Intelligence before humans

[felixthecoach]

Just a hypothetical idea I've been mulling over.

Imagine a creature with a large brain similar to humans, organized for high intelligence, reasoning, and complex language. Essentially, they act human in every way with one exception. They did not evolve the anatomical things apes did. That is, they don't stand upright or have thumbs, etc.

I wonder if there has ever been an animal with nearly human complexities in thought and what not that has died out because they could not create tools, pass on culture, create an economic system, etc? Not that there's really any archeological evidence for it, but I wonder what life would have been like for them? Would they believe in God? Become Vegetarians? Have laws?

 

[Spase]

Dolphins?


Really though I have no idea about dolphins. I hear they're bright and have read anecdotal stuff and because of it when I was younger I remember thinking basically the things you're asking. Would we ever be able to tell if they were all that bright? We have some very big advantages, mostly named by you.

Without tools food production is a difficult concept (for me at least) and without food production and storage even humans don't do much more than hunt and gather.

I'm curious what other folks have to say.

 

[monitoradiation]

It's certainly possible; all species have the potential to develop what we could colloquially call "intelligence"; however, without a biologically feasible way to invent technology to spur further innovations, I doubt that they could be counted as "intelligent".

What I mean is that technology catalyzes itself and makes it possible for humans to live sedentary lifestyles which no doubt made it possible for some of the members of our species to become philosophers and the such. I don't suppose any species with some modicum of intelligence could further develop their faculties without the aid of technology. Sure, there could be some bright bulbs in the bunch, but if they *could not* pass on their information other than through language, then it would be very hard to actually further their intelligence, I would think.

 

[JacobEvans]

Look at the problem in an Evo-Devo perspective.

Since it would be extremely unlikely that both humans and another organism share homologous brain developments, at least in a way that would make the two organisms pretty much equal in terms of behavior, thought, and intelligence, we would have to assume that any creature with such a brain would have to receive it from a common ancestor with humans. Since the ancestors to Homo Sapiens developed such things as thumbs and other such human traits long before developing enough intellect to build simple tools, we can assume that any organism with such a similar brain to ours would have to be a very recent cousin to us.

But, of course many animals show basic versions of human behaviors (communication, empathy, planning, etc.) we can say that in the big picture, we are pretty damn similar to a variety of animals.

 

[Saladin]

Without tools food production is a difficult concept (for me at least) and without food production and storage even humans don't do much more than hunt and gather.

There is no record of a human culture that didn't make or use tools. Tool making is an essential part of who we are as a species, so there isn't any historical precedent that we can extrapolate from.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Look at the problem in an Evo-Devo perspective.

Since it would be extremely unlikely that both humans and another organism share homologous brain developments, at least in a way that would make the two organisms pretty much equal in terms of behavior, thought, and intelligence, we would have to assume that any creature with such a brain would have to receive it from a common ancestor with humans. Since the ancestors to Homo Sapiens developed such things as thumbs and other such human traits long before developing enough intellect to build simple tools, we can assume that any organism with such a similar brain to ours would have to be a very recent cousin to us.

But, of course many animals show basic versions of human behaviors (communication, empathy, planning, etc.) we can say that in the big picture, we are pretty damn similar to a variety of animals.

Meh, this is no more true than to say that Ocotpi with their wonderful eyes that are so similar to ours must have evolved from a common ancestor which gad the beginnings of a similarly wonderful eye. We know this not to be true, most of our eye evolution is completely separate (in fact, the eye of the octopus has a few improvements that ours could never match because it didn't get suck with certain built in flaws that came along the way of our eye development).

A brain could certainly evolve that was similar to humans in function, as intelligence and predictive ability by pattern processing is a very evolutionary advantageous thing. As spase mentioned, dolphins are an excellent example. They could very well be nearly as intelligent as us in certain ways (visual processing, pattern recognition, etc), but without the ability to take advantage of their surroundings with tool building nor with our level of communication abilities.

