|
Big Brain: The Origins and Future of Human Intelligence |  | Authors: Gary Lynch, Richard Granger
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
Category: Book
List Price: $16.95
Buy New: $8.50
as of 11/23/2009 14:35 MST details
You Save: $8.45 (50%)
New (33) Used (14) from $5.50
Seller: bookcultureny
Rating:  14 reviews
Sales Rank: 118091
Media: Paperback
Edition: 1
Pages: 272
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.5
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.1 x 0.8
ISBN: 1403979790
Dewey Decimal Number: 612.82
EAN: 9781403979797
ASIN: 1403979790
Publication Date: January 6, 2009
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
In this groundbreaking look at the evolution of our brains, eminent neuroscientists Gary Lynch and Richard Granger uncover the mysteries of the outsize intelligence of our ancestors, who had bigger brains than humans living today. Weaving together history, science, and the latest theories of artificial intelligence, Lynch and Granger demystify the complexities of our brains, and show us how our memory, cognition, and intelligence actually function, as well as what mechanisms in the brain can potentially be enhanced, improving on the current design. Author of The Emotional Brain, Joseph LeDoux praised it as "provocative and fascinating," and, writing in the New Scientist, Willian Calvin called it "a popular account of how brains enlarge, in both evolutionary and developmental terms" and "a much needed book." Our big brains, our language ability, and our intelligence make us uniquely human.
But barely 10,000 years ago--a mere blip in evolutionary time--human-like creatures called "Boskops" flourished in South Africa. They possessed extraordinary features: forebrains roughly 50% larger than ours, and estimated IQs to match--far surpassing our own. Many of these huge fossil skulls have been discovered over the last century, but most of us have never heard of this scientific marvel.
Prominent neuroscientists Gary Lynch and Richard Granger compare the contents of the Boskop brain and our own brains today, and arrive at startling conclusions about our intelligence and creativity. Connecting cutting-edge theories of genetics, evolution, language, memory, learning, and intelligence, Lynch and Granger show the implications of large brains on a broad array of fields, from the current state of the art in Alzheimer's and other brain disorders, to new advances in brain-based robots that see and converse with us, and the means by which neural prosthetics-- replacement parts for the brain--are being designed and tested. The authors demystify the complexities of our brains in this fascinating and accessible book, and give us tantalizing insights into our humanity--its past, and its future. |
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 14
Combining History and Neuroscience to Shed Light on the Past and Future of the Human Race September 28, 2009
Jessica A. Bartelmay
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Introduction:
"Big Brain: The Origins and Future of Human Intelligence" by Gary Lynch and Richard Granger explores the evolution of the human brain and analyzes the skulls of early human relatives, such as the Boskops, to determine the implications of having a big brain. This review seeks to provide a synopsis of the book, as well as present an opinion on the arguments and writing style of the book. "Big Brain" is a thorough examination on how brains enlarge through evolution, and Lynch and Granger make their book easily accessible to a wide audience with their ability to weave together history, literature, and neuroscience.
Synopsis:
Lynch and Granger begin their analysis of brain evolution with the discovery of the Boskops, a distant relative of humans that shared the Earth with us almost 10,000 years ago. The discovery, although controversial, prompted a reassessment of the presumed "upward" trajectory of human evolution, since the fossil remains show them to be either direct ancestors or a related contemporaneous subspecies. Boskops possessed slim, human-like skeletons that allowed them to walk upright. However, their brain size is more than 30% larger than modern day humans, with a significant increase in the size of the prefrontal cortex, which experts believe contributed to substantial added intelligence. This discovery posed the question of whether bigger brains are better because they are correlated with added mental abilities, and if so, then what is it about the human brain that led to our dominance when the bigger brained Boskops became extinct.
In order to address these questions, the authors analyzed the evolution of the human brain from early vertebrates to mammals, with particular focus on the changes to the prefrontal cortex, which is closely linked to the highest cognitive functions. By analyzing the neurocircuitry of the brain, the authors can determine how the brain functions during thinking and show how high-level thought originates from simple biological machinery. The authors propose that most of the cortex is designed around the olfactory system of ancient vertebrates, and the organization of the early sensory systems has been adapted in to the brains of humans. Evolutionary changes in mammals lead to the expansion and elaboration of the visual and auditory systems and the sensory inputs became encoded in a random-access manner, which switched the brain processing from specialized midbrain areas to expanded cortical structures and allowed the brain to build multisensory unified representations of the world. Using this information, Lynch and Granger show what makes one brain different from another, and they make predictions about what the Boskops may have been like.
