Animal intelligence
"Intelligence" primarily denotes compliance with a worldview.
My dogs always gather excitedly when I plant things in my woodland garden. They end up staring at me as if disappointed.
I joke to myself that my dogs think I'm an idiot because I dig holes that have no rodents hiding within, and then I shove useless plants in the holes and pour water all over it.
I, on the other hand, am often pleased that my dogs aren't smart enough to escape. In the past, I had border collies who would figure out fairly complex latching mechanisms which would require unlatching and pushing in just the right way to open a gate. The Chihuahuas I have now can be leaning into a hole in the gate and not realize they could just jump through.
Each of these examples shows how intelligence could be judged by a particular agenda.
So no matter how stupid I may be in this world, there's a possible world where I'm a genius, and vice versa.
Thoughts?
My dogs always gather excitedly when I plant things in my woodland garden. They end up staring at me as if disappointed.
I joke to myself that my dogs think I'm an idiot because I dig holes that have no rodents hiding within, and then I shove useless plants in the holes and pour water all over it.
I, on the other hand, am often pleased that my dogs aren't smart enough to escape. In the past, I had border collies who would figure out fairly complex latching mechanisms which would require unlatching and pushing in just the right way to open a gate. The Chihuahuas I have now can be leaning into a hole in the gate and not realize they could just jump through.
Each of these examples shows how intelligence could be judged by a particular agenda.
So no matter how stupid I may be in this world, there's a possible world where I'm a genius, and vice versa.
Thoughts?
Comments (70)
Computers having the intelligence of a 4-year old or an animal? Dogshit! All animals with brains have intelligence comparable with ours. But bound to their bodies, cinstrained and not so frew as ours.
Excellent OP.
We have a full understanding of the biochemical "machinery" that allows the bacteria to behave in this way, as set out in the article I quoted from. Is this "intelligence"?
I don't think we have or can. At least not from an objective 30k feet.
[quote=Yuval Noah Harari (Sapiens)]There is some evidence that the size of the average Sapiens brain has actually decreased since the age of foraging. surviving in that era required superb mental abilities from everyone. when agriculture and industry came along people could increasingly rely on the skills of others for survival, and new 'niches for imbeciles' were opened up. you could survive and pass your unremarkable genes to the next generation by working as a water carrier or an assembly-line worker.[/quote]
[quote=Arthur C. Clarke]A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.[/quote]
[quote=Some Guy]A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature.[/quote]
Does it? Naturally the opposite of intelligence, being ignorance, would of course be what an unequivocal collection of what is known vs. what is unknown or more severely what is known to be wrong. For example, creating friction between two pieces of flint or twigs perhaps, can create a fire, whereas not doing so when one would be deemed necessary could result in death or at least being annoyingly hungry for some time.
Basically "the way things are" and knowing how best to respond to them, that is provide for what is desired or needed, is an adaptation or yes knowledge, but worldview? Eh, I would call that shaky ground.
If our instinct is to invent, which it apparently is, then yes. Again, an objective view would see an animal.
As I wrote for friend's new baby:
When you get older you'll discover a flaw
You're sorely lacking in tooth and claw
You'll also find you are pink and bare
Sorely lacking in fur and hair
But wobbling atop that tiny frame
You'll also find a great big brain
If properly used it will suffice
To make some cloths and a great big knife
So you can trek cross Colter's Hell
And return to us with stories to tell
You'll also return with wisdom learned
From those who live there on Her terms
Thanks. Yeah, my friend had a baby and named him Colter, so . . . I also gave him some baby winter cloths and great big buck knife. LOL!
Useful to some. :wink:
:razz:
Well, no. Human level language equips us to transcend instinct, for example it enables us to consider "what if" questions, it allows us to consider alternatives, it allows us to pass on knowledge obtained through that kind of thinking and thereby to build on progress made by others.
I wonder what motivates you to deny this.
Well, no. Thinking what if can be instinctive too. But when the thinking gets rationalized, troubles arise...
