Intelligence seems to be, on a mechanical level, a brute force decryption of reality. Whatever that is. Brain components don't behave intelligently, and they weren't designed by an intelligence.
Computers, having been created by intelligences, rather than exhibit more intelligence as one's intuition presupposes, exhibit rather a certain perfection of stupidity itself. Programmers understand what it means to write instructions that are impossible for computers to misunderstand.
Nobody seems to really know what intelligence is. Everyone seems to know what stupidity is. Logic isn't intelligence, it only works when knowledgeable and well-reasoned entities arrange it properly.
My feeling on the matter is that human intelligence is a liar and a theif, and if strong AI ever occurs, it will be an off-brand reinterpretation of human cognition.
I say our intelligence is a liar because our brains misinterpret with reckless abandon in the name of self-interest. It is a thief because we are not able to generate our own information. We are born with the blueprint for cognition, and perhaps even "genetic memories", and from then on all we know is what we experience. Every original idea bears the indelible mark of everything we've recorded in life. Humans and computers are similarly affected by GIGO.
But the really good things in life aren't reducible. Love, hate, food, sex, life, death. Emotionally charged abstracts created by a textured matrix of neuro-physical and neuro-electrochemical mentations make up our Platonic ideals, complex ideas, poetry, et cetera.
It's those things that we seem to need emotion to help us decode the significance of; Some ideas seem out of reach of logic, and require emotional energy to help us ascertain what is important.
Apparently necessary disclaimer: Extemporaneous thoughts on intelligence, not that I know much about it.
This is good; I wish I had been intelligent enough to think of it. :)
I wish I could make an insightful comment in response to this, but the ideas need some more time to gestate. Until the birth pangs, though: thanks for posting, Felix.
:mittens:
This sort of stuff comes to me constantly. I seem to have a cognitive theory compulsion. I'll keep posting my ideas ITT from now on.
Intelligence - lacking telligence.
It makes sense though, doesn't it? Why else would the smartest beings on earth :cn: be susceptible to mistakes a lower animal would never make? :cn: Why are we simultaneously the most advanced and yet the most mistake-prone species :cn: on earth?
Quote from: Felix on October 22, 2008, 09:38:31 PM
Intelligence seems to be, on a mechanical level, a brute force decryption of reality. Whatever that is.
Google for timewave zero. Look at the graph, then look at the graph of memory usage in a brute-force search (such as solving a complex problem in prolog). Then look at the scientific method.
Quote from: Felix on October 25, 2008, 02:01:53 AM
It makes sense though, doesn't it? Why else would the smartest beings on earth :cn: be susceptible to mistakes a lower animal would never make? :cn: Why are we simultaneously the most advanced and yet the most mistake-prone species :cn: on earth?
The more complex a system becomes the more unpredictability creeps in. Our minds seem to be complex enough to put us on a level which (whilst maybe not the top of the planet) would certainly be well up there.
The last I heard animal psychologists point blank refuse to attribute 'self awareness' in any degree to the rest of the animal kingdom. Whether or not I agree with this statement I would certainly agree that we seem to possess this meta-faculty to a far greater extent than the rest of the animal kingdom and I'm sure that's got a lot to do with the problem you mention.
Only a human has sufficient degree of meta thought to question why they got dealt their lot in life. Only a human is capable of thinking "Fuck this, I'm going to cut off my own genitals and post the pictures on BME"
We're an ant colony that doesn't take orders from the queen.
We're a flock of starlings with no flight plan, arguing about why we should all fly south for the winter.
We are, at the same time, the most impressive and the most ridiculous of all the beasts.
Yay us!
:mittens: Yay Us!
BTW, dolphins and corvids (ravens/crows) have been shown to be 'self aware' in that they can recognize themselves as a specific individual when shown their reflection in a mirror.
I might argue that, for the most part, cats are far more self-aware than humans; humans are generally on the same level as dogs or cattle in terms of identifying one's own will, whereas cats not only identify themselves by their will and preferences, but are strongly averse to doing anything that is suggested that doesn't directly mesh with their will in some way. Dogs can have their will replaced by the will of the owner via stimulus-response imprinting, but only cats will complain loudly and become stubbornly rude when their expected reward isn't coming -- often being able to undo a great deal of postitive feedback with one counterexample. This would be neurologically impossible without a great deal of internal activity, or a great deal of emphasis on the effectiveness of negative feedback as opposed to positive feedback. I might consider cats to fit well into the intense-world-syndrome model, which is actually fundamental to the strange loop called self. That said, cats seem to have a very simple language for communication, one that's closer to the use of instrumental music and interpretive dance to give meaning as opposed to the use in human natural languages of independent symbol-systems -- you give various syncopations, intensities, body correlations, frets, and strains to slight variations on "can has", "not want", and "yay", and then point with they eyes/paws/head or lead for context.
Do not compare cats to dogs. Seriously I beg you!
Cat's are not pack animals, therefore they have no desire to do what they're told hence their disobedient nature which cat owners love to anthropomorphise into human-like rebelliousness or whatever stupid fucking personality whatever stupid fucking cat owner likes to project.
