After working a while with animal behavior and neuro-research, I tend to ask myself if there is proof an animal can't do something rather than if they can. They usually learn slower than humans, depending on animal and task, but they can learn complex tasks. What they fail at usually tends to be due to physical limitations such as visual acuity. I don't think we have found the limits of what many animals can do but we are raising the bar slowly. It takes a lot of thought and work to design an experiment with a complex task correctly.
Of Note: Pigeons can classify a Picasso from a Monet at an expert level and peck their answer within 300ms: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1334394/. They were tested on assembly lines to pick out defective parts. They did better than humans but were not used due to decreased moral of other humans on the line. This was done in the early 60's I believe. Here is an article on it in the New Scientist (1962) http://books.google.com/books?id=HxU-9UeDCI0C&pg=PA498&#...
It's probably rude, but I think that the fact about the decreased morale is somewhat hilarious. Just picture the situation where you have a whole bunch of assembly line workers being ousted by pigeons. What would it feel like to know that a bird is better at your job than you? It's just absurd.
I have no question that animals far exceed the cognitive capabilities most humans give them credit for. It saddens me that there's such a massive void in knowledge about this world we live in. I wonder how much more advanced humans would be if more time were spent expanding that knowledge instead of gratifying our other pleasure-systems by focusing instead on increasing bank account balances, political power, or participating in destructive conflicts with other humans. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge seems to be turning into one of those huge unappreciated things that seems to have been degraded in its worth unless it's able to be leveraged to some competitive advantage.
This is all great in theory, and I agree, it would be awesome if we could increase knowledge for its own sake.
However, as the other poster pointed out: research requires funding, and sources of funding are far lower that people who want funding. Furthermore, if you're doing research for its own sake, where there's no chance of a payout, you're going to have it survive on a small amount of money. This is fine when you're 22, but what about when you're 35 and have a wife and kids you need to take care of? If you don't have money in the bank, some bad luck (like a kids broken leg) could wreck you. Which means its in your best interest to go where the money is.
Now suppose we lived in an idyllic society where if you were a scientist, you would never have to worry about health an vacation and groceries and car repairs and house repairs and everything else that comes up. Well, in that case, you've got a bunch of researchers, many of whom will never produce anything of value, and they're being funded by the state, or more so the rest of the people. And because by definition research is hard to judge the value of, people can't decide if your research is legitimate or something just to take state funding. Which brings you to where we are now: a limited pool of public funding, to which people apply for grants, or corporate funding, which usually expects some payout. While it would be nice a larger pool of public funds for research, there is in no way we could have an infinte supply for knowledge at all costs. After all, the world runs on money, and that needs to cone from somewhere.
The best way to do whatever research you want is to make your money first, and then do what you want with it.
Even though we beat our chests about STEM education, basic sciences are woefully underfunded in relation to the number of students who graduate every year with BS, MS, and PhD degrees in life sciences.
Wow. I remember a time when I thought scientists were infallible, almost magical in their reasoning abilities. Then I read stuff like this and remember "Nope. Still only human." ;)
Although there are interesting results there. There have been a few studies now done with dogs and their ability to not only recognize human faces, but to decipher emotions from them. It's fascinating insight into how domesticated dogs complement humans in really amazing ways.
"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons."
The things listed are kind of old... this discussion has been going on for a while. Goldfish and tit for tat, fish and tool use, none of it is really new... so the implication that we're just getting to it isn't quite accurate, and the article didn't even mention what little actually is unique to humans. If you want an interesting talk about "uniqueness" Robert Sapolsky has one from a few years back that has been highlighted on ted, but I feel like the way it is approached in the article implies it is new, and it is not.
One thing that is not correct is that humans are unique in sex not being used solely for reproduction, bonobos are very reliant on sex for social purposes.
A lot of those seemed like really striking examples of bad experiment design. I wish there were more venues for publishing negative results (as well as experimental setup for failed experimental design) -- I know sometimes it is done for really "interesting" negative results, but there's a strong bias against publishing when you don't see what you want, in the conventional journal system.
This is my belief too and a reason I'm vegetarian. In my mind the chance of us eventually beginning to see animals as more and more people like are VERY good. I don't want to look back over the last 20 years and realize that I killed and ate so many people especially since it is unnecessary.
Part of my chain of reasoning is seeing how black people were referred to as animals and their intelligence and general ability was VERY much underestimated since we are in fact all human beings. Then seeing all of the research we've done with dolphins. They have their own language and social structure. Even bees have a language that we're just now beginning to understand.
In fact, the more research we do, the more evidence we seem to find that we've sold "animals" short.
"Aristotle's idea of the scala naturae, the ladder of nature, put all life-forms in rank order, from low to high, with humans closest to the angels. During the Enlightenment, the French philosopher René Descartes, a founder of modern science, declared that animals were soulless automatons. In the 20th century, the American psychologist B.F. Skinner and his followers took up the same theme, painting animals as little more than stimulus-response machines." <- rudimentary systems of ideas.
And I kindof gasped towards the end of the article, when I read this: "The one historical constant in my field is that each time a claim of human uniqueness bites the dust, other claims quickly take its place. Meanwhile, science keeps chipping away at the wall that separates us from the other animals."
