[yqx]

> "It all boils down to this philosophical question: Are humans special? Do they have parts of their brain predestined to become these special things?" Livingstone says. "Or can we explain it using low-level principles we’ve inherited from lower animals?"

I found this remark by Margaret Livingstone, quoted in the article, very surprising. What if anything does innate functional specialization have to do with whether "humans are special"? How does the presence of such specialization distinguish us from "lower animals"?

Perhaps the reasoning goes that what might make humans special is the presence of human-specific innate specialized brain mechanisms. But while not everyone might agree, I tend to think the difference may be more related to subtle neuro-anatomical differences (such as number of neurons) rather than the presence of specialized "brain modules". We know brains are highly context sensitive and plastic, and judging by Livingstone's earlier quote, she agrees. So why is the charged question of human exceptionalism (which she already seems to accept given the reference "lower animals") suddenly linked so strongly to the presence of innate specialization?

[Symmetry]

What makes primates special, among mammals, is that the number of neurons in our brains scales linearly with brain volume like birds instead of like the 3/4 power of volume like other mammals. See Suzana Herculano-Houzel's work on the topic.

What makes humans special among mammals, other than our big brains, is that we're very good at learning from each other. A 2 year old human isn't really much better at solving mechanical puzzles than a 2 year old monkey but that human is a positive genius at social learning compared to the monkey. And once that human learns a word like "or" they can start applying the disjunctive syllogism in ways a monkey will never match. A large plastic brain probably limits how smart a human can get but it's seemingly hardwired traits like an infants preferences for learning from people with accents similar to their mothers that kickstart humans. See Joseph Henrich's work.

[posterboy]

It's not a hard-wired trait that they cannot do something (i.e. preferentially learn foreign accents or however you would positively describe that).

And it's not exactly an advantagevthat once crystalized, my speach is pretty much incapable of adapting to Russian or anything more foreign.

[JumpCrisscross]

> subtle neuro-anatomical differences (such as number of neurons) rather than the presence of specialized "brain modules"

Killer whales, long-finned pilot whales and short-finned pilot whales each have more neurons than humans [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_n...

[posterboy]

They have more body to control, too.

Surprisingly, certain birds have a very high brain to body size ratio.

[leftyted]

> But while not everyone might agree, I tend to think the difference may be more related to subtle neuro-anatomical differences (such as number of neurons) rather than the presence of specialized "brain modules".

"Specialized brain modules" seems like an unfair way to state the argument. The article mentions "maps" or "scaffolding" that "drive the final organization of the brain," which is a bit more subtle.

But doesn't she allow for the possibility that something like "number of neurons" could drive human difference? What else could be meant by:

> Or can we explain it using low-level principles we’ve inherited from lower animals

I agree with you that the source of the human-animal distinction isn't relevant to the question of whether the distinction is worth making. I think the distinction is worth making regardless of the source of the distinction (though the "higher" and "lower" language seems silly).

[haberman]

That remark surprised me too. I remember reading about a study about dogs vs. wolves, and that dogs were more inclined to look to a human when they needed help solving a problem. They seem to have an innate predisposition towards human faces also, which seems plausible given their hundreds of years of breeding for human companionship.

[psalminen]

Actually, canine domestication started thousands of years ago[0]

[0] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-wolves-rea...

[Symmetry]

Yeah, and dogs can use their gaze to indicate to a human where the problem or whatever is though dogs can't read each other's gaze the way a human can.

[posterboy]

Read it as an inclusive OR.

He asks about a dichotomy, but not a false one.

[circlefavshape]

+1

It even mentions another study she did on face selection in monkeys.