General > Biology
Crows are pretty damn smart
gymsum:
Do you remember Douglas Adams' Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy? In his 4th book to his trilogy, he explains a test conducted by some advanced and funded research team to develop inteligence and finally emotion. The process of creating emotion can be said to be merely a complex balance of some important numbers. Their first major breakthrough was developing an emotion similar to frustration. It was an easy set up similar to your suposed crow theory;
1 - The bot would only store 1 in happy if it was holding a glass of water.
2 - The bot would record every attempt to grab.
3 - THe bot's hands were developed to never fully hold the cup long enough, so the happy value would return to 0.
Eventually the bot understood the concept of frustration, and the need and desire for something. Another experiment then proved boredom was simple, a bot merely pushed a button and recorded each push, with happy or sad values. THats not really 'intelligence' as it is so much more instinct in an Eco System which allowed for more intelligent/better adapted genetics to continue. Its simple darwinism. However for AI purposes we have to create something from nothing and make it work. So lets revist their experiment and make it work for a crow:
1 - The bird will only be happy if it knows where it can feed.
2 - The bird will record as much information as is capable with such a small cpu.
3 - The bird will never eat all of its food without finding more.
So in three steps we've explained why the Crow does what it does. Very basic and instinctive. The line between instinct and intelligence could have more to do with what we consider instictual, and what an intelligent decision really is. Is it better to sacrifice a larger bot to save a smaller one? Is it worth not being happy when you poses the capability to make that value store 1? Depedning on how you answer those determines not only your ethical views, but if you are a Greek or Latin based thinker. Regardless birds are not capable of anything beyond their genetic make up, and therefore are just as stupid as the single-celled bacteria capable of sharing genetic material; or the spiders which developed to exsists very high up in the atmosphere. Its all a matter of dna, and in reality DNA is not so much code, as it is energy/frequency. But I definitely dont see the crow surviving another ice age.
Trafalgar:
--- Quote from: gymsum ---Regardless birds are not capable of anything beyond their genetic make up, and therefore are just as stupid as the single-celled bacteria capable of sharing genetic material
--- End quote ---
Alex the african grey parrot would have disagreed with you: http://science-community.sciam.com/blog-en...arrot/300004074
EricL:
--- Quote from: gymsum ---The line between instinct and intelligence could have more to do with what we consider instictual, and what an intelligent decision really is.
--- End quote ---
The main difference between hard-coded instinct and general purpose intelligence is plasticity. The downside to hard-wiring instincts is inflexibility when environmental conditions change. This is the main reason why we don't really see "genetic memory" in nature except when it comes to very long-term things such as seasons or phases of the moon, etc.
--- Quote from: gymsum ---Regardless birds are not capable of anything beyond their genetic make up, and therefore are just as stupid as the single-celled bacteria capable of sharing genetic material;
--- End quote ---
I don't even know what that means. What would it mean for an organism to be capable of something beyond it's genetic makeup? If an organism is capable of something it is because it's DNA coded for it. Organisms have greater or lessor plasticity in various traits, as coded by their DNA. Period. The greator the plasticitiy, the more flexable the organism in that area, but also the more it has to learn anew every generation. If a bird is capable of complex behaviours, be they learned or instinctual, it's becuase it's DNA coded for it, either explicitly or for the underlying plasticity that allows it.
--- Quote from: gymsum ---Its all a matter of dna, and in reality DNA is not so much code, as it is energy/frequency.
--- End quote ---
I really don't know what that means.
gymsum:
John Rife... should be able to explain some of that... In short: all frequencies are vibrational energies... all matter has mass... E=mc^2 therefore all mass is energy. Therefore all frequencies and energies are contained within entities as matter. And all matter is contained as a frequency or energy.
I say the difference between intelligence and instinctual ntelligence is evident but not always clear. In Hemp for instance, should the environment conditions chnage from the previous year, the plant will reproduce seed to be better suited for that environment. The definition of a mind is clear cut, but instictual intelligence is not.. The same method for reaction occurs in almost every natural being, sea fish like Salmon are capable of climatizing to fresh water, etc... It is the difference in minds that make them capable. And I do not see a bird asking the question why; something necessary for "understanding" anything. It could be that it has developed to use scent for food markers and complex oral communications to transfer memories, but I dont think that a Crow would ever ask itself why it eats. And if a being does not ask why, then it cannot get an answer of understanding. Thats where the whole 42 bit comes in. Who, what, when, where, and how are quite possibly all a crow is able to ask; this means it might know something about its environment and clan condtions, but it certainly has no concept as to why it needs or does anything. True it might work for reproduction, but that is instinct from the begining of life, everything does work for energy, thats how the energy system works. Its as simple as building a mind that records locations, times and personal information, but never 'thinks' about it. Instinct dictates how and why it thinks; intelligent beings have more plasticity to allow for thoughts, and eventually "understand" anything.
Numsgil:
Saying that DNA is energy is like saying that an airplane is wood, wire, aluminum, and a bit of steel. It may be a true statement, but it in no way helps you understand the amazing feat it is capable of. In fact, it's not until you bring the abstraction level up to the level of chemistry that you can begin to understand the amazing DNA molecule. General relativity does not really impact biology at all, in fact. Quantum mechanics just barely overlaps if you include chemistry (which is a pretty pedestrian application of quantum mechanics at that...)
--- Quote ---I say the difference between intelligence and instinctual ntelligence is evident but not always clear. In Hemp for instance, should the environment conditions chnage from the previous year, the plant will reproduce seed to be better suited for that environment. The definition of a mind is clear cut, but instictual intelligence is not.. The same method for reaction occurs in almost every natural being, sea fish like Salmon are capable of climatizing to fresh water, etc...
--- End quote ---
Certainly instinct exists, and it's quite amazing in its own right. I don't dispute that at all. But in this case I think it involves thought.
--- Quote ---...It could be that it has developed to use scent for food markers and complex oral communications to transfer memories, ...
--- End quote ---
That's a far bolder statement than I intended, certainly. Crows certainly vocalize quite a bit. I tend to think of their calls as a few common phrases, like : "nyah, nyah", "mine", "shoo", "I'm sexy!" and "You're sexy!". But who knows, they might be playing that game between Andre the giant and the Spaniard in "The Princess Bride":
--- Quote ---Inigo Montoya: That Vizzini, he can *fuss*.
Fezzik: Fuss, fuss... I think he like to scream at *us*.
Inigo Montoya: Probably he means no *harm*.
Fezzik: He's really very short on *charm*.
Inigo Montoya: You have a great gift for rhyme.
Fezzik: Yes, yes, some of the time.
Vizzini: Enough of that.
Inigo Montoya: Fezzik, are there rocks ahead?
Fezzik: If there are, we all be dead.
Vizzini: No more rhyming now, I mean it.
Fezzik: Anybody want a peanut?
Vizzini: DYEEAAHHHHHH.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---It is the difference in minds that make them capable. And I do not see a bird asking the question why; something necessary for "understanding" anything. but I dont think that a Crow would ever ask itself why it eats. And if a being does not ask why, then it cannot get an answer of understanding.
--- End quote ---
I'm not saying crows are sentient, just far more adaptable and intelligent than other city birds I've ever seen. I consider it like the Turing test for computers, only applied to intelligence: if some animal can convince me it's smart, it probably is.
--- Quote ---Thats where the whole 42 bit comes in.
--- End quote ---
What 42 bit thing? Surely you're not bringing a British radio play in to a conversation about crows in anything but a tongue-in-cheek way?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version