Re: Jurassic intelligence

[George Engelmann <engelman@cwis.unomaha.edu>]

Art Berggreen wrote:
"I happen to be in the group that doesn't believe that evolution is progressing
toward anything specific (including complex vertebrates with intelligence).
Rather we happen to be at the tip of of one the branches of the "Bush of Life"
(Gould's metaphor?).  I've heard it argued that intelligence is not really much
of an advantage in the evoluntionary long-run.  Intelligent creatures may become
too specialized."

I think it is worth keeping in mind that there can be more than one type of 
"intelligence". Even though the notion of a scala naturae, a linear ordering
of species in terms of relative perfection of adaptation has been rejected for
most adaptive features, I think we tend to cling to it when thinking about
intelligence, that there is only one road to intelligence and we are furthest
along it. This is only true if we define intelligence as human intelligence,
and then it becomes unique to the species. I think that what we refer to as 
intelligence when discussing other species (or even within humans for that 
matter) actually includes a variety of qualities and characteristics. The one
that I would single out as having the greatest general utility is flexibility
of behavioral response. But, no matter what characteristic you choose, I think
that technology is not an inevitable consequence of intelligence nor is the 
tecnology of modern humans the inevitable result of simpler technologies
(although it might be for humans).

GFEngelmann
engelman@unomaha.edu