[HN Gopher] Parrots will share currency to help their pals purch...
___________________________________________________________________
Parrots will share currency to help their pals purchase food (2020)
Author : rbanffy
Score : 220 points
Date : 2021-11-24 11:16 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.smithsonianmag.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.smithsonianmag.com)
| hyperpallium2 wrote:
| Facilitating division of labour in parrots will provide the
| evolutionary pressure to uplift them over time.
| gao8a wrote:
| What if parrots also charged interest but the rates are just that
| low?
| tibbydudeza wrote:
| We have an African Grey parrot - my daughter said she was in the
| room and he was busy eating and dropped some food on the ground -
| he looked at it then vocalized "bye bye".
|
| We say "bye bye" to him whenever we leave the house.
|
| Another one is the phrase "kom kom" (come here) whenever he is
| outside on his perch and we want him to come inside.
|
| He then started using the phrase "kom kom" with my wife when he
| wants to be picked up by her.
| sroussey wrote:
| I have an African Gray as well. It has learned peoples' names
| and "come here", and now says "come here Steve" which caught me
| off guard.
| FriedrichN wrote:
| Very interesting. Also quite different from a lot of other birds,
| like seagulls, who are not that into sharing food.
|
| I wonder if the same could be done with Corvidae.
| [deleted]
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> like seagulls, who are not that into sharing food_
|
| https://youtu.be/H4BNbHBcnDI?t=28
| tokai wrote:
| >I wonder if the same could be done with Corvidae
|
| Possibly. Food sharing is a huge part of socialising and
| pairing for corvids. For a lot of species the breeding season
| is started with food begging and sharing.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| It's funny you should mention seagulls! I used to live in a
| town on the Welsh coast with enormous seagulls which would
| often display their intelligence and coordination. They'd
| sometimes even appear to work in groups to steal food off
| people, though they tended to fight for it afterwards.
| FriedrichN wrote:
| I also like how they stomp on the ground to trick worms to
| come up and eat them. It never fails to amuse me.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N93bKtWB6w
| mellavora wrote:
| or to ride them to work instead of the bus.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzj6b2YV2aA
| davismwfl wrote:
| Yea, there are two misconceptions based on old sayings that
| always make me laugh in relations to birds. When people say bird
| brain as an insult to others. And when people say someone "eats
| like a bird", trying to say they eat so little.
|
| These people obviously have never been around a parrot. I have an
| umbrella cockatoo and have been around parrots since I was a
| teenager and I am absolutely fascinated with them. First they eat
| a lot more than people think by far, and their intelligence is so
| misunderstood and underrated.
|
| I've also seen similar studies and traits done with Corvidae
| (Crows/Ravens) which they show similar behavior and traits.
| Corvidae will work as a group to get everyone fed and will stand
| lookout and help each other with tools according to some recent
| studies.
|
| My take away with animals is too often we as humans are too
| arrogant to understand other species are way smarter then we give
| them credit for. Of course, we also have to be careful not to
| anthropomorphize either which can also be hard because of our own
| viewpoints.
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| Well that was a bird-brained post. (I mean it as a compliment.)
| girvo wrote:
| It's so well known here in Australia that sulphur crested
| cockatoos will have a lookout high above watching for predators
| while the others feed that it's a slang term for a criminal
| acting as a lookout.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I knew a lady who had two African Grey Parrots, adult daughter,
| and two dogs named zoey, and I forget the other's name.
|
| She fell on very hard times.
|
| Before going homless she let a bird breeder pet sit her birds.
|
| She was all over the west California. Just trying to survive
| being homeless.
|
| She miraculously got a call from a social worker at a motel on a
| emergency use cell phone. Ten years previous she put her name on
| a section 8 housing waiting list. She was actually living in a
| very expensive home overlooking the bay, but knew it could all
| turn sour, and it did.
|
| Ok--she's away from the birds for 2 plus years.
|
| I pick up the birds and put them in her new apartment.
|
| She then comes in with her two dogs.
|
| As the dogs walked by the cage, one of the parrots says, "Hello
| Zoey, and hello Rider (I remembered). This is after two years
| being away from each other."
|
| (This busy body neighbor didn't like her, or her dogs. Her dogs
| were a few pounds over 20. In the 47 page governmental lease
| there was a rule about size of dogs. This horrid neighbor kept
| making complaints. She ended up having to put them down. That
| part always bothered me on so many levels. This busybody who was
| a bible holding Christian was really awefull. I should out her
| because she was screwed with a lot of people, but forgot her
| name.)
