Animal Intelligence

[freeztar]

Today, I read this great National Geographic article on animal intelligence that I believe is worthy of some discussion here.

 

It begs the question, how do we define intelligence?

Is this work being done significant or is it a waste of time?

 

With dogs, for example, is "fetch" a game of intelligence? What about the acquisition of a "sit" command?

 

Do you find the article compelling? Are there similar examples you know of, or even personal anecdotes?

[jedaisoul]

Today, I read this great National Geographic article on animal intelligence that I believe is worthy of some discussion here.

 

It begs the question, how do we define intelligence?

Is this work being done significant or is it a waste of time?

 

With dogs, for example, is "fetch" a game of intelligence? What about the acquisition of a "sit" command?

 

Do you find the article compelling? Are there similar examples you know of, or even personal anecdotes?

Firstly, congratulations on becoming a full Moderator. I'm sure it is well deserved.

 

My own recent experience of animal behaviour is a Welsh Corgi called "Katy" who likes to play variants of "fetch". If she has no toy in her mouth, she will often pick up a ball in her mouth and bring it back, as usual. But if she has a toy in her mouth she will kick the ball instead. She has become quite proficient at kicking a ball in an intended direction. Also if the ball is in a position where she cannot kick it, she will put down the toy, pick up the ball with her teeth and place it suitably, pick up her toy and then kick the ball. She has done this without prompting, which implies an ability to reason logically.

 

My question is, why are some educated and intelligent people so against the idea that the higher animals are intelligent?

[InfiniteNow]

My question is, why are some educated and intelligent people so against the idea that the higher animals are intelligent?

 

I speculate that it has a few root causes.

 

One, that we as a species are very competitive, yet in parallel have rather weak egos which often need stroking. We tend to use arbitrary cues and definitions in a way such that we maintain our "status" as the smartest. Many people just take it further than the rest, and interpret it to mean that "only humans" are intelligent. Commonly, this is the direct result of the very narrow and biased definition of intelligence being used.

 

Two, many biblical teachings showing that "man" is "special" and built in the image of "god" and given "dominion" over the "lesser animals." Through the repetetive teachings from religious leaders and reinforcement from parents and peers, these concepts make up a greater and greater part of the overall psyche of the "student" as they age, until they ultimately see these ideas as "common sense" or "common knowledge" or "truth," and they blindly accept that animals are not intelligent.

 

Three, not enough science education, pure and simple. The meme is treated as truth without evidence or support, and the studies done in biology, psychology, and other related fields which show the amazing abilities of non-humans fall on the deaf ears and blind eyes of those who won't accept things counter to their existing worldview.

 

 

So, here it is again in bullet-point form:

• Innate competitiveness
  
• Fragile ego
  
• Narrow and biased definition of intelligence itself
  
• Teaching of religious story as truth
  
• Lack of education on the subject
  
• Deeply ingrained worldviews tend to exhibit strong inertia to change, despite clear information to the contrary

 

 

It's really one of my pet peeves. Are humans different and special? Well, yeah, in some ways and in some contexts. Are animals not capable and not intelligent, or not special, because they'e not human? Bullshit. Get over yourself.

[InfiniteNow]

It begs the question, how do we define intelligence?

Is this work being done significant or is it a waste of time?

 

Therein lies the rub.

 

There are many theories of intelligence, and no one true concept has yet risen to the top.

 

Here are a few on quick search:

 

Multiple Intelligences : Theory

Human Intelligence: Intelligence Theory and Gifted Education

Great Ideas in Personality--Intelligence

 

 

 

The first link splits them into seven categories: Linguistic, Logical/Mathematical, Musical, Spatial, Bodily, Interpersonal, and Intrapersonal intelligence.

 

 

I do very much think it's a pursuit worthy of our time, however, the way we choose which definition to use is often completely arbitrary, and that's an issue I'm not sure how to resolve. :)

[freeztar]

Good posts IN!

 

I do very much think it's a pursuit worthy of our time, however, the way we choose which definition to use is often completely arbitrary, and that's an issue I'm not sure how to resolve. :)

 

Yeah, that's tricky. I suppose the only way to resolve that issue is to collectively agree to discuss within the context of a single, agreed upon definition of intelligence.

 

Of course, that's easier said than done. ;)

[freeztar]

My own recent experience of animal behaviour is a Welsh Corgi called "Katy" who likes to play variants of "fetch". If she has no toy in her mouth, she will often pick up a ball in her mouth and bring it back, as usual. But if she has a toy in her mouth she will kick the ball instead. She has become quite proficient at kicking a ball in an intended direction. Also if the ball is in a position where she cannot kick it, she will put down the toy, pick up the ball with her teeth and place it suitably, pick up her toy and then kick the ball. She has done this without prompting, which implies an ability to reason logically.

 

Interesting, a soccer dog.

I think you've pointed to one of the distinguishing factors of animal intelligence that the researchers in the article refer to, which is the lack of prompting. For example, in the article, the parrot calls an apple "bannery" which is a combination of banana and cherry. He did this without prompting, demonstrating the advanced concept of synthesis.

