It doesn't take a very complex critter to display an impressive amount of
behavior (more than any of us really understands).  If you're interested in
looking over some of the real stuff (science, that is) check out:

http://www.wormbase.org/

Lots of folks are trying to figure out C. elegans, a nematode with 959
somatic cells, of which 300 are neurons and only 81 are muscle cells.  It
manages to display rudimentary learning, which certainly involves some sort
of memory.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Michaels [mailto:oricom@USWEST.NET]
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 12:02 PM
> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
> Subject: Re: [OT]: Mr Hawking loses the plot
>
>
> Russell McMahon wrote:
> ..........
> >Re fish and thinking - I suggested that a stage is reached
> in terms of
> >intelligence in creatures where "software" is a simpler
> explanation than
> >hardware. I suggested AFAIR (AAADDS lurks) that this is true
> for cats. I
> >didn't say it was (AFAIR) so for fish but it may be. By the
> time you get to
> >people (most people anyway) software is the overwhelmingly
> obvious simplest
> >solution. If I (or Dan) could do what we do on hardwiring
> and Pheromones the
> >creation would be even more amazing than it is now.
> .............
>
>
> All of this makes good sense, and is indeed what has been implemented
> in nature. Again - just looking at the vertebrate kingdom [no 140 IQ
> jumping snails allowed ;-)] - lower vertebrates are more hard-wired
> and have less learning capability, whereas in higher vertebrates
> learning is a major aspect of life, if not "the" major aspect.
>
> This is not to say that there is no learning at all in lower
> vertebrates
> - there may be some - but it is mainly to say again that there is a
> spectrum with all of brain size, perceptual input bandwidth,
> processing
> power, learning, reasoning power, and apparently
> consciousness expanding
> greatly as you go up the food chain.
>
> You can probably find some lower vertebrates with the ability to
> learn some things better than other lower vertebrates. However, this
> would still be rather low-level as compared with monkeys and humans.
> As I understand it, frogs are especially non-gifted when it comes
> to learning. Some fish may do better.
> ==========
>
>
>  Working down the list of
> >"intelligences", at what stage do you get to a fully hard
> wired solution?
> >Fish? And why should we think that memory/software/thinking
> of some thought
> >is a hard part of a design compared with hard wiring?
> .......
>
>
> As I see it, it is not so much that we think memory/etc is the hard
> part compared to hardwiring, but that this seems to be the
> way the animal
> kingdom works - at least in vertebrates.
>
> An interesting part of this relates to brain anatomy. Lower
> vertebrates
> [fish, amphibians] have tiny brains relative to humans, and
> no cerebral
> cortex. At the intermediate level [birds], they still have relatively
> simple brains but also increased learning abilities [I am not sure if
> they have a cerebral cortex, per se]. In mammals, the cortex
> exists and
> gets larger and larger as you go up the chain, in direct correlation
> with expanded mental capbilities. Similarly, lower vertebrates have
> limited ability to learn, while higher animals have great ability.
> The rise of the cortex is apparently the key to higher function.
> ==========
>
>
>  And, if a fish fires a
> >Neuron or several to initiate a conditioned or innate
> response is this
> >thinking at some level?
>
>
> Personally, I think there is a continuum of levels in all mental
> aspects commensurate with the continuum of brain development
> described.
> This is what I have been saying all week.
>
> --
> http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
> email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body
>
>

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body