mutated gene for human intellgence

Originally posted by DeepThought
There was an X-ray which showed the hemisphere leaning over slightly but she had one normal hemisphere. This was a television news report lasting about two minutes, they did not indicate that there were any other consequences. Since the medical community were involved there was some effect, I'd guess she's blind in one eye.

What I was getting at is that a purely reductionist view of the brain won't explain intelligence.

a purely reductionist view of the brain won't explain intelligence.

I would think that just depends:
Would a purely reductionist view not only take into account the parts of the brain but also all the interactions between those parts including those interactions on the most holistic level?
I tried googling this to get a clear answer but got nowhere.
But I think surely anyone who is a reductionist wouldn't claim that intelligence emerges from just the presents of the physical solid parts of the brain and has nothing to do with the interactions between the parts of the brain! That would be just a stupid position.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There was an X-ray which showed the hemisphere leaning over slightly but she had one normal hemisphere. This was a television news report lasting about two minutes, they did not indicate that there were any other consequences. Since the medical community were involved there was some effect, I'd guess she's blind in one eye.

What I was getting at is that a purely reductionist view of the brain won't explain intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemispherectomy
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-when-half-brain-better-than-whole/

Typically, people with only one hemisphere loose most function on one side of their body.
So an important question is what percentage of our brain is dedicated to bodily functions such as sight, hearing, motor control etc, and do we have more neurons doing that work than say a Chimpanzee. Are we better at it? Do we have for example, motor control intelligence? I think the answer is yes.

I dispute your claim that a purely reductionist view of the brain won't explain intelligence, and I certainly don't think your example helps your case in any way whatsoever.

Originally posted by DeepThought
There was an X-ray which showed the hemisphere leaning over slightly but she had one normal hemisphere. This was a television news report lasting about two minutes, they did not indicate that there were any other consequences. Since the medical community were involved there was some effect, I'd guess she's blind in one eye.

What I was getting at is that a purely reductionist view of the brain won't explain intelligence.

By reductionist view, you mean total number of neurons and connections? Dolphins and porpoises have brains actually larger than humans but don't show the kind of human intelligence we would expect in such large brained mammals. The thing about Dolphin and porpoise brains is this: a very large part of their brains are devoted to analyzing reflected sounds they make, biological sonar, where the acoustic acuity is greater than human eyesight.
That seems to require an extraordinary number of neurons to pull off, which biases the results of such brain measurements.

They are geniuses at analyzing sound but of course never will evolve to make fire and such.

I hope I live to the day their language is fully decoded and we can have conversations with them.

I think we would be surprised by their intelligence, it's obvious they have very complex communications among themselves.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I'd guess she's blind in one eye.

No, not blind on one eye, as you described the case.
Rather none (or highly reduced) visual perception of either one side.

A relative of mine hade a major stroke in one heisphere of the brain, and therefore lost the sight from the right side. He could eat a meal from a plate and said he was finished, when in fact he only had eaten from the left side of the plate. The nurse turned the plate 180 degrees, and he thanked and continued to eat from the left side of the plate.

Google "hemispherectomy" when half a brain deliberately is removed.

Originally posted by sonhouse
By reductionist view, you mean total number of neurons and connections? Dolphins and porpoises have brains actually larger than humans but don't show the kind of human intelligence we would expect in such large brained mammals. The thing about Dolphin and porpoise brains is this: a very large part of their brains are devoted to analyzing reflected sounds th ...[text shortened]... ised by their intelligence, it's obvious they have very complex communications among themselves.

Reductionist means that it is enough to understand the component parts to understand the system as a whole. This tends to work well enough in physics, but not so well in biology. Clearly understanding the component parts is important, but as they are linked together emergent phenomena occur which are impossible to predict from the components. So that intelligence isn't just a matter of counting neurones, or total number of connections, and dividing by body mass. Structure is important as well. It's often expressed with phrases like "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts."

Originally posted by DeepThought
Reductionist means that it is enough to understand the component parts to understand the system as a whole. This tends to work well enough in physics, but not so well in biology.

I am pretty sure it doesn't work in physics either. If that is your definition, then I don't think you will be able to find anyone claiming to be a reductionist by that definition.

So that intelligence isn't just a matter of counting neurones, or total number of connections, and dividing by body mass.
I don't think anyone claimed it was. But there is almost certainly a correlation between intelligence and total number of neurons.

Structure is important as well. It's often expressed with phrases like "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts."
I believe the human brains structure is not significantly different from that of other mamas other than in ways that give it more neurons and 'grey matter'. It is likely there are chemical differences not so easily seen such as the OP talks about, but a very significant part of our intelligence vs the chimpanzee, can be attributed directly to having more neurons.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Reductionist means that it is enough to understand the component parts to understand the system as a whole. This tends to work well enough in physics, but not so well in biology. Clearly understanding the component parts is important, but as they are linked together emergent phenomena occur which are impossible to predict from the components. So that ...[text shortened]... well. It's often expressed with phrases like "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts."

It doesn't work in physics either - most physicists aren't solving the Dirac equation all the time.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Hey, that might make a great movie🙂

Seriously, the talking part would be difficult, they don't have the vocal chord arrangement of humans so it would be more like intelligent grunts and lots of vowels.

Was just thinking of that old song, OOH EE, OOH AH AH, TING TANG WALLA WALLA BING BANG🙂

It doesn't matter if they aren't up to the task of verbally expressing themselves. They could learn to use the internet, and show up here at RHP to express outrage over how they have been portrayed as the funny little poop slinging clowns of the animal kingdom.

And for all we know many of them could already be here...