Are You Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are
RHC
unread,
Jun 21, 2016, seven:20:25 PM six/21/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
This looks interesting.
From world-renowned biologist and primatologist Frans de Waal, a groundbreaking work on animal intelligence destined to go a classic.
What separates your mind from an animal's? Mayhap you think it's your power to pattern tools, your sense of self, or your grasp of by and future―all traits that have helped united states ascertain ourselves as the planet's preeminent species. But in recent decades, these claims take eroded, or even been disproven outright, by a revolution in the written report of fauna cognition. Take the manner octopuses use coconut shells as tools; elephants that allocate humans by historic period, gender, and language; or Ayumu, the immature male chimpanzee at Kyoto University whose wink memory puts that of humans to shame. Based on research involving crows, dolphins, parrots, sheep, wasps, bats, whales, and of course chimpanzees and bonobos, Frans de Waal explores both the scope and the depth of animal intelligence. He offers a firsthand account of how science has stood traditional behaviorism on its head past revealing how smart animals actually are, and how we've underestimated their abilities for too long.
People often assume a cognitive ladder, from lower to college forms, with our own intelligence at the top. But what if information technology is more than like a bush, with cognition taking different forms that are frequently incomparable to ours? Would you lot presume yourself dumber than a squirrel because yous're less skilful at recalling the locations of hundreds of buried acorns? Or would you judge your perception of your surroundings equally more sophisticated than that of a echolocating bat? De Waal reviews the rise and autumn of the mechanistic view of animals and opensour minds to the idea that beast minds are far more intricate and complex than we accept assumed. De Waal'southward landmark work will convince you to rethink everything yous thought yous knew about animal―and human―intelligence.
32 illlustrations
Bruce Snyder
unread,
Jun 21, 2016, 11:52:07 PM 6/21/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 5:20:25 AM UTC-seven, RHC wrote:
My granddaughter recently recommended this book to me. I oasis't had a risk to read it, but suggested she take a look at something that might be related to the subject field (and to this forum):
"Animals are non just smart, some of them are psychic also. See IONS Fellow Rupert Sheldrake (2) and his volume ."
She and I accept visited the IONS campus, (and met Marilyn Schlitz, then President and CEO). Sheldrake's scientific studies on dogs have been replicated by other scientists.
Bulletin has been deleted
Peter Jones
unread,
Jun 22, 2016, x:33:59 PM 6/22/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
Are Nosotros Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?
It's a rhetorical question for me, given the amount of bollocks well-nigh this in the scientific literature.
RHC
unread,
Jun 23, 2016, 3:36:28 AM 6/23/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
Its not a very skillful title.
Sciborg
unread,
Jun 23, 2016, 11:45:53 AM half-dozen/23/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
Looks like an interesting read for sure.
Made me call up of reincarnation for whatever reason....
Bruce Snyder
unread,
Jun 23, 2016, 8:45:47 PM 6/23/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
On Midweek, June 22, 2016 at i:36:28 PM UTC-7, RHC wrote:
Its not a very proficient championship.
"It is not a very good championship?"... . Or is it "likewise good" a title? I say the only way yous can actually know is to expect at the cover.
Hither is the cover:
It appears to me that the championship is "Absolutely Acceptable." BS
@Peter
It'south a rhetorical question for me, given the amount of bollocks virtually this in the scientific literature.
Normally, regarding your comments, I accept an idea of what you are saying, or how it relates to the field of study matter, or why you fabricated the annotate. In this example I have absolutely no inkling.
@Sciborg
Looks like an interesting read for sure.
As I mentioned, this book came highly recommended by someone I have unlimited respect for..
Peter Jones
unread,
Jun 24, 2016, 5:48:08 PM 6/24/xvi
to Metaphysical Speculations
On Thursday, 23 June 2016 fourteen:45:47 UTC+1, Bruce Snyder wrote:
@PeterIt's a rhetorical question for me, given the amount of bollocks most this in the scientific literature.
