Looks like there are big changes to how we think brains evolve…
I ran into this extremely interesting article on Scientific American online called, One World, Many Minds: Intelligence in the Animal Kingdom by Paul Patton. Scientists, or rather neuroscientists and psychologists, believed that the brain developed over time and as life forms became more complex and sophisticated the brain got more sophisticated also — that’s an extremely gross exaggeration but just about right. In other words, humans were the top of the ladder and that’s just the way things were. There was also the side idea that somehow we still had all the other lower levels of development but just added to them to get our wonderful brain and cognition and intelligence and all the other materials for right thinking.
The article basically says:
# The brains of other animals are not merely previous stages that led directly to human intelligence.
# Instead—as is the case with many traits—complex brains and sophisticated cognition have arisen multiple times in independent lineages of animals during the earth’s evolutionary history.
# With this new understanding comes a new appreciation for intelligence in its many forms. So-called lower animals, such as fish, reptiles and birds, display a startling array of cognitive capabilities. Goldfish, for instance, have shown they can negotiate watery mazes similar to the way rats do in intelligence tests in the lab.
Now this is something, that I find myself thinking — it’s about time. When I was taking neurology, I often thought that some of the basic premises didn’t make sense. And over the years, I’ve noticed that the basic list of skills required to be called sentient seems to change every times some scientific discovery shows that an animal of whatever species or description possess one of the criteria for intelligence — the criteria gets changed. For example: tool using used to be one of the criteria for intelligence. Then when it turned out that quite a few animals, and even some birds use tools (some even make them to be used), that criteria bit the dust.
I found the entire article just fascinating especially the information about octopuses:
Behavioral studies show that octopuses can distinguish and classify objects based on size and shape, much as rats do. They can learn to navigate simple mazes and to solve problems, such as removing a tasty food item from a sealed container. In 1992 two Italian neuroscientists, Graziano Fiorito of the Dohrn Zoological Station in Naples and Pietro Scotto, then at the University of Reggio Calabria in Catanzaro, published surprising evidence that an octopus can learn to accomplish a task by watching another octopus perform it. They trained octopuses to choose between a red ball and a white ball. If the octopus opted for the correct ball, it got a piece of fish as reward. If it selected incorrectly, it received a mild electric shock as punishment.
Once the training was completed, the investigators let an untrained octopus watch a trained animal perform the task from behind a glass barrier. The untrained animals did monitor the trained animals, as indicated by movements of their head and eyes. When allowed to select between the two balls themselves, the observer octopuses then made correct choices, which they could only have learned by watching. The ability to learn by studying others has been regarded as closely related to conceptual thought.
Maybe more research into the area of comparative neuroanatomy will show that while we may not be able to converse with an octopus, whale, dolphin, goldfish, ape, or bird — they may not be as “lower” class in the conceptual thought processes as we once thought. However, this also raises some very interesting philosophical questions if we learn that inhabitants of this planet (not humans) are capable of conceptual thought and cognitive abilities. Do we have the right to experiment on them or … eat them?
Think about it for a minute. If some super-intelligent being came from out of nowhere and decided because our brains didn’t work like theirs that we were not worth bothering with except as pets, food, or work animals — we wouldn’t like it very much. Do we have the right to do the same to those creatures on our planet?
We’re starting to move off our little planet and there is the chance, even though it is considered minuscule, that we could meet intelligent life out there. However, if every time we find evidence of intelligence in something “not us” here on Earth we change the definitions to eliminate all the “not us” creatures — how can we truly be open-minded enough to recognize that intelligence if we find it.
I’m not about to turn vegetarian — or at least not completely — but these are the sorts of questions that I think about. And, I think more people should be thinking about these issues too. Our technology and science is getting to the point where the ethics of whether we should do something is going to be as important as can we do something. But, I’m not talking about the knee-jerk ethical babblings we seems to be having now, but true discourse on the issues discussing the ramifications for us, our society, our laws, and our humanity.
When Gayle talked about aliens appearing, it made me think. Isn’t that the exact plot line to an untold number of science fiction moves? Aliens arrive and treat us like animals. And so we have to fight back against these “monsters”, to teach them that we’re worthy of respect. Now, whether we’re talking about gorillas, dolphins, octopi, or whatever, we’ve now got a lot of evidence suggesting that these animals are not dumb. What is it about humanity that refuses to accept that there can be more choices in the world than just Animal and Human? Of course the cynic in me says that there are still plenty of humans that refuse to accept other humans as equals. This superiority complex seems to be built in at a pretty basic level. I think that’s all the more reason to expose it to the light of scrutiny and get people to at least acknowledge that the situation exists.