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| The setup is transparent plexiglass. I suspect a bit of Clever
| Hans effect here. The parrot may share its token to appease the
| researcher (who they've learned controls the food), not the other
| parrot.
|
| It's quite unfortunate that they didn't test this when both
| parrots' food holes are open. Nor did the "middleman parrot"
| appear to share its walnuts back the other way.
|
| Then again, given that these are Ivy League parrots there is a
| solid chance at least one of them has read Das Kapital (and can
| repeat it back better than most students!)
| jessfyi wrote:
| I wasn't aware ETH Zurich was considered the Ivy League!
|
| But all jokes aside I think you should give these professionals
| a little more credit--they also factored that possibility into
| their experimental design and included tests for "useless"
| token transfers [0]. While parrots would often transfer tokens
| to empty compartments (for when they knew their neighbor was
| missing and lacked tokens), these _same_ parrots did not when
| there was a completely empty partition [1]. Further even the
| article notes they didn 't just hand out tokens automatically
| or willy-nilly, but were more or less willing depending on the
| bond.
|
| Personally I think the most interesting thing about the study
| is not that non-mammalian animals have the capacity for
| altruism or prosocial behaviors, but that Blue Headed Macaws
| (despite being extremely intelligent as well) were not willing
| and the difference is that their general populations form
| smaller (though equally cohesive) flocks compared to AGPs.
|
| EDIT: and the reason why they used tokens vs direct walnut
| transfer is that these birds were trained in a prior experiment
| (with an equally interesting premise) [2]
|
| [0] https://www.cell.com/current-
| biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)... [1]
| https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)...
| [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30933-5
| elliekelly wrote:
| You might find this TED talk (and the clips of experiments
| shown during the talk) interesting:
| https://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_moral_behavior_in_an...
| ludamad wrote:
| I felt the same way. If they don't share walnuts directly then
| that's not what they're intending to do. They likely see a
| local lack of value to the rings, meaning seeing them exchanged
| satisfies curiousity but perhaps not seen as being socially
| benevolent (although it might, I don't discount entirely)
| 9dev wrote:
| I thought the same; to actually prove those birds are willing
| to give away their tokens and loose out on walnuts in the
| process, they should have been granted the option to trade
| their tokens themselves. The way the experiment was carried out
| seems to be based on lots of brittle assumptions...
| forinti wrote:
| Every time I hear someone say "only man does such and such" I
| immediately think "bs".
| andrepd wrote:
| Only man does
|
| - Language
|
| - Complex tools
|
| - Symbolism
|
| - Visual art
|
| - Music
|
| - Religion and mythology
|
| And a whole bunch of other things.
| Iolaum wrote:
| This is wrong.
|
| As a counterexample:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_vocalization
| andrepd wrote:
| Communication [?] language. My dog can communicate with me
| in relatively extensive ways. She cannot produce language.
| shadowfox wrote:
| > She cannot produce language.
|
| That you can understand ...
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Apart from "religion and mythology", pretty much everyone
| knows counterexamples to all of these claims. (By the
| standard of "if it's in children's newspapers, it's common
| knowledge".)
| tzs wrote:
| Language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunnison%27s_prairie_
| dog#Commu...
| forinti wrote:
| You could say we do those things better or with greater
| complexity, but they are all there in other species.
|
| 1- Language: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2019/river-
| dolphins-surpr...
|
| 2- Complex tools:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tool_use_by_animals
|
| 3- Symbolism: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/0
| 80610212404.h...
|
| 4- Visual Art: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowerbird
|
| 5- Music: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoomusicology#Music_p
| roduced_b...
|
| 6- Religion:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_behavior_in_animals
| andrepd wrote:
| 1. Communication [?] Language
|
| 2. I said "complex tools", not "tools". Yes animals use
| rocks to crack things. Do they build spears, clothes, pots,
| pulleys, ships, buildings, bridges, computers? I don't
| think so.
|
| 3. Quite a limited study, but I admit it's interesting,
| thanks.
|
| 4. Building a shiny nest has a functional purpose of
| signalling sexual desirability to potential mates by
| building a big decorated nest. There is no evidence any
| animal has a sense of aesthetics as such.
|
| 5. Birdsong has a functional purpose of communication and
| sexual mate-finding. There is no evidence any animal has a
| sense of aesthetics as such.
|
| 6. First sentence of your link: "There is no evidence that
| any non-human animals believe in God or gods, pray,
| worship, have any notion of metaphysics, create artifacts
| with ritual significance, or many other behaviours typical
| of human significance, or many other behaviours typical of
| human religion."
| convolvatron wrote:
| I do in general agree with you. but it occurred to me -
| how many of the behaviors we take as signs of advanced
| cognition in humans are the result of evolution to
| improve mating outcome?
| hetspookjee wrote:
| First of all I don't get why one would take such a
| dismissive stance on animals while still knowing so
| little about them. The fact that something stupendous as
| learning that parrots acknowledge currency is a front
| page article in 2021 is a mere indication of the poor
| state of knowledge that we still have.