:up: :clap:
I think that goes to half of what I was saying. The other half is looking "the other direction" and investigating what "they" know that we don't know. We've lost a metric shit ton of institutional knowledge that indigenous people had of mineral, plants, animals, weather. So how much more do those entities themselves have that the indigenous people learned from in the first place? Dissecting an animal in a lab is only a part of it's story. Studying it in the wild is also merely a part, especially if we come to the study with our own inherent limitations. Becoming that animal is yet another step (hunting) but still only a part.
If the yogi on the mountain top doesn't come down and share the secret of life, it might be for the same reason animals don't spend a lot of time reaching out to us.
Anyway, we come to the table with our own limitations. We are interesting, but we're not all that and a bag of chips.
Sex, war, exceeding carrying capacity, all the things animals do, the list goes on. I look around at people and I see animals. No better, but maybe a little worse. In fact, the only worthwhile thing we've ever brought to the table is art. Everything else is about us. No giving, just taking.
I've been working on my pinky extension, just in case. I wonder if animals try to fit in? :grin:
P.S. I want to add, I have spent a good deal of time alone, in the wilderness, watching. I have seen things I don't dare to share, especially around a scientist. However, I have taken some comfort in the number of viral videos of animals (both domestic and wild) doing things that traditional human understanding of animals (science) just won't compute. Birds, especially. And we might also consider need. Why evolve an instinct you don't need? And if you don't need it, what does that say about a species that does need it? And yet I see compassion, configuration, adaptation, etc.
For one example, when it comes to animal love, a scientist would say "That's just instinct!" LOL! As if a human protecting her baby is a cognitive, deliberate decision arrived at through some superior human attribute. And a monogamous goose mourning the loss of a mate is something less. :roll:
You were talking initially about animal intelligence, in a Philosophy of Mind forum. Whether our intelligence or our minds are different to those of other animals. But now you are moralising. You are using a mental capacity that (some?) other animals don't have. Fish can't look around at other animals and ascribe moral properties to them in the way you are.
We can overcome our instincts to the extent that we agree to limit the number of children we have, to avoid overpopulation, as in China. Maybe you don't think that was a "worthwhile" thing to do. Maybe you think it is immoral. But that doesn't change the fact that the world's most populous country could make a decision that no group of other animals could make.
Art is all about us! And while fish couldn't make a moral/political decision to limit their population, a fish is "probably nature's greatest artist", according to David Attenborough:
https://youtu.be/VQr8xDk_UaY
Art is just a way of attracting attention to yourself.
And so I think it's time for a total reconfiguration of your current world view.
Now you are parsing out animals like fish, and using words like "some". We can't expect a fish to win a tree climbing contest, or a bear to win a free-diving contest. You accuse me of parsing "intelligence" from "moralizing" but then you turn around and throw moralizing in as unique to us, at least vice fish. I've seen dogs moralize when it comes to spotting an asshole. You might attribute that to some base animal instinct, but you can't distinguish that from what we do when we get a vibe.
Quoting Daemon
At seven billion and climbing, with no end in sight. It will be nature that stops us. Not us. It seems like it may very well be nature that works out the Covid issue, not us. Never mind climate change. We are exhibiting animal behavior. As to no other animal making a population limitation decision like China, you need to study wolves. Conveniently and typically (and with no evidence) you may attribute that to some other base animal control mechanism. But you don't know. And you won't find out in a lab. And you won't find out in field studies. But they do it.
Quoting Daemon
That is not true. But you'd have to be an artist, or an author to know that. You might ask Einstein about how his best ideas came to him.
Quoting Daemon
Since you lack the intelligence, experience and wisdom that comes from extensive interaction with animals in their own environment, on their own terms, you clearly don't have the understanding required to tell me that it's time for a reconfiguration of my world view. You can't tell me that any more than you could tell an animal that. You don't speak our language, you do not listen, and you do not hear. You are lost in humanity. Sad, really. But you be you. You animal.
