scholarly journals Intrinsic negative feedback as a limiting factor for the evolution of higher forms of intelligence

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 34
Author(s):  
Stefan T. Arold
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Negative Feedback ◽  
Major Obstacle ◽  
Human Intelligence ◽  
Limiting Factor ◽  
Physical Constraints ◽  
Physical Assets ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Additional Explanation ◽  
Environmental Feedback

Longstanding scientific efforts have been dedicated to answer why and how our particular intelligence is generated by our brain but not by the brain of other species. However, surprisingly little effort has been made to ask why no other species ever developed an intelligence similar to ours. Here, I explore this question based on genetic and paleontologic evidence. Contrary to the established view, this review suggests that the developmental hurdles alone are not high enough to explain the uniqueness of human intelligence (HI). As an additional explanation I propose that HI is normally not retained by natural selection, because it is, under most conditions, an intrinsically unfavourable trait. This unfavourableness, however, cannot be explained by physical constraints alone; rather, it may also be rooted in the same emotional and social complexity that is necessary for the development of HI. Thus, a major obstacle towards HI may not be solely the development of the required physical assets, but also to cope with harmful individual, social and environmental feedback intrinsically associated with this trait.

scholarly journals Intrinsic negative feedback as a limiting factor for the evolution of higher forms of intelligence

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 34
Author(s):  
Stefan T. Arold
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Negative Feedback ◽  
Major Obstacle ◽  
Human Intelligence ◽  
Limiting Factor ◽  
Physical Constraints ◽  
Physical Assets ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Additional Explanation ◽  
Environmental Feedback

Longstanding scientific efforts have been dedicated to answer why and how our particular intelligence is generated by our brain but not by the brain of other species. However, surprisingly little effort has been made to ask why no other species ever developed an intelligence similar to ours. Here, I explore this question based on genetic and paleontologic evidence. Contrary to the established view, this review suggests that the developmental hurdles alone are not high enough to explain the uniqueness of human intelligence (HI). As an additional explanation I propose that HI is normally not retained by natural selection, because it is, under most conditions, an intrinsically unfavourable trait. This unfavourableness, however, cannot be explained by physical constraints alone; rather, it may also be rooted in the same emotional and social complexity that is necessary for the development of HI. Thus, a major obstacle towards HI may not be solely the development of the required physical assets, but also to cope with harmful individual, social and environmental feedback intrinsically associated with this trait.

scholarly journals Intrinsic negative feedback as a limiting factor for the evolution of higher forms of intelligence

F1000Research ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 34
Author(s):  
Stefan T. Arold
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Negative Feedback ◽  
Major Obstacle ◽  
Human Intelligence ◽  
Limiting Factor ◽  
Physical Constraints ◽  
Physical Assets ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Additional Explanation ◽  
Environmental Feedback

Longstanding scientific efforts have been dedicated to answer why and how our particular intelligence is generated by our brain but not by the brain of other species. However, surprisingly little effort has been made to ask why no other species ever developed an intelligence similar to ours. Here, I explore this question based on genetic and paleontologic evidence. Contrary to the established view, this review suggests that the developmental hurdles alone are not high enough to explain the uniqueness of human intelligence (HI). As an additional explanation I propose that HI is normally not retained by natural selection, because it is, under most conditions, an intrinsically unfavourable trait. This unfavourableness, however, cannot be explained by physical constraints alone; rather, it may also be rooted in the same emotional and social complexity that is necessary for the development of HI. Thus, a major obstacle towards HI may not be solely the development of the required physical assets, but also to cope with harmful individual, social and environmental feedback intrinsically associated with this trait.

The relationship between facial whorl direction and sidedness in ridden horses

2006 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 247-250
Author(s):  
H. Randle ◽  
E. Elworthy
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Artificial Selection ◽  
Competitive Ability ◽  
Close Association ◽  
Human Behaviour ◽  
Physical Ability ◽  
Facial Hair ◽  
Selection For ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Brain

The influence of Natural Selection on the evolution of the horse (Equus callabus) is minimal due to its close association with humans. Instead Artificial Selection is commonly imposed through selection for features such as a ‘breed standard’ or competitive ability. It has long been considered to be useful if indicators of characteristics such as physical ability could be identified. Kidd (1902) suggested that the hair coverings of animals were closely related to their lifestyle, whether they were active or passive. In 1973 Smith and Gong concluded that hair whorl (trichloglyph) pattern and human behaviour is linked since hair patterning is determined at the same time as the brain develops in the foetus. More recently Grandin et al. (1995), Randle (1998) and Lanier et al. (2001) linked features of facial hair whorls to behaviour and production in cattle. Hair whorl features have also been related to temperament in equines (Randle et al., 2003).

scholarly journals Learning to synchronize: Midfrontal theta dynamics during rule switching

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pieter Verbeke ◽  
Kate Ergo ◽  
Esther De Loof ◽  
Tom Verguts
Keyword(s):  
Negative Feedback ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Theta Oscillations ◽  
Prediction Errors ◽  
Hierarchical Learning ◽  
Theta Power ◽  
Negative Prediction ◽  
Theta Phase ◽  
The Brain