|
| Regarding the points you make, imagine if there were a
| evolutionary algorithm that learned to interact with
| animals such that it can "teach" animals to use certain
| things to their advantage, and evolve with them. Yes the
| algorithm has the true intelligence, but these critters
| have learned themselves to interact with such a device.
| Now apply this algorithm for generations and make the
| interaction with such an algorithm part of their nature.
| I am confident that you'd be suprised how far complex
| behaviour could go when provided the right stimuli.
|
| Mind you that humanity was a simpleton organism a couple
| of millenia ago compared to what the modern era human are
| now. It took millions of years for us to reach this
| pivoting point where one is able to create the things you
| mention. I think you attribute a lot of the seeming
| intelligence humanity has that is learned over cultural
| habbits, than is intrinsically present. Sure you might
| argue that culture is part of intelligence.
| krageon wrote:
| > I don't get why one would take such a dismissive stance
| on animals while still knowing so little about them.
|
| It is the only way to have such a stance. The more you
| know, the more you empathise.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Only man makes claims like "only man does such and such".
| vijayr02 wrote:
| forinti immediately thinks "bs"
| forinti wrote:
| I bet you two are crows.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Well, if you put a bunch of smart creatures in controlled,
| contained environment and then create artificial scarcity in
| that environment, yeah I bet your gonna observe behavior that
| seems human. We're pretty much in the same boat!
| hetspookjee wrote:
| I can't imagine that anyone in love with birds is capable of
| putting them in a cage or on a leash. How could you take away so
| much freedom yet comfortably state that you love your pet? Sure
| you might think you treat him well, you pet him every now and
| then and provide it with some food and care, but is that truly an
| improvement? Is it better to provide a golden cage than to roam
| freely? I sure do hope that it will become a world wide taboo to
| hold birds as pets. If you're such an avid bird enthousiast, why
| not just stick with feeding the locals? Atleast those are free to
| decide to visit you or not.
| junon wrote:
| I have a (large) parrot and I agree with you entirely, though
| please don't undermine the amount of work _good_ parrot owners
| put into their ownership.
|
| > I can't imagine that anyone in love with birds is capable of
| putting them in a cage or on a leash.
|
| Because sometimes there isn't a choice. Birds born into
| captivity do not re-hab well. Rescues (as is mine) are
| generally not able to live in the wild if they were just
| 'released', so _someone_ has to take care of them.
|
| > Sure you might think you treat him well, you pet him every
| now and then and provide it with some food and care, but is
| that truly an improvement?
|
| Yes. It is. Over the fifteen Rottweilers, the aggressive man-
| handling, the forced breeding (even though he hadn't even hit
| puberty, thus why the breeder no longer wanted him) and the
| absolutely terrible living conditions he was in - yes, my place
| of living is a huge improvement.
|
| Further, good bird owners do way more than "just pet him every
| now and then". You need to give them undivided attention for at
| least two hours a day. You need to look at every single poop
| they make around you because it's the first warning sign of
| health problems. If they're happy, they're generally content
| where they are.
|
| There's a lot that you're missing here, I think, even though I
| agree with the overall message. Please don't dillute bird
| ownership to PETA-esque FUD.
|
| > Is it better to provide a golden cage than to roam freely?
|
| Sometimes, yes. Just like all animal conservancy. If we didn't
| care to give them better lives than what they had before, then
| we'd just put them all down wouldn't we? That's what PETA
| wants, anyway.
|
| > I sure do hope that it will become a world wide taboo to hold
| birds as pets.
|
| Let's instead put the taboo on _trading_ birds, first. That's
| the biggest problem. Many birds are ripped out of the wild and
| sold, usually illegally. These birds not only develop severe
| depression, but they're often horrible 'pets' as they were not
| brought up in captivity.
|
| Lastly, birds brought into captivity often have no idea that a
| life other than their own exists. They're not 'missing out' on
| anything they're otherwise aware of. In fact, many owners take
| their birds out to free-fly quite often.
|
| > If you're such an avid bird enthousiast, why not just stick
| with feeding the locals?
|
| This isn't really a fair comparison, sorry. It's also not
| applicable in most places in the world - parrots generally come
| from a few specific places.
| hetspookjee wrote:
| I feel like we identify strongly with each other to large
| extents. I too have a pet rabbit that I got from a children
| zoo. He had severe syphilis infection that we got him treated
| for and honestly he lives on a golden platter. His life is
| atleast 2 to 3 hours of intensive interaction, be it from
| either me or my partner. In addition we monitor his droppings
| very well, as well as providing a vast amount of diverse
| foods that we researched. I think this rabbit has practicaly
| everything that he can possible wish for; except for the vast
| amounts of space that he needs to run. In addition I can't,
| like you, put this domesticated creature back into the wild,
| it will perish most certainly. Though, recently we moved
| houses where we now have a garden he can, for the first time
| in a couple of years roam freely in, and it is stunning to
| notice the speed that he can achieve while running. Mind you,
| the entire house is his "cage", yes he does have a cage for
| his toilet but that door is always open.