Aye! There's this misconception that knowledge is passed down from parents to children, ancestors to descendants in a perfect manner - completely and accurately - and that knowledge grows over time. However, as you kindly pointed out, much of the phronesis (practical wisdom) our ancestors had about plants, animals, nature's rhythms, so on, has been irretrievably lost. I wouldn't be wrong in saying that in some respects, a modern person knows less than a hunter-gatherer forebear. Something to think about I guess.
:up:
Another unwarranted assumption surrounds the words "need" and "want." Our homocentric view, our anthropomorphism, has us thinking they must need or want what we think they would want if they only knew as much as we do, and if they only knew they needed it. Hell, if they were smart they would be like us. :roll: We do it to each other all the time: "If only those people would be like us they wouldn't be the way they are."
Another good point. Reminds me of the following example conversation that appears in the definition of the expression, "speak for yourself":
X: The movie was absolutely fantastic.
Y: Speak for yourself!
There's something terribly wrong about thinking for others - it impinges on their autonomy and also, makes yourself a benchmark for values, both signs of stupidity/hubris of the highest order.
You mentioned, in your previous post, that our ancestors most likely picked up useful hints and tips from animals. See below:
Quoting James Riley
What I find intriguing is the learning ability of humans. Our intelligence enables us to study animal behavior and then adapt their life-skills for our benefit. No other animal I know of does that, right?
I am not sure. Could be we are the only ones. But it could also be that we are the only ones who want and need more than what we have. We might be the only animal dissatisfied with ourselves, and life as it is. I mean, look at us! Can you blame us for being so insecure? Physically we are awkward and clumsy and vulnerable. So we invent ways to distract ourselves, we create stories about how great we are, and we make a virtue of our searching, wanting, exploratory efforts to escape ourselves. We make a virtue of achievement, invention, subjugation of the rest of the world. And then pat ourselves on the back, and make us the measure of all things, in our minds.
No other animal may copy another animal. I don't know. But I imagine a Raven is pretty content. He can fly from the arctic to the equator, eating anything that is not nailed down, and thrive. What's to want? What's to need? If he, for some strange reason, wanted what fish have, he still doesn't have the opposable thumb to build a submarine. But why would he want to?
I once had a conversation with the single most brilliant man I know. He was constantly engaged. He was engaged with people, or in a book. Constantly soaking up knowledge. He wondered how I could go so long without people, without anything to read, no music, no tent, no food; just being. He said it would drive him nuts. I said that it's possible that he could not stand to have himself around. He smoked on that for a while, and then confessed I was probably right. That is the nature of man. We see it as a strength. That story about how great we are is so long engrained it has become truth. In our minds anyway.
Well, all I can say is we are great, in some relative sense and also in being, as Yuval Noah Harari says in his book Sapiens, the planet's most prolific serial killer, but...not thaaaaat great!
There's two ways to look at this. Consider how language must have formed back in the day. We went from random noises to words to complete and ever increasingly complex sentences. This obviously started out as instinct, warning signals like monkeys do. It evolved from there but I'd argue that much of the same function is retained. The ability to consider a multitude of scenarios ("what if") beforehand is an excellent tool for survivability. I'd guess the truth lays somewhere in the middle. This ability is likely able to overwrite instinct - but at the same time it is an instinct. It's not like you have to try very hard to think at all.
Quoting James Riley
The most underrated animal intelligence there is! I'm fascinated how clever our feathery friends are. Emotionally as well.
I once picked up a crow with an injured wing to nurture it back to health. As soon as the second day, the crow was following me around like a dog. Turns out crows love to cuddle and this particular one used every opportunity to jump on my shoulder and snuggle up against my head. What struck me the most though was communication. Not just that it would respond to the human "CAW!"s I exclaimed at him, after a week or so, we've established communication between each other. The crow knew how to signal me it was hungry amongst other basic things like "Hey wait!" if I was getting too far ahead on one of our strolls or "Give me attention!" if it just felt like hopping on my shoulder and cuddling again. In turn it understood when I was signaling to follow me, when it was feeding time and so on.