Usually, regarding your comments, I have an idea of what you are saying, or how information technology relates to the bailiwick matter, or why you made the comment. In this case I have absolutely no clue.
Easy really. Scientist and frequently philosophers as well brand assumptions nigh animal consciousness and intelligence that adjust their chosen worldview and do not have much to exercise with enquiry. Or so it seems to me.
RHC
unread,
Jun 24, 2016, six:49:fifty PM 6/24/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
>Like shooting fish in a barrel actually. Scientist and often philosophers too make assumptions about animal consciousness and intelligence that suit their chosen worldview and do not accept much to do with research. Or and so it seems to me.
This is exactly why paradigms over-optimize to collapse. The early on rules of pollex that are relatively effective and go the paradigm rolling, congeal into dogma causing the prototype to become progressively asunder from reality until it breaks down. This is the consequence of a bones limitation in our evolved collective cerebral abilities and why if nosotros dont go rid of our Nukes they are eventually going to go rid of united states of america.
Sciborg
unread,
Jun 25, 2016, 12:18:42 AM 6/25/sixteen
to Metaphysical Speculations
What's the Indicate If We Can't Have Fun? - The Baffler
"Information technology's not only that scientists are reluctant to gear up out on a path that might atomic number 82 them to come across play—and therefore the seeds of self-consciousness, liberty, and moral life—among animals. Many are finding it increasingly difficult to come up with justifications for ascribing whatever of these things even to human beings. Once you reduce all living beings to the equivalent of market place actors, rational calculating machines trying to propagate their genetic code, yous take that not just the cells that make up our bodies, but whatever beings are our immediate ancestors, lacked anything even remotely similar cocky-consciousness, freedom, or moral life—which makes it hard to understand how or why consciousness (a mind, a soul) could always accept evolved in the first place....
...Dennett'south own reply is not particularly convincing: he suggests we develop consciousness so nosotros can prevarication, which gives us an evolutionary advantage. (If so, wouldn't foxes too be witting?) But the question grows more difficult by an order of magnitude when you inquire how it happens—the "hard problem of consciousness," as David Chalmers calls information technology. How do apparently robotic cells and systems combine in such a way as to accept qualitative experiences: to feel dampness, bask wine, adore cumbia but exist indifferent to salsa? Some scientists are honest enough to admit they don't have the slightest idea how to account for experiences like these, and doubtable they never volition."
=-=-=
"In that location is a way out of the dilemma, and the first step is to consider that our starting point could be wrong. Reconsider the lobster....But in fact, scientific observation has revealed that fifty-fifty lobsters appoint in some forms of play—manipulating objects, for case, possibly just for the pleasure of doing and so. If that is the case, to call such creatures "robots" would be to shear the word "robot" of its meaning. Machines don't only fool around. But if living creatures are not robots later on all, many of these plainly thorny questions instantly dissolve away.
What would happen if we proceeded from the reverse perspective and agreed to treat play not as some peculiar anomaly, simply every bit our starting point, a principle already nowadays not just in lobsters and indeed all living creatures, simply as well on every level where we observe what physicists, chemists, and biologists refer to as "cocky-organizing systems"?
This is not almost as crazy every bit it might sound..."
RHC
unread,
Jun 26, 2016, 12:19:28 AM 6/26/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
Im a fan of David Graeber, an anthropologist who is adept at poking big holes in neo-liberal economic theory. Its interesting that he points out the connectedness between laissez-faire market theory/dogma, Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism and of grade materialism. This is something that has fascinated me for a while. Got to become Graeber a copy of WMIB. His volume Debt: The Start 5000 Years is really good. His essay on how much of work in modernistic economies is essentially bullshit, is dead on in my personal experience.