Dogs on the other hand, whilst vastly more intelligent than cats, are still completely fucking stupid. However a dog will try to fit in with the pack more, because that's the way it survives in the wild.
Incidentally I place cat owners below cats in the self awareness/intelligence pecking order.
That's kind of my point. I consider disobedience a form of agency, and the type of disobedience a cat practices involves a lot of enginuity, which I consider the product of a pretty vast inner monologue.
You can train a dog to do something in return for something (food, a treat, whatever). Only a cat will figure out a way to get the treat while specifically avoiding what is requested. That isn't precisely all there is to intelligence -- a dog can learn things much faster than a cat, sure, but a cat is clever about avoiding doing what it's told, whereas a dog has no real motivation to develop a faculty for being clever about disobedience.
That said, this is from my POV, being a cat owner since birth, and being bitten or chased by nearly every dog that I've come within a ten foot radius of. As such, I have a bit of fear-loathing-and-pity towards dogs, and I probably put cats on a pedestal to compensate.
Quote from: Enki-][ on November 13, 2008, 12:45:01 AM
That's kind of my point. I consider disobedience a form of agency, and the type of disobedience a cat practices involves a lot of enginuity, which I consider the product of a pretty vast inner monologue.
You can train a dog to do something in return for something (food, a treat, whatever). Only a cat will figure out a way to get the treat while specifically avoiding what is requested. That isn't precisely all there is to intelligence -- a dog can learn things much faster than a cat, sure, but a cat is clever about avoiding doing what it's told, whereas a dog has no real motivation to develop a faculty for being clever about disobedience.
That said, this is from my POV, being a cat owner since birth, and being bitten or chased by nearly every dog that I've come within a ten foot radius of. As such, I have a bit of fear-loathing-and-pity towards dogs, and I probably put cats on a pedestal to compensate.
Do not confuse ignorance with rebellion, a cat has no idea what the fuck it's being told. They can be trained, apparently, but I think it's much harder an there's probably a lot less scope for what can be done with them.
I think the whole issue with animal intelligence is compounded because, whilst the animals might have little or no 'intellect' (for want of a better word) They still have a highly sophisticated neural net processor, capable of pulling off very impressive feats of ingenuity and adaptive response. Because, as humans, we largely take our ability for abstract thought for granted, we find it hard to imagine doing anything without it, so we project this onto animals when we see them doing things we'd have to think about.
Think about a squirrel. The leaves start falling off the trees and it starts stockpiling nuts for the winter. You'd be forgiving for thinking that the squirrel knows winter is coming but no - the squirrel is utterly incapable of imagining winter, it lacks the imaginative faculty for one thing. The squirrel is only concerned with it's immediate situation and, right now, it has a psychotic craving for nuts. That's just not a decision, it's hard wiring.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 13, 2008, 09:45:39 AM
Do not confuse ignorance with rebellion, a cat has no idea what the fuck it's being told. They can be trained, apparently, but I think it's much harder an there's probably a lot less scope for what can be done with them.
Meh. I think when an animal goes out of its way to avoid doing as it's told, it probably knows what it's being told to do. Anyway, I was just using cats as an example of one element of intelligence that I don't think many people consider; I wasn't trying to start a flamewar about whether cats are better than dogs. If that needs to be sorted out, I can start a topic for it in the Apple Talk forum, and then never look at it again.
You thought I was flaming you ?? :eek:
Holy shit you better hope I never do.
Anyroad, read my post again, I think I made my stance perfectly clear. What you refer to as "when an animal goes out of its way to avoid doing as it's told" I refer to as "the animal has no idea it's being told to do anything"
Under this pretext the human barking out the orders merely becomes another obstacle which the cat will have to circumvent in order to achieve its immediate goal.
I compared this to a dog, not because I think dogs are in some way better than cats but because a dog will respond differently and it's a good example to use - the reason the dog will attempt to obey orders is because it's hardwired to follow the commands of the pack leader. This is a gross oversimplification but, as a general rule, it works quite nicely.
If you really want to see a cat follow an order then use the "Freeze!" command and pick it up by the scruff of the neck. Cats are programmed to obey this order, although the verbal component is optional.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 13, 2008, 02:58:25 PM
You thought I was flaming you ?? :eek:
Holy shit you better hope I never do.
Anyroad, read my post again, I think I made my stance perfectly clear. What you refer to as "when an animal goes out of its way to avoid doing as it's told" I refer to as "the animal has no idea it's being told to do anything"
Under this pretext the human barking out the orders merely becomes another obstacle which the cat will have to circumvent in order to achieve its immediate goal.
I compared this to a dog, not because I think dogs are in some way better than cats but because a dog will respond differently and it's a good example to use - the reason the dog will attempt to obey orders is because it's hardwired to follow the commands of the pack leader. This is a gross oversimplification but, as a general rule, it works quite nicely.
If you really want to see a cat follow an order then use the "Freeze!" command and pick it up by the scruff of the neck. Cats are programmed to obey this order, although the verbal component is optional.
TITCM.
Especially the first two sentences.
