Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:25:48.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evolution of general intelligence in all animals and machines

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2017

Kay E. Holekamp  and
Risto Miikkulainen
Kay E. Holekamp
Affiliation:
Department of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI [email protected]://www.holekamplab.org/ Ecology, Evolutionary Biology and Behavior, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Risto Miikkulainen
Affiliation:
Departments of Computer Science and Neuroscience, University of Texas, Austin, TX [email protected]://www.cs.utexas.edu/~risto/ BEACON Center for the Study of Evolution in Action, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We strongly agree that general intelligence occurs in many animals but find the cultural intelligence hypothesis of limited usefulness. Any viable hypothesis explaining the evolution of general intelligence should be able to account for it in all species where it is known to occur, and should also predict the conditions under which we can develop machines with general intelligence as well.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e205
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allman, J., McLaughlin, T. & Hakeem, A. (1993) Brain weight and life-span in primate species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 90:118–22.Google Scholar
Anderson, R. C., Mather, J. A., Monette, M. Q. & Zimsen, S. R. M. (2010) Octopuses (Enteroctopus dofleini) recognize individual humans. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 13:261–72.Google Scholar
Brooks, R. A. (1990) Elephants don't play chess. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 6:1–16. doi: 10.1016/S0921-8890(05)80024-7.Google Scholar
Brooks, R. A. (1991) Intelligence without reason. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI-91) , pp. 569–95. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Deaner, R. O., Barton, R. A. & van Schaik, C. P. (2003) Primate brains and life history: Renewing the connection. In: Primate Life Histories and Socioecology, eds. Kappeler, P. M. & Pereira, M. E., pp. 233–65. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldman, A. & de Vignemont, F. (2009) Is social cognition embodied? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13:154–59. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.007.Google Scholar
Hochner, B., Shormrat, T. & Fiorito, G. (2006) The octopus: A model for comparative analysis of the evolution of learning and memory mechanisms. Biological Bulletin 210:308–17.Google Scholar
Lefebvre, L., Reader, S. M. & Sol, D. (2013) Innovating innovation rate and its relationship with brains, ecology and general intelligence. Brain, Behavior and Evolution 81:143–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mather, J. A. (1994) “Home” choice and modification by juvenile Octopus vulgaris: Specialized intelligence and tool use? Journal of Zoology 233:359–68.Google Scholar
Mather, J. A. & Anderson, R. C. (1999) Exploration, play and habituation in Octopus dofleini . Journal of Comparative Psychology 113:333–38.Google Scholar
Mather, J. A., Leite, T. & Battista, A. T. (2012) Individual prey choices of octopus: Are they generalists or specialists? Current Zoology 58:597–603.Google Scholar
Montgomery, S. (2015) The Soul of an Octopus. Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Oudeyer, P. Y., Kaplan, F. & Hafner, V. (2007) Intrinsic motivation systems for autonomous mental development. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 11:265–86. doi: 10.1109/TEVC.2006.890271.Google Scholar
Schmidhuber, J. A. (1991) Possibility for implementing curiosity and boredom in model-building neural controllers. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior: From Animals to Animats, pp. 222–27.Google Scholar
Sharkey, N. E. & Ziemke, T. (1998) A consideration of the biological and psychological foundations of autonomous robotics. Connection Science 10:361–91. doi: 10.1080/095400998116495.Google Scholar
Sinn, D. L., Perrin, N. A., Mather, J. A. & Anderson, R. C. (2001) Early temperamental traits in an octopus (Octopus bimaculoides). Journal of Comparative Psychology 115:351–64.Google Scholar
Sol, D. (2009a) Revisiting the cognitive buffer hypothesis for the evolution of large brains. Biology Letters 5:130–33.Google Scholar
Sol, D. (2009b) The cognitive-buffer hypothesis for the evolution of large brains. In: Cognitive. Ecology II, ed. Dukas, R. & Ratcliffe, J. M. pp. 111–34. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Stanton, C. & Clune, J. (2016) Curiosity search: Producing generalists by encouraging individuals to continually explore and acquire skills throughout their lifetime. PLoS One 11(9):e0162235. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162235.Google Scholar
van Schaik, C. P., Isler, K. & Burkart, J. M. (2012) Explaining brain size variation: From social to cultural brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 16:277–84.Google Scholar
Zullo, L. & Hochner, B. (2011) A new perspective on the organization of an invertebrate brain. Communicative & Integrative Biology 4:26–29.Google Scholar