Peter Jones
unread,
Jun 27, 2016, iv:36:12 PM 6/27/sixteen
to Metaphysical Speculations
On Saturday, 25 June 2016 18:19:28 UTC+1, RHC wrote:
Its interesting that he points out the connexion betwixt laissez-faire marketplace theory/dogma, Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism and of course materialism. T
We don't have a laissez-faire economy, It's more closely managed than the prison arrangement. Otherwise I'd agree that the connections are strong and relevant to our attitude to animate being welfare.
Bruce Snyder
unread,
Jun 27, 2016, viii:59:45 PM 6/27/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
Gentlemen (RHC and Peter),
I have a question for you:
"How tin a conversation that begins with the subject field of 'the scientific studies of animal intelligence', by 2 top scientists at the top of their game, engaging in research at the top of the science game, which is probably as interesting as whatever subject area on this Forum to both those reading this Forum and likewise to the general public, digress into a bullshit conversation, total of bullshit, about the field of study of 'bullshit' in only a few short strokes?"
[Note: This is an open up book examination. You accept the tape in front of you. You may brainstorm now.]
Peter Jones
unread,
Jun 28, 2016, 5:45:35 PM half-dozen/28/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
On Monday, 27 June 2016 14:59:45 UTC+1, Bruce Snyder wrote:
Gentlemen (RHC and Peter),
I have a question for you:
"How tin can a conversation that begins with the subject area of 'the scientific studies of fauna intelligence', by two acme scientists at the top of their game, engaging in research at the top of the science game, which is probably every bit interesting as any subject field on this Forum to both those reading this Forum and also to the general public, digress into a bullshit conversation, full of bullshit, about the field of study of 'bullshit' in only a few short strokes?"
Not sure I see the problem hither, Bruce. In that location'southward nothing much to discuss in the original commodity if one already agrees with information technology, (and sometimes bullshit is in the eye of the beholder.)
If you want to keep information technology on-topic and 'scientific' so feel free but things might go a bit dull. I'll try to stop misbehaving.
;
Bruce Snyder
unread,
Jun 30, 2016, 6:16:12 AM 6/30/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
Not sure I see the problem hither, Bruce.
Not surprised you don't see a problem here, Peter
At that place's nothing much to discuss in the original article if ane already agrees with it, (and sometimes bullshit is in the eye of the beholder.)
I have no idea what you are calling "the original article" or what y'all agree or disagree with. Your original post, and subsequent posts leave me totally in the dark. When you joined the chat (3rd post), the previous ii posts talked mainly most 2 unlike scientists, their books and scientific studies connected by a common subject, "intelligence and possible psychic abilities in animals," with links to the books and videos. What I am offer here is a recount of how this situation looks to this item beholder, amidst a background of the complete record, and then that anyone interested tin relatively hands draw their own conclusions about how such a promising subject of give-and-take turned to bullshit in such a brusk time.
If yous want to continue it on-topic and 'scientific' then feel costless but things might get a bit dull. I'll endeavour to end misbehaving.
So you are proverb that two posts are sufficient to keep a 'scientific' subject on-topic, and after that it is destined for dullness (so the only thing to do is to crap all over it)?
I would say that when you entered the conversation the field of study was interesting to an overwhelming majority of Forum participants, fifty-fifty though only a few had read it (and too interesting to an overwhelming majority of the world'due south population who might read it). Information technology had the added benefit for participants of this Forum of having two unrelated scientists doing similar inquiry, both of whom are the type that this Forum (in general) prefers, the type that extend their interests and their work Beyond Physicalism. And, these ii scientists are relevant to this Forum. 1 is from your land of origin, the other is from Bernardo's country of origin. I would likewise be willing to bet that very close to nada of the Forum participants at that point had any involvement at all in whether the book title was a "rhetorical question" for you, or were able to decipher your message any better than I could--which was nil. I would also bet that the same number are able to decipher and empathise your follow-upwards clarifying message about also as I can--zero.
