What Is Needed To Make An Intelligent Species?

[saltydog]

You are so pessimistic, why do you assume that it will go the opposite, lead to a dead end?, it could lead to a faster way to evolution or just a slower way...like I said it evolved on this planet...yeah it took a long time but it happened, if something different happened it would change its course but whos to say it won't doesn't have the same "goal" so to speak

Actually no. I'm pretty optimistic about things. That's a good point you make though. Perhaps it could go faster. I yield. And also I'm the first to acknowledge that I cannot really comprehend a 100 billion star-system. I really think there's tons of life in the Milky Way but it takes so much persistence and luck to become "advanced".

I don't think life has any "goal" in mind. It's just brutal hard-core Darwinism: whatever contributes to the survivability or reproducibility of the individual contributes to the gene pool. Due to chance and non-linearity, we could be the only Homo sapiens in the universe.

 

[Gold Barz]

I am just saying that I don't think intelligence is as rare as people make it out to be, natural selection favours intelligence...instead of "the strong survive" how about "the smart survive".

What do you mean you can't comprehend a 100 billion star galaxy? It really doesn't matter because that's a fact.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I am just saying that I don't think intelligence is as rare as people make it out to be, natural selection favours intelligence...instead of "the strong survive" how about "the smart survive".

What do you mean you can't comprehend a 100 billion star galaxy? It really doesn't matter because that's a fact.

Smart at what? We are the ONLY land species out of umpteen thousands or maybe millions that have evolved since life crawled ashore to develop what we think of as intelligence. If human-style intelligence is evolutionarily favored, why didn't the therodonts or some other bipedal form develop it? Why don't we have ruins of eosimian cities? Modern thinking on the evolutionary role of intelligence tends to look at interactions within the primate band; social rather than enviromental struggle. So maybe the answer to the question in the title of this thread is bipedalism + complex social interactions.

 

[Gold Barz]

Ya ever think about us preventing other life forms from evolving into an intelligent species...? just like the dino's prevented us

plus how do you know that there is only one particular way to evolve into an intelligent life form?

 

[Gold Barz]

P(intelligence on a particular planet) = NxP(intelligence;life) ~ 1 for Earth.

Thats right...like I said even if the odds are a billion-to-one or 5 billion-to-one on any given planet, there still would be 50-100 human-like intelligence in the Milky Way alone...dont forget sattelites

 

[turbo]

So maybe the answer to the question in the title of this thread is bipedalism + complex social interactions.

Yes - don't forget opposable thumbs, too. The ability to manipulate one's environment gives the development of intelligence great survival value.

For instance, ferrets don't have opposable thumbs, and they are not bipedal, although they can stand erect, and their front paws are very dextrous. Any pet lover who has lived with ferrets, cats, and dogs over the years can tell you that ferrets are tremendously adept at manipulating their environments and are a LOT more intelligent than you would expect. If you want to have a pet ferret, be prepared to install latches and locks on drawers, cabinets, etc.

I like cats, but they are absolute dummies compared to ferrets only 1/10th their size. Example: Ferrets love to steal small things and hide them. If I am sitting quietly and my ferret does not notice me when he is hiding an object, but then notices me sitting there on his way back from hiding the object, he immediately stops, runs back and retrieves the object, and hides it someplace that I cannot see from where I am sitting. How does he figure out that I must have been there when he hid the object? He did not notice me there when he was hiding the object, but saw me later, considered that I might have seen me hide his prize, then retrieved it and re-hid it in a place that I could not see from where I was. This is pretty complex behavior for an animal that weight 2 pounds soaking wet. You would not expect this kind of ability in a Guinea pig, for instance. Now, given their natural prey (animals the size of rabbits, prairie dogs, etc) ferrets cannot evolve to be much larger than they are, because they wouldn't be able to nimbly negotiate the burrows of their prey, so they may be at or near the upper limit of their brain-mass. They do VERY well with the gray matter that they have, though. I would argue that gram-for-gram (of brain), these little guys are really smart.

 

[guevaramartyr]

I think that a problem many people have in conceiving of life on other worlds is failure to consider the myriad forms it could take. Carbon isn't necessary for biological structures, its just the path life on Earth takes. Any reasonably stable element whose outer shell is only half filled can bond with itself to construct biological structures. Given this, the underlying problems within the Drake equation become more obvious.

