Brain Size?

[Digit]

Brain size/intelligence is a subject that by now most users of this forum will know that I hold very different views from the experts.
The argument that meat was necessary to power increased brain size infers that vegetarians animals should be less intelligent than meat eaters, it would also suggest that vegans must spend longer eating than us omnivores.
The use of the word 'intelligence' infers that we know what it means! What is intelligence, how do we measure it, what for example is the IQ of a Bottle Nose Dolphin?
Body mass/brain size falls flat on its face when you learn that the House Mouse scores higher than HSS does!
The only true measure of intelligence must be brain complexity, then you are faced with the news that HSS only uses a small part of its effective capacity.

[Forum Monk]

Hello FT. Firstly, I don't know who Mike is and I wish you would knock this off. Then - that TV program wasn't aired in the US that I know of. I wish it had been.

The article I posted a page ago, references the National Geographic TV program which we obviously did not see in the US. Instead we get Britney Spears flubbing up at the VMA's. This is why, when the TV broke last December I threw it out and never replaced it. The family never really missed it.

I guess if you want to see good science programs move to the UK or Australia (or even Canada in some respects).

[Rokcet Scientist]

happy to provide details of shows name etc if it will help?

How about a vid: the show itself?
http://www.yousendit.com/ is your friend: upload the vid, post the link to it here.

[Digit]

The problem here Monk is that some of the best programmes, from our point of view, are very late in the evening or early hours of the morning.
We have a programme over here called 'The Sky at Night', it has been fronted by Sir Patrick Moore since the first programme, 50yrs ago this year! Trouble is it's broadcast between 1 and 2 am!
One of the advantages of retirement is that I can watch it!

[Beagle]

Monk, it's hard to believe that those countries are putting on better science shows than the US. Granted that we don't have it every day but I've been pretty happy with what we have. On the other hand, we have got some real brain-rotting crap on as well. I just don't watch it. I also don't have any children at home anymore, or I would be tempted to do what you did.

[Digit]

We get plenty of crap as well Beag, the 'reality' shows are one that I'm proud to say I manage to dodge!

[Beagle]

the 'reality' shows

Dig, I can't believe that so many people watch that stuff. In fact, it doesn't seem right to even talk about it in a thread titled "Brain Size"

I've taken time this summer to get some variety in life, etc. I think Forum Monk did the same. It helps prevent burn-out. Now that football season is here, I've taken up my usual habit of watching TV with one eye and the computer with the other.

Reality shows bad.
Football good.

[Digit]

In fact, it doesn't seem right to even talk about it in a thread titled "Brain Size"

I apologise!
I don't have worry about variety, my wife manages to come up with an endless list of tasks.
She went out into the garden the other day intending to clear a load of Ivy and rubish from beneath an old Apple tree. Tonight we finished planting 6 trees and eight shrubs, and she's started looking at lists of spring bulbs!

[War Arrow]

I'm usually reasonably impressed by the odd science (or related) show we have over here (particularly Stephen Hawking's Universe a few years back and Richard Dawkins' Enemies of Reason) but I have to say it's worrying when, once in a blue moon, they broadcast something on a subject with which I'm intimately conversant (not that there's loads of those, but Mexico counts, obviously) and I find it full of holes big enough to drive a bus through - makes me wonder how 'dumbed-down' is the stuff that appears authoritative to my poorly trained eye.

Mind you, the US gave us Carl Sagan and that counts for a lot.

[Digit]

The problem that producers have WA is making it understandable to an uneducated audience. If they manage to move the viewer on to learning more then I think they have done a good job.
Even people like Von Daniken served a useful purpose in the final event.
What I find far more annoying is that when you move on to further study you find that the experts are not immune to peddling rubbish. It helps keep your mind sharp though.

[Forum Monk]

Why does evolution favor intelligence and why do we think it does? I wonder if an organ which consumes 25% of the body's energy is really an evolutionary advantage. Dinosaurs for example, thrived 350 million years with relatively tiny brains. Perhaps only an intelligent species puts value in intelligence.

