S. Smith / R. Bourgeois wrote:
>> Gord,
>> I appreciate the difficulty in defining "intelligence". However, I am not
> looking to split hairs over semantics either. I'll restate my question
> then.... Is encephalization an a_priori requirement for a species capable
> of technological advances? I suppose this is a question involving
> theoretical limitations. Do advanced thought process absolutely require
> the transmission speeds of neurons stuck close together within a few
> centimeters in a brain case? Any speculation on the subject would help me.
> Thanks again.
>> Ray
[snip]
...no... but, given a particular nerual architecture, a "spaced-out" nervous
system will tend to consistently lose competitions with a scaled down version
of the same neural architecture, because the more-compact version will
converge faster, and be more energy-efficient... cephalization has even more
advantages because, besides shrinking interconnection lengths, it allows the
head-localized sensory apparatus to orient relatively independently with
respect to the body, and minimizes "fancy" through-the-joints conveying of
information (hard to protect, and prone to injury... like one's "funny
bone")... ken
_____________________________________________________
People hate because they fear, and they fear because
they do not understand, and they do not understand
because hating is less work than understanding.