1) The equation assumes life can only form on a certain kind of planet with a certain kind of star. If Carbon is not a required part of biology, life could arise on any planet, or even without any planet at all (asteroid belt, deep space, inside stars, etc.)
2) The equation assumes intelligenent civilizations must possesses radio. I don't even need to talk about the flaw in this one.
3) The final part of the equation talks about civilizations that are within radio range of Earth. If we are discussing the total number of intelligent species in the galaxy, this has no relevance. Bearing this in mind, please stop using the Drake equation as justification for a low-species argument.

Getting past all that, it is my belief that intelligence gives species a distinct advantage under certain conditions. In a stagnant environment, such as that found in a race existing in deep space, intelligence might well be harmful. However, anywhere there is competition or a rapidly changing environment, intelligence will be a help to a certain point. Once that limit has been reached, new strains will be necessary to enhance intelligence. For although people don't like to admit it, we are evolving. The human race has grown substantially larger since our ancestors only 4,000 years ago. Without a force to make us change, however, we will degenerate, losing mental as well as physical faculties as the need for them disappears. This is why an Eden is undesirable. Stagnation causes entropy, pure and simple.

 

[Chronos]

Evolution on Earth has been very much hit and miss. What we do however observe, is it appears most surviving gene pools [at least in the Chordata phylum] are a lot more adaptive [brighter] than their ancestors. Adaptive behavior requires information processing capability. And it is difficult to process information without acquisition, storage and retrieval systems [e.g., senses and a brain]. The Earth's harsh ecological history, has pushed adaptive response capability [i.e., intelligence] to the top of the gene pool. Perhaps evolution would slow to a snails pace in a stable environment, but not in tough neighborhoods like this one.

 

[Chronos]

I think that a problem many people have in conceiving of life on other worlds is failure to consider the myriad forms it could take. Carbon isn't necessary for biological structures, its just the path life on Earth takes. Any reasonably stable element whose outer shell is only half filled can bond with itself to construct biological structures. Given this, the underlying problems within the Drake equation become more obvious.

1) The equation assumes life can only form on a certain kind of planet with a certain kind of star. If Carbon is not a required part of biology, life could arise on any planet, or even without any planet at all (asteroid belt, deep space, inside stars, etc.)
2) The equation assumes intelligenent civilizations must possesses radio. I don't even need to talk about the flaw in this one.
3) The final part of the equation talks about civilizations that are within radio range of Earth. If we are discussing the total number of intelligent species in the galaxy, this has no relevance. Bearing this in mind, please stop using the Drake equation as justification for a low-species argument.

Getting past all that, it is my belief that intelligence gives species a distinct advantage under certain conditions. In a stagnant environment, such as that found in a race existing in deep space, intelligence might well be harmful. However, anywhere there is competition or a rapidly changing environment, intelligence will be a help to a certain point. Once that limit has been reached, new strains will be necessary to enhance intelligence. For although people don't like to admit it, we are evolving. The human race has grown substantially larger since our ancestors only 4,000 years ago. Without a force to make us change, however, we will degenerate, losing mental as well as physical faculties as the need for them disappears. This is why an Eden is undesirable. Stagnation causes entropy, pure and simple.

You beat me to some of the major points [I compose slowly]. A couple of fine points. Carbon is surely the predominant elemental basis for life. It's versatility in forming complex molecules is unsurpassed. Also, the basic materials and metabolic cycles energetic enough are more robustly available. Non carbon based life forms are possible, but improbable.

Stable environments would slow, but not halt evolution - as you noted. Sexual reproduction adds a lot of evolutionary pressure. Finding mates that are fertile, keep you fed, and adorned in furs and jewels, is a not a trivial matter .

 

[ramollari]

I think the examples given by turbo-1 show approximations of intelligence (human-like behavior) in animals. But are they intelligent, because the point is: what is intelligence in the first place? It depends very much on interpretation whether we take humans as model, or some more objective definition? There is no agreed answer to this, so the answer whether it will be possible to find intelligent forms in other planets is really, really controversial.
If we take a human-oriented view, which is taken more for granted, animals are hardly intelligent. We call them 'intelligent' when they act like us! But they lack natural language processing capabilities, complex high-level social interactions, reasoning, planning, and other required essential elements of intelligence. But other animal species will eventually have to acquire such capabilities with evolution in order to survive. It's a matter of time.
We can take another view of intelligence, though. It is based on complexity (usually of brain) and maybe, ability for logical reasoning (such as computers). Vertebrates are gradually evolving more and more complex brains, which will necessarily mean higher and higher level of intelligence. It could also differ from human intelligence.