[Galapagos]

http://hypography.com/forums/medical-science-news/14304-your-brain-jazz.html

 

"Limb notes that this type of brain activity may also be present during other types of improvisational behavior that are integral parts of life for artists and non-artists alike. For example, he notes, people are continually improvising words in conversations and improvising solutions to problems on the spot. "Without this type of creativity, humans wouldn't have advanced as a species. It's an integral part of who we are," Limb says.

 

He and Braun plan to use similar techniques to see whether the improvisational brain activity they identified matches that in other types of artists, such as poets or visual artists, as well as non-artists asked to improvise."

 

 

 

 

This story on the front page made me immediately think back to the article in this thread. The ability to improvise with language was demonstrated by this bird, would that mean the bird is using a similar part of the brain detectable in MRI scan of a human? Would it also be possible to scan the brain of this bird to see where the activity is taking place, and if so, could we see the same creative intelligence going on in the brain of animals lacking the ability to speak or demonstrate it lingually?

Would there be a specific junction on the animal kingdom off-shoot of the phylogenetic tree in which we see this sort of creative brain activity forming?

 

Edit-to be clear, I'm referring specifically to the birds use of the term "banerry", a combination of cherry and banana to describe an apple, when I refer to the birds improvisational speech.

[goku]

With dogs, for example, is "fetch" a game of intelligence? What about the acquisition of a "sit" command?

 

ford makes cars that respond to voice.

 

which is more intelligent, the car or the dog?

 

i think intelligence resides only in the realm of humans.

our thoughts, our comunication, our feelings, our building capibillities, our lack of contentment.

[freeztar]

ford makes cars that respond to voice.

 

which is more intelligent, the car or the dog?

 

The dog can adapt while the car cannot. Also, the car is just an extension of our own intelligence. We program it, it does not exist on its own.

i think intelligence resides only in the realm of humans.

our thoughts, our comunication, our feelings, our building capibillities, our lack of contentment.

 

Why do you think that?

I like the "lack of contentment" argument as I've never heard/thought about that before. Some people claim that dogs can become depressed. Is this a "lack of contentment"?

[freeztar]

This story on the front page made me immediately think back to the article in this thread. The ability to improvise with language was demonstrated by this bird, would that mean the bird is using a similar part of the brain detectable in MRI scan of a human? Would it also be possible to scan the brain of this bird to see where the activity is taking place, and if so, could we see the same creative intelligence going on in the brain of animals lacking the ability to speak or demonstrate it lingually?

Would there be a specific junction on the animal kingdom off-shoot of the phylogenetic tree in which we see this sort of creative brain activity forming?

 

All good questions!

Unfortunately I don't have an answer for any of them, but for the last one, I'd guess yes. It all depends on our definition of intelligence.

[goku]

The dog can adapt while the car cannot. Also, the car is just an extension of our own intelligence. We program it, it does not exist on its own.

 

the dog also knows german, spanish? and the car?

 

so the dog is born knowing what sit or fetch means?

 

also people are evil

[freeztar]

the dog also knows german, spanish? and the car?

 

I'm not sure about the car, but dogs can learn any language. My friend has an ex-rescue dog (german shepard) that was trained in German. He'll sit with the command "sit" or the German equivalent.

so the dog is born knowing what sit or fetch means?

That's a very valid point. I assume your question is making the point that we programmed the dog as well.

 

We do program the dogs/birds/whatever, but their capacity to be programmed speaks of intelligence to me. A computer is intelligent because we made it that way, it's an extension of our own intellect imho. A dog is born with the "OS and compilers" built in.

also people are evil

 

:)

Ok, that's out of left field. Although on some days I would tend to agree with you, it's not relevant to this discussion.

[Jay-qu]

YouTube - smart cheetah http://youtube.com/watch?v=KzvC93itdyY

 

This is one smart cat :)

[goku]

This is one smart cat

 

knowing where to put your sssssstuff, proof of intelligence?

but i wrecon it was scientiffic, because there was a scientist there. :QuestionM

[goku]

A computer is intelligent because we made it that way, it's an extension of our own intellect imho. A dog is born with the "OS and compilers" built in.

 

why did who build it into the dog?

 

knowing the existance of good and evil is intelligence.

animals don't know right from wrong, they are bio-chemical computers.

man, that sounded fancy. yea computers. they don't think they process.

[freeztar]

why did who build it into the dog?

 

I could use Java, or I could use C++. It doesn't really matter what code I use, as long as there is an OS, or something, to interpret it. As far as animals are concerned, they seem to have this "OS" built-in.

knowing the existance of good and evil is intelligence.

That's pushing the subjective even further.

Good and evil are relative terms that mean different things to different people. I suggest that we continue talking about Animal Intelligence and leave other subjetive conjectures for a Theology thread perhaps.

 

animals don't know right from wrong, they are bio-chemical computers.

man, that sounded fancy. yea computers. they don't think they process.

 

So we agree that computers process. Animals do not?

[mynah]

The problem may not be so much in what animals can or cannot do, but in what terms we choose to describe it. Historically there has been a tendency to label any behaviour by an animal as either instinctive or learned, mainly due to the fact that many of the proponents spent their lives in laboratories, when anyone who has coexisted with a spaniel could have told them otherwise. :)