14
$\begingroup$

Does size limit intelligence?

I may make a small, but very intelligent species for a journal thing that I am making.

So could a microorganism achieve human-like intelligence? Or a small fly? Or does the brain have to be a specific size for things to be considered intelligent?

New contributor
JelliPapi is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
$\endgroup$
7
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The purpose of this site is to help you design and consistently use the rules and systems of a fictional world of your own creation. From that perspective, the answer is obviously "yes" as you control the rules. If you're asking about whether or not this could happen in Real Life, that's off-topic for this site and better asked someplace like Earth Science (expect the answer to be "insofar as we understand sapience, no"). Does that affect your Q, or should we ask the mods to migrate it? $\endgroup$ 22 hours ago
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If I had a lab and some resources I could gather evidence that mice are generally smarter than many of my coworkers. $\endgroup$ 21 hours ago
  • $\begingroup$ My favourite chapters of James Blish's The Seedling Stars are the two with microscopic humans. Very much not hard science but worth a read for worldbuilding inspiration. $\endgroup$ 14 hours ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ in Greg Bear's Blood Music a scientist genetically engineers his own white blood cells to have human-levels of intelligence by giving them tiny organic DNA-based computation devices. Weirdness ensues, including burning snow and the downfall of standard physics. $\endgroup$
    – John O
    11 hours ago
  • $\begingroup$ Retreat From Earth (Arthur C. Clarke, 1938) has malevolent martian invaders battling (apparently) termites-controlled-by-an-unseen-intelligence, with humans completely oblivious to the war to protect them raging around. $\endgroup$
    – user535733
    11 hours ago
15
$\begingroup$

Does size limit intelligence?

Yes, but the limits are not where many assume them to be.

Older work on the subject relying on brain size (weight), body to brain weight ratio or complexity (all those little wrinkles & folds) has been superseded by more recent work.

Intelligence appears to be limited by 'total processing power', the number of neurons & connections between neurons (so much as processing power & memory in computers, unsurprising then when you think about it) rather than it's physical size but there are physical limits to how small you can make a neuron, how closely you can pack them & how many connections you can cram in inevitably leading to limits on the physical size of a brain that has 'intelligence' of any specific level.

So you can't just make a brain smaller & smaller & retain the same level of intelligence, eventually you reach a point where you have to begin shedding neurons (& intelligence) to get any smaller.

The smallest brains with the highest intelligence by weight (& the highest neuron count by weight) known in nature are birds (unsurprising as they need to keep weight down for flight, so any tricks there are to achieve more with less for brains will have been heavily selected for by evolutionary pressures), they have more neurons per gram of brain than in mammals

It's not unlikely birds are pretty close to having got as close to as small as you can go for the brains' weight to intelligence ratio given the evolutionary pressures they're under to cut weight for flight & (very rough unscientific) extrapolations from a Ravens 15g brain suggest something in the region of a 45g bird brain 'might' plausible be as intelligent as a human, that's likely as small as you can go & have adult human intelligence (& that of course is just the brain, you need a body around it as well).

But it will also depend on how much of that 45g brain is given over to higher reasoning rather than other brain functions like processing sensory information & motor control of course.

"very rough unscientific" aka, 'mine'.

Could a microorganism achieve human-like intelligence?

No, there is absolutely no way you can achieve that without magic, see above.

They'd have to organise themselves into some sort of colony or modular organism to achieve the necessary neuron count but then you won't really have a microorganism any more.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can you add the source? $\endgroup$
    – Trioxidane
    15 hours ago
  • $\begingroup$ @Trioxidane Source? they're many & numerous, got to get back to the real world & get stuff done so I'll have to dig them up later, meantime you'll find some links in this answer I gave on another question that obliquely required them, one link anyway. $\endgroup$
    – Pelinore
    15 hours ago
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ahh, all the italics make it look like you're quoting something. If you're not, I'd suggest use plain script. $\endgroup$ 7 hours ago
7
$\begingroup$

Not Really

There are a couple of creatures that are small and rather clever. I remember stories about octopuses for example escaping from their tanks, and one the says the octopus snuck into another thing to eat some of the fish and then snuck back into its own tank. I even remember the story about a guy who was training a raven to use a keyboard only for that raven to sneak out of it enclosure, destroy the keyboard, and sneak back into its enclosure in order to play innocent. While it is true that bigger size might allow more room for a bigger brain, never underestimate the cleverness of the little guy.

Microorganisms might have to work together though

I think for a microscopic organism you’re going to have to have a lot of them working together as a colony in order to become sentient. There’s an interesting species from a lovely Stargate episode called Message in a Bottle to give you an idea of what I’m talking about. https://stargate.fandom.com/wiki/A%27t%27trr

$\endgroup$
4
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "Microorganisms might have to work together" & then you have, 'an organism' :) which defeats the purpose. $\endgroup$
    – Pelinore
    16 hours ago
  • $\begingroup$ That some creature does something clever doesn't mean it's intelligent. These small critters can't hold a candle to human intelligence. They have a few intelligent behaviours, while humans have thousands. The complexities of culture, language, understanding, technology and how to use it are simply incredibly vast even for our low educated people. The ability to open a jar and the understanding that there can be consequences if they are caught in some bad thing are tiny facets compared to what we do. $\endgroup$
    – Trioxidane
    15 hours ago
  • $\begingroup$ I'm confused with your raven example. A guy tries to train a raven to use a keyboard. Rather than using the keyboard, the raven instead destroys the keyboard. And that's evidence that ravens are highly intelligent? $\endgroup$
    – Stef
    10 hours ago
  • $\begingroup$ @Stef really. The raven might just be an anti-vaxxer. $\endgroup$ 1 hour ago
6
$\begingroup$

Hive Minds

As others have written, size matters.

