Re: War and Peace. [Predator & Prey]

From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Tue Feb 18 2003 - 21:24:56 MST

  • Next message: Lee Corbin: "RE: Patriotism"

    Brett Paatsch wrote:
    >
    > citizens@vcn.bc.ca writes:
    > > But who is predator and who is prey?
    >
    > It depends. Sometimes it may be you sometimes it may be me.
    > That I think is the real home truth of the problem. The solution I
    > suspect is not to deny the problem or to try and wish it away but
    > to add complexity and to enlighten our choices.
    >
    > - Brett

    Part I of III

    Forwarded by:

    Terry W. Colvin <colvint@cc.ims.disa.mil> Voice: [520]538-5392
    U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program FAX: [520]538-5435
    Air Tasking Orders [Desert Storm I] DSN: 879-5392
    Fort Huachuca (Cochise County), Arizona USA
    "No editor ever likes the way a story tastes unless he pees
    in it first." -Mark Twain

    PREDATOR & PREY MODELS

    AND CONTACT CONSIDERATIONS

    by

    Douglas Raybeck

    Anthropology Department
    Hamilton College
    Clinton, NY 13323
    <draybeck@hamilton.edu>

    Paper presented at the 11th Annual CONTACT Conference
    Palo Alto, California
    March 18th P 20th, 1994.

    INTRODUCTION

    Within the scientific community, as well as in the popular press and
    among science fiction writers, there has long been a concern with
    Extraterrestrials and the possibility of communication with them.
    This concern has led to such projects as the Search for
    Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) (Morrison, et al. 1977) that
    continues to be a focus of attention for many scientists even though
    currently facing reduced funding (Harrison and Elms 1990, Raybeck
    1992). As recently as this year, Harrison published an intriguing
    paper concerning Extraterrestrial intelligence in one of psychology's
    major journals (Harrison 1993). At the same time, scientists have
    theorized and speculated about the nature of Extraterrestrial
    intelligence and the problems involved in inter-sapient communication
    (Sagan 1973). The general consensus has been that the universe is
    very likely to host other intelligent beings, that some of these will
    be more technologically advanced than current humanity, and that some
    will be trying to locate other intelligences.

    In the science fiction community, images of Extraterrestrials have
    been variegated in form, in intelligence and in intentions. They
    range form the beneficent aliens of Julian May, who only wish to
    elevate the lot of humanity and facilitate our participation in an
    intergalactic "milieu," (1987a, 1987b) to the malevolent
    Extraterrestrials of Greg Bear, who travel about the universe
    locating intelligent life forms and destroying them because they may
    be potential future competitors (1987). Generally, however, images
    of aliens in the popular press and among the scientific community are
    positive. It is widely believed that if a sapient form can achieve
    the degree of civilization necessary to support inter-stellar
    communication, it is unlikely to be characterized by hostile
    intentions.

    In this paper, I wish to examine this assumption. As an
    anthropologist, I am aware that there are some markedly different
    paths to the evolution of intelligence. These differences can provide
    us with models that can suggest some of the variety we may anticipate
    among Extraterrestrials. I am concerned about the possibility that a
    technologically oriented intelligence may as likely be developed by a
    predatory species as by a non-predatory one. I am particularly
    concerned with the kinds of stimuli that promote
    the development of intelligence, and with what sorts of ethical
    notions might be associated with these varying modes of evolving
    intelligence. This exercise in modeling should have consequences for
    how we approach the possibility of Extraterrestrial communication.

    THE CASE FOR INTELLIGENCE

    Among the range of definitions for intelligence, one that is widely
    accepted is the ability to learn new response patterns (Jerison
    1973). Generally, intelligence confers upon an organism greater
    adaptability and flexibility in dealing with environmental
    challenges. However, many complex adaptations to the environment do
    not require the classical concept of intelligence. Scientists have
    long known that insects are capable of complex adaptations to their

    environments in a fashion that relies upon genetic programming rather
    than on learning (Wilson 1980). Indeed, Schull has recently argued
    that even the adaptive characteristics of plant and animal species
    are related to information-processing and that it would be fruitful
    to view such species as intelligent (1990). Overwhelmingly, however,
    the scientific community is persuaded that a greater capacity for
    learning is a superior adaptation to suggested alternatives.

    In the evolution of intelligence on earth there has been a consistent
    trend from relatively closed instinctive patterns toward "open"
    learning. (Hinde 1974, Sluckin 1965). Jastrow has noted the
    evolution of intelligence from lower organisms to humanity and to
    computers (1981). He and others believe that, if one has competing
    species, the evolution of intelligence is inevitable because the the
    advantages it confers upon the possessor (Itzkoff 1983, Sagan 1977).
    However, the questions concerning the rate at which intelligence is
    developed and the nature of the species that are most likely to
    possess it are more complex.

    Evolutionary theorists and developmental biologists have long been
    aware that the development of intelligence involves a series of
    interactions between organisms and their environment (Laughlin and
    Brady 1978, Laughlin and D'Aquili 1974, Manosevetz, et al. 1969,
    Mazur and Robertson 1972, Tunnell 1973). The environment must
    contain conditions for which intelligence is an adaptive trait.
    Beings with greater intelligence then reproduce in increasing
    numbers, filling their eco-niches and driving out less intelligent
    competitors. It is important to note, however, that the entities
    disadvantaged in this scenario are the ones that either compete
    directly with our intelligent others or are directly exploited by
    them.