My cat is actually incredibly well behaved in one respect though; I never feed her from my plate or anywhere else except her food bowl. And she never tries to get up into your food while you're eating it. I don't think this is so much training as it is setting her expectations very low from a young age, though.
I meant going out of its way to disobey in terms of using enginuity to avoid doing what would be far easier (obeying). If you tell a cat to get out of the room, and then shoo it out, it won't just go out, it will find a way to avoid going out, or will find a way to open the door and get back in. If you don't shoo it out, it will just open the door and leave by itself. In that context, obeying is easier than disobeying.
But just in general, I think needless rebellion is a force for increased intelligence rather than decreased, since in a pack system wherein the orders come down and should be obeyed, only the head of the pack is doing much actual thinking most of the time. In a context with a natural tendency towards rebellion rather than towards obeying, in order to survive while not obeying, one must be more clever to figure out how to get the desired outcome without doing the desired actions. Is it easier to memorize a document, or design an elaborate rube goldberg device to allow you to cheat and see the document? Which type of intelligence is more useful?
I think you've got that the wrong way round.
In a brain adapted to hunting things down alone (without co-operation from a pack), "Rebellion" is more likely. It's not so much rebellion as it is just individuality though. Cats seriously believe they are the absolute centre of the universe and everything revolves around them. They are driven only by their own instincts and curiosity and their own needs.
For "pack" intelligence, it is indeed much more likely that hierarchical needs will over ride individual ones (within reason) as what is good for the pack is good for the individual.
I don't think we can really expect to gain too much that is useful from this line of enquiry though, our brains are wired for "pack" intelligence, they evolved as tools to make co-operation in a group more efficient. We can change little bits here and there, but to make any REAL change we'd have to transplant our brains.
I have to admit the whole cat thing is a bit of a hobby horse of mine. I've mentioned this before but I'm sure the problem comes because cats will ignore you and it's easier to project wilfulness upon them, whereas a dog will try to work out what you want it to do and give it a go, inevitably fucking it up completely and therefore appearing dumb.
I'm sure this is why cat owners come up with these pathetic fucking stories about what their cat did and make it sound as if the dumb little bastard was hatching a masterplan.
You know how BMW gets when people start spouting pseudoscience? Well I'm like that with animal psychology. I'm not an expert but it is an interest of mine and I know the basics so when I hear someone going on about how "tiddles has a mind of his own" and other such bullshit I'm compelled to smash them in the face until they shut up.
Of course I'm just waiting for the first person to jump on this thread with 'evidence' that their little "Fluffycunt" is the exception to this rule as inevitably happens. Cat hyperintelligence is, at best, an optical illusion and, at worst, the dumbest form of pseudoscience that ever existed. In fact I'm not sure if it even qualifies as pseudoscience, more just a case of living in cloud bloody cuckoo land.
I guess what I'm saying is that taking orders is easier than avoiding them, given the same end result. It provides a greater challenge, and requires a bit more inventive cleverness.
On a mildly related note, some food for thought:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto
Quote
ne morning last July, in the rain forest of northwestern Brazil, Dan Everett, an American linguistics professor, and I stepped from the pontoon of a Cessna floatplane onto the beach bordering the Maici River, a narrow, sharply meandering tributary of the Amazon. On the bank above us were some thirty people—short, dark-skinned men, women, and children—some clutching bows and arrows, others with infants on their hips. The people, members of a hunter-gatherer tribe called the Pirahã, responded to the sight of Everett—a solidly built man of fifty-five with a red beard and the booming voice of a former evangelical minister—with a greeting that sounded like a profusion of exotic songbirds, a melodic chattering scarcely discernible, to the uninitiated, as human speech. Unrelated to any other extant tongue, and based on just eight consonants and three vowels, Pirahã has one of the simplest sound systems known. Yet it possesses such a complex array of tones, stresses, and syllable lengths that its speakers can dispense with their vowels and consonants altogether and sing, hum, or whistle conversations. It is a language so confounding to non-natives that until Everett and his wife, Keren, arrived among the Pirahã, as Christian missionaries, in the nineteen-seventies, no outsider had succeeded in mastering it. Everett eventually abandoned Christianity, but he and Keren have spent the past thirty years, on and off, living with the tribe, and in that time they have learned Pirahã as no other Westerners have.
"Xaói hi gáísai xigíaihiabisaoaxái ti xabiíhai hiatíihi xigío hoíhi," Everett said in the tongue's choppy staccato, introducing me as someone who would be "staying for a short time" in the village. The men and women answered in an echoing chorus, "Xaói hi goó kaisigíaihí xapagáiso."
Everett turned to me. "They want to know what you're called in 'crooked head.' "
"Crooked head" is the tribe's term for any language that is not Pirahã, and it is a clear pejorative. The Pirahã consider all forms of human discourse other than their own to be laughably inferior, and they are unique among Amazonian peoples in remaining monolingual. They playfully tossed my name back and forth among themselves, altering it slightly with each reiteration, until it became an unrecognizable syllable. They never uttered it again, but instead gave me a lilting Pirahã name: Kaaxáoi, that of a Pirahã man, from a village downriver, whom they thought I resembled. "That's completely consistent with my main thesis about the tribe," Everett told me later. "They reject everything from outside their world. They just don't want it, and it's been that way since the day the Brazilians first found them in this jungle in the seventeen-hundreds."