And then, from my perspective, this Forum missed the opportunity to take a discussion, which in my opinion had all the qualifications for the 'ideal' discipline/discussion for this Forum, because of your need to inject pure bullshit (pure bullshit==doesn't make sense, does not relate to subject, and has no good reason for existing) at a totally inappropriate time in the evolution of this conversation, and considering of RHC's willingness to leap on board the bullshit train and wrestle you for control.
Note to RHC:You expressed concerns earlier well-nigh a possible scenario, the ultimate Armageddon, the final battle between the Nukes and the Humanity. I have long had like concerns and envisioned like scenarios and their causes and possible avoidance. And, the more I watch the news these days, the more than information technology seems that a catastrophic scenario is not only unavoidable, but relatively imminent also. Here is my take on the subject:
The concluding confrontation between Nukes and Humanity is a possible signal on a scale that could be chosen "Global Insanity," Global Insanity is hither and now. For proof, plow on a Tv to a news aqueduct anywhere on the planet, someday 24/7, and watch local, national or global news. Global Insanity is the collective, the summation, or the Integral of all of those individual and smaller collective split up insanities that testify upwards non-finish all over the Globe, and have been showing up forever. I define "insanity" equally "a deviation from truth and reality." I also use that same definition for "Bullshit," still "Bullshit" I accept noticed is ordinarily preferred for the activeness verb or individualized forms. So, in my book, you and Peter collaborated in bullshit, scoring i for the "Nukes." Very uncharacteristic for you, especially since you are the IP on this thread. I think you lot normally do an outstanding chore of separating your views and contributions from Bullshit. I recollect you and Peter owe one to Humanity. Since controlling the admission and usage of Nukes might be a bit beyond your pay grade, I suggest you do something that is more of a possibility, and can exist very effective--CUT THE BULLSHIT!
To help you do that, I have an offer: I suggest that yous and I enter in to an agreement where "We call each other on our Bullshit" (or what appears to be Bullshit from our beholder perspectives), as I have washed here with you and Peter. FYI, I may continue to exercise it without an understanding. It would exist fine with me if you begin right hither on this thread.--Bruce
Sciborg
unread,
Jun 30, 2016, 7:12:52 AM 6/30/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
New evidence that sperm whales grade clans with various cultures, languages
"Using underwater microphones, scientists track whales' unique cultural identities."
" Sperm whales share something fundamental with humans. Both of our species grade groups with unique languages and traditions known as "cultures." A new study of sperm whale groups in the Caribbean suggests that these animals are shaped profoundly past their culture, which governs everything from hunting patterns to babysitting techniques. Whale researcher Shane Gero, who has spent thousands of hours with sperm whales, says that whale culture leads to behaviors that are "uncoupled from natural selection."
Gero and his colleagues recently published a paper on Caribbean whale civilisation inRoyal Society Open Science, in which they draw the discovery of a new clan. Though this clan may have lived in the Caribbean area for centuries, it's just coming to calorie-free now because sperm whales live and chase in vast territories. This makes them hard to runway. Like many scientists who report these wide-ranging creatures, Gero observes them by lowering specialized microphones into the h2o and recording the sounds they make to communicate.
Scientists working throughout the world accept identified 80 unique "codas," the sperm whale equivalent of words, which they produce by emitting sounds called clicks. Each sperm whale clan has its own dialect, a unique repertoire of codas shared but with the other families who make upwardly their clan. In the Pacific, at that place are five known dialect clans, and many of them co-exist in the aforementioned full general regions without always interacting. Atlantic whales have their ain dialects too, and in the Caribbean at that place are two known clans.
Sperm whale society is very complicated, and every whale belongs to multiple social groups. Individuals spend most of their time in small family units, and multiple families converge to form larger groups. All the groups who share a dialect form a clan, and members of a association may exist so widely dispersed that they never see ane another even though they speak the same linguistic communication. Families are made up of adult females and calves, while developed males tend to roam widely between clans and sometimes even swim from i sea basin to the other. But even these general social structures vary a lot betwixt oceans."