Review:
What appealed to me about "Big Brain" is that the authors presented both the scientific aim of understanding the brain as well as the engineering goal of actually building one. The book operates on the principle that to build brains you must really understand them, and to really understand brains, it is useful to attempt to construct them. The book focuses predominantly on the science behind understanding the architecture and function of the brain; however, they often include how the brain operates from an engineer's perspective. Although this is not always useful, and is sometimes distracting, it is especially useful in the section concerning the future implications of enhancing the brain and building artificial brains based on the function of both human and Boskop brains.
Throughout the book, the authors point out remaining controversies in the fields of neuroscience and anthropology that relate to the evolution of the brain. By presenting the facts that drive each of the different positions and providing support for each case, they are able to give the reader a better representation of the current state of knowledge and the direction in which future research is moving. This is seen in the authors' discussion of why Boskops are widely unknown, unlike our other hominid ancestors. Since Boskops possess huge brains and facial features that are not ape-like, they must be an anomaly because they do not fit into the idea of who our ancestors were. Lynch and Granger point out that assumptions like this are examples of "irresistible fallacy" in which we believe each feature or characteristic we possess must have been carefully selected for us. Instead, evolution occurs mainly by chance, so our high level of intelligence as humans and our large brain-to-body size ratio did not evolve due to selection pressure, but rather, they evolved due to random genetic changes that conferred some improved ability to procreate.
In the final chapter, the authors revisit the Boskops and attempt to answer the initial questions they posed. Lynch and Granger argue that the absolute size of the brain does not determine the intelligence of the species, but instead, the size of the brain in relation to the size of the body dictates relative intelligence. The differences in relative intelligence for different brain sizes results from the fact that larger brains contain more cortex than smaller brains, and a larger cortex is contains more association cortex responsible for higher-levels of thought. According to the authors, evolution initially selected an upright posture for our ancestors, and then much later bigger brains were selected. For this reason, Lynch and Granger correlate larger brain size and added intelligence to larger babies. An increase in the size of infants corresponds to an increase in the lumbar and pelvic regions, which are strongly influenced by adaptations in locomotor activity. Therefore, genetic changes arose in the way ancient hominids walked due to larger infants, and as a result, the size of the brains increased along with the relative intelligence of the Boskops. This theory proposed by the authors while intriguing, is subject to the "irresistible fallacy" they attempt to avoid throughout the book; however, skeletal remains are unable to provide evidence to either support or dispute their claims.
"Big Brain" poses many questions about how modern humans evolved and the disappearance of the Boskops, a seemingly superior species. Although the authors address and answer many of the questions they pose, many are left unanswered and most of those that are, remain purely speculative, particularly those regarding the fate of the Boskops. Their examination on the role of intelligence as a driver of human evolution provides valuable insight in to the evolution and adaptations of the brain while simultaneously cautioning the tendency to believe that our superior characteristics evolved because we find them important. The scientific fact and the neuroscience frame work of the book are solid and thorough. The sections on the Boskops are interesting and entertain the reader, but much of the conclusions drawn about them are speculative because only limited information can be derived from skeletal remains.
Review of Style and Structure:
This book is an informative and entertaining read; the authors' clear, concise writing style makes the book accessible to the layman. The authors do an excellent job of thoroughly explaining the different facets of neuroscience, and the evolution of big brains, without overloading the reader with difficult technical jargon. The authors' literary references, analogies, and the incorporation of illustrations further enhance the reader's understanding of the book. Lynch and Granger provide an all encompassing view of the past and future of human brains from the perspectives of multiple fields of study.
