EFTA02489729

From: jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2015 11:35 PM To: Nowak, Martin Subject: Re: would have been easier to say " I dont know" =/div> On Sun, Aug=23, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Nowak, Martin his 2nd paragraph is in answer to your question but it seems to me that one does not really know so you stumbled on something great! (winrich is a neurobiology professor at rockefeller) Begin forwarded message: From: Subject: Re: Date: To: Hi Martin, it is funny you should write. I was in Boston for a weekend=seminar and wants to ask you about social cognitive evolution. Has anyone =ried to describe the cognitive arms race that might have happened in prima=e evolution. I am thinking of the following scenario: when an agent interacts with the world, she will profi= form better cognitive abilities. But the world will not change that fast.=So, if there is increased ability to make tools that is great. But I think=the social domain, where agent A wants to predict agent's B behavior, A is up against B's cogniti=e ability, i.e., there seems to be some positive feedback in the sense tha= the social environment is changing, too, and thus increases social pressu=e. Not sure if I make sense, but it seems hat certain social systems are more prone to this kind of evolution than o=hers, and I would find it fascinating to think how those social structure =ight make social cognitive evolution more probable, and how social cogniti=e abilities might structure societies. So I guess I have two questions. I EFTA_R1_01610395 EFTA02489729 The quick answer to your question is that the two parts of the brain t=at in primates expand in size he most, cortex cerebri and cortex cerebelli= are both cortex, sheet-like structures. So they do not increase very much=in depth. The basic circuit in depth would likely not scale well, but our understanding there is not that=deep. Ok, assume that for a small area of this cortex you can only do a ma=imal number of computation (one student in my lab actually wants to quanti=y that - super difficult), then you will need more of area to do so. However, volume is also important. If=you compare the mouse and the human brain, arguably he biggest difference,=is hat he human brain has many more connections and more complex ones than=the mouse has. This might be in part a side-effect of the increase in area, if you want more computa=ional depth you will need to wire one piece of cortex with another, so you=have some price to pay, but in addition the human brain gains a lot of com=lexity that way, possibly dynamical constellations of activity as in a Glasperlenspiel that the mouse cannot g=t. There are other factors that matter. Bottom line, we do not understand =hese things very well, but as a short answer I would say that both surface=Rea and volume matter. Ganz liebe Gruge,Winrich On Aug 23, 2015, at 5:04 PM, Nowak, Martin a wrote: dear Winrich, i hope all is well. would be good to catch up! i have a quick question: why does the brain need a large surface area? why is the computational power not just linked to volume? best wishes martin please =ote The information contained in this communication is confiden=ial, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside informati=n, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the propert= of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communica=ion or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If =ou have received this communication in error, please notify us immediat=ly by return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation@gmail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail=com> , and destroy this comm=nication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -=11 rights reserved 2 EFTA_R1_01610396 EFTA02489730