|
| What I learned from this rabbit is that absolute adores the
| great food and the amount of pets that he gets, but also how
| frequently alone he is, or how extremely social this creature
| is. My life carries on after his pets, but he is just stuck
| there to wait till either of us is back.
|
| I certainly do not underestimate the amount of care that
| parrot owners provide to their parrot. I think it might be
| even more than we do for our rabbit. However, I think the
| parrot, or any other social animal, would be most happy when
| flying or running around and socializing with his peers.
| There are simply some things that even the best "owners" are
| able to provide.
|
| To go into your arguments:
|
| >Because sometimes there isn't a choice. Birds born into
| captivity do not re-hab well. Rescues (as is mine) are
| generally not able to live in the wild if they were just
| 'released', so someone has to take care of them.
|
| I agree, that is the same situation I have with my rabbi. In
| these instances I'd say that it is what it is, but to let the
| pool of pets continue to grow would be a bad thing. A law
| against the procreation of pets would prevent that, albeit
| very slowly as this might just take couple of decades till
| most animals in captivity would perish, as you know parrots
| can grow over 100.
|
| Like you say, the undivided attention we provide to our pets,
| but can you also provide him a social dynamic environment
| like he'd have if he'd be in the wild with his peers?
| Escaping for his life, fighting for a wife, eagerly searching
| for food throughout the day. None of that I believe as that
| is nigh impossible to provide as pet owner. Aviary's are even
| more horrid as they now still not have the space they'd
| really need. I have yet to come across one where you can't
| find a plucked bird (from NL).
|
| >Sometimes, yes. Just like all animal conservancy. If we
| didn't care to give them better lives than what they had
| before, then we'd just put them all down wouldn't we? That's
| what PETA wants, anyway.
|
| I am rather cynical about most animal conservancy programs,
| as they'd barrely ever get put back in nature and seem most
| often a front for growing zoos. But for all that do, I think
| that's great and acceptable, to certain extent.
|
| >Lastly, birds brought into captivity often have no idea that
| a life other than their own exists. They're not 'missing out'
| on anything they're otherwise aware of. In fact, many owners
| take their birds out to free-fly quite often.
|
| I agree for a large part with your arguments here, but not
| entirely on the not knowing of missing out. Most animals have
| natural tendencies to express and just do. Some are known,
| but most are not. Thus I think it's presumptuous to say that
| a bird doesn't know what it misses
|
| >This isn't really a fair comparison, sorry. It's also not
| applicable in most places in the world - parrots generally
| come from a few specific places.
|
| I think it is: Why do people introduce animals in
| surroundings that do not belong there? If you love your
| parrot so much, you'd provide him with the best he can
| possible get, which more than not is whatever surrounding
| that they're used to. E.g. no polar bears in the desert, and
| a parrot in a surround that is comparably hot / cold.
|
| Why not stick with authentic, natural originations? I fell in
| love with magpies and crows and keep them as guards of my
| rabbit, through some feeding processes. It is truly amazing
| to see the interaction between the rabbit, and the magpies. I
| can definitely recommend you to read into magpies. They're
| possible even more interesting than parrots. Just fall in
| love with whatever you have around you. Nature is amazing
| enough as is, and the most boring and simple critters will
| definitely keep suprising you. You don't need a cage around
| it. Besides, don't you find observing the natural behaviour
| even more interesting?
| ta_due_to_apro wrote:
| While I agree with your overall point (don't keep birds in
| cages), it's worth mentioning that the quality of life of wild
| animals is generally awful, with constant bouts of starvation,
| running for your life from predators and diseases. "Nature" is
| beautiful, but a harsh mistress, let's avoid romanticizing it.
| hetspookjee wrote:
| Nature is brutal in every single way, I agree. But the
| freedom it provides is also compatibel with humans loving
| animals; they can take care of them without the deprivation
| of freedom. I don't intend to romanticize nature's freedom,
| but I intend to point out the conflicting point of view a lot
| of people seem to have.
| funnyflamigo wrote:
| Disclaimer: I think everyone in this thread agrees we should
| try to improve the lives of all animals
|
| > why not just stick with feeding the locals? At least those
| are free to decide to visit you or not.
|
| This is almost never a good idea (for any animal). Assuming
| you're feeding them the right type of food (bread is terrible
| for ducks for example), you're training the animals to rely on
| humans for food. This both makes it more difficult for them to
| survive on their own should you stop feeding them, but for some
| of the potentially aggressive ones (like geese) will become
| comfortable approaching humans, even the humans who do not want
| to be near them.
|
| I've read your stance on animal rescue places and I generally
| agree - most aren't good or are glorified zoos. But I do think
| there's genuine ones that are helpful, and I think between
| those and rescues where you can give the animal direct
| attention are the best ways to humanely assist animals who
| would otherwise die in the wild.