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 13, 2008, 03:39:49 PM
I have to admit the whole cat thing is a bit of a hobby horse of mine. I've mentioned this before but I'm sure the problem comes because cats will ignore you and it's easier to project wilfulness upon them, whereas a dog will try to work out what you want it to do and give it a go, inevitably fucking it up completely and therefore appearing dumb.
I'm sure this is why cat owners come up with these pathetic fucking stories about what their cat did and make it sound as if the dumb little bastard was hatching a masterplan.
You know how BMW gets when people start spouting pseudoscience? Well I'm like that with animal psychology. I'm not an expert but it is an interest of mine and I know the basics so when I hear someone going on about how "tiddles has a mind of his own" and other such bullshit I'm compelled to smash them in the face until they shut up.
Of course I'm just waiting for the first person to jump on this thread with 'evidence' that their little "Fluffycunt" is the exception to this rule as inevitably happens. Cat hyperintelligence is, at best, an optical illusion and, at worst, the dumbest form of pseudoscience that ever existed. In fact I'm not sure if it even qualifies as pseudoscience, more just a case of living in cloud bloody cuckoo land.
lail.
That's an unexpected button to find.
But seriously. MY CAT CAN FLY! And she can do the TIMES CROSSWORD!
AT THE SAME TIME!!
This thread is great. Also, I agree with everything Pent and Payne are saying about animal psychology in this thread. The reason cats seem so rebellious is because in their ansestoral form they were solitary. Solitary animals have survivals based only on their own merits and do not have social behavior, therefore they seem rebellious, but they aren't really rebelling against anything. Dogs, on the other hand, have an ansestoral form which was (and still is) a pack animal with very hierarchical social behavior. If you DON'T give a dog a pack like situation in which they are the omega and you are the alpha, they will walk all over you. As soon as you assert yourself as their alpha they are easier to train.
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 04:52:45 PM
This thread is great. Also, I agree with everything Pent and Payne are saying about animal psychology in this thread. The reason cats seem so rebellious is because in their ansestoral form they were solitary. Solitary animals have survivals based only on their own merits and do not have social behavior, therefore they seem rebellious, but they aren't really rebelling against anything. Dogs, on the other hand, have an ansestoral form which was (and still is) a pack animal with very hierarchical social behavior. If you DON'T give a dog a pack like situation in which they are the omega and you are the alpha, they will walk all over you. As soon as you assert yourself as their alpha they are easier to train.
I should point out that it isn't only cat owners who exhibit the attitude/belief system I outlined above. This also applies to owners of "small yappy-type dogs" who treat their beast as some kind of surrogate child. You can spot them a mile off because the animal is usually carried in public and often wearing some form of designer garment to keep it's fur warm. These pet owners annoy the living piss out of me too. And their animals are usually ill tempered and aggressive, right up until I assert my alpha dominance over the little bastards.
The reason the cat owners bug me slightly more is because their canine coddling counterparts are usually, quite evidently, total fuckheads but a lot of people who I would ordinarily have a lot of respect for seem to become gibbering fannypads when presented with the fools gold of feline genius.
While we are on the subject of animal intellect, tho, what's your take on the debate BMW? Do you think it's a clear cut case of only humans possess the higher faculty of "self awareness/abstract thought" or, like me, do you have it on a sliding scale? Has any conclusive evidence been presented either way since I last heard of the "Washo" primate language studies?
I think I don't know enough about it to really make any statements about it, besides knowing there are mammals and birds that are self aware, and apes that are capable of tool making and "simple need" communication through ASL. I don't have a clue if they are capable of the complex abstract thought processes we are or not. I do believe there are less degrees of separation than most people think between great apes such as chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas and humans.
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 06:05:59 PM
I think I don't know enough about it to really make any statements about it, besides knowing there are mammals and birds that are self aware, and apes that are capable of tool making and "simple need" communication through ASL. I don't have a clue if they are capable of the complex abstract thought processes we are or not. I do believe there are less degrees of separation than most people think between great apes such as chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas and humans.
I'm pretty sure that cats don't have complex language. It all seems to be variations on "not want", "can has", and "yaaay", along with the ability to point at things. Sort of like music. I don't think dogs do any better, though. I've only heard variations of "give me" and "go away" from them.
Quote from: Enki-][ on November 13, 2008, 06:55:33 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 06:05:59 PM
I think I don't know enough about it to really make any statements about it, besides knowing there are mammals and birds that are self aware, and apes that are capable of tool making and "simple need" communication through ASL. I don't have a clue if they are capable of the complex abstract thought processes we are or not. I do believe there are less degrees of separation than most people think between great apes such as chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas and humans.
I'm pretty sure that cats don't have complex language. It all seems to be variations on "not want", "can has", and "yaaay", along with the ability to point at things. Sort of like music. I don't think dogs do any better, though. I've only heard variations of "give me" and "go away" from them.