    Complex environments select for intelligence by creating conditions
    where more intelligent competitors have an advantage in exploiting
    limited resources (Evans and Schmidt 1990, Robinson 1990). Animals
    that proceed by instinct have a limited set of behavioral repertoires
    with which to respond to changing conditions. They are limited not
    only by their physiology, but by their ability to perceive the
    existence of new demands and new resource possibilities. Their
    coping equipment is genetically based and suited to the parameters of
    the environment in which the organism evolved. Should that
    environment change, the organism may likely prove unable to adapt to
    the new circumstances and be seriously disadvantaged in its
    competition with other species. (Daly and Wilson 1978, Dawkins 1976,
    Smith 1984).

    Generally, increasing intelligence confers upon an organism a better
    opportunity to model the environment, both natural and behavioral, so
    that food getting, mating and general survival strategies can be
    maximized. Intelligence is selected for because it benefits the
    possessor, not because it is helpful to others.

    Costs and Advantages of Intelligence
    An increase in intelligence has meant a corresponding rise in brain
    size. As Jerison has noted, "The mass of neural tissue controlling a
    particular function is appropriate to the amount of information
    processing involved in performing the function" (1973: 8). This has
    been true in organic evolution, and in the evolution of artificial
    intelligence as well (Gardner 1985, Goldstein and Papert 1977,
    Jastrow 1981, Llinas 1990, Nelson and Bower 1990, Schank and Childers
    1984). It seems likely that, however information is processed, it
    would also be true for Extraterrestrials.

    Intelligence is not without certain physical costs. Particularly in

    the case of high mammals, intelligence has been found to be expensive
    in terms of the body's resources. Brain tissue requires large
    supplies of glucose and oxygen (Milton 1988), but these are justified
    by the advantages that intelligence confers. Indeed, the costs of
    intelligence are evidence of its importance and success as an
    environmental adaptation.

    There are also social consequences that accompany the development of
    significant intelligence. An increasing reliance on a learned
    repertoire implies an increased period of dependency on the part of the
    young. The need for learning plus the problems of rearing
    learning-based offspring involve a very serious cost from an
    evolutionary perspective. Such organisms have few offspring and this
    means that, unlike lower organisms that reproduce in greater numbers,
    the survival of each of these offspring is important. This longer
    maturation period and the need for security creates a trend toward
    social living, as the infant and its mother are in need of the
    support of others (Laughlin and D'Aquili 1974). This model is not
    only true for humans but also apes, cetaceans, elephants, and most
    other mammals with appreciable intelligence. Further, as we shall
    see, the exigencies of social life can prove to be as strong a
    stimulus for the evolution of increased intelligence, as any other
    factor. This creates a positive feedback loop in which intelligence
    promotes social living which, once established, makes increased
    intelligence highly adaptive.

    Even among lower animals, greater intelligence means more flexibility
    in dealing with environmental conditions. For predators this implies
    a greater ability to locate and consume prey, while, for prey,
    greater intelligence increases the likelihood of avoiding such a fate
    (Byrne and Whiten 1988).

    As intelligence increases, other emergent properties appear which
    reflect the expanded complexity of the system, and which confer still
    greater advantages upon the possessor. At some point, increasing
    intelligence should lead to self-awareness (Itzkoff 1985, Jastrow
    1981, Laughlin and D'Aquili 1974). An organism equipped with self-
    awareness can model not only the externals of the environment, but
    can now include itself as an element of attention. It has a self-
    concept separable from the environment and capable of conscious
    examination and reflection (Tunnell 1973). Concurrent with such a
    development is an increase in the organism's ability to construct an
    internal environment that can not only represent the external world,
    but also make possible the construction of symbols which are, by
    definition, arbitrarily related to their referents (Gazzaniga 1992,
    Laughlin and D'Aquili 1974, Laughlin, et al. 1990).

    The capacity for symbolism represents an enormous evolutionary
    advantage for any intelligent species. Prior to its appearance,
    communications are limited by environmental stimuli in what is termed
    a "closed" system (Hockett 1973). In such circumstances, an organism
    emits a signal that is automatically called forth by an external
    stimulus. There is no displacement in time or space, and such calls
    are generally mutually exclusive. The information carrying capacity
    of the system is thus limited to the number of calls hard-wired into
    the organism. With symbolism, organisms gain the ability to
    displace their messages and to combine them in ever more complex and
    novel assemblages. Further, they can assign meanings in complex ways
    influenced, but not dictated, by biology. This opens up the realm of
    culture, a learned set of patterns for behavior that are far more
    malleable than the biological substrate that made them possible.

    While symbolism involves greatly increased freedom from the
    constraints of the organism's biological limitations, this freedom is
    not absolute. For humans, the structure of our brain imposes limits
    both on the amount of information we can process at any given time
    (Miller 1956, Miller 1951), and on the kinds of information we can
    process (Ardila and Ostrosky-Solis 1989, Jerison 1990, Lenneberg
    1967, Thompson and Green 1982). There is reason to believe that
    similar limitations and perceptual dispositions would attend any
    evolving sentience (Gazzaniga 1992, Sauer and MacNair 1983, Stokoe
    1989, Wasserman 1989). Given such an expectation, it seems likely
    that sentients who have evolved from a predator background would
    differ markedly from sentients whose gustatory preference run to
    plants.

    -- 
    Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@mindspring.com >
         Alternate: < fortean1@msn.com >
    Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html >
    Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
          U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
    ------------
    Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
       TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans,
    Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 18 2003 - 21:27:59 MST