Although the book is well-written, the organization and structure of "Big Brain" occasionally distracts from the author's central focus, and at times, the chapters of the book do not transition well from one topic to the next. In the first chapter, the authors introduce the Boskops and pose many questions regarding their intelligence, brain function, and how they died out. However, it is not until the final chapters that the authors begin addressing these questions and propose several compelling arguments about the implications of having large brains. The majority of the book established the neuroscience framework upon which Lynch and Granger build their conclusions about whether bigger brains are better. They discuss the evolution and development of big brains by first analyzing the role of genes in evolution, and then investigating the machinery of brains and how it changes as they expand. In their investigation they provide an excellent investigation into neurocircuitry and comparative brain anatomy in mammals. They conclude the book with a discussion on how our brains render us human and how they might be changed in the future. Lynch and Granger introduce several compelling arguments including their comparison of brains and computers, but they have little or no relevance to the overall focus of the book, and this structure makes "Big Brain" slightly repetitive, particularly in the chapters discussing the Boskops.
Interesting Quotes:
They [Boskops] may have been among our direct ancestors, in which case we seem to have devolved to our current smaller brain size, or they may have been a related contemporaneous subspecies, our cousins; either way it is likely that their substantial brain size would confer substantial added intelligence. (9)
The switch from specialized midbrain apparatus to cortical modes of processing allowed the brain for the first time to build the multisensory unified representations of the external world. (85)
We propose, then, that the big brain arose from the big baby, and the big baby arose first from changes in walking, and then in enlarged hips in females. The proposal thoroughly contradicts the alternative assumption, that selection pressures for intelligence drove the evolution of big brains. (156)
These [brain size] measures say that the distance from Boskop to humans is greater than the distance between humans and their Homo erectus predecessors. (162)
Recommendation:
I thoroughly enjoyed reading "Big Brain", and found it to be an engaging read that offers fascinating insight into brain evolution and how it relates to intelligence. This fascinating book examines how big brains develop and combines a broad array of academic fields, including neuroscience, evolution, genetics, anthropology, computing and neurocircuitry to answer the question of why humans emerged as the dominant species in the modern world."Big Brain" appeals to all readers on some level and demonstrates how our brains came to be, as well as how they could be enhanced. Although the example of the Boskops and their significantly larger brains is controversial and disputed amongst experts, it is the most interesting and thought provoking argument of the book. It draws the reader in and causes them to question the presumed "upward" trajectory of human evolution and wonder how the human race is likely to proceed. I recommend this book to anyone interested in how brains function and the evolutionary development of the human brain. This book should be read from beginning to end; however, if the reader is only interested in the neuroscience and origins of intelligence, than I would suggest skipping the first and last couple of chapters with the authors' theories on the Boskops.
neuroscience in a nutshull July 26, 2009
arpard fazakas
A fun romp through the fields of brain anatomy, biology, and evolution. The authors cover most of the key areas while touting their own hypotheses that the entire mammalian neocortex developed from the olfactory cortex and that in brain evolution, random mutations leading to increased brain size occur first followed by the elaboration of functions for the new territories.
Particularly interesting is the use of a computational model to suggest how corticothalamic oscillations refine cognition from category to specific example.
The writing style is occasionally incoherent, and the figures are sometimes less than illuminating, but by and large the concepts are presented in an understandable way to the layman.
Unfortunately the authors have succumbed to the temptation to increase the book's sales by adding some pop-science speculation on the future of human intelligence, and by presenting as fact the rather far-fetched notion that a separate hominid species with super-sized brains(the Boskops) lived among us as recently as 10,000 years ago and then became mysteriously extinct. Entertaining, but definitely at odds with the more serious and well-grounded topics that make up the bulk of the book.
All in all, a good read for anyone without a background in the field who would like to learn something about recent developments in the science of the brain.
 Big Brain Doesn't Mean High Intelligence June 18, 2009
Yehuda Elyada (ISRAEL)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
As Gary Lynch and Richard Granger make perfectly clear in their book Big Brain, the size of the brain does not correlate directly with the intelligence of its owner. At least not in absolute terms. But still, they imply otherwise in relation to size of the brain of the "Boskop" race of extinct ancient humans. How did two distinguished researchers fall into this "fallacy"? We don't take for granted that a huge storeroom overflowing with ICs, heaps of electronic components and bundles of wires is more "intelligent" than the small PC on our desk, but our assumptions about the "perfect" products of the natural selection lead us the accept such fallacies in the realm of biology. Let's sum up what is known and accepted as proven and what might be considered reasonable arguments in this highly speculative intellectual endeavor.