I'm seriously not trying to belittle you or your point or anything here, Enki, but how the hell is that like music?
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 13, 2008, 07:06:25 PM
Quote from: Enki-][ on November 13, 2008, 06:55:33 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 06:05:59 PM
I think I don't know enough about it to really make any statements about it, besides knowing there are mammals and birds that are self aware, and apes that are capable of tool making and "simple need" communication through ASL. I don't have a clue if they are capable of the complex abstract thought processes we are or not. I do believe there are less degrees of separation than most people think between great apes such as chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas and humans.
I'm pretty sure that cats don't have complex language. It all seems to be variations on "not want", "can has", and "yaaay", along with the ability to point at things. Sort of like music. I don't think dogs do any better, though. I've only heard variations of "give me" and "go away" from them.
I'm seriously not trying to belittle you or your point or anything here, Enki, but how the hell is that like music?
You ever hear a noob playing violin? :lulz:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 13, 2008, 07:29:02 PM
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 13, 2008, 07:06:25 PM
Quote from: Enki-][ on November 13, 2008, 06:55:33 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 06:05:59 PM
I think I don't know enough about it to really make any statements about it, besides knowing there are mammals and birds that are self aware, and apes that are capable of tool making and "simple need" communication through ASL. I don't have a clue if they are capable of the complex abstract thought processes we are or not. I do believe there are less degrees of separation than most people think between great apes such as chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas and humans.
I'm pretty sure that cats don't have complex language. It all seems to be variations on "not want", "can has", and "yaaay", along with the ability to point at things. Sort of like music. I don't think dogs do any better, though. I've only heard variations of "give me" and "go away" from them.
I'm seriously not trying to belittle you or your point or anything here, Enki, but how the hell is that like music?
You ever hear a noob playing violin? :lulz:
:lol:
Unfortunately, yes. *shudder* But that sounded more like a human-sized cicada being tortured to death with a hot knife, rather than 'variations on "not want", "can has", and "yaaay", along with the ability to point at things'.
:lulz:
Quote from: Manta Obscura on November 13, 2008, 07:06:25 PM
Quote from: Enki-][ on November 13, 2008, 06:55:33 PM
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 06:05:59 PM
I think I don't know enough about it to really make any statements about it, besides knowing there are mammals and birds that are self aware, and apes that are capable of tool making and "simple need" communication through ASL. I don't have a clue if they are capable of the complex abstract thought processes we are or not. I do believe there are less degrees of separation than most people think between great apes such as chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas and humans.
I'm pretty sure that cats don't have complex language. It all seems to be variations on "not want", "can has", and "yaaay", along with the ability to point at things. Sort of like music. I don't think dogs do any better, though. I've only heard variations of "give me" and "go away" from them.
I'm seriously not trying to belittle you or your point or anything here, Enki, but how the hell is that like music?
I consider it to be kind of like how meaning is transferred in baroque music (and moreso in Beethoven's orchestra pieces), except super-simplified -- you have a relatively small number of individual discrete melodies, each with a certain meaning, with slight variations to indicate intensity. It can be syncopated impatiently, the volume can be raised, the frequency can be changed, the whole thing can be warped or made to wobble around on the scale, and you can combine more than one at once. In this case, you have variations on three melodies (not want, can has, and yaay), and the variations include body movements.
I thought all animals were not particularly intelligent in any human sense. Then I spent the last 6 years sharing a home with an African Gray Parrot*.
Cats got nothing on those bastards.
*The Alex experiments indicate that African Grays may have an intelligence on par with a 5 year old human and the emotional maturity of a 2 year old human.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 13, 2008, 10:13:57 PM
*The Alex experiments indicate that African Grays may have an intelligence on par with a 5 year old human and the emotional maturity of a 2 year old human.
Why in the hell would anyone willingly subject themselves to a monster creature like that?
They are capable of more than 100 word vocabulary.
I spent about 2 years in the company of a rescued wild caught one, unfortunately it was clinically insane (no joke) Something to do with being crated up with a couple of hundred of it's wild pals and shipped across to britain. Typically between 33 and 50% of them survive the trip.
The "lucky" ones are a tad mistrusting of humans by the time they arrive.
Fkin incredible animal tho.
I heard about the experiments with that parrot. It took them years and years, and the parrot died the day after it first learned to count to seven. Or maybe five. I forget.
There was also something about figuring out a UI so that it could surf the internet. Say what you want about my love for cats, but I never spent any time figuring out a way that my cat could use a web browser. But I never did it for my grandfather's african grey parrot either. Or my grandfather.
Listen, I have a five-year-old and I'm grateful that she has the emotional development of a three-year-old (demon) because two-year-olds are insanely selfish. Why would anyone want to keep such a nightmare beast as a pet? I only have mine because of biological imperative. Don't get me wrong, I love her, I like her, she's super entertaining, but I can't imagine signing on to such a creature if it was strictly optional.
Also, how are they measuring intelligence? Puzzle-solving? Wondering because the five-year-olds I am familiar with can count for as long as they have breath (because once they figure out the number system, it's obvious) and have vocabularies of at least 15,000 words.
