Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Support us on Patreon!

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 290 KB, 346x366, 1547537987178.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
10886932 No.10886932 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Why is Encephalization Quotient such a strong predictor of intelligence for mammals?
EQ is the ratio of brain mass of a species to expected brain mass for their body mass (brain mass increases by the square/cube of the body mass).

A spectrum of EQ is pretty much a spectrum of intelligence, but the implications of this are complete nonsense, as it implies:
>increasing the size of your body but not your brain would make you more stupid
>a brain far larger than a human brain (and just as intricate) cannot possibly become as smart as a human brain, if that brain is in too large a body

It's stupid, yet true. How can this possibly make sense?

>> No.10886938

>>10886932
Because all of their neural processes require metabolic energy. You're trying to imagine the brain as some kind of magic computer with infinite energy to think with. That's just not how it works. You need energy to form each thought.

>> No.10886939

>>10886938
it is really all about energy budgets desu

>> No.10886950

>>10886932
Yes, it seems strange given kleiver's law. I suppose it necessitates organizational efficiency and a large amount of dark neurons at a given point. Though baseline metabolic demand for maintaining membrane voltage gradients is fairly constant.

>> No.10886967

>>10886938
Metabolic rates only explains why brain mass increases with the square/cube of body mass, as opposed to linearly with body mass.
If it's all about energy budgets, then that means anything larger than humans should easily be able to be smarter, since being larger means a human brain represents a smaller percentage of your energy usage.
A horse can fit more brain in than a human can, and has a much larger energy budget, yet apparently they're so stupid that it's a major handicap to their species.

>> No.10886971

>>10886967
motility and the energy cost of resource allocation, mobilization, reserve allocation are much higher in large animals like elephants and whales. The proportion of the energy intake that can be apportioned to growing and maintaining a large brain comparable in relative size of humans would be incredible and unsustainable. No way it can traverse distances large enough to acquire enough calories to even maintain its size and capacity for digesting that much organic matter.

>> No.10886977

>>10886967
not even to speak of the required oxygen and micronutrients to sustain the organ. Its just not possible, we are at a relatively optimal size for an organism overbudgeting for high cognitive performance.

>> No.10886986

>>10886971
But there's the thing: Comparable in relative size.
Why would you need to do that to be as intelligent as a human?
A human brain would be absolutely miniscule in a whale. Running it would be pretty much free, energy-wise. And since it's a human brain, it would mean the animal is as intelligent as a human.
That's what makes sense, anyway. But the fact is that an animal brain can be far larger, and presumably consume far more energy, while still being far less intelligent.

>> No.10887021

>>10886986
Emotional intelligence. Whales mourn deeply.

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
reCAPTCHA
Action