* Size by itself doesn't correlate with intelligence, but the ratio of brain-size to body-size does. The received wisdom, that the large body requires large brain simply to sense and control all these muscles and biological housekeeping assets, is not convincing. Why do elephants need larger brains than the more agile, sensitive and continuously challenged mouse?
* Far more reasonable is the assumption that on average organisms gets as large a brain as they can support - even if they don't put the extra capacity to "useful" ends, like idly thinking why are they not smarter? Why? Probably because the neurons "colonize" the body for their own benefits, in a totally "selfish" manner (the homage to the idea of "selfish genes" is acknowledged) and their central colony known as "the Brain" will grow as outrageously large as the subject body can support (beyond this limit natural selection will annihilate the colonizers together with the "natives").
* Even within the boundaries of a "species" brain size doesn't mean much (except for pathological indications). Females, on average, are no less intelligent than the larger-brained males - and Einstein's superior brain-power was not reflected in its size or other well understood physical correlates.
* A baby is born with superfluous amount of neurons, interconnecting extensions and synapses. The most "genetic" form of learning is by trimming the unrequited and unused cross connection between parts that shouldn't communicate directly.
* Possible insight: An overly connected (and therefore large) brain might not be very intelligent.
* Hypothesis: the trimming of the neuron network in the human brain happens to be uniquely successful in promoting "structured thinking" (a better definition than intelligence) by generating a neural analog to the process of abstracting the flow of inputs from the senses into hierarchies of categories, as Lynch & Granger explain in length. There are no special types of neurons of categories, but the result of learning by trimming is a structure optimally supportive of this mode of thinking.
* Every creature learns its unique tricks of survival in the same general manner. The fly develops the proper coordination of wing muscles the same way a human baby learns to produce recognizable voices. And flying is no less demanding than producing verbal utterance. Just try to evade Mr. Obama's fast hand and you'll admire the capabilities of a fly's brain. The miracle of language is not the ability to modulate voice in a novel way, but in the cognitive process that map between internal representation of categories and standardized (within a community) set of aural symbols.
* Hypothesis: the essential requirement of language, the ability to represent objects, actions, processes and emotions as abstract symbols is derived from the well developed brain capability to form internal "nested" categories (the use of "object-oriented programming" paradigm is intended). And this capability is the direct consequence of a fortunate mutation in the gene (or a small set of interacting genes) that controls the trimming of the untrained neural network.
* So Chomsky's hypothesis regarding the physical existence of a "language organ" is not so weird. A part of the human brain is (by chance) trimmed perfectly to produce language just as a part of a fly brain is trimmed for flying. Neither needs a formal instruction to produce its miraculous behavior, nor a unique type of neurons. The uniqueness is in the structure of hierarchical sub nets, leftover from the trimming process (which is different from one part of the brain to another). As they say in the computer trade: "The Network is the Computer"
* Which brings me to speculate that language per se is not so human-exclusive. Using standardize language to communicate complex ideas from brain to brain is. When a cat sees a dog she (probably) thinks is a similar way to me seeing a lion: this is a dog. Dogs don't like cats. Dogs can be dangerous. Better to deter then risk an attack. Get into aggressive posture and be ready to escape. For us, humans, this internal monologue is processed by language, even when no external communication is required. The internal cat's language must be a lot more developed than her limited external communicative powers suggest.
* If so, what makes homo sapiens's language unique is the "externalization" of its full capabilities. The cat communicates a very small set of "primitive" categories, using a small set of common signals. The cat never felt the "urge" to develop a more sophisticated communication means, because cats don't have an urge to share their mysterious thoughts.
* Homo sapiens pushed the envelope of "proto language" to levels unseen before as a part of a novel social structure, based on their enhanced "intuitive psychologist" capability. Human excel (so we like to believe) at the art of understanding what goes on in other brains - we even continuously run internal, unspoken, scripts of dialogues with imaginary people not present.
* Spoken language is just the next - almost obvious - step up the ladder. Standardize the expression of the full range of internal categories and you gain the ability to communicate every idea that occupies your brain. The most suitable mechanism available to homo sapiens was the (relatively) new auditory apparatus that emerged in the windpipe after it took to walking upright.
