Thread: Wired Science: Fish Photographed Using Tools to Eat

Some chickens do the same thing with snails. Of the two populations that I've spent significant time observing, one did and one didn't. The two were later merged and the Rhode Island Reds never picked up the trick that I've observed. The Araucanas did it without being exposed to any examples of such behavior. I can say this with certainty because they were raised from egg without any other chickens around. My guess is that the behavior is genetic. Araucanas are a more "primitive" breed that have not been intensively bred in the same way that many chickens of European origin.

The really interesting question to me is what is the "simplest" organism that can transfer learned behavior from one individual to another.

I think that we (humans) may have this inherent prejudice, that we look at life-forms that are less able to 'communicate' with us (or, rather, in a way that we can more-readily quantify and understand) as 'less capable of complex thought or sentience.' More and more, I wonder how much of what we think we know about the 'simplicity' of the animal kingdom is actually complexity that is lost in translation.

In addition, we have to consider that much of our own supposed "complexity" is simply masturbatory fantasy. I've written about this a lot elsewhere and will no doubt write about more in the future as I refine my ideas but I think that there is not nearly as much complexity to our behavior as many people think. It just seems that way because we are so sensitive to human behavior as opposed to the behavior of other species, because we think that we're the center of the universe and use every opportunity possible to reinforce this predjudice and blatantly apply double standards when evaluating other species.

Another story. I spend a lot of my time at one particular pond that has fish from all over the world. There are also ducks. I never feed the ducks but I spend a lot of time watching them and the fish. The ducks now know that I don't feed them and don't come rushing over when I show up. They are also beginning to basically ignore me though and continue with their natural behavior. I saw a duck catch a fish for the first time in my life the other day. I've seen them diving before of course but this is the first time I've ever actually seen them come up with it and have to adjust it to swollow it down. I digress. I opened up my pack to pull out a bottle of water and, before I'd even reached into it, all the ducks came rushing over. I infer that they know what a pack is and that our species use them to hold things, e.g. bread. I further infer that they were expecting me to pull out bread. When it was just a water bottle, they went back to their business.

I agree with you all.

I have found, to my amazement, most people don't care about fish and think they are stupid.
This example is great to counteract that.

Even goldfish are capable of learning that a certain person feeds them. (Observation, don't ask me to reference a study lol)

The distinction that needs to be made is between evolutionary intelligence and individual intelligence.

As far as I know though, evolutionary neuroscience is extremely poorly understood. Somebody please contradict me.

But anyway, here's what I mean: there's a species of wasp which digs holes, before laying its eggs in a caterpillar and dragging the caterpillar into its hole. The exact way it does this is depositing the caterpillar on the edge, then going in the hole and checking everything's okay, then pulling the caterpillar in. However, if you move the caterpillar a short distance away, the wasp when emerging from the hole pulls the caterpillar back to the edge, and then goes through the entire checking cycle again. This illustrates the wasp has no conceptualisation of what it's actually doing and why it's doing it, let alone having the ability to form a novel plan. Apparently the brain of the wasp evolved this checking mechanism by a random mutation (this is the totally mysterious bit I alluded to; I don't think anybody has any idea about the paths of causation between mutated protein and a singular new novel behaviour; I'm not aware of any knowledge at all, in fact, of how DNA codes for neural structures. In fact I don't think the basic mechanism of axon creation is even understood) and then the gene quickly spread due to the increased reproduction rate it bestows.

A more advanced type of intelligence is correlation-based intelligence. Philosopher's ducks have this. I'd imagine all mammals and many birds have it. With this intelligence, if an organism repeatedly sees instances of A (a pack) alongside instances of B (bread), it comes to identify them. Essentially we're talking about pattern recognition acting on instances. Thinking about it, perhaps this originally came from a mutation causing visual pattern recognition (present in much simpler animals) to expand into all brain areas. Anyway, this kind of intelligence is very useful because it allows organisms to instantly be able to respond to new situations in environments, rather than the ducks having to die ten thousand times until one of them gets the right mutation; by which time the park doesn't exist any more anyway.

