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