Quoting TheMadFool
Animals may not study our behavior the way we study animal behavior but a lot of animals certainly adapt to humans and use humans for their benefit.
You'll see this especially in animals that live in or near urban settlements. In Asia there are colonies of macaques absolutely thriving from tourism, snatching whatever they can from dimwitted tourists.
Likewise many mammals like badgers and foxes opt to dwell in urban settings. Living conditions may be complex but food is available in abundance.
Once again crows: They'll drop nuts on the street, waiting for cars to crack them open so they can get that delicious snack inside.
Also, this time unrelated to humans, I want to give another prominent example of animal intelligence: Elephants. The matriarch of a herd will spend all her life learning and teaching essential information to her herd. From the best feeding places, to places to avoid, to tricks that allow an elephant to get that juicy fruit on the very top branch of the tree. Along with some apes, they also bury their dead, which I find fascinating. Makes me wonder if the act of burial is really purely religious or if there is some instinctive social behaviour mixed in there.
In a similar reasoning to Rileys reply: Why would they? What life-lessons could they possibly learn from us? How to drive a car? How to philosophize?
We're way in over our heads in that regard. Our society, especially our rich socialist nations, have made it harder to starve than not to starve (this being an exaggeration). We ponder over all sorts of "problems" these days because the only real problem - survival - has been solved for us. You said it yourself as well:
Quoting TheMadFool
We've learned these life-lessons from nature. Then we forgot them. Animals still know these life-lessons. And they are constantly learning to adapt to the ever increasing presence (and threat) of humans. My point being: We have very little to teach to animals but a lot to learn from them.
Tool making? Attacking/defending/foraging/etc. can be vastly improved with tools. Granted that some animals know how to fashion tools, Caledonian crows are capable of meta-tools, but none have learned it from humans. In fact, it's the opposite; as you said,
Quoting Hermeticus
Mother Nature is our best teacher! Most of our technology, Mother Nature got there first.
Even the aspect of tool making is only practicable for a very limited number of species - mostly Hominids. A majority of animals can not grab tools like we do. At most they'd be able to use a stick like the Caledonian crows do. I feel like animals that can use tools in a sensible matter already do so - all other animals come with their tools attached to their bodies - claws, teeth, physical prowess.
A tool transcends the physical limits of an organism, allows an organism to do what their bodies can't. For example, a tiger can use material at its disposal to do more than what its claws, fangs, and strength permit, that would be tool-making.
My point exactly. How is a tool going to allow a tiger to transcend his capabilities? Is it going to carry a butcher knife in its maw? Seems impracticable consider it has claws and fangs that do the job just as well.
That, amongst other things, is why they don't need spoken language. They understand one another because they, contrary to humans, are fixed. The chimp is still in the process of shredding his hairs off but they are happy with their in-between state. Sometimes laughing, sometimes using sticks to collect ants, sometimes using their sharp front teeth to rip apart.
Maybe in a magical circus show.
You misunderstand, I meant to say claws, fangs, strength aren't tools.
I think you're overlooking the vast difference between human and animal language and thought. We can say something new any time we want. No other animal can do that, and the effects are enormous.
Neil Degrasse Tyson is making a similar mistake in that somewhat over-excited video we were linked to. The difference between us and the other animals isn't the 1% he refers to. The difference between human and animal language and thought isn't 1%, there's a vast chasm between us.
Of course we still have instincts, by their nature they are difficult to overcome, but we can recognise them and seek to overcome them. We can explicitly identify our instincts, communicate our thoughts about them to other humans, and modify our behaviour. We don't wholly succeed, of course not, but we do have the capacity to change our behaviour at will, en masse. No other animal can do anything like that.
I was just watching a game of rugby. In games like that we recognise our instinct for aggression, and we use language-based thought to devise and communicate measures to reduce the risk of serious injury. Other animals can't do that, so they are trapped in their aggressive behaviour indefinitely.
