That’s what I’m talking about. What reason do we have for thinking that larger brains of the same architecture exhibit more general intelligence (in non human lineages)?
Also, what exactly does it mean for two brains to have the same “architecture” if they differ by a genetic mutation? It’s not as if there’s a separate gene coding for “brain size” that could mutate on its own.
If it doesn’t help, and uses more energy, then it won’t get kept unless it’s an inevitable side effect of something helpful. That was my only basis for “larger (of same type) ⇒ more intelligence”.
I don’t really know anything about this topic. My claim is essentially a tautology that may not have much practical application.
[brain size vs. body size in mammals] follows a power law, with an exponent of about 0.75
the “average” brain of mammals taken as a whole, but each family (cats, rodents, primates, etc) departs from it to some degree, in a way that generally reflects the overall “sophistication” of behavior.
Primates, for a given body size, have brains 5 to 10 times as large as the formula predicts
That’s what I’m talking about. What reason do we have for thinking that larger brains of the same architecture exhibit more general intelligence (in non human lineages)?
Also, what exactly does it mean for two brains to have the same “architecture” if they differ by a genetic mutation? It’s not as if there’s a separate gene coding for “brain size” that could mutate on its own.
If it doesn’t help, and uses more energy, then it won’t get kept unless it’s an inevitable side effect of something helpful. That was my only basis for “larger (of same type) ⇒ more intelligence”.
I don’t really know anything about this topic. My claim is essentially a tautology that may not have much practical application.
Some trivia (not directly related to my original claim) I found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size:
That’s true. But something helpful done by the brain isn’t necessarily involved with intelligence.