Though abstract thinking skills are directly related to communicative ability in certain ways, and communicative skills are most of the key to this whole wonderful thing we've built. Those two abilities evolved so interdependently that its hard to imagine a previous creature that could think abstractly but not communicate. Even without opposable thumbs, a creature with our brain and communicative abilities would have made quite a mark upon the world, and most likely would not have died out completely without a global extinction event. IMO.

 

[JacobEvans]

I still stand by my argument, as I was not trying to say that homologies don't occur, but for one organism to be nearly 100% the same in a certain aspect implies common origin.

 

[Ozymandyus]

I still stand by my argument, as I was not trying to say that homologies don't occur, but for one organism to be nearly 100% the same in a certain aspect implies common origin.

Oh, MAYBE if we are trying to get near 100%. I didn't interpret the topic as that, 'nearly human complexities in thought' in no way implies a 100% similar brain.

 

[JacobEvans]

Essentially, they act human in every way with one exception.

This is what I was going off of.

 

[felixthecoach]

These are some interesting answers. I think dolphins are a good example. I was not really looking for something with common origin. I mean, if something has a common origin, it would make sense. E.g. all mammals have that common origin which is why they tend to exhibit complex emotions and what not. However, I was looking more for that group of animals/beings who had all the complexities of humans without the ability to solidify it into archeological history.

On the topic of archeology, I guess it would be very interesting to find that some other creature did leave archeological evidence of its higher intelligence.

 

[Spase]

I must have been half asleep when I responded to this before. Something important struck me as obvious rereading it.

Evolution does not have the goal of intelligence. It has the goal of fitness. Also important, intelligence is not very well defined and too often is associated with tool use in my opinion. I think part of the reason it's associated with tool use is that's a convenient marker to use that for a long time was claimed as unique to humans..

In the case of dolphins there is no reason they should be able to imagine complex tool use even if they were incredibly bright because they're at a point evolutionarily where tools are not particularly useful. Tool use and even tool making has been documented in certain birds (that was a crow? raven? Don't remember) despite those critters having tiny brains compared to ours so it seems clear enough to me that tool use and that sort of problem solving come from specific structures in the brain, not overall brain power.

As land mammals evolving to be tool users probably involved slow steps toward better tool making starting with breaking open hard to eat foods with rocks up to manufacturing steel weapons. I could hypothesize a handful of important traits for species becoming stronger tool users but it would just be me making guesses. What's important is that because we started out with extremely simple tools that were useful there was evolutionary advantage to developing whatever it is that lets us take better advantage of tools.

Without selective pressure to become tool users I don't think a species is likely to start using tools. Without the selective pressure of needing to pass down more information than is practical via oral tradition there isn't much reason to develop written language. I would even argue that tool use and technology provided a major motivator for written language... well, that and also bureaucracy has been sited by people like Jared Diamond as motivators for written language which in turn require steady food surpluses which in turn requires some means of agricultural food production.

Without written language and tools gauging intelligence gets harder. Dolphins (or some other critter, dolphins are just convenient pop icons for animal intelligence) may be absolutly brilliant at certain kinds of math calculations or even just have very strong brains for interpreting three dimensional structures (required by or developed in conjunction with their sonar). Intelligence isn't just human intelligence and it's not easy to measure in my opinion. People have shown dolphins pass a lot of tests like self recognition in mirrors and certain kinds of abstract thought... what else should be be testing?

Mostly though my point is a species will only evolve types of intelligence that are directly beneficial to them in the immediate present. Not having effective means of manipulating tools (like thumbs) makes it much harder to find yourself in a situation to develop that particular sort of intelligence.

Also I'd like to add that Jacob is right in the sense that another critter is unlikely to have our particular brand of intellect. There are however numerous cases of complex features evolving independently of one another. In the case of brain development you even have the convenient starting point of all the species under consideration start with a brain and only need to modify it, not generate an entirely new structure.