* Another consequence of walking upright is the widening of the human pelvis, originally required to enable the vertical placement of the femur (thigh) bones under the center of gravity, is the ability to pass a rather large brain during birth - an opportunity the greedy neural community would not fail to exploit even before the drive for higher intelligence started to shape the human evolution.
* Walking upright doesn't require big brain. It's no more difficult than the aerobatics required to escape a charging falcon (a bird of small brain and supreme abilities). But a heavy head requires an upright posture in order to place the load on the spine rather than holding it extended horizontally by strong muscles. Therefore, the new way of walking had to precede enlargement of the brain. The unlikely pre-adaptation to big brains was successful, because it enabled the apes to find new niches, in the expanding savanna outside the diminishing rain forest, during the ecological changes of the time. The advantages of intelligence were not the drivers in this process.
* In the internal "Darwinian struggle" for survival amongst populations of different cell types, neurons are the clear winners. They hold every post of governance and control, totally directing the actions and inactions of the rest of the body. They managed this feat mainly because their network organization is so much more evolved than any other cell type. So they exclusively occupy they "executive suite on the top floor", a position that allows them access to disproportionate amount of energy, a unique "firewall" to block blood carried dangerous agents, and a strong bone cage against mechanical hazards.
* The "Parkinsonian" tendency of command centers to grow to the limit of the available resources is well documented in every type human organization. No reason to believe that it's different inside the human organism. The Boskops had large brains because they could feed enough neurons to fill the volume - but the oversized executive team was not very efficient, because its growth was not checked by competition between conflicting architectures. These architectures reflect alternative synapses trimming strategies, one of which produced the framework ideally suitable to categorical thinking.
* Categorical thinking led to language, and hence to better intergroup communications, teamwork and (sometimes) peaceful conflict resolution. We think, therefore we speak (well, most of us most of the time). Our brain is large, so we think a lot - also about subjects unrelated to survival. The Boskops had troubles thinking, because of the internal "noise" generated by all these useless synapses in their untrimmed brains. We became the winners because our brain is smartly groomed, every synapse tested before escaping the trimmer's merciless blade. It smaller but better suited to produce intelligence.
So, do I recommend Big Brain to the general reader? Definitely yes. Especially to the young ones eager to contest received wisdom, who might use its mind-opening text to enrich their creative thinking. Because we need a lot of creative minds to explore for breakthrough is the fascinating endeavor, to understand brain and mind.
Big Brain April 23, 2009
Ralph D. Hermansen (Lake Isabella, CA United States)
"Big Brain" by Gary Lynch and Richard Granger is controversial. What makes it so is the premise that a race of super-sized brained people existed called Boskops. Supposedly they had brains significantly bigger than current humans. I think controversy in science is a good thing. It gets smart people thinking and debating. It stimulates interest and frees up research dollars. The "dinosaur extinction controversy" is an example of what can happen if scientists get fired up.
I googled "Boskops", and aside from some musical group, only found material on them in response to this book. One critic doubted if they were a race and probably were just outsized individuals.
If the authors or others happen to read my critique here, I wondered about a couple of things. Maybe you can advise me.
1) With current humans, if you plotted their IQ versus their brain size, would you find a direct proportional
relationship? I don't see evidence that all the giant people are smarter than the smallest people.
2) I thought human babies were at the max brain size already. Women's hips cannot get any wider or they won't be able to walk. Human babies are helpless for many months while their brains continue to grow. How could 40% bigger brains be possible?
Maybe someone can start a chat room on this big brain controvery. I would enjoy that
Ralph Hermansen 4/23/09
A Original Look at Brain Evolution January 12, 2009
Virginia A. Campbell (Pelham, Alabama USA)
This book is an excellent introduction to the main ideas of brain evolution, but it also challenges several long-standing assumptions.
After interviewing Gary Lynch for the Brain Science Podcast, I have gotten lots of positive listener feedback that indicates that readers with many background have enjoyed this book.
Showing reviews 1-5 of 14
|
|
|
CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED ‘AS IS’ AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME. Working Dogs | |