The next level of intelligence, after conceptual object creation, is internal conceptual object manipulation. This is advanced and only a very small number of animals can be shown to have it in basic quantities; crows, elephants, etcetera. With this type of intelligence, animals do not observe correlations, but rather, they combine the existing symbols (results of correlations) in their heads until they visualise a solution, and create entirely new instances; for example, the elephants using the concept of 'stick', and indeed the concept of 'elephant', and realising if they attached it to their trunks they could scratch new areas.

I think it's possible that humans don't have a qualitatively different type of intelligence, biologically; I think perhaps cultural development instead could have become a self-sustaining process, developing exponentially via feedback (education). How intelligent is a feral human? And perhaps this happened to us rather than anything else due to obvious morphological anomalies.

With respects to the fish though, the jury is out for me. I don't see how, underwater, a fish could ever see enough instances of using inertia to break things to form the general symbol and thus, if it has intelligence of the third type, break the shell. I find it more credible that it could be intelligence of the wasp's type. This could be settled by a few clever experiments, though.

Lol.

Yes, yes, of course our intelligence is more bettererer.

I don't see how you can really distinguish between these.
Your genes code how you think. Either way.
Along with some environmental factors, which can also change your genes.

What I'm saying is it's all just the basic stuff of life when you get down to it.

I'm finding it increasingly absurd to talk about these sort of things.

We ARE those basic things which make us, those things may be more complex in us, but we're still just following what our coding has told us to do.

So I don't think our intelligence is any different to the bee's. Some of us do things over and over again as well. Even when - and sometimes because of the fact - it's completely pointless.

Well, thanks for engaging with a carefully considered post on no level and then mocking me on the basis of my being racist to bees or something.

I'm not sure what it is that humans do over and over with no semblance of a reason (reasons being ill-founded is not an objection), other than minor, inconsequential habits like always putting your right shoe on first. Somebody will always have some conceptualisation for the reason for what they are doing if you ask them.

The point with the wasp is that it had no conceptualisation, and conceptualisation is, as far as I can tell, a prerequisite for intelligence. It wasn't just a thing with the caterpillars; it also, apparently, had evolved to pull its dead prey into its hole by the prey's feelers. If you break the feelers off, the wasp does not think to pull it in by any other part. It has no conception of the fact that it is pulling the prey in to its hole. It's just running a set algorithm that has come into existence through natural, environmental, non-autonomous means; I'd say it's as intelligent as a computer, which is to say, not. It takes very little thought to see that this is not the same thing as (for example) mammalian intelligence.

I'll add however that the distinction between the first two types I mentioned is probably quantitative, actually. I remembered that you can condition fruit flies to fear certain smells by repeatedly shocking the fly in the presence of the gas in question. This obviously isn't on the same level of the ducks, where the objects in question were much more subtle, but qualitatively it's the same. Actually perhaps I'll change my mind again; I'd hazard a guess that in the ducks, a distinct symbol is created in their neural networks for each of the things. It isn't a case of input, reflex. It's a case of input, concept recognition and correlation recognition, and then response. So yes, the ducks are on a distinct level, though not for the exact reason I gave.

I thought my post was a pretty good response to yours.

The first sentence was also supposed to be a criticism of the way humans assume they are far more intelligent or have a different intelligence to all other animals. Or are in all ways superior.

I wasn't mocking you specifically.

I know what you meant anyway. You didn't need to clarify. I just think you're wrong.
Simply because our intelligence is just us running set "algorithms" as well. Unless you think that we get thoughts from some force outside of us?

Sure we can say, "oh damn, the feelers broke, I'll pull it by its legs" or something.
But I don't see how that is really any more "intelligent".
Because we are still just thinking that because of some algorithm that allows us to think that way. Or more precisely, the algorithm is just doing what it does. In all cases.

If you wanna define intelligence as a more complex algorithm. Then fine. I just think the whole thing is rather absurd.

Originally Posted by tommo

I thought my post was a pretty good response to yours.

The first sentence was also supposed to be a criticism of the way humans assume they are far more intelligent or have a different intelligence to all other animals. Or are in all ways superior.