|
| My problem is with the traders and terrible owners who only use
| them as a show piece. A good owner should be providing ample
| enrichment and attention
| girvo wrote:
| Would this not be true of basically all animals? Why birds and
| not cats?
|
| (I have neither, I'm genuinely asking, not playing "gotcha")
| amcoastal wrote:
| Many people who have cats (not all, but many) have ample
| places for their cat to run around in, and some will even let
| their cats outdoors. I'm fairly certain the proportion of
| people who let their cats be "Free Range" is much much larger
| than the people letting their pet birds fly around.
| hetspookjee wrote:
| Mostly due to the saying of people "Free as a bird", but also
| due to the topic of the paper. Though I dont think there
| should be a difference. I think that no pet should be kept if
| it requires a leash, cage or any other form of freedom
| deprivation. Domesticated dogs can be an exception, but in
| general a pet should choose to be with you because he likes
| you and doesn't want to go and should be able to leave
| whenever it desires too.
| [deleted]
| mellavora wrote:
| I'm glad you make an exception for dogs. I've been attacked
| by dogs more than once.
|
| Some of these were because it was an ill-treated dog.
|
| Most of the time, however, it is just circumstance. Last
| weekend, I was jogging on a forest path, rounded a corner
| and suprised a dog whose owners probably considered it a
| well-behaved pet-- and the owners looked liked 'responsible
| members of society' (i.e. not trying to prove they were
| tough).
|
| The dog was off-leash.
|
| Because both I and the dog were caught off-guard, this
| immediately turned into an aggressive situation. The dog
| was threatening to attack me, and the owners had a very
| hard time getting it to back down-- it wasn't responding to
| their voice commands, it kept barking and lunging at me.
|
| long story short, from my perspective, any domestic animal
| weighing above 4kg should always be on a leash when out of
| the house, as a matter of public safety.
| hetspookjee wrote:
| I feel you. I have been attacked once and it truly
| frightened me. I still think most dogs cant be held as
| most people are to incompetent to care properly for a
| dog. So my point of view is more that having those dogs
| in the first place is perhaps a bad idea.
| krageon wrote:
| > Is it better to provide a golden cage than to roam freely?
|
| Yes, of course it is. That is why a lot of people are nostalgic
| for their childhood, even though legally and in practice
| children are slaves to their parents. They have agency only
| insofar as their parents allow it.
| Fiahil wrote:
| Amazing! Can we try this with Ravens ?
| piokoch wrote:
| That would be indeed interesting. Ravens are able to use tools,
| maybe they will grok currency concept too.
| ArteEtMarte wrote:
| Behold, the Crow Vending Machine:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iihdP3b6LXw
| PrinceRichard wrote:
| Look at those pictures. Shame on all who are involved in non-
| human research. These beings belong in the rain forest, not a
| plastic box inside a laboratory!
| hetspookjee wrote:
| Imagine that if you'd have so much funding that you'd be able
| to cover a km2 in a forest with camera's and microphones, some
| remote controlled tools and enough food to experiment with. I
| think one could've made some kind of improvised tool that drops
| nuts when you handle a coin or something else. The only thing
| you then have to do is watch for a couple of interactions where
| one bird hands the other bird a bottle cap to exchange.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJG3282QU4g
|
| Just extend the above experiment with such tracking and I'd
| think you can reach the same conclusion as this article had,
| but then with farrrr more comfortable ethics?
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Wholesome. Made my day.
| thomasfl wrote:
| The best way for animals to survive in our modern world, would be
| to help more animals open their own bank account. Large companies
| won't chop down all that rainforest, and kill the animals, if the
| rainforest is full of potential customers. Let Adam Smiths
| invisible hand protect all living things.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > The best way for animals to survive in our modern world,
| would be to help more animals open their own bank account.
|
| The current way things are going, in more and more
| jurisdictions NGOs and Indigenous tribes can act on the behalf
| of nature itself in the legal system. It may not be a perfect
| solution, but it's the best we have until animals can learn to
| correspond with humans in some way.
| [deleted]
| gus_massa wrote:
| The problem is that humans are more profitable.
|
| Is there is a patch of land, the bank will get more money if
| some persons cut the trees and grow corn or palms or whatever,
| instead of having some ants doing some subsistence farming of
| fungus.
| krageon wrote:
| > Let Adam Smiths invisible hand protect all living things.
|
| I think this is the first time I've seen a novel stance on
| rights while reading comments on HN. I can't tell whether or
| not you are serious, but I very much hope that you are.
| adriand wrote:
| A fascinating article that once again demonstrates we are just
| barely scratching the surface when it comes to understanding the
| intelligence, let alone the lived experience, of other animals.