The difference ain't that big. All animals are culturally fixed. No language is needed. They understand one another without words. The communicate by means of body and sound.
Humans are culturally free. We need language to inform one another about differences and similars or changes in our cultures and clothes (all animals have fixed clothes and tools on top of fixed cultures). Humans speak to one another too with body and sound and vision. Humans cry. Because of mutual understanding and love and loss. Love, loss, understanding or loneliness have everything to to with this freedom of culture.
And we aren't culturally fixed, and we are free in limitless other ways, and so the difference between us is vast.
(Intuitive or instinctual) and intelligence are the two main categories of measurement. Intuitive or instinct has to do with automation in prompting and the ability to apply and formulate information. Intelligent is the ability to maintain and regurgitate information and skills.
Substance of matter first formulates before perspective of matter formulates. Biology is only useful so far for survival. As an individual and sub-species looks for new concepts to survive from their external, they start to rely more on cognitive functioning to resolve problems rather than biological function to resolve problems. The dominate use switches naturally from biological to cognitive.
The perspective should not be how "intelligent" animals are, but how intuitive they are. The more complex the environment is, the more an individual or sub-species has to cognitively and biologically develop in order to survive. Humans have built a complex structuring for animals. Animals have naturally become more complex due to the influential environment created by humans.
Animals are closer to "consciousness" then humans may think. Eventually, humans will influentially evolve animals on this planet into complexity that is considered "conscious."
You have an underlining perspective of an existential crisis or worrying about your existence. That is for another conversation. The longer an individual lives in an expression, the more the individual becomes that expression. In your anxiety to worry, you will worry into anxiety.
Respectfully,
Lloyd R Shisler
If you read my whole comment you see that it's basically the same. Only fixed and non-fixed.
We are saying the opposite!
Right, I haven't asserted they are. They are a different mammal, running on cells, however complicatedly linked. This
is just as problematic for human intelligence. Words get produced, movements get produced by machines.
"We all, animals and people, are just machines serving our genes and memes. Who are selfish."
Luckily there is Lamarck!
Then we say we or dogs or whatever are just machines.
It's like saying oceans are just drops of water so what does a marine ecologist do?
As far as Lamark, I'd need a bit more. It seems it might veer your post in a new direction, but I am not sure which.
Epigenetics is what I think of instead of Lamark, but even then, not quite in this context.
Nice one! ? Machines can be Natural too. L'homme machine.
I have to read firstly a few times to digest your comment. The brain-machinery inside me, my body, doesn't yet fully comprehend... ?
Speak for yourself!
I still have to get used to the vocabulary. Our puppy dog is very intelligent though. She knows not to bite my face (she's licking it right now!). My hands are not safe though. She can't read a clock too (neither?).
To answer your question about "too (neither?)": it would be grammatical to say "She can't read a clock either", however I don't think that's what you were trying to say. The words "too", "either" and "neither" all refer back to something mentioned previously. I think you needed to start a new thought, maybe something like "Anyway, she can't read a clock". I hope that's helpful.
My dog is 8 years old now and I have had him since he was 8 weeks old, and all that time I have thought about what he knows and how he thinks. He would bite my hands when he was very young, but I learned that the way to stop this is to scream and act like the puppy has really hurt you, in an exaggerated way. This is how other dogs respond to a puppy biting. I hope that's helpful.
I guess that behaviour is instinctive, because it is widespread among dogs.
When I think about my dog's intelligence I see that he works by trial and error more than by reason, and I think that is because he lacks the flexibility provided by human style language and thought. Not only flexibility, but many other aspects of thought are available to us because of the nature of our language.
Nonsense.
Sometimes few words are needed... Oh Daemon 596796...
LOL! I'm speaking for you, whether you like it or not. LOL! How does it feel?
I argue that an objective, neutral third party (God?) would view Homo Sapiens, on most but not all fronts, as an inferior species. This is evidenced by three proofs: 1. He must copy other species in order to survive; 2. He feels insecure, and compelled to over-compensate in the imitation; 3. In addition to, or as part of his tongue and brain, he has evolved an incontrovertibly idealized view of his species.