I wasn't mocking you specifically.

I know what you meant anyway. You didn't need to clarify. I just think you're wrong.

I just find it irritating that I explicated exactly what I think and why I think it and the bulk of your response was basically just, 'prejudice'.

I'm not prejudiced against bees; this is objective stuff we are talking about here. Unless we revert to complete nihilism, it's clear that 'intelligence', in any meaningful sense, is possessed in greatest quantities by humans, followed by a few select animals. Experiments clearly demonstrate that crows are intelligent, having the capacity to formulate novel plans (like crushing nutshells with traffic, or very quickly working out how to make a hook out of a piece of wire to get at some food), which means both conceptualisation and creativity; whereas other birds, despite having the physical ability, simply lack the mental capacity to ever do something like this. This is all objective stuff, and I think it's clear that these things fall under the umbrella term of 'intelligence'. If bees ever do something like this, I promise I will stop persecuting them. I don't think the claim I find humans 'superior in all respects' is worthy of discussion.

Simply because our intelligence is just us running set "algorithms" as well. Unless you think that we get thoughts from some force outside of us?

Sure we can say, "oh damn, the feelers broke, I'll pull it by its legs" or something.
But I don't see how that is really any more "intelligent".
Because we are still just thinking that because of some algorithm that allows us to think that way. Or more precisely, the algorithm is just doing what it does. In all cases.

If you wanna define intelligence as a more complex algorithm. Then fine. I just think the whole thing is rather absurd.

Again I'm just getting the feeling you're not reading my post diligently. It was long but I do try to be concise and I like to consider myself clear...

I have explained the significance of the feeler thing. I made lucid that I was talking about qualitative differences in the algorithms, not quantitative measures of 'complexity'. In fact I have used those very words several times.

Yes, I believe the universe is, in the frame pertinent to biology, 'deterministic', and that humans and wasps are both following determined processes. However, so is a rock as it falls to the ground. Again, if we want to talk meaningfully at all, we cannot equate all living things by this condition; there is a difference between humans and rocks.

Tangential point regarding the anthropic principle: the sources I've found put the number of living insects between 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 and 10,000,000,000,000,000,000. How exactly do you explain that your consciousness happened to end up in a human body, if insects are viable? The chances against are astronomical.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yes, I believe the universe is, in the frame pertinent to biology, 'deterministic', and that humans and wasps are both following determined processes. However, so is a rock as it falls to the ground. Again, if we want to talk meaningfully at all, we cannot equate all living things by this condition; there is a difference between humans and rocks.

Yeah, complexity.

Originally Posted by Xei

Tangential point regarding the anthropic principle: the sources I've found put the number of living insects between 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 and 10,000,000,000,000,000,000, with a biomass of more than a trillion times that of humans. How exactly do you explain that your consciousness happened to end up in a human body, if insects are viable? The chances against are astronomical.

See this is something I really don't get lol
What do you mean ended up in?

My consciousness wasn't floating around and suddenly popped in to the brain.
It arose as a part of this brain. It is inextricably linked with this brain. Just a part, just like the corpus collosum.

This consciousness is not unique. Insects could develop consciousness too and would say "How come I aren't in that body?"
And they would be thinking exactly the same way you are about that. They would feel like you.
Every kid thinks of this concept too. Very few really realise or grasp the concept that they are not a somehow separate thing.

"Why wasn't I born in ___so and so era___ ?"
Well, you were. There was a consciousness then too. Just like yours. But with different experiences.

And you can bet that some animals are wondering the same thing. Probably dolphins, elephants, dogs, octopuses, some other primates.

Anything which can recognise itself in a mirror and therefore tell itself apart from other animals and therefore the rest of nature.

Why not? It's given that you're just as likely to be conscious in any organism that can be conscious. There are two possibilities; insects are conscious and insects are not conscious. In the former the probability of your life being spent in a human body is extremely slim; in the latter it is not. Given that your life is being spent in a human body, it is valid statistical inference to say that the latter possibility is much more probable.

Originally Posted by tommo

Yeah, complexity.