As we know quite well from this forum, being able to speak doesn't necessarily imply you have anything interesting to say.
I'd just like to say that although my cat was certainly not some sort of animal prodigy, or above-average intelligence in every way, he still survived for 18 years as an indoor-outdoor cat and didn't afraid of anything. Loyal as a dog, even if he had no real notion of pack mentality.
Cainad,
Misses that lovable old crank
IN our case, Sjaantze's ex bought her as a 'surprise pet'. Parrots are not good pets, they should live free in the Jungle. :(
However, Alex was purchased specifically for testing.
http://www.alexfoundation.org/index2.html (http://www.alexfoundation.org/index2.html)
There are lots of videos of him as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYk-wE18BTo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYk-wE18BTo)
Alex is a half arsed american experiment. Here in scotland we do it much better (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TRhvUJIwbV0&feature=related)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 02:01:33 PM
Alex is a half arsed american experiment. Here in scotland we do it much better (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TRhvUJIwbV0&feature=related)
Because we're awesome.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on November 14, 2008, 02:01:33 PM
Alex is a half arsed american experiment. Here in scotland we do it much better (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TRhvUJIwbV0&feature=related)
:mittens:
Scotland wins everything forever.
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:23:48 AM
IN our case, Sjaantze's ex bought her as a 'surprise pet'. Parrots are not good pets, they should live free in the Jungle. :(
However, Alex was purchased specifically for testing.
http://www.alexfoundation.org/index2.html (http://www.alexfoundation.org/index2.html)
There are lots of videos of him as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYk-wE18BTo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYk-wE18BTo)
Testing what? Whether parrots are intelligent? It's not a surprise to me when animals can talk or count or analyze objects in their environment... we're animals, if we can do it then all other animals are somewhere on a familiar spectrum of intelligence and communication.
And I agree with you, parrots belong in the wild. I have parakeets, and these noisy little bastards also belong in the wild, but one was a rescue from a household which was literally going to knowingly let her die of beakmites instead of shelling out a few bucks for treatment, and the other is her companion so she's not lonely.
Parakeets, at least, are too stupid to get neurotic the way parrots do.
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2008, 05:42:00 PM
Quote from: Ratatosk on November 14, 2008, 05:23:48 AM
IN our case, Sjaantze's ex bought her as a 'surprise pet'. Parrots are not good pets, they should live free in the Jungle. :(
However, Alex was purchased specifically for testing.
http://www.alexfoundation.org/index2.html (http://www.alexfoundation.org/index2.html)
There are lots of videos of him as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYk-wE18BTo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYk-wE18BTo)
Testing what? Whether parrots are intelligent? It's not a surprise to me when animals can talk or count or analyze objects in their environment... we're animals, if we can do it then all other animals are somewhere on a familiar spectrum of intelligence and communication.
And I agree with you, parrots belong in the wild. I have parakeets, and these noisy little bastards also belong in the wild, but one was a rescue from a household which was literally going to knowingly let her die of beakmites instead of shelling out a few bucks for treatment, and the other is her companion so she's not lonely.
Parakeets, at least, are too stupid to get neurotic the way parrots do.
They wanted to figure out how much a bird could learn. When Alex was started, the presumption by most biologists was that a large brain was needed for intelligence. So dolphins, apes, whales etc were potentials... birds, it was assumed, were simply parroting humans.
At this point, though, that view has changed dramatically, in part because of Alex. Interestingly though, they think that corvids (crows, ravens etc), may be more intelligent than parrots.
One of my favorite Alex stories involves an IQ test. A nut is tied to a string and then hung from the perch. They judge the intelligence of the bird by how quickly it figures out a way to get the nut. Some birds will just look at it and squak, some will climb/slide down the string and some will pull the string up.
They told Alex "Get the nut."
Alex said "No. You get nut."
They replied "Alex, get the nut"
Alex looked at the nut, looked at the trainer and sais "NO. YOU GET NUT" (loudly)
The trainer said "No, Alexs, You get the nut."
Alex said "N U T... You Get NUT!"
And then he refused to discuss the matter further.
:lulz:
Crows are super-smart, for sure. Also, incredibly strange. Every time I've been pregnant the local crows have been fascinated with me (maybe they do this with all pregnant women? and there was a large family of crows that lived near my last home that was OBSESSED with my oldest daughter. They would congregate around the house and if we went to the store several would go with us, and be waiting outside the store to follow us home again. If we were in the back yard they would come around back to watch us. They were pretty cool, really, but it creeped out some of my friends. Then we moved, and the new crows seem to like us (especially after I had another baby) but not like those other ones did.
A few years ago a crow decided it couldn't stand my friend Pete, and would dive-bomb and harass her every time she left the house. He'd follow her for BLOCKS on foot, trying to drop stuff on her head, and would throw things at her car as well. He kept it up for months.
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2008, 06:34:25 PM
Crows are super-smart, for sure. Also, incredibly strange. Every time I've been pregnant the local crows have been fascinated with me (maybe they do this with all pregnant women? and there was a large family of crows that lived near my last home that was OBSESSED with my oldest daughter. They would congregate around the house and if we went to the store several would go with us, and be waiting outside the store to follow us home again. If we were in the back yard they would come around back to watch us. They were pretty cool, really, but it creeped out some of my friends. Then we moved, and the new crows seem to like us (especially after I had another baby) but not like those other ones did.
