It could. But do you agree that parthenogenesis is a very unlikely reproductive method for a HLI?
How unlikely is very unlikely? I’d agree that our evidence does suggest that I’d expect it to be less common than conventionally reproducing species. But that’s not the point. Parthenogenesis is but one example of many different features which show up in fairly smart species on Earth. I only need to change a few to drastically alter what one would expect.
Let’s take a step back here. Do you really believe that women spend more time and effort demonstrating their fitness than men do? Or are you trying to prove me wrong?
I don’t know if time is the best metric in this sort of context, and I really don’t know which gender generally spends more time.
In any event you seem to be missing my point so I will be a bit more explicit: In the vast majority of species that have substantial mate competition, the competition is almost exclusively among the males and it frequently takes a visual component. In humans that’s false. We’re an exception in that regard.
It might, but I don’t know how much it would. I would look at split-brain patients and extrapolate from there- so there would probably be some oddness, but nothing fundamentally different.
Split-brain patients are a tiny fraction of the general population. The situation here also isn’t that similar because it is a situation where they can turn off either half, or both, and the two communicate.
What issues related to live birth are you talking about?
Human universals surround pregnancy and the related issues. Almost every society has associated rituals and taboos. And some gender issues come from the fact that females are stuck for months being very vulnerable.
Is an underwater species likely to reach HLI before an abovewater species? My understanding is the metabolic demands of intelligence are high, and that appears to favor abovewater species.
I don’t think that the metabolic issues will matter much. The total caloric intake of a dolphin or other large sea creature is quite large. The difficulty with making useful underwater tools would strike me as a more substantial problem. Dolphins do make some makeshift tools (such as some pods using sponges in front of their faces to protect themselves from spines when they go after spiny undersea life) but it seems substantially more difficult to actually go and make tools (for example, chipping stone would nearly impossible).
But, how can you have an intelligence without pattern-seeking?
Pattern seeking is one thing. Being an overactive pattern seeker is another. I would guess for example that if HLI had arose from elephants rather than primates one would see much less overactive pattern seeking because of the lack of threats they face.
Why would good introspection ability survive Machiavellian evolution?
Why wouldn’t it? If I understand how minds work better that makes me more adept not less adept at manipulating others. There are arguments that this would not be the case, but they seem contingent on specifics of how humans function.
I am poorly calibrated at assigning numbers to probabilities like this, so I don’t think I can add more here.
I only need to change a few to drastically alter what one would expect.
My original claim was not that any noteworthy changes were impossible, but that any aliens that are social talking thinkers will be deeply similar to humans with high probability. (Implicitly attached is the claim that anything that isn’t a social talking thinker we wouldn’t consider intelligent and/or wouldn’t reach HLI.)
It could be that some aspect of human psychology that was adaptive for us just fails to exist in some alien species. But I think the chances of that are amazingly small. It could be that something I think is an universal driven by practicality turns out to be a close competitor with something else (like sequential hermaphroditism vs. bisex, or whatever that’s called), and on some planets things went the other way. If that’s the case, I suspect deep similarities will still exist, and the change will be relatively minor. (For example, I suspect sequential hermaphroditism would be female->male, and the resulting social system would look a lot like pederasty.)
In the vast majority of species that have substantial mate competition, the competition is almost exclusively among the males and it frequently takes a visual component. In humans that’s false. We’re an exception in that regard.
Human universals surround pregnancy and the related issues. Almost every society has associated rituals and taboos. And some gender issues come from the fact that females are stuck for months being very vulnerable.
So, there will be egg rituals and taboos instead, and I imagine some couples will trade off being ‘pregnant’. The invention of incubators will be comparable to the (future) invention of artificial wombs.
I would guess for example that if HLI had arose from elephants rather than primates one would see much less overactive pattern seeking because of the lack of threats they face.
Alright, but that’s an argument that elephants are less likely to reach HLI, as there’s less selection pressure for pattern-matching / swiftness of thought.
Why wouldn’t it? If I understand how minds work better that makes me more adept not less adept at manipulating others. There are arguments that this would not be the case, but they seem contingent on specifics of how humans function.
There are three factors in play: ability to know your motives, ability to lie convincingly, and ability to detect sincerity. The easiest one to drop is the ability to know your motives- when people promise to always be faithful, for example, they typically mean it, even though, beneath their consciousness, they don’t.
Note I made a comment about the vast majority of species. There’s a conference devoted to such competition precisely because they are the exception not the rule.
Alright, but that’s an argument that elephants are less likely to reach HLI, as there’s less selection pressure for pattern-matching / swiftness of thought.
Speed of thought isn’t necessarily related to overall intelligence. Note that elephants are one of the smarter species even though they aren’t subject to much of the specific selection pressure that makes humans overactive pattern seekers.
There are three factors in play: ability to know your motives, ability to lie convincingly, and ability to detect sincerity. The easiest one to drop is the ability to know your motives- when people promise to always be faithful, for example, they typically mean it, even though, beneath their consciousness, they don’t.