Peter Jones
unread,
Jun 30, 2016, 5:06:09 PM half dozen/30/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
Bruce - Did you consider just ignoring my posts. They weren't very long.
I'thousand afraid I no interest in what scientists have to say about fauna intelligence. They don't seem to know anything much most information technology.
But I concede I should be more careful when expressing my contempt.
Bruce Snyder
unread,
Jun 30, 2016, nine:50:34 PM 6/30/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
On Thursday, June thirty, 2016 at 3:06:09 AM UTC-7, Peter Jones wrote:
Bruce - Did you consider just ignoring my posts. They weren't very long.
Peter - I probably would accept ignored them if they hadn't been so powerful.
I'm agape I no interest in what scientists have to say about animal intelligence. They don't seem to know anything much nearly it.
I think that if yous looked into the books referenced, you might change your heed.
But I concede I should be more careful when expressing my contempt.
Hither I would quote tjssailor who says, "The answer is articulate, dearest unconditionally," and my addition, "Information technology doesn't matter what the question is."
P.S. I don't recommend that you lot cease misbehaving, your contributions have been irreplaceable
RHC
unread,
Jul 1, 2016, 3:01:55 AM seven/1/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
Bruce
Im still not certain what aggravated you. My line:
"..if we dont get rid of our Nukes they are eventually going to get rid of the states."? Its just a turn of phrase. Do you think the idea that the longer nosotros keep them the probability that we volition have an diminutive war eventually approaches 100%, is bullshit?
RHC
unread,
Jul 1, 2016, 3:10:38 AM 7/ane/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
Sci this is very interesting. I wonder what Chomsky thinks of this?
Bruce Snyder
unread,
Jul i, 2016, five:nineteen:43 AM seven/1/sixteen
to Metaphysical Speculations
On Thursday, June 30, 2016 at 1:01:55 PM UTC-7, RHC wrote:
Bruce
Im nonetheless non sure what aggravated you. My line:
"..if we dont get rid of our Nukes they are eventually going to get rid of us."? Its but a turn of phrase. Do y'all think the idea that the longer we keep them the probability that we will have an atomic war somewhen approaches 100%, is bullshit?
I have no trouble with your comments or concerns about Nukes. I have like concerns and I think our positions on the discipline are closely aligned.
Let me run through a few steps of this scenario which I like to think of equally "Anatomy of an Insanity," and see if I can clear some things upwards.
- You as IP posted a book championship and short review with the comment, "This looks interesting"
- I posted a reply reinforcing your comment, mentioning a personal recommendation for the book, and suggested another book and writer doing some similar work.
- Peter posted a comment that I couldn't decipher, but for which I detected a negative connotation.
- Your post was next, brusque and sweetness, "Its non a very good title."
- Sciborg was next with a brief positive comment nigh the original volume.
- I made a comment next virtually your "title" comment, and rather than just call your comment "bullshit," I attempted to aggrandize it in bullshit terms, "Y'all need to look at the cover to tell for sure if the title is good or bad." I fifty-fifty stamped my comment with BS, which I have never washed before on this Forum.
That was the beginning aggravation (bullshit),. Not long later, yous came upwards with this, "......His essay on how much of work in mod economies is substantially bullshit, is expressionless on in my personal experience.". That may be true, only your original postal service on an "interesting book" turned to a discussion of "bullshit" in record fourth dimension. I say information technology was due to "bullshit" comments. We three are all complicit. I labeled my annotate equally BS. You two were unaware (clueless?).
The reference to your comment about Nukes was to necktie the potential big problem that we both can envision into hither and at present. We both agree that getting rid of Nukes is a adept thought. Since nosotros can't practice much to affect that situation, what can nosotros do? I say we can reduce Global Insanity here and at present. Cut the Bullshit (Insanity).
Bruce
Peter Jones
unread,
Jul one, 2016, 6:07:51 PM 7/1/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
On Thursday, thirty June 2016 15:50:34 UTC+1, Bruce Snyder wrote:
I'm afraid I no involvement in what scientists have to say near animal intelligence. They don't seem to know anything much about it.