I mean, as I said, excellent article, but let's not falsify by omission. We are the only species who can build on previous generations' achievements; and the only species who can abstract indefinitely (i.e, always make a statement about a previous statement). These are both due to the special linguistic behaviours we are capable of.
there's probably a lot of examples of knowledge in animals that is passed from generation to generation, like say the knowledge of how to crack open nuts with rocks
we definitely have something most animals don't, but that something may be more of a degree thing than a kind thing
Yet don't you think your last statement there is a perfect example of walking through a quiet wood and declaring a woodpecker absent? We certainly don't understand non-human languages/communication systems, and significant evidence is piling up that it's often far more sophisticated than we think it is. And "building on previous generations' achievements" is a little ill-defined; isolated groups of individuals often form a unique society, even if they aren't conducting research on human intelligence.
If by 'we' the authors of this article mean people who only believe things that have been 'proven' by science, then the intelligence of animals will always be underestimated by definition.
I've realised a long time ago that human knowledge on animal intelligence was underrated. They may not be able to predict future observations nor to be able to remember trivial events from the past nor to create or use tools, but when you take a closer look at them, whether they are insects, fish or mammals, they can all sense danger and opportunity in nature. It's no automatic reflexes but true analytics of their environment. After all a worm is said to have an IQ of 1 when the IQ of a computer is 0. Animal kingdom is smarter than previously thought and most of them probably have emotions like fear, pain & empathy. This is no anthropomorphism but a true fact.
[+] [-] Lost_BiomedE|13 years ago|reply
Of Note: Pigeons can classify a Picasso from a Monet at an expert level and peck their answer within 300ms: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1334394/. They were tested on assembly lines to pick out defective parts. They did better than humans but were not used due to decreased moral of other humans on the line. This was done in the early 60's I believe. Here is an article on it in the New Scientist (1962) http://books.google.com/books?id=HxU-9UeDCI0C&pg=PA498&#...
[+] [-] Draco6slayer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xk_id|13 years ago|reply
Still looking for a source for the assembly lines tests.
[+] [-] vacri|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] perchance|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkxanthos|13 years ago|reply
EDIT: I see the links now! Thanks!
[+] [-] uptown|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reverend_gonzo|13 years ago|reply
However, as the other poster pointed out: research requires funding, and sources of funding are far lower that people who want funding. Furthermore, if you're doing research for its own sake, where there's no chance of a payout, you're going to have it survive on a small amount of money. This is fine when you're 22, but what about when you're 35 and have a wife and kids you need to take care of? If you don't have money in the bank, some bad luck (like a kids broken leg) could wreck you. Which means its in your best interest to go where the money is.
Now suppose we lived in an idyllic society where if you were a scientist, you would never have to worry about health an vacation and groceries and car repairs and house repairs and everything else that comes up. Well, in that case, you've got a bunch of researchers, many of whom will never produce anything of value, and they're being funded by the state, or more so the rest of the people. And because by definition research is hard to judge the value of, people can't decide if your research is legitimate or something just to take state funding. Which brings you to where we are now: a limited pool of public funding, to which people apply for grants, or corporate funding, which usually expects some payout. While it would be nice a larger pool of public funds for research, there is in no way we could have an infinte supply for knowledge at all costs. After all, the world runs on money, and that needs to cone from somewhere.
The best way to do whatever research you want is to make your money first, and then do what you want with it.
[+] [-] svenkatesh|13 years ago|reply
Even though we beat our chests about STEM education, basic sciences are woefully underfunded in relation to the number of students who graduate every year with BS, MS, and PhD degrees in life sciences.
[+] [-] xk_id|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgreensp|13 years ago|reply
::face-palm::
[+] [-] nessus42|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkxanthos|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] enjo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derleth|13 years ago|reply
;)
[+] [-] georgemcbay|13 years ago|reply
- Douglas Adams
[+] [-] Whm0102|13 years ago|reply
http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_h...
One thing that is not correct is that humans are unique in sex not being used solely for reproduction, bonobos are very reliant on sex for social purposes.
[+] [-] rdl|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] darkxanthos|13 years ago|reply
Part of my chain of reasoning is seeing how black people were referred to as animals and their intelligence and general ability was VERY much underestimated since we are in fact all human beings. Then seeing all of the research we've done with dolphins. They have their own language and social structure. Even bees have a language that we're just now beginning to understand.
In fact, the more research we do, the more evidence we seem to find that we've sold "animals" short.
[+] [-] ams6110|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xk_id|13 years ago|reply
A couple of observations...
"Aristotle's idea of the scala naturae, the ladder of nature, put all life-forms in rank order, from low to high, with humans closest to the angels. During the Enlightenment, the French philosopher René Descartes, a founder of modern science, declared that animals were soulless automatons. In the 20th century, the American psychologist B.F. Skinner and his followers took up the same theme, painting animals as little more than stimulus-response machines." <- rudimentary systems of ideas.
And I kindof gasped towards the end of the article, when I read this: "The one historical constant in my field is that each time a claim of human uniqueness bites the dust, other claims quickly take its place. Meanwhile, science keeps chipping away at the wall that separates us from the other animals."
I mean, as I said, excellent article, but let's not falsify by omission. We are the only species who can build on previous generations' achievements; and the only species who can abstract indefinitely (i.e, always make a statement about a previous statement). These are both due to the special linguistic behaviours we are capable of.
[+] [-] tokipin|13 years ago|reply
we definitely have something most animals don't, but that something may be more of a degree thing than a kind thing
[+] [-] dormouse|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwern|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alex3917|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jkaljundi|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fkdjs|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicrogo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jessedhillon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sudo_robin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] losethos|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] emailandeggs|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] benched|13 years ago|reply