This is an appalling post and you know it. I guess I'm just going to have to wait until Philosopher comes along for somebody to destroy my ideas in a coherent fashion.

I think you're incapable of viewing the issue from a different perspective.

There is no probability involved. Your consciousness is just a certain set of experiences building on whatever brain wiring causes the phenomenon. There is no "chance" of your consciousness being in another body. It's a null hypothesis.
It doesn't make any sense.

An analogy: there is a bucket of oysters. There are two types of oysters, gold and silver. Some of the oysters contain pearls. The oysters form the pearls themselves over time; the pearls are unique to the oysters, and inherent; if you try to remove the pearls they vanish. The bucket has a lid and you can't tell what's inside, but you are given the following two possibilities: either the bucket contains ten golden oysters with pearls and ten million silver oysters with pearls; else the bucket contains ten golden oysters with pearls and ten million silver oysters without pearls. You are now presented with a fishing rod with a magical hook which can wrap around pearls and pull a single oyster out of the bucket; you do so. You are presented with a golden oyster. What do you now suspect about the bucket?

I already get what you're saying. You would assume it contains silver oysters with no pearls.

I don't need further analogies saying the same thing I already understand. You don't understand my perspective, however.

I have to disagree with Xei’s probabilistic approach to consciousness…

First of all the anthropic principle is not a probabilistic principle. With regard to this thread, the anthropic principle could be interpreted as a logical argument (Modus Ponens).

1. To be conscious, I need to be a species which can be conscious.
2. I am conscious.
3. I am therefore a species that can be conscious.

From what I can tell, this only confirms that I am a conscious species. It does not give a probability on which species I am. The anthropic principle fits better in its original form: since we are alive and conscious, the universe is capable of supporting conscious life.

^^^
(not 100% sure, correct me if I’m wrong)



I find the use of statistical inference ill fitting in this situation. (or at least, Xei’s statements are ill fitting.)

Originally Posted by Xei

the sources I've found put the number of living insects between 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 and 10,000,000,000,000,000,000. How exactly do you explain that your consciousness happened to end up in a human body, if insects are viable? The chances against are astronomical.

There are two possibilities; insects are conscious and insects are not conscious. In the former the probability of your life being spent in a human body is extremely slim; in the latter it is not. Given that your life is being spent in a human body, it is valid statistical inference to say that the latter possibility is much more probable.

In these statements, you’re essentially proposing two possible situations: insects are conscious or insects are not conscious. You then ask tommo (a conscious human) how it’s possible that he is human if there are so many insects. Note how you didn’t actually select tommo at random from any sample of conscious beings.

Using your oyster analogy, you’ve opened the bucket, looked around and picked a golden oyster with a pearl… you then state that because you picked that golden oyster, there must be more golden oysters with pearls than silver oysters with pearls in the bucket. This is wrong; it’s not a random test and can’t tell you anything about the proportion of golden pearls/silver pearls in the bucket.

To actually do the test you propose you would first need a set consisting of all conscious insects and humans. You would then have to select beings randomly from this set. I fail to see how you can use this set of “conscious beings” without first determining if insects should or shouldn’t be in the set. If we’ve already determined if insects should be considered conscious, why are we bothering with statistical analysis?

The anthropic principle can be extended from the basic case (which is essentially probabilities of 1 and 0; 1 if the universe supports life, 0 if it doesn't). Given that there is a multiverse, for example, a probabilistic anthropic principle would suggest that the universe you are in contains a very large number of conscious beings, rather than being a small one. Do you disagree with this? I find it hard to, and it seems pretty analogous to what I mentioned; although I did only mention it as a tangent to my much more substantial discussion.

Anyway, the mistake you're making, which is a mistake of communication on my part as well, is thinking I'm making this argument because I'm talking to tommo. That's not the case; I am explaining to tommo the argument he should use on himself. In my case however, clearly, I should be considering the body that I am conscious in. That is the only sample I have at hand. Considering tommo from my perspective, naturally, does no good at all, because it's not a random sample, given my personal propensity of not having discussions with wasps.

