From: specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net   
      
   On 1/27/26 3:20 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   That's a quantitative difference. Chimps also collaborate, learn   
   socially, and have culture groups.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   That is one of the qualitative differences.  It might even qualify as   
   two of them.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Again, a quantitative difference (aggravated by the fact that nobody   
   knows what sort of "theory of mind" a chimp has).   
      
   > 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."   
      
   A quantitative difference.   
      
   > 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?   
      
   One of them is.  The rest might involve a qualitative change, but they   
   also might just be 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?   
      
   You are way too enamored with AI. If it is AI, it is so alien to either   
   chimp or human that I would throw out the design and start from scratch.   
   In particular, if I wanted something with lifelike intelligence, I would   
   start by creating emotions.  (But I would want a way to implement   
   Asimov's laws before I started working on lifelike intelligence.)   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)