|
| This reminds me of the recent debate we were having here
| regarding the conclusion in the UK that lobsters are sentient
| beings and therefore should be treated with some minimal amount
| of consideration. A common argument made by those who argued they
| should not, or should not be placed into a similar category as
| octopuses, is that lobsters are neuronally less complex than
| other beings. But here we see that these birds, which also have
| fewer neurons than other animals we consider to be more
| "advanced", are capable of remarkably complex behaviours that
| hint at an interior life we simply do not understand.
|
| We've poured money into SETI to try and answer the anguished
| question, are we alone? Well, it seems that we aren't, but we
| might be too stupid and self-absorbed to notice.
| pdpi wrote:
| > We've poured money into SETI to try and answer the anguished
| question, are we alone? Well, it seems that we aren't, but we
| might be too stupid and self-absorbed to notice.
|
| We seriously underestimate other animals' intelligence, but
| until some other animal on earth puts a flag on the moon, it's
| safe to say that no other animal on Earth shares our unique
| brand of intelligence.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| I don't believe that necessarily follows. How much of what we
| are is a product of what we've built up? Take all that away
| and revert humanity to its pre-civilization state. To an
| outside observer, would we obviously be capable of one day
| going to the moon?
| pdpi wrote:
| The moon is a somewhat facetious benchmark, but we
| harnessed fire some 400k years ago. Agriculture, or more
| generally culvitating your own food, is another major
| milestone that happened 10k years ago, or thereabouts.
| Those are more reasonable, especially because other
| intelligent species could piggy back off our technology to
| speed up their own progression.
| adriand wrote:
| I agree with you that we have a "unique brand" of
| intelligence but we've gone astray in ascribing a value
| judgment to that, in my opinion - as in, our brand is the
| best. Or, our brand is so much better than others that
| those others are worthless.
|
| This doesn't just apply to other species but also to
| other ways of being ("cultural intelligences"?) than our
| neoliberal, capitalist and technology-focused society.
| Our great technological achievements have been fatal for
| millions of other species and there is a strong
| possibility that they will be fatal for us as well. How
| intelligent is that?
|
| I recognize that when we talk about "intelligence" in the
| context of the original article we mean something
| different than the more common sense meaning I used in my
| last paragraph. However it seems to me that the way we
| define intelligence is part of the problem. What's a
| greater achievement, traveling to the moon or living for
| millions of years in harmony with the natural systems of
| the planet? Or who is happier, a blue whale or a Walmart
| employee?
| pdpi wrote:
| > However it seems to me that the way we define
| intelligence is part of the problem.
|
| Problem isn't how we define it, the definition we have is
| useful because it describes a very real qualitative
| difference between us and other animals. I think you
| nailed it on your first paragraph: the problem is the
| value judgment that goes along with that definition.
| TheFreim wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you're saying
| "take away what humans used their intelligence to build and
| it'll appear that they aren't intelligent"?
| JCharante wrote:
| Sounds about right, because if they were intelligent then
| surely they would have built something is the common line
| of thinking. So taking away what humans have built and
| examining them through these same lenses would lead you
| to conclude that they're not intelligent.
| howdydoo wrote:
| What's so special about the moon? I say no life should be
| considered intelligent until they can swim down the Marianas
| Trench and carve their initials in the wall.
| 123anonanonanon wrote:
| https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160613153411.h...
|
| Birds have more neurons than you think
| rvnx wrote:
| Birds are smarter than humans because they understood there
| is value in a shiny metal.
| tokai wrote:
| #notallbirbs
|
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%252Fs10071-014-07
| 9...
| teknofobi wrote:
| This reminds me of the short story "The Great Silence" by Ted
| Chiang, so I can recommend that to anyone intrigued by your
| comment.
| telesilla wrote:
| I believe this: http://m.nautil.us/issue/75/story/the-great-
| silence
| adriand wrote:
| Several people have objected to my use of the phrase "poured
| money into SETI". To clarify:
|
| 1. I agree that "poured" is an overstatement (and I support
| spending more!)
|
| 2. However, by "SETI" I did not mean NASA's SETI program but
| more broadly, programs and research with the goal of finding
| extraterrestrial life and then subsequently, extraterrestrial
| intelligence. Do the Mars rovers, for example, fit into this
| broader SETI category? It's debatable.
|
| What I was really referring to, however, is our myopia when it
| comes to seeking evidence that we aren't alone. Imagine we did
| receive a radio transmission from outer space. How much money
| would we spend on understanding it, and the beings that sent
| it? I'd wager the sums would be vast.
|
| Meanwhile, there are apparently only ten vaquitas (a species of
| porpoise) left in the world. Science was unaware of this
| species until 1958. We know cetaceans are incredibly
| intelligent, but what if vaquitas are far more intelligent than
| we suspect? I expect that what we don't know about them far
| outweighs what we do. What if they, or some other species we've
| either destroyed or almost destroyed, are the "aliens" we're
| looking for?
|
| I know this seems like a stretch, but just how confident are we
| about this? If you look at what we've learned about animals in
| the past century, how much more might we learn in the next ten
| centuries? How much would we have learned had we not killed
| them?
