich a post-natal development phase.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "richer."  Perhaps you mean more
>neurons.

I mean whatever might have developed as a result of increasing cranial size.

>The evidence that more neurons would increase intelligence
>is weak.  Hydrocephalic infants, with a rather smaller brain, have
>been known to develop fairly normal intellectual abilities.

If I had strong evidence I wouldn't say "perhaps" and "might" so much.

Does the size of the cranium matter at all?  The human brain contains
structures that no lizard brain contains.  Perhaps if in utero cranial
development had been unlimited, we would have developed a
superduperhypercortex and a cerebullobulum and corpular callousosium.  As I
said, you are second guessing evolution.

>>                                                               Your
>>implication that the helplessness of the human infant may play a significant
>>role in its development of "higher faculties" has some merit,
>
>Thank you for one small concession.

Sorry, I'll try to be more careful next time. :-)

>>                                                              but to the
>>degree that it applies it simply means that the fact that babies with big
>>heads happened to die led to the speed up of the development of those
>>faculties as a "happy" circumstance.
>
>I'm quite doubtful of the speedup theory.  My thought was that
>immaturity at birth requires intense care by adults, and I expect
>that this is a powerful socializing influence.

I meant speedup in evolutionary terms.  What I meant was that the physical
necessity of immature birth led to intensive care by adults, resulting in
increased intelligence, whereas without that necessity, it may have been
additional aeons before such intelligence arose by other means.  In fact, as
Gould argues, the speedup could be infinite.  Intelligence at human levels
doesn't necessarily have to arise, and the fact that it did could be a result
of an arbitrarily unlikely set of contingencies.



-- 
<J Q B>

