Thread: Counting Monkeys (Ape..)

Pretty fascinating. What makes me wonder most is why such a thing was selected against in human evolution... it suggests something profound about the way the brain works, to me; namely that you can only have a certain 'amount' of brain power which has to be distributed to different functions, so if you increase creative thought, for instance, you decrease the kind of intelligence shown above.

Yeah, but the university students weren't getting treats when they got it right!

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Yeah, but the university students weren't getting treats when they got it right!

True, lol!

Very interesting video. It seems their short term memory is lightning quick and incredibly accurate. Xei raises a good point, why are chimps better at this than humans, and why wasn't this attribute carried on in our own evolution? You would think that humans would outperform any animal in any sort of intellectual activity, but obviously that is not the case.

I'm willing to bet that chimps are actually more advanced than us in every way possible! They are just so clever as to fool us into believing that we are smarter...yes.

I would wager that a lot of the reason is that they need it for moving through trees at high speed. This is the best video that I could find:



Essentially, they have to compete with almost entirely arboreal monkeys in the trees to catch them. They need to be able to form a mental map of the structure of the tree they're in on the fly. That could well have something to do with it. It's pretty cool.

I wonder if other animals that hunt in trees could pass a similar test that didn't require number recognition? I can't think of what test that would be though.

You're probably right, cool video.

Fascinating... I wonder if a chimp would be able to outperform a human pilot in
something like jet combat, after proper training? There's loads of information
constantly displayed on the head-up display, and it involves moving around in
3-dimensions, just as movement around a tree would.

It is puzzling that such a beneficial trait would not exist in our own species,
especially considering our capacity to strategize. It could have a lot to do with
the fact that we're limited in our movement on the ground and don't have to
remember the kinds of branch networks the chimps do.

It puzzles me that everyone seems shocked. Sure, I didn't expect it, but there's no real reason why a human should be best at everything that has to do with the brain. Great video, though.

Originally Posted by Invader

Fascinating... I wonder if a chimp would be able to outperform a human pilot in
something like jet combat, after proper training? There's loads of information
constantly displayed on the head-up display, and it involves moving around in
3-dimensions, just as movement around a tree would.

I am unsure of which points to bring up, but a fighter pilot deals with many situations a chimp wouldn't be familiar with.

I have a hypothesis that the average human can train and do mental exercises to exceed any chimp feat, the human mind can learn to do apparently unimaginable things, the chimp to a lesser degree. Considering evolutionary history and who is on top, it would be reasonable to say that the plasticity of the human brain is greater.

Maybe if we put a human with no training and a brilliant chimp with specialized chimp-flying training up against each other the chimp would win, but otherwise no.

A chimp as a fighter pilot would be impossible, I don't think explanation is needed on this one

That is cool. I'd lean more toward the second theory mentioned in the video. Has anyone come across some kind of evidence to support the first one, just out of curiosity...? That in order for one part of the brain to flourish, we must give up another?

Originally Posted by Specialis Sapientia

I am unsure of which points to bring up, but a fighter pilot deals with many situations a chimp wouldn't be familiar with.

Hrm, but chimps wouldn't be familiar with symbols that represent quantities,
either. Or, so I thought until I saw this. I thought that a chimp that
understood the values of our numerals was impossible. If they do have this
memory as a result of their movement through trees, it's possible they have a
greater awareness of 3 dimensional space (as branch networks are more
complicated than our daily 2 dimensional movement along the ground).

You're the pilot though, and I'm not the one studying the chimps, so all I have
to offer is speculation. I'd rather not get into the what if's. My surprise at the
chimp's performance is a clear indicator of my lack of understanding of what
they're capable of.

"So easy a chimp could do it." Might have to scrap that.

That in order for one part of the brain to flourish, we must give up another?

Not unlike a savant.

It is not very difficult for a chimp to learn the 1-10 count, it is a matter of routine. I don't think it's a matter understanding what it is doing, but simply doing it from memory associations.

Though I am pretty sure that a chimp can learn the symbols of the numerals and act accordingly. By trial and error while rewarding right choices with food it would quickly learn.

If it sees 5 bananas it would learn to push the 5 button, but the thought-processes and degree of reflection is largely unknown.

It is obvious though that we give them less credit than we should.

Originally Posted by Mes Tarrant

That is cool. I'd lean more toward the second theory mentioned in the video. Has anyone come across some kind of evidence to support the first one, just out of curiosity...? That in order for one part of the brain to flourish, we must give up another?

There seems to be a coherence with said theory, though it is not that simple.

For one part to flourish and another one to degrade would not be a necessity , but is likely if the later is not "maintained". Our environment, behaviour and typically our job demands certain capacities for the brain due to certain tasks, for example will you find a waiter having much better short-term memory than the average human because of the job requires it. When the waiter gets and order from 7 people at the same time he/she has to remember it, often without writing it down.

When the said theory says we gain and lose it must be because of the change in habit or focus, if the "lose part" does indeed lose it is caused of unnecessity. If the "gain" part and "lose" part is vital and necessary none of them would deteriorate. If a mathematician becomes taxi-driver he will evolve his spatial skills (or brain part), and his analytic-logical skills (another brain part) would deteriorate. If he gets the taxi job as a bi-job and maintains his mathematical work he would gain, and not trade.

Well the problem is that it doesn't appear to be a controlled study. You can't teach the chimp on that machine, then also test him on it, while having a human use it for the first time.

If a human was to sit in front of the screen and practice clicking the numbers thousands of time, as the chimp did while it was learning, I am fairly sure the human would be just as fast.

It would be more accurate to say that a chimp that practices for hundreds of hours, is faster than a human doing something for the very first time.

Originally Posted by Alric

It would be more accurate to say that a chimp that practices for hundreds of hours, is faster than a human doing something for the very first time.

I don't think that a typical human could ever do that. It's just a matter of a limit on our ability to store information in our head as a picture and to access that information as if we are looking at it. I would put money on a human with photographic memory being able to do it though.

It's just not a matter of speed here. If the chimp took 30 seconds to do it, that would be immaterial. The humans didn't complete the sequence once. The chimp was only doing it fast because it was passe for them. They just have a larger working memory.

Don't worry, we have better problem solving skills

Well I know a lot of people who can do that. The question really is, can the average person do it that quickly? Well I don't know, it wasn't really a controlled test. Which was the point, it really doesn't prove or disprove anything.