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Poured money into SETI? Which money is that? SETI hasn't
| recieved meaningful public funding for a long while, decades.
| As a species, we spend more on makeup glitter than we do on
| searching for extraterrestrial intelligence.
|
| The vast majority of seti is about combing through _data from
| other projects_. Basically zero telescope time is used for
| actually looking. Every candidate signal (ie BLC1) is
| discovered after the event. And zero telescopes are actively
| listening for repeat signals.
| fnord77 wrote:
| there's a certain type of person who are big fans of SETI type
| projects. They're quick to say that if there's a mars colony,
| they'd go in an instant. But this type rarely ventures out from
| the warmth of their computer den. They never go mountain
| climbing or scuba diving or even camping. They get out of
| breath from walking from their car to the doritos section at
| the store. I think this type of person just wants fantasy.
| landryraccoon wrote:
| > We've poured money into SETI
|
| I'm going to echo here that this is categorically false. All
| government funding for SETI was canceled in 1993. So, unless
| you believe _zero_ dollars is pouring money into SETI, this is
| misinformation.
| superkuh wrote:
| Another problem is when people argue based off words rather
| than knowledge of the subject.
|
| The differences between the meager number of neurons and simple
| layout in a lobster and the extremely large and complex nervous
| system of an octopus are in no way comparable to the
| differences in nervous system complexity between a human and a
| bird. A lobster literally can be understood. It's nervous
| system is that simple, only ~100,000 neurons in small groups
| (less than a fruit fly!). There is very little mystery in it's
| operation. It is feasibly enumberable, developmentally
| predictable, and it's parts are knowable in function. It is not
| conscious like a mammal, bird, or octopus is conscious.
|
| Bird and human brains are of a similar order of complexity.
| Complex enough we can't even begin to hope to understand the
| functioning yet.
| krageon wrote:
| > It is not conscious like a mammal, bird, or octopus is
| conscious.
|
| I do not see how you could know this, because consciousness
| and how it forms is exceptionally poorly understood. If in
| the past two years major breakthroughs have happened on this
| subject I would love to read about it. Perhaps you can point
| me in the right direction.
| superkuh wrote:
| You don't need anything discovered in the last 40 years to
| be able to state that lobsters are not sentient. But,
| Rodolfo R Llinas' "I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self"
| is a really great book that explores the underpinings of
| sentience from single neurons on up. The tldr; is that the
| structures which seem to be necessary (if not sufficient)
| for consciousness in mammals (like 30-40 Hz thalamo-
| cortical loops) do not and cannot exist in the structures
| provided by the lobster nervous system. Do lobsters have
| some seperate, unrelated implementation of sentience?
| There's no behavioral evidence to support it. They're just
| big insects. I think anyone claiming that 100k neurons can
| support sentience needs to be providing the proof, not me
| providing the context and evidence for why not.
| jschwartzi wrote:
| What proof do you have that enumeration of function is
| equivalent to understanding? If I encounter a building-size
| device filled with large cogs and two stones, I can't
| immediately tell from looking at it whether its purpose is to
| grind apples or wheat. So I'm not sure you can say that an
| animal is or isn't sentient based on the organization of its
| cells.
| Dumblydorr wrote:
| I'd say SETI is worth the effort. In the unlikely event we
| found another civilization, it would be the death blow to any
| religion who professes we alone were created, and in God's
| image. In one fell swoop, SETI could've been a Galileo or
| Copernicus and advanced rationality a century or two against
| the forces of mythology and religious superstition.
| gwd wrote:
| _Are_ there any widely practiced religions which claim that
| humans _alone_ were created in God 's image?
| jancsika wrote:
| > it would be the death blow to any religion who professes we
| alone were created
|
| Sentient lobsters are sentient lobsters, but another
| civilization could be _anything_!
|
| Why, it could even be sentient lobsters.
|
| (Apologies to Family Guy.)
| tokai wrote:
| >We've poured money into SETI
|
| Poured is a gross overstatement.
| bbarnett wrote:
| You misunderstand what is happening.
|
| For SETI to be safe, first we must ensure we are safe! And
| that requires funding, funding into the military, to test,
| and develop our weaponry, our soldiers, to ensure that when
| those alien hordes hear our signals, we are ready for them!!
|
| You don't want to destroy us all, to give in to those evil,
| ungodly alien hordes, do you Mr President?
|
| _Do you?!_
|
| _Soon..._
|
| Military funding approved!
| tzs wrote:
| > We've poured money into SETI to try and answer the anguished
| question, are we alone? Well, it seems that we aren't, but we
| might be too stupid and self-absorbed to notice.
|
| There was an episode of the second season of the new "Cosmos"
| where they looked at SETI.