However, it doesn't have to be the size of the individual that counts.

Single ants or bees are stupid. Anthills and beehives are much smarter. Nowhere near human smart, but perhaps in another world they could be.

On Earth, hive minds "think" using pheromones. This is slow. Slooow. You probably want find a faster way for hive mind members to communicate.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ In Vernor Vinge's A fire upon the deep, there is a species of aliens where each individual is composed of a pack of 3 to 7 dog-like bodies, who communicate together with sound. Sound is pretty slow, but still much faster than pheromones. As a consequence, when two individuals come too close to each other (which happens, for instance, during sex), they become very confused, because of the two packs' intra-communications being mixed together. $\endgroup$
    – Stef
    10 hours ago
  • $\begingroup$ Rather than a hive mind, you could imagine small organisms being able to "tap" into some larger form of computing power. Imagine if a race of small imps live on trees; and those trees have lots of neurons (they're big trees). When an imp is standing on a tree, they are linked to the tree's neural network. The imp's own brain is used mainly for their personality and conscience; the tree's neural network is used for smart thinking. When an imp wanders away from trees, it retains its personality, but becomes pretty dumb and can only focus on one thing at a time. $\endgroup$
    – Stef
    10 hours ago
5
$\begingroup$

We don't know, but an intelligent insect or microorganism is dubious.

The size of the brain scales with the size of the species. It is the brain-to-body-size ratio that matters, more than the absolute size of the brain. This is thought to be because a larger body requires more neurons for sensory and motor control, so only the neurons beyond that minimum count towards abstract "intelligence." So a small species could be intelligent if it had a large brain relative to its size.

Crows are fairly intelligent for animals, while being much smaller than dogs or dolphins who exhibit possibly comparable intelligence. A crow-sized animal with an unusually large brain and human intelligence could be plausible.

Below a certain size, you're going to have to invent new computation mechanisms other than neurons. Fruit flies only have around 100,000 neurons; this isn't enough to remember very much. But if your fictional creature encodes information in molecules like RNA, then it could remember a lot more. I'd still be skeptical about a microorganism having intelligence. Still, I'd be willing to suspend disbelief. It's been done before.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ You also need to factor in brain shape and features (I'm oversimplifying). Homo floresiensis had a brain very small (roughly chimp-sized) in comparison to its body but still exhibited intelligent behaviors (based on the fossil evidence). $\endgroup$
    – legio1
    22 hours ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think you'll find brain to body size ratio is most likely bad science based on incomplete statistical models. it's old work compared to newer studies, neuron count, a raven can be shown to be as bright as a chimp in a great many ways with only a 15g brain, but when you count neuron density you find it has a comparable numbers of neurons to primates & far more than in a mammal brain weight for weight $\endgroup$
    – Pelinore
    15 hours ago
  • $\begingroup$ "neuron count" ^ which is something they didn't count or consider in the stats models they came up with the brain to body weight ratio from // @legio1 > & obviously can't count in floresiensis $\endgroup$
    – Pelinore
    15 hours ago
  • $\begingroup$ There may even be a theoretical limit concerning energy throughput needed for a computation. A cell must live off molecules permeating its membrane. A single cell tasked with the computational equivalent of a larger mammal's brain may simply run out of juice, even if we assume the miniaturization is achievable. There is only so much ATP that can enter through the tiny surface and only so much waste that can leave. $\endgroup$ 10 hours ago
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @causative Damn it! just realised what you haven't grasped of what I wrote (not sure if the problem is the words I used or your reading of them?) "the rat brain has a higher density of neurons per unit volume" it's not the density, it's the total number of neurons // neuron density only gets a mention because it's the reason Ravens have close to similar number of neurons to a Chimp // I do hope you don't think Rats have as many neurons as the human brain? :) deleting previous responses to your response to tidy the thread. $\endgroup$
    – Pelinore
    7 hours ago
2
$\begingroup$

A nuclear brain

This book provides good physical arguments for the minimum size for an intelligent system based on chemistry. If we rely on molecules for information processing and storage, one bit cannot be smaller than a single atom (0.1 to 0.3 nanometers). From this, the book derives a rough minimum size for living cells based on the amount of information they must store (0.1 to 1 micrometers). This gives the minimum size of a neuron and the minimum size for a complex brain.

Hence, information processing based on chemical compounds is limited by the size of atoms and likely cannot create a complex brain at the microorganism scale. However, there is a regime of physics where the structures are 100,000 times smaller and the timescales are at least that much faster: nuclear physics. We can't really build complex structures from nuclear matter at standard conditions. Just like the organic molecules that make up life on Earth are not stable on the surface of the sun, our world is much too cold for complex nuclear "molecules" (if such things can exist). But maybe in the core of a neutron star, you could build something like a neuron out of nuclear matter that is $10^5$ times smaller. In that case, you could construct something with the complexity of a human brain at the scale of about 1 µm, similar to the size of microorganism. It could also operate much faster. Of course the rules in nuclear matter are much different than in chemistry and we know very little about them. Certainly quantum effects will be more important for the nuclear neurons than for chemical neurons.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Frame challenge: Instead on focusing on the possibilities for "intelligence" (where, after all, "intelligence" is a description of behaviour), perhaps you can focus on what behaviours you want your creatures to have, and how those creatures could achieve them.

For example, emergent behaviours can be (or appear to us) complex while while the components appear simple. As another example, evolution by natural selection has "developed" very complex machinery inside cells, in virus, bacteria, immune systems, and lots more. While not generally considered intelligence, its complex. Maybe your desired behaviours can be achieved by evolution in appropriate conditions.

Of course, if "human-like intelligence" means "do everything humans do" including talk in English, then you probably need [idiosyncratic] humans for that...

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

JelliPapi is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.