I think that if you looked into the books referenced, you might alter your mind.
Well, possibly, but I'd exist surprised. Would y'all enquire a scientist well-nigh consciousness? If not, then why would 1 enquire them almost intelligence? I feel as competent as any scientist to speculate well-nigh animal intelligence and their propensity for play.
I must admit, notwithstanding, that I am developing an allergy to scientific articles, and in the involvement of fairness I should not allow this get out of hand.
Every bit for 'unconditional beloved', you're right of course, and I should work harder at it. But it need non mean unconditional professional respect.
RHC
unread,
Jul ane, 2016, viii:44:33 PM vii/1/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
essay that is an excerpt from the book.
The link between linguistic communication and cognition is a ruddy herring
RHC
unread,
Jul 1, 2016, 8:53:19 PM 7/1/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
LOL
Bruce I accept been on this forum merely about everyday for the concluding 3 years at least. Peter and I and other regulars, (including you lot) sometimes fall into rambling conversations, and diversions. Sometimes I just make throwaway comments simply to acknowledge someone elses comment, expecting regulars to effigy out when Im being serious or brassy. A sometimes fraught supposition on a forum admittedly. Some threads are like a bunch of us sitting at a table, reading newspapers, occasionally looking up to make a passing comment or simply grunting. In other words some threads are simply social. Many others are more than serious fun of course. I reserve the right to spout BS. ; )
Peter Jones
unread,
Jul 2, 2016, 12:xiv:forty AM vii/2/16
to Metaphysical Speculations
On Fri, i July 2016 xiv:53:xix UTC+1, RHC wrote:
LOL
Bruce I accept been on this forum just nigh everyday for the last 3 years at to the lowest degree. Peter and I and other regulars, (including you) sometimes fall into rambling conversations, and diversions. Sometimes I just brand throwaway comments merely to admit someone elses annotate, expecting regulars to figure out when Im being serious or flippant. A sometimes fraught supposition on a forum admittedly. Some threads are like a bunch of u.s.a. sitting at a table, reading newspapers, occasionally looking up to brand a passing comment or only grunting. In other words some threads are simply social. Many others are more serious fun of course. I reserve the right to spout BS. ; )
Brilliant. That nearly sums it upwardly.
Bruce Snyder
unread,
Jul 3, 2016, 9:20:03 AM 7/3/sixteen
to Metaphysical Speculations
On Fri, July i, 2016 at 6:53:19 AM UTC-7, RHC wrote:
LOL
Bruce I have been on this forum just about everyday for the last 3 years at least. Peter and I and other regulars, (including you) sometimes fall into rambling conversations, and diversions. Sometimes I just make throwaway comments merely to acknowledge someone elses comment, expecting regulars to figure out when Im beingness serious or flippant. A sometimes fraught assumption on a forum admittedly. Some threads are like a bunch of united states of america sitting at a table, reading newspapers, occasionally looking up to make a passing comment or simply grunting. In other words some threads are simply social. Many others are more serious fun of course. I reserve the right to spout BS. ; )
No reservations are necessary. You and Peter (and others) have provided a wide diversity of interesting conversations and comments over the last couple of years. For reasons I would prefer not to discuss, I am forced to reduce my participation on this Forum. I thought I would endeavour picking out a "selected" subject at present and so to get involved in. I have since realized that probably won't piece of work. So I volition drift off into banana-land with a thanks to you all, especially to Bernardo, and a fond (and appropriate)Adiós. Bruce
RHC
unread,
Jul 3, 2016, 11:50:22 PM 7/3/xvi
to Metaphysical Speculations
Sorry to hear that Bruce. I promise things get well for you lot and look forward to your render.
Source: https://groups.google.com/g/metaphysical-speculations/c/Waj1T1ZNXo0
Posted by: foltzguith1992.blogspot.com
0 Response to "Are You Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are"
Post a Comment