If Carbon is not a required part of biology, life could arise on any planet, or even without any planet at all (asteroid belt, deep space, inside stars, etc.)

I tend to agree with Chronos that carbon is a required element in order that complex life forms can appear. There is no other element that forms as complex (organic) compounds as carbon does.
But carbon as an element could exist on other planets as well.

Evolution on Earth has been very much hit and miss. What we do however observe, is it appears most surviving gene pools [at least in the Chordata phylum] are a lot more adaptive [brighter] than their ancestors. Adaptive behavior requires information processing capability.

I agree! Evolution will favor the 'intelligent' part of the gene pool.

And it is difficult to process information without acquisition, storage and retrieval systems [e.g., senses and a brain]. The Earth's harsh ecological history, has pushed adaptive response capability [i.e., intelligence] to the top of the gene pool. Perhaps evolution would slow to a snails pace in a stable environment, but not in tough neighborhoods like this one.

So the harsh conditions is actually the presence of many species, or too much competition within a species. That is a natural outcome of life evolution.

 

[ramollari]

If human-style intelligence is evolutionarily favored, why didn't the therodonts or some other bipedal form develop it? Why don't we have ruins of eosimian cities? .

Because the genetic process that is ongoing is 'not good at it'. Evolution is not the perfect process to bring the most adaptable life form. Because evolution is based on randomness, or 'brute force', it will be hard to achieve utmost complexity and intelligence. It only needs time. Just before a few millions years ago the Earth wasn't populated by any 'intelligent' species, but now it 'suddenly' came up with the human solution.

 

[Janus]

I am just saying that I don't think intelligence is as rare as people make it out to be, natural selection favours intelligence...instead of "the strong survive" how about "the smart survive".

The problem with this is that intelligence has yet to show a long term track record as a trait for survival.

 

[ramollari]

The problem with this is that intelligence has yet to show a long term track record as a trait for survival.

A. Isn't human history long-term enough to prove the survival advantage of the human species?

B. Can't we deduce the survival advantage of the human species?

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem with this is that intelligence has yet to show a long term track record as a trait for survival.

Amen Janus. Intelligence is only one very recent experiment that nature is trying, and there's certainly no indication it's successful yet.

Isn't human history long-term enough to prove the survival advantage of the human species?

No way! Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for hundreds of millions of years. Hundreds of millions. Many kinds of bacteria have been on Earth, essentially changed for billions of years.

Imagine if we found a whole branch of creatures that we could (implausibly) find the first development of it, and the last signs of it befiore it died out, and that its whole history was only a few hundred thousand years.

That's a blip. That would be considered an extremely unsuccessful experiment.

 

[saltydog]

What do you mean you can't comprehend a 100 billion star galaxy? It really doesn't matter because that's a fact.

Well Gold, just for the record, I mean conceiving of an expanse of a galaxy. I mean, yea they look nice from far away but really, that doesn't do justice to it I think. I mean, 100 billion suns, planets, geology of them all, various life forms they might contain, dynamics of stellar evolution, star birth, destruction, on an on inside of a galaxy and in a space likewise incomprehensible (100,000 or so light years). When I think of it, the distance of even one measly light year is pretty hard to comprehend. And to think a galaxy is so gigantic that they look small to us. Must be really, really far away, but then that distance, what 2 million to Andromeda, is also hard to comprehend.

 

[selfAdjoint]

BTW, you have about 100 Billion neurons in your brain. Contemplate that!

 

[Gold Barz]

The problem with this is that intelligence has yet to show a long term track record as a trait for survival.

I don't know about that but one thing I am sure about intelligence is that it was a greater potential or a "higher roof", when we get to the level where we can "dodge" mass extinction events thanks to intelligence, we will be unstoppable...i am guessing a lot of super advanced alien civilizations has reached this level and probably some that have went beyond it, we are far from this level but if we reach it...we will make an impact in the universe

And I also agree that it would probably also depend on the environment, in more complex environment...intelligence would probably emerge, in "boring" environments...intelligence is not needed so intelligence does not show

 

[Chronos]

There are different ways to view evolutionary success. The cockroach would certainly be a contender in terms of longevity. But no other species has ever dominated this planet as have humans. We are not at the mercy of the environment [for the most part]. We bend the very forces of nature to serve our needs, not acquiesce or perish. Humans do, have or can survive almost anywhere on - or off - this planet. We could potentially even flee this planet, if push came to shove. And we have already started taking over the controls and directing our own biological destiny. It is even conceivable we could move beyond the strictly biological into a hybrid artificial, or even completely artificial life form. Our eventual descendents might enjoy life spans of cosmological proportions. All things considered, do we not deserve at least a nomination for best species in the evolutionary oscars?