A few years ago a crow decided it couldn't stand my friend Pete, and would dive-bomb and harass her every time she left the house. He'd follow her for BLOCKS on foot, trying to drop stuff on her head, and would throw things at her car as well. He kept it up for months.
The crow is now the official Discordian bird.
Quote from: Cainad on November 14, 2008, 06:41:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on November 14, 2008, 06:34:25 PM
Crows are super-smart, for sure. Also, incredibly strange. Every time I've been pregnant the local crows have been fascinated with me (maybe they do this with all pregnant women? and there was a large family of crows that lived near my last home that was OBSESSED with my oldest daughter. They would congregate around the house and if we went to the store several would go with us, and be waiting outside the store to follow us home again. If we were in the back yard they would come around back to watch us. They were pretty cool, really, but it creeped out some of my friends. Then we moved, and the new crows seem to like us (especially after I had another baby) but not like those other ones did.
A few years ago a crow decided it couldn't stand my friend Pete, and would dive-bomb and harass her every time she left the house. He'd follow her for BLOCKS on foot, trying to drop stuff on her head, and would throw things at her car as well. He kept it up for months.
The crow is now the official Discordian bird.
I agree, although I think the dodo or the puffin would be good choices, too.
Has anyone ever made a thread suggesting various "official" Discordian animals/plants/songs/whatever? It would be funny to hear what everyone came up with because, hell, it's funny hearing what some of those things are for states, so it would be a riot hearing the Discordian take on it.
Official Discordian flower: Titan arum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_arum), one of the famous "carrion flowers."
Official Discordian non-flowering plant: Venus flytrap
Official Discordian non-placental mammal: Echidna and/or platypus
Official Discordian song: Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVK2jUCAjlw)
Quote from: Barack Obama on November 14, 2008, 07:37:37 PM
Official Discordian non-placental mammal: Echidna and/or platypus
FUCK YOU: PANGOLIN OR GTFO
Quote from: Barack Obama on November 14, 2008, 07:37:37 PM
Official Discordian non-flowering plant: Venus flytrap
Actually the venus flytrap, like most other carnivorous plants, is an angiosperm.
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 14, 2008, 08:25:09 PM
Quote from: Barack Obama on November 14, 2008, 07:37:37 PM
Official Discordian non-flowering plant: Venus flytrap
Actually the venus flytrap, like most other carnivorous plants, is an angiosperm.
You come up with something then, smarty pants. I hope you enjoy your new compulsory appointment as head of the Department of Agriculture.
Official Discordian flower: Self Raising
Official Discordian animal: candiru
Official Discordian song: Twinkle twinkle little star
Quote from: Mary Whitehouse on November 14, 2008, 08:39:58 PM
Official Discordian flower: Self Raising
Official Discordian animal: candiru
Official Discordian song: Twinkle twinkle little star
:ohnotache:
:x :x :x
:argh!:
:x
:goatse:
:jihaad: :love:
....
:fuckmittens: :lulz:
Quote from: Barack Obama on November 14, 2008, 08:37:26 PM
Quote from: Nasturtiums on November 14, 2008, 08:25:09 PM
Quote from: Barack Obama on November 14, 2008, 07:37:37 PM
Official Discordian non-flowering plant: Venus flytrap
Actually the venus flytrap, like most other carnivorous plants, is an angiosperm.
You come up with something then, smarty pants. I hope you enjoy your new compulsory appointment as head of the Department of Agriculture.
I recommend sphagnum moss, since it sounds like "spagnum", and it's used in the production of whiskey. 8)
Official Discordian Anthem: Dance Commander.
Or GTFO.
Quote from: Payne on November 14, 2008, 09:24:08 PM
Official Discordian Anthem: Dance Commander.
Or GTFO.
:mittens: :fuckmittens: :mittens:
I appoint you Secretary of Mittens and Win.
Quote from: Another Marie Antoinette on November 14, 2008, 08:25:09 PM
Quote from: Barack Obama on November 14, 2008, 07:37:37 PM
Official Discordian non-flowering plant: Venus flytrap
Actually the venus flytrap, like most other carnivorous plants, is an angiosperm.
Who are you again? Because we need to talk more often.
Official discordian tribe of jungle pigmies: Pirahã (click for why (http://"http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto"))
Official discordian surprised photographed pedestrian: (http://yfinder.de/random/horrible.jpg) This guy
Quote from: Enki-][ on November 15, 2008, 02:56:13 AM
Official discordian tribe of jungle pigmies: Pirahã (click for why (http://"http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/04/16/070416fa_fact_colapinto"))
Official discordian surprised photographed pedestrian: (http://yfinder.de/random/horrible.jpg) This guy
...If BME did furries :lulz:
Quote from: Enki-][ on November 12, 2008, 03:27:09 PM
Quote from: Felix on October 22, 2008, 09:38:31 PM
Intelligence seems to be, on a mechanical level, a brute force decryption of reality. Whatever that is.