Originally Posted by Xei

The distinction that needs to be made is between evolutionary intelligence and individual intelligence.

There's a third category which needs to be made here as well and that is "cultural intelligence". This is what makes humans human. Computers are just part of our environment by this point. We jump through whatever hoops we need to get them and then use them. This is no different from trading for some good flint and knapping a knife with it. The computer/flint are both (from the perspective of an individual) part of the environment. They are aquired and used. Most humans from a modern culture couldn't even bring fire with them if they woke up 250,000 years ago.

I think it's possible that humans don't have a qualitatively different type of intelligence, biologically; I think perhaps cultural development instead could have become a self-sustaining process, developing exponentially via feedback (education). How intelligent is a feral human? And perhaps this happened to us rather than anything else due to obvious morphological anomalies.

I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "feral" in this context. If you mean "hunter-gatherer", one would expect them to be, on average, more intelligent than europeans. There are two reasons for this.

The first is just genetic. The leading cause of death in eurasian populations has been diseases of civilization aquired from living in close proximity to high densities of domesticated animals. This has placed a fairly strong selection pressure on eurasians for disease resistance. Individual intelligence isn't much help against a disease. You need cultural intelligence to avoid them in the first place (e.g. knowing to wash your hands to clear microbes, etc.) or biological resistance in the form of a strong immune system.

On the other hand, the leading cause of death in hunter-gather cultures is murder, tribal warfare, starvation, etc. Individual intelligence helps a lot with avoiding these causes. Contrast this with the lack of living in close proximity to pack animals and you have natural selection operating for increased individual intelligence.

The second reason is environmental. Whereas people from "developed" societies have access to endless hours of passive entertainment during their development, humans in "primitive" cultures are pretty much "limited" to active entertainment. That is, interacting with their environment.

See the book Guns, Germs, and Steel for more on this. I would highly recommend the book anyways for a complete account of human history.

Originally Posted by tommo

1)Sure we can say, "oh damn, the feelers broke, I'll pull it by its legs" or something.
But I don't see how that is really any more "intelligent".

2)Because we are still just thinking that because of some algorithm that allows us to think that way. Or more precisely, the algorithm is just doing what it does. In all cases.

If you wanna define intelligence as a more complex algorithm. Then fine. I just think the whole thing is rather absurd.

Responding to 1, are you hearing yourself? You choose which animal is smarter: the animal that leaves the body after the feelers have been torn off and starves or the animal that adapts to the missing feelers and later succeeds in dragging the caterpillar into the hole by some mechanism, thus guaranteeing survival. I really have to question your intelligence if you think they are the same. Seeing as how you've already picked, I guess you can see where that leaves me in regards to my opinions on you.

Responding to 2, you make it sound as if there is no such thing as intelligence. I mean, everything all animals do is just "algorithms" right? You said it yourself,

Originally Posted by tommo

So I don't think our intelligence is any different to the bee's. Some of us do things over and over again as well. Even when - and sometimes because of the fact - it's completely pointless.

Originally Posted by tommo

Sure we can say, "oh damn, the feelers broke, I'll pull it by its legs" or something.
But I don't see how that is really any more "intelligent".

Protip: intelligence is a measurement, and in case you didn't notice, if there is no difference in intelligence between animals (like you are suggesting) there can be no measurement taken nor a comparison made. Why would humans ever need to create such a concept which is given its own word if it isn't observable, measurable, or comparable?

By the way, when refusing to view an argument from a different perspective yourself, it isn't wise to criticize someone with an opposing view for closed-mindedness or being unable to view the argument from a different perspective. Hypocrisy tends to ruin your point.

Originally Posted by snoop

Responding to 1, are you hearing yourself? You choose which animal is smarter: the animal that leaves the body after the feelers have been torn off and starves or the animal that adapts to the missing feelers and later succeeds in dragging the caterpillar into the hole by some mechanism, thus guaranteeing survival. I really have to question your intelligence if you think they are the same. Seeing as how you've already picked, I guess you can see where that leaves me in regards to my opinions on you.

I'm saying one is more complex. Not that they are exactly the fucking same.