 

[turbo]

There are different ways to view evolutionary success. The cockroach would certainly be a contender in terms of longevity. But no other species has ever dominated this planet as have humans. We are not at the mercy of the environment [for the most part]. We bend the very forces of nature to serve our needs, not acquiesce or perish. Humans do, have or can survive almost anywhere on - or off - this planet. We could potentially even flee this planet, if push came to shove. And we have already started taking over the controls and directing our own biological destiny. It is even conceivable we could move beyond the strictly biological into a hybrid artificial, or even completely artificial life form. Our eventual descendents might enjoy life spans of cosmological proportions. All things considered, do we not deserve at least a nomination for best species in the evolutionary oscars?

Absolutely right. We humans have shown a remarkable ability to manipulate our environment. Unfortunately, we have not demonstrated a commensurate ability to recognize and rein in the very destructive things that we sometimes do. Our domination over this planet is unquestionable. We have the absolute power to ruin it - my concern is that we may not have the collective intelligence and ethical motivation to AVOID ruining it.

Please look up the Union of Concerned Scientists and consider giving them your support. It might be very important. (Understatement Police are hauling me off, so I cannot continue.)

 

[Mean-Hippy]

I must agree as well. As I said, the early evolutionary advantages of intelligence are arguable but at the level we have now achieved, where we may realistically contemplate eternity . . . unquestionable.

Someone was talking about radio signals earlier... I am quite confident that they represent at least a necessary step in the development of any technological civilization. The possible variation of biological forms is just about infinite but the technology of these civilization would, I think in many areas, be very similar to ours. After all they all use the same physics and would generally obey the rules of greater simplicity of design. I'll go as far as saying that, in an alien civilization where communication is based on sound, a radio posts look and functional design would be strikingly similar to the same objects here. What do you think ?

Also about radio waves... I am not worried about the fact that we haven't detected any yet from other world. We ourselves have only been emitting radio signals for a hundred years... so nobody farther away than a hundred light years could have detected us. Imagine a civilization orbiting a star
"101 mly" away and, like us, desperately listening to the immensity of space for a signal. Only next year will they be rewarded by a few uncertain blips... but 25 once (ok...if) a signal is detected at SETI, it will just keep pouring in and pouring in. Its not so much a matter of "Is there anybody out there" but more about how far they are . . .


Concerning the original question I tend to think that but 1 in many millions of living worlds will actually have intelligence. Most of them ( 90 % ? ) will have nothing else than viral/bacterial level life. They are simple and fiercely efficient at replicating DNA so why bother with anything else. I must say though that I believe that such world will not prove to be so rare. If you look at Earth, life got a hold very early and in conditions that were less than ideal to life as we know it today. When you get down to it, "life" is just independent self replication. By definition, once self-replication has kicked in, it will stay. Plus when you think about it, the basics process that created these first self-replicating molecules are not all that complicated so on a chemically active world, given time, the odds are fairly good. If the recent hopes of finding life underneath the surface of Mars prove to be fruitful, I say that would be a very good sign.

 

[Gold Barz]

Yes we should be nominated for the evolutionary oscars...but I think there would be more advanced civilizations more than us...but we are up there

 

[Morlock]

To the fellow who's stated that we only use 10% of our brain power, you've fallen for a myth. We use 100% of our brain power, there is no "untapped" part of the human brain. Well, at least in my opinion - parts of my brain regulating my body functions aren't what I consider "unused."

To those extrapolating a galactic formula for emergent intelligence from Earth's evolutionary record: huh? What does one have to do with the other? Earth's biosphere is a seething cauldron of competing species and any given "M-class" planet will evolve life, if any, in practically complete isolation from the rest. This method is so problematic as to be useless. Sorry if that's a strawman but it seemed like that's what some were stating.

If we hold our own intelligence up as the yardstick by which all other creatures will be judged as "intelligent" or brute animals, we have lost sight of how intelligence develops in a continuum.

Yeah, but the point of most "intelligent species" discussions like this one, at least ultimately, is to guess at how many "this is my boom stick" species there are, not how many truly sentient species there are. Technology creation and organizational capacity are basically the yardstick here, but it's easier to say "intelligence."