I don’t see why knowing your motives is easier to drop than the ability to lie convincingly. That may be the general solution for most humans but that doesn’t mean it is the easiest. Indeed, arguably one of the major features of psychopaths is that they are in some ways people who don’t have the motivation confusion but are able to lie well.
It seems to me from this conversation that our views are not as far apart as they initially seemed, and in so far as they disagree, you seem to have made good points about the presence of sexual selection being likely to have certain results. It seems that remaining disagreement is to a large extent based on background intuitions and vague words like the difference between “unlikely” and “very unlikely”. So, unless one or both of us tries to be a lot more precise, or unless we encounter some non-human evolved HLIs, it isn’t obvious to me what to say at this point. You’ve caused me to update my estimate for how close I should expect evolved HLIs to mentally resemble humans in the direction of expecting them to be more similar but I’m not sure how much I should update in that direction.
How unlikely is very unlikely? I’d agree that our evidence does suggest that I’d expect it to be less common than conventionally reproducing species. But that’s not the point. Parthenogenesis is but one example of many different features which show up in fairly smart species on Earth. I only need to change a few to drastically alter what one would expect.
I don’t know if time is the best metric in this sort of context, and I really don’t know which gender generally spends more time.
In any event you seem to be missing my point so I will be a bit more explicit: In the vast majority of species that have substantial mate competition, the competition is almost exclusively among the males and it frequently takes a visual component. In humans that’s false. We’re an exception in that regard.
Split-brain patients are a tiny fraction of the general population. The situation here also isn’t that similar because it is a situation where they can turn off either half, or both, and the two communicate.
Human universals surround pregnancy and the related issues. Almost every society has associated rituals and taboos. And some gender issues come from the fact that females are stuck for months being very vulnerable.
I don’t think that the metabolic issues will matter much. The total caloric intake of a dolphin or other large sea creature is quite large. The difficulty with making useful underwater tools would strike me as a more substantial problem. Dolphins do make some makeshift tools (such as some pods using sponges in front of their faces to protect themselves from spines when they go after spiny undersea life) but it seems substantially more difficult to actually go and make tools (for example, chipping stone would nearly impossible).
Pattern seeking is one thing. Being an overactive pattern seeker is another. I would guess for example that if HLI had arose from elephants rather than primates one would see much less overactive pattern seeking because of the lack of threats they face.
Why wouldn’t it? If I understand how minds work better that makes me more adept not less adept at manipulating others. There are arguments that this would not be the case, but they seem contingent on specifics of how humans function.
I am poorly calibrated at assigning numbers to probabilities like this, so I don’t think I can add more here.
My original claim was not that any noteworthy changes were impossible, but that any aliens that are social talking thinkers will be deeply similar to humans with high probability. (Implicitly attached is the claim that anything that isn’t a social talking thinker we wouldn’t consider intelligent and/or wouldn’t reach HLI.)
It could be that some aspect of human psychology that was adaptive for us just fails to exist in some alien species. But I think the chances of that are amazingly small. It could be that something I think is an universal driven by practicality turns out to be a close competitor with something else (like sequential hermaphroditism vs. bisex, or whatever that’s called), and on some planets things went the other way. If that’s the case, I suspect deep similarities will still exist, and the change will be relatively minor. (For example, I suspect sequential hermaphroditism would be female->male, and the resulting social system would look a lot like pederasty.)
Females don’t compete in other species?
So, there will be egg rituals and taboos instead, and I imagine some couples will trade off being ‘pregnant’. The invention of incubators will be comparable to the (future) invention of artificial wombs.
Alright, but that’s an argument that elephants are less likely to reach HLI, as there’s less selection pressure for pattern-matching / swiftness of thought.
There are three factors in play: ability to know your motives, ability to lie convincingly, and ability to detect sincerity. The easiest one to drop is the ability to know your motives- when people promise to always be faithful, for example, they typically mean it, even though, beneath their consciousness, they don’t.
Note I made a comment about the vast majority of species. There’s a conference devoted to such competition precisely because they are the exception not the rule.
Speed of thought isn’t necessarily related to overall intelligence. Note that elephants are one of the smarter species even though they aren’t subject to much of the specific selection pressure that makes humans overactive pattern seekers.
I don’t see why knowing your motives is easier to drop than the ability to lie convincingly. That may be the general solution for most humans but that doesn’t mean it is the easiest. Indeed, arguably one of the major features of psychopaths is that they are in some ways people who don’t have the motivation confusion but are able to lie well.
It seems to me from this conversation that our views are not as far apart as they initially seemed, and in so far as they disagree, you seem to have made good points about the presence of sexual selection being likely to have certain results. It seems that remaining disagreement is to a large extent based on background intuitions and vague words like the difference between “unlikely” and “very unlikely”. So, unless one or both of us tries to be a lot more precise, or unless we encounter some non-human evolved HLIs, it isn’t obvious to me what to say at this point. You’ve caused me to update my estimate for how close I should expect evolved HLIs to mentally resemble humans in the direction of expecting them to be more similar but I’m not sure how much I should update in that direction.