AbstractIn recent years, several hierarchical extensions of well-known learning algorithms have been proposed. For example, when stimulus-action mappings vary across time or context, the brain may learn two or more stimulus-action mappings in separate modules, and additionally (at a hierarchically higher level) learn to appropriately switch between those modules. However, how the brain mechanistically coordinates neural communication to implement such hierarchical learning, remains unknown. Therefore, the current study tests a recent computational model that proposed how midfrontal theta oscillations implement such hierarchical learning via the principle of binding by synchrony (Sync model). More specifically, the Sync model employs bursts at theta frequency to flexibly bind appropriate task modules by synchrony. 64-channel EEG signal was recorded while 27 human subjects (Female: 21, Male: 6) performed a probabilistic reversal learning task. In line with the Sync model, post-feedback theta power showed a linear relationship with negative prediction errors, but not with positive prediction errors. This relationship was especially pronounced for subjects with better behavioral fit (measured via AIC) of the Sync model. Also consistent with Sync model simulations, theta phase-coupling between midfrontal electrodes and temporo-parietal electrodes was stronger after negative feedback. Our data suggest that the brain uses theta power and synchronization for flexibly switching between task rule modules, as is useful for example when multiple stimulus-action mappings must be retained and used.Significance StatementEveryday life requires flexibility in switching between several rules. A key question in understanding this ability is how the brain mechanistically coordinates such switches. The current study tests a recent computational framework (Sync model) that proposed how midfrontal theta oscillations coordinate activity in hierarchically lower task-related areas. In line with predictions of this Sync model, midfrontal theta power was stronger when rule switches were most likely (strong negative prediction error), especially in subjects who obtained a better model fit. Additionally, also theta phase connectivity between midfrontal and task-related areas was increased after negative feedback. Thus, the data provided support for the hypothesis that the brain uses theta power and synchronization for flexibly switching between rules.

The naked ape as an evolutionary model, 50 years later

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-246
Author(s):  
Nico M. van Straalen
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Model ◽  
Developmental Constraints ◽  
Body Hair ◽  
Product Evolution ◽  
Adaptive Explanation ◽  
History Of ◽  
Popular Texts ◽  
The Brain

AbstractEvolution acts through a combination of four different drivers: (1) mutation, (2) selection, (3) genetic drift, and (4) developmental constraints. There is a tendency among some biologists to frame evolution as the sole result of natural selection, and this tendency is reinforced by many popular texts. “The Naked Ape” by Desmond Morris, published 50 years ago, is no exception. In this paper I argue that evolutionary biology is much richer than natural selection alone. I illustrate this by reconstructing the evolutionary history of five different organs of the human body: foot, pelvis, scrotum, hand and brain. Factors like developmental tinkering, by-product evolution, exaptation and heterochrony are powerful forces for body-plan innovations and the appearance of such innovations in human ancestors does not always require an adaptive explanation. While Morris explained the lack of body hair in the human species by sexual selection, I argue that molecular tinkering of regulatory genes expressed in the brain, followed by positive selection for neotenic features, may have been the driving factor, with loss of body hair as a secondary consequence.

A Brief History of Life and Brain Evolution

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Frederick L. Coolidge
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Homo Sapiens ◽  
Brain Evolution ◽  
Cognitive Differences ◽  
Behavioral Features ◽  
Survival And Reproduction ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Brain Shape ◽  
Evolutionary Fitness

This chapter reviews some of the fundamentals of evolution, particularly adaptations and exaptations. Adaptations are physical or behavioral features that through natural selection aided survival and reproduction. Exaptations are physical or behavioral features that have been co-opted from their initial adaptive functions and subsequently enhanced fitness. The reuse, recycling, or redeployment of brain neurons for purposes other than their original adaption may be considered a central organizing principle of the brain. The chapter reviews the beginnings of life and presents a timeline of life through the evolution of hominins. The term hominin refers to all current and extinct relatives and ancestors of Homo sapiens, including the australopithecines and habilines, within about the last 6 million years. The chapter introduces the hypothesis that Homo sapiens survived and flourished, instead of Neandertals, Denisovans, and other hominins, because of brain shape differences, which created cognitive differences that enhanced the evolutionary fitness of Homo sapiens.

Intersubjectivity evolved to fit the brain, but grammar co-evolved with the brain

2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 523-524
Author(s):  
Patricia M. Greenfield ◽  
Kristen Gillespie-Lynch
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Mirror Neurons ◽  
Cladistic Analysis ◽  
Neural Substrates ◽  
Neural Basis ◽  
Language Functions ◽  
Neural Substrate ◽  
The Brain

AbstractWe propose that some aspects of language – notably intersubjectivity – evolved to fit the brain, whereas other aspects – notably grammar – co-evolved with the brain. Cladistic analysis indicates that common basic structures of both action and grammar arose in phylogeny six million years ago and in ontogeny before age two, with a shared prefrontal neural substrate. In contrast, mirror neurons, found in both humans and monkeys, suggest that the neural basis for intersubjectivity evolved before language. Natural selection acts upon genes controlling the neural substrates of these phenotypic language functions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document