From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 27/01/2026 4:56 am, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   > On 1/24/26 8:59 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> On 25/01/2026 10:00 am, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   >>> On 1/22/26 1:42 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>>> On 23/01/2026 5:21 am, Mark Isaak wrote:   
   >>>>> [...]   
   >>>>> You don't seem to grasp that complexity can emerge from the   
   >>>>> environment, if you make the conditions to allow it to. You would,   
   >>>>> I think, describe human language as having high functional   
   >>>>> complexity. Yet all you need to do to go from a language with a   
   >>>>> finite and small number of short declarations to a language which   
   >>>>> allows an infinite number of possible sentences that can express   
   >>>>> endless ideas is to allow recursive grammar. That's one change. Not   
   >>>>> a trivial one by any means, but not a show- stopper either.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Higher intelligence is probably even simpler. All you need is a   
   >>>>> bigger brain (and women's hips to accommodate it). That could   
   >>>>> happen with a tiny change to one regulator gene. And once you have   
   >>>>> the larger brain, that also allows more proficient tool use, which   
   >>>>> then allows writing, which then allows libraries, which then allows   
   >>>>> civilization.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Do you accept that going from Cro-Magnon to walking on the Moon   
   >>>>> requires no new mutations at all?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> In terms of overall mental capability, the chimp to human increase   
   >>>> might be likened to say word processors*, n generations apart (where   
   >>>> n > 1). As a programmer, you know that this requires megabytes of   
   >>>> new specific information. Why do you imagine that mere bits would   
   >>>> suffice for the chimp to human scenario?   
   >>>>   
   >>>> * Acknowledging that computer software and biological systems are   
   >>>> different in many ways, but nonetheless subject to the same   
   >>>> constraints in relation to functional complexity.   
   >>>   
   >>> I reject your analogy utterly.  In terms of overall mental ability,   
   >>> the chimp to human increase might better be likened to RAM memory, n   
   >>> generations apart. All that requires is more of the same, plus some   
   >>> engineering advances in miniaturization. That's still a poor analogy,   
   >>> because neurological processes are not as simple as arrays of   
   >>> flippable bits, but the point remains: Nearly all that is required is   
   >>> more of the same neurological processes.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> "Utterly"? Like I said, we have very different perspectives of how   
   >> things are.   
   >   
   > So convince me. Enumerate, with references, the qualitative differences   
   > between human and chimp cognition.  If you can get your list over 500   
   > items, I'll concede your point. Myself, I can't get past three, and I'm   
   > guessing on two of those. But then, I have not studied chimp cognition   
   > in depth.   
   >   
      
   Here's an AI summary of key cognitive differences:   
      
      
   "Social Cognition: Humans possess "shared intentionality," the unique   
   motivation and ability to collaborate, learn socially, and exchange   
   information within cultural groups. Human toddlers significantly   
   outperform adult chimpanzees in social tasks, such as understanding   
   goals and imitation.   
      
   Language & Communication: The human brain has specialized anatomical   
   structures for language, including expanded connections between Broca's   
   and Wernicke's areas that are weak or absent in apes.   
      
   Theory of Mind: Humans have a more intricate ability to understand   
   others' beliefs and intentions. While apes show basic level-1   
   perspective taking, humans process complex social cues and facial   
   expressions far more extensively.   
      
   Working Memory: Research published in ScienceDirect suggests chimpanzee   
   working memory (WM) capacity is approximately 2 ± 1 items, compared to   
   the human average of 7 ± 2. Interestingly, chimpanzees show stronger   
   connectivity in regions related to spatial working memory than humans."   
      
      
   It's difficult to quantify these differences in terms of some measure   
   functional complexity, I acknowledge that. Would you agree though that   
   these changes are novel, structural and qualitative, and not just the   
   same brain scaled up?   
      
   Say we had an AI system that in some way was equivalent to a chimpanzee,   
   and we developed it to become, in a similar way, equivalent to a human.   
   What design and development input would we expect would be needed?   
      
   As someone with programming experience, would you agree that we would   
   expect person-years of development, and large amounts of new information   
   to specify the new and substantial functional complexity?   
      
   By suggesting that a biological system can accomplish an equivalent   
   increase with just a handful of bits of information, you are implying a   
   free lunch for biology.   
      
   The theory of evolution itself recognises that new and substantial   
   function is hard-won by natural selection ratcheting up small gains   
   through countless trials.   
      
   All this flies in the face of your claim that "All you need is a bigger   
   brain...That could happen with a tiny change to one regulator gene".   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)