Originally Posted by snoop

Responding to 2, you make it sound as if there is no such thing as intelligence. I mean, everything all animals do is just "algorithms" right? You said it yourself,
Protip: intelligence is a measurement, and in case you didn't notice, if there is no difference in intelligence between animals (like you are suggesting) there can be no measurement taken nor a comparison made. Why would humans ever need to create such a concept which is given its own word if it isn't observable, measurable, or comparable?

Hm....







god.

Also quality.

Originally Posted by snoop

By the way, when refusing to view an argument from a different perspective yourself, it isn't wise to criticize someone with an opposing view for closed-mindedness or being unable to view the argument from a different perspective. Hypocrisy tends to ruin your point.

Since when did I not view it from Xei's perspective? I already said I understand what he's saying and I DISAGREE with it. Do you want me to not only consider it, but agree with it as well?

I don't think probability plays any part in this debate whatsoever.
It's just ridiculous IMO. What is the probability that my consciousness would be in this body?

WTF kind of question is that?

Also I just remembered that this isn't really anything to do with the issue at hand. I don't even know why you brought it up, Xei, and it would maybe clear things up if you explained that.

The thing is, I somewhat agree with the first parts of your post, then you go off in to nonsense which makes no sense.

Originally Posted by Xei

Tangential point regarding the anthropic principle: the sources I've found put the number of living insects between 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 and 10,000,000,000,000,000,000. How exactly do you explain that your consciousness happened to end up in a human body, if insects are viable? The chances against are astronomical.

I've seen you stating this argument before and I can't understand how it makes sense. Despite how many other animals may or may not be conscious, surely you must agree that some consciousness would have to end up in his body? (But as you probably remember I disagree with your conceptualization of consciousness as a thing separate from the rest of the body and mind. The question to me makes as much sense as asking why a certain ball's roundness would have to end up in that ball and not in any other surface.)
#EDIT: I dun goofed, didn't notice this had already been addressed by others.

Otherwise, A+ posts. Made me re-think my own ideas of intelligence.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

I've seen you stating this argument before and I can't understand how it makes sense. Despite how many other animals may or may not be conscious, surely you must agree that some consciousness would have to end up in his body? (But as you probably remember I disagree with your conceptualization of consciousness as a thing separate from the rest of the body and mind. The question to me makes as much sense as asking why a certain ball's roundness would have to end up in that ball and not in any other surface.)
#EDIT: I dun goofed, didn't notice this had already been addressed by others.

Otherwise, A+ posts. Made me re-think my own ideas of intelligence.

That's a damn good analogy.

I think this post may partially address the questions:

http://www.dreamviews.com/f36/wired-...9/#post1700852

The point I'm trying to make is that 'who you are' effectively acts as a sample of the conscious population, and is the only sample at hand. In my analogy you may notice I made it clear that the pearls are intrinsic to the oysters, and as far as I can tell this has no effect on the argument. You can, if you want, replace the fishing line with 'actually being' a pearl. As far as I can tell, the argument still works fine.

Perhaps consider other probabilistic arguments in more obvious situations. For example, 'you are probably conscious in a body with ten fingers'. This is because most human consciousnesses are 'attached' to bodies with ten fingers. Does the argument work? Certainly seems to. Is, 'the argument makes no sense because my consciousness can only ever have existed in this body and this body has ten fingers' a valid objection? To me it doesn't seem like it. Or how about, 'you're probably not conscious in a body that lives on a very small island', because most human consciousnesses are attached to people who live in larger countries.

I don't think it's necessary to see human consciousness as something free from the physical mind for this to work. If I ever did think that, I don't think it any more, at least not exactly; I see physical reality as the totality of every physical event, and within this reality there are certain subsets corresponding to physical systems which emulate algorithms which are conscious.

Cool.


But what I expected, with the "weird science" prefix and everything, was seeing a fish photographed using a clever contraption of forks and spoons.

Xei, I think I understand what you're saying but the problem I see with it is that your conclusion can't follow from a single taken sample. If we were able to experience X random consciousnesses in a row and they all came from the same species then I'd begin to agree.