Whatever intelligence is, more computational power or cognitive capacity (e.g., a more complex or larger neural network, a species with a larger brain) leads to more of it.
Whales, with their much larger brains, trivially disprove this. There may be a loose correlation, but it would have to be quite a small number.
It’s still typically acknowledged that the evolution of intelligence from more primitive apes to humans was mostly an increase of computational power (proportionally bigger brains) with little innovation on structures. So, there seems to be merit to the idea.
Larger animals, all things being equal, need more neurons to perform the same basic functions than we do because of their larger bodies.
Within a particular genus or architecture, more neurons would be higher intelligence. Comparing between completely different neural network types is indeed problematic
Within a particular genus or architecture, more neurons would be higher intelligence.
I’m not sure that’s necessarily true? Though there’s probably a correlation. See e.g. this post:
[T]he raw number of neurons an organism possesses does not tell the full story about information processing capacity. That’s because the number of computations that can be performed over a given amount of time in a brain also depends upon many other factors, such as (1) the number of connections between neurons, (2) the distance between neurons (with shorter distances allowing faster communication), (3) the conduction velocity of neurons, and (4) the refractory period which indicates how much time must elapse before a given neuron can fire again. In some ways, these additional factors can actually favor smaller brains (Chitka 2009).
Yes: their sleep differs, for obvious reasons, and messing with REM sleep could well be why they need more neurons. Specifically, we know that echidna (a terrestrial species that lack REM sleep) has much more neurons than it should given its body mass (and, arguably, behavior), and one hypothesis is there’s a causal link, e.g. REM sleep could be a mean to make neuron use more efficient.
Whales, with their much larger brains, trivially disprove this. There may be a loose correlation, but it would have to be quite a small number.
It’s still typically acknowledged that the evolution of intelligence from more primitive apes to humans was mostly an increase of computational power (proportionally bigger brains) with little innovation on structures. So, there seems to be merit to the idea.
Larger animals, all things being equal, need more neurons to perform the same basic functions than we do because of their larger bodies.
Within a particular genus or architecture, more neurons would be higher intelligence. Comparing between completely different neural network types is indeed problematic
I’m not sure that’s necessarily true? Though there’s probably a correlation. See e.g. this post:
Yes , the point is that once you fixed architecture and genus (eg connections etc), more neurons/synapses leads to more capabilities
I see, that makes sense. I agree that holding all else constant more neurons implies higher intelligence.
I don’t think whale neurons or the way they are connected are that different, unless you know of some research?
Yes: their sleep differs, for obvious reasons, and messing with REM sleep could well be why they need more neurons. Specifically, we know that echidna (a terrestrial species that lack REM sleep) has much more neurons than it should given its body mass (and, arguably, behavior), and one hypothesis is there’s a causal link, e.g. REM sleep could be a mean to make neuron use more efficient.
You need to correct for the size of the organism (a lot of the brain is necessary to control the body).
Yes, there is a loose correlation after correcting for the size of organism.