|
| One of the points of the episode was that we might be looking
| right at intelligent life and not even recognize it. We tend to
| only see intelligence when it comes from an individual organism
| with a brain. We tend to dismiss or not even consider other
| ways there might be intelligence and gave a couple examples
| from here on Earth.
|
| One example was bees. A bee hive as a group exhibits
| intelligent-like behavior beyond what an individual bee is
| capable of.
|
| Another example was forests. Underground in forests there is a
| vast network of mycelium linking the plants together. When
| something bad happens to a tree that gets communicated through
| the mycelium network to other trees and they react making
| changes to better cope with the threat. It operates very
| similarly to a nervous system for the whole forest, but much
| slower than animal nervous systems.
|
| If most intelligence in the universe is hive minds or is big
| slow brains like planet-spanning mycelium networks we might
| completely overlook it.
| sroussey wrote:
| Mostly we want to find life elsewhere that is interstellar.
| We look for side effects of tools, like radio frequency.
|
| I suppose an advanced civilization between planets or even
| stars might have migrated off radio signals though.
| sroussey wrote:
| Or they might have learned that the galaxy is dangerous and
| masked any such signals. !!
| hutzlibu wrote:
| "If most intelligence in the universe is hive minds or is big
| slow brains like planet-spanning mycelium networks we might
| completely overlook it."
|
| Or intelligent life made up off entirely other principles(and
| with very different goals to survive), than what we know. Do
| we understand what is going on inside of jupiter? Or inside
| the sun? Maybe there is life, that starts to evolve at
| certain pressures and temperatures? Well, maybe not likely,
| but I am glad, that the self centered philosophy, that the
| sun and the whole universe all are moving around us humans
| who are on top of it all, fades a bit more. I mean, we
| clearly are awesome at technology and so far we have not seen
| much technology from any other species. But maybe very
| advanced life has no need for our tech anymore, so we would
| not spot it, by looking for it.
| 867-5309 wrote:
| >maybe very advanced life has no need for our tech anymore,
| so we would not spot it, by looking for it.
|
| such as the zoo hypothesis:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis
| polishdude20 wrote:
| I think when we talk about finding intelligent life, what we
| really mean is "intelligent life on other planets". We know
| there's intelligence here on earth in those examples you
| describe. But what of it? We are already studying those
| things and trying to understand them. What's groundbreaking
| is not that there is intelligent life, but that there might
| be on different planets.
| netcan wrote:
| There are two ways to approach such findings. One is to think
| of birds/lobsters/octopuses as more cognitively complex,
| intelligent and such. The other is to think of ourselves as
| less so.
|
| Sometimes the latter probably is more true.
|
| By way of analogy... When I was a pup studying philosophy, we
| studied the "other minds problem." How do we know what others
| feel and experience? Are we sure they're not faking it? How
| well can we understand another's mind? It's an old problem, and
| the philosophical tradition of questions, answers and arguments
| are rather old and formulaic.
|
| I think newer thinking, both scientific and philosophical,
| tends to reverse the "problem." We understand others by forming
| a mental model of them, narrated with feelings and experiences.
| This is a lot like we understand ourselves.
|
| We really do understand ourselves much like we understand
| others. Same mechanisms, more or less, I think. Mental model of
| a person + constant narratives to explain choices, feelings and
| such.
|
| You can either think of this as a solution to the "other minds
| problem" or a further problem.
| OneTimePetes wrote:
| Eh, wasn't this refuted?
|
| We tend to not have mental models of others at all. Our
| brains run "flat" copies of ourselves and any deviation from
| that model, results in discomfort and categorization as
| either "inferior" or "superior" depending on visible outcome
| of actions. The effect of "genius" is, that seemingly stupid
| choices by others result in perceivable good outcomes,
| without us having a mental model to fill that gap.
|
| So we do not have mental models for others- at all. We have a
| world filled with copies of ourselves and at best a zoe of
| heuristics and anecdata, were the "other" begins and ends.
|
| The closest you get to having a real mental model- is a
| longterm relationship and getting to know that partner really
| well. And even then..
| monocasa wrote:
| We absolutely have theories of mind.
| circlefavshape wrote:
| Erm ... running a copy of yourself with other-person-
| specific modifications IS a mental model
| mejutoco wrote:
| And plants too, we do not see in this way. I am reading
| Overstory, from Richard Powers. Apart from bring beautiful
| stories, it shows how plants are not too different, when looked
| at a different timescale.
|
| I believe we consider more advanced what looks more like us
| (dog yes, insect no).
| JoeDaDude wrote:
| The experiments were done with African grey parrots, reminding me
| of another member of that species, Alex the Parrot [1]. Alex was
| taught patiently over many years with very intriguing results
| showing that Alex could communicate with his human handlers.
|
| [1]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_(parrot)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-24 23:01 UTC)