[Rokcet Scientist]

Why does evolution favor intelligence and why do we think it does? I wonder if an organ which consumes 25% of the body's energy is really an evolutionary advantage. Dinosaurs for example, thrived 350 million years with relatively tiny brains. Perhaps only an intelligent species puts value in intelligence.

Because intelligence leads to prosperity –> success! Our 6 billion are a pretty good indication of the success of our species in evolutionary terms.
But after that success it seems us 6 billion are about to destroy it all, including ourselves, too.
That's evolution too.

BTW, dinos thrived for 145 million years. Not 350 million.

[Forum Monk]

Because intelligence leads to prosperity –> success! Our 6 billion are a pretty good indication of the success of our species in evolutionary terms.
But after that success it seems us 6 billion are about to destroy it all, including ourselves, too.
That's evolution too.

Then bacteria, no doubt, are the epitomy of evolutionary success without the slightest hint of a brain and they probably have been around at least a billion years. We on the other hand, are like some kind of poorly mutated, self-limiting virus which cannot survive because it destroys its host quicker than it can spread.

BTW, dinos thrived for 145 million years. Not 350 million.

Thanks for the correction. 350 was part hyperbole, part WAG because I didn't feel like looking it up. It seems 145 million years is a good measure of success as well. And today scientists look for environmental clues or impacts to explain their demise. Otherwise one may consider they were the peak of the evolutionary ladder, fully adapted for survival and rulers of their universe...until something from outside took them out.

If we end up destroying ourselves, intelligence may prove to be a major disadvantage.

[War Arrow]

Why does evolution favor intelligence and why do we think it does? I wonder if an organ which consumes 25% of the body's energy is really an evolutionary advantage. Dinosaurs for example, thrived 350 million years with relatively tiny brains. Perhaps only an intelligent species puts value in intelligence.

Because intelligence is like the guy in Heroes who can mimic the powers of all the other supertypes, in part, with intelligence we are not limited to the constraints of physique but can, under certain circumstances, gain an advantage over faster, stronger, and spikier animals with better senses of smell, sight or hearing. Bacteria are successful, but their world is (in relation) immeasurably larger than ours and I doubt they would do so well were they of comparable size to humans. Sorry to bang on about this book, but in The Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore argues that we developed large brains in order to facilitate the spread of memes and I've yet to read anything which comes even close to shaking the foundations of her astonishing and (I would say) entirely credible theory. I would recommend the book to anyone.
Not sure about, Von Daniken, Digit. I'd say no information may be preferable to bad information. I'm still seething (after all this time) at his reproducing images of Mixtec pectorals with lost-wax method filigree work and asking "could these be ancient circuit boards?" to which the obvious answer (sorry, I'm about to swear - please look away now if easily offended) is "no they fucking couldn't you hopeless twat, as you'd know had you bothered to read the single paragraph description of their manufacture and knew anything about how a circuit board works..."
Phew. Sorry about that.
I still don't see that it has to be so that the public need a Teletubbies version in order to get at least a basic grip on a subject. Carl Sagan managed to communicate without sacrificing any point that needed to be made. Michael Wood seems widely respected too, though I still don't know why. His selling point seems to be the ability to gush over the screen like a pompous schoolboy, sweeping his arm across the horizon in cinematic fashion, getting all breathless and getting his facts wrong. I could respect him a bit more if he just went the whole hog and presented his programmes in a cape and pointy hat and adopted the speech patterns of a Marvel comics supervillain: "And lo it was thus that Cortez went forth across this land. Excelsior, my brothers!" etc.

[Digit]

If we end up destroying ourselves, intelligence may prove to be a major disadvantage.

If we destroy our selves I'd question our 'intelligence'.

Point taken WA, but for my self his writings certainly led me to explore further and also to develop a dislike for pedantic statements.

Intelligence seems to be one of those words that means all things to all men. If you talk to a scientist about paranormal events he will either walk away or patiently explain that science works on being able to measure an effect, to quantify it and be able to reproduce it. For this reason para normal activity is a no no to science.
Intelligence fails under those rules. Personally, I can't even think of an adequate definition for it.