Google for timewave zero. Look at the graph, then look at the graph of memory usage in a brute-force search (such as solving a complex problem in prolog). Then look at the scientific method.
i think i saw the timewave zero graph, but i'm not sure if it's the same one. i'm not sure about the memory usage in a brute-force search graph though, would you perhaps mind looking up the pics you're thinking of link them and expand on this subject?
Quote from: Telarus on November 12, 2008, 07:34:24 PM
BTW, dolphins and corvids (ravens/crows) have been shown to be 'self aware' in that they can recognize themselves as a specific individual when shown their reflection in a mirror.
:cn:
ever bother to look that up?
Quote from: Kai on November 13, 2008, 06:05:59 PMI think I don't know enough about it to really make any statements about it, besides knowing there are mammals and birds that are self aware, and apes that are capable of tool making and "simple need" communication through ASL. I don't have a clue if they are capable of the complex abstract thought processes we are or not. I do believe there are less degrees of separation than most people think between great apes such as chimpanzees, orangutans, and gorillas and humans.
according to Steven Pinker in
The Language Instinct the sign-language experiments on apes were flawed. it was a high amount of wishful thinking and the very same human projection errors we are talking about here, on the researchers part. the one researcher who was deaf and actually knew sign language wasn't convinced the ape was using ASL at all, but was hushed down by the others for not noting down enough "obvious" examples of sign language use. what the ape was communicating was no more than something "me eat me banana me eat eat banana" without any differentiation between those three signs (me/banana/eat), just some vague conditioning that producing any number of those signs in any order would result in food. you could call that "simple need" communication, but it's really got not much to do with sign language at all, just a slightly harder to memorize variant of "push button, receive food".
:lulz: I do love that stephen pinker. I've shot down so many people with the footnotes from that part of the book.
Just so you have some closer to hand sources:
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-09-11/article/31102?headline=Wild-Neighbors-Corvid-Minds-Know-Yourself-Know-Your-Enemy
http://www.stoweboyd.com/mind/2008/08/mirror-self-rec.html
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2517621
http://integral-options.blogspot.com/2007/02/bird-brains-on-corvid-intelligence.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=corvid+mirror+study&start=10&sa=N
Ah thanks Telarus, I was just about to go hunting for the Magpie/mirror experiment :)
Of course, even if it were to come to light that no animals can recoginize themselves in mirrors... it does little good in determining if they have consciousness... Young humans appear to have consciousness, yet they don't necessarily recoginize themselves as being the baby in the mirror.
Consciousness is a very poorly defined term. We can test sentience, sort of, and metacognition, as well as specific applications of a combination therein, but it's pretty hard to test consciousness itself since it seems to be an emergent property of all the parts. In other words, I think that the Turing Test is a pretty good hack from a maths POV, assuming you agree with the axiomatic nature of the identity of indistinguishables (which is purely pragmatic anyway). But, we probably can't expect birds to pass the turing test -- many people can't pass it (myself included). Someone nonfluent in the language of the test (or functionally fluent but not quite fluent) could easily fail. Before we can test consciousness, we need to define it, and before we test consciousness in animals, we need to define it in a way that doesn't include "human" in the phrasing of any criteria. Problem with that is that some animals would pass and a lot of humans in relatively high positions would not :P
Thank you for using the word emergent in regard to consciousness Enki. It sends shivers of joy through me.
Zero: I had only heard about the use of signs. Even if it is not ASL, a hand sign in any form in regards to simple need was what I have heard. Thats more or less what I was saying. Self recognition and tool usage still stand.
of course :) i just needed to debunk the ASL story :)
Unfortunately, my conceptual graph of timewave zero (reversing from the retrofitted explanation made up after the actual graph, which was based on an equation worked out from cryptic clues gotten during a shroom trip that the brothers Mckenna took) when finally graphed looks nothing like the official Mckenna timewave zero graph. However, unlike the Mckenna graph, it actually makes sense. I worked it out at one point and got it displaying nicely in gnuplot, so next time I bring it up I'll take a screenie.
(http://www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/tw.gif)
This is the closest to my conceptualization shapewise, however it actually is mathematically opposite. My conceptualization was that of a sine wave whose amplitude was an odd exponent of the closeness to zero and whose length was logarithmic to the same. As systemization progresses, the model grows exponentially to time with the contstraints growing linearly, the model size going through a dropoff when it hits an empirical constraint that it cannot coexist with (the rutherford experiment with the tin foil shows that the plum pudding model of the atom cannot be correct, for instance), at which point the size of the model decreases. The constraints remain, though, and make it quicker to build up a new model. At a certain point (the intersection with the Y axis) the length of a cycle is epsilon and the amplitude is omega (or, if the continuity theorem holds up, alef null; i.e., infinity). This means that within an infinitely short period of time, there are an infinite number of creations and rejections of models of a growingly infinite size despite the linearity of the constraints. So in my model, it would be sort of that shape but get sharper and taller and more jaggedy at the end, while at the very end it would be a straight line nearly on the axis.