Personally, I think that as a biosphere progresses the chances of it developing intelligence approach 1:1. (I think intelligence is the ultimate Darwinian survival tool, and that its uses - transhuman boot-strapping for example - are only beginning to be felt). That still leaves a hell of a lot of room for variation since evolutionary time isn't exactly short. It took life on Earth between 2.8 and 3.5 billion years to go from prokaryotes to modern humans. The Earth is about 4.6 billion years old, the Milky Way is about 13.5 billion years old, and the universe isn't much older than that:
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0408/17milkyway/

My (extremely uneducated) guess is that there aren't many rival space-faring or would-be space-faring species in the Milky Way, but there's a lot of room for variance. It took quite a few evolutionary waves to produce an intelligent, tool-using, social species on Earth after all, maybe it took far less time in some instances and far more in others? My less uneducated guess is that biological life is probably much more common.

2) The equation assumes intelligenent civilizations must possesses radio. I don't even need to talk about the flaw in this one.

Yeah, you do. Radio is one of the most basic ways to send communications in many directions at light speed. Even if a species found a better way to broadcast communications, it would be stupid to stop broadcasting in radio IF a species wants to be found.

In a stagnant environment, such as that found in a race existing in deep space, intelligence might well be harmful. However, anywhere there is competition or a rapidly changing environment, intelligence will be a help to a certain point. Once that limit has been reached, new strains will be necessary to enhance intelligence.

I'm not following you here. Intelligence is like a gun in this sense: it's infinitely better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

The problem with this is that intelligence has yet to show a long term track record as a trait for survival.

It's shown enough to reasonably extrapolate.

No way! Dinosaurs ruled the Earth for hundreds of millions of years. Hundreds of millions. Many kinds of bacteria have been on Earth, essentially changed for billions of years.

Imagine if we found a whole branch of creatures that we could (implausibly) find the first development of it, and the last signs of it befiore it died out, and that its whole history was only a few hundred thousand years.

Dinosaurs ruled for hundreds of millions of years, but if the test of Darwinism is survival, then they failed. It matters not a whit how long they ruled. Ironically, "unproven" human intelligence provides one of the few hopes that dinosaurs may live again.

At no point in their history did dinosaurs exhibit the potential to populate an entire galaxy in 100k years or so, humans are within a century of starting such an endeavor. We're within a century (an evolutionary eye-blink) of trumping any measly meteorite impact as an ELE.

 

[Gold Barz]

I think Chronos, guevaramartyr and turbo-1 proved my point, intelligence is not as rare as people make it out to be. In a complex environment, given time, there is a good chance that life will evolve into intelligent life.

 

[Chronos]

I like what morlock had to say. He also made the case for evolution driven by environmental factors.

 

[Gold Barz]

Hey Chronos, check your inbox I asked you a question

Thanks.

 

[guevaramartyr]

morlock
you say that radio is a necessary step in the growth of a civilization. i don't entirely agree. there could likely be alternatives that we have not thought of, or an alien civilization could not NEED radio. maybe they can't comprehend the concept of other planets, as we couldn't for hundreds of years, and so they have never even thought of sending radio signals into space or building SETI-like arrays. also, the point i was making about the Drak equation is that if we are talking about the total number of alien intelligent species in the galaxy, the Drake equation does not apply. it is used to determine the likelihood of CONTACTING another civilization. if every star in the universe more than a hundred light years away had a high level civilization broadcasting on radio channels in our direction, we still wouldn't know. also you said intelligence is better to have and not need than need and not have. sorry to tell you, but life doesn't go this way. you don't see rats spontaneously evolving wings "just in case" there is a flood in the sewers. evolution occurs out of need, e.g. no need, no evolution.

 

[Chronos]

Well, if you eat rats, and rats get smarter while you get dumber.. guess who winds up on the food end of that evolutionary fork?

 

[Gold Barz]

The opposition of the rats are screwed.

 

[Chessguy]

confused

... if every star in the universe more than a hundred light years away had a high level civilization broadcasting on radio channels in our direction, we still wouldn't know...

I'm not sure I understand your assumptions. Are you saying that all these high level civilizations stopped broadcasting as soon as we had the technology to here them? Or are you saying that all of these advanced civilizations developped radio technology at the exact same time that we did?

 

[Gold Barz]

I don't know, maybe because radio signals get weaker over time/distance.