It has been said that Man can copy animals but animals cannot copy man. This is improper phraseology designed to assuage the fragile insecurities of man. The proper way to say it, and the way which would be understood by an objective, distant viewer is this: Man must copy animals to live. Animals do not need to copy man. This phraseology more accurately states the objective facts.
It has also been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Animals do not flatter man. This is not good for man’s fragile ego and feelings of insecurity. Thus, man does what he always does, and spins this the best way he can, by using the terms “can” and “can’t.” Every direction he turns, he finds himself copying animals, but they don’t flatter him by copying him. He thus devalues animals and marginalizes them to something inferior; when the truth is quiet the opposite. Man over-compensates, and thinks that over-compensation is better. He tunes animals out and refuses to listen to them, except for what utility they might provide in helping him shore up his inherent weaknesses. He learns how to cover his naked self; he makes a knife for tooth and claw; a plane to fly like the bird, a submarine to swim like the fish, etc. All more than is necessary, and he calls this good. To the extent he overcompensates, he shits in his own nest. And in the end, he still cannot fly and he still cannot breathe water.
This comparison might better be made to intraspecific relations. After all, man thinks he is the measure of all things, so the best way to reach him is through himself. Consider the United States of America: The richest, most powerful nation on Earth. Many Americans look at other countries and perceive them to be “lesser” than us. It is suggested they be like us if they want to have what we have. We suggest this as if we would not look down upon them if they would only flattered us, and if they only tried to be like us. But then if they do try to be like us, and if they approach success in their efforts (China/capitalism) they become enemies. If they stand up to us, eschew the petrodollar, using the petroeuro, or barter system, then we again make them enemies, and invade or sanction them.
This example of the United States vs the world is like mankind vs the animal kingdom. We have spun our myths for so long, and told them so well, that we have convinced ourselves of their irrefutable truth. Everyone, if they only knew better, would be like us. There is no way anyone could be satisfied with their lot in life unless it is our lot. This is the height of arrogance.
As Jose Ortega yGasset opined:
“In the preoccupation with doing things as they should be done - which is morality - there is a line past which we begin to think that what is purely our whim or mania is necessary. We fall, therefore, into a new immorality, into the worst of all, which is a matter of not knowing those very conditions without which things cannot be. This is man’s supreme and devastating pride, which tends not to accept limits on his desires and supposes that reality lacks any structure of its own which may be opposed to his will. This sin is the worst of all, so much so that the question of whether the content of that will is good or bad completely loses importance in the face of it. If you believe you can do whatever you like - even, for example, the supreme good, then you are, irretrievably a villain. The preoccupation with what should be is estimable only when respect for what is has been exhausted.” Meditations on Hunting.
Wild animals not only refrain from flattering us (save maybe the dog, and, well, they are dogs; we love them as long as they know their place, don’t get uppity and continue to beg), but they refuse to compromise their superior endowments in order to be like us. How humbling for a creature who refuses humility; who celebrates himself as a warrior against the odds in a cold cruel world. We are God. LOL!
Animals would not envy us. They would laugh at us, or feel sorry for us, if they weren’t so superior, so humble, so grateful, so gracious, so generous, so secure in who they are.
If the tooth and claw are not tools, then neither is the brain or tongue. It’s really how they are used that generates a distinction with an evolutionary difference. But not a better one. Animals use tooth and claw to procure food. We use our brain and tongue to create tools that animals don’t need to procure food. We make machines for strength because we are weak. We then tell ourselves a we are strong because of it.
We should pump the breaks, live in grace with the Earth because, ultimately, everything we are or ever have been or ever will be is the direct result of her. Not us, in a vacuum, pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. No. That is a myth. We are of the Earth. We are not better than the Earth.
As opined elsewhere, I think man can hold his own, and maybe even surpass other species in the creative and performing arts. As to the rest, I am doubtful.