Xref: utzoo sci.psychology:34 rec.birds:466 sci.bio:966 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!eos!aurora!labrea!decwrl!decvax!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!msellers From: msellers@mntgfx.mentor.com (Mike Sellers) Newsgroups: sci.psychology,rec.birds,sci.bio Subject: Re: Intelligent Parrots, or Self-deception and Gullibility. Message-ID: <1988Mar9.132722.3364@mntgfx.mentor.com> Date: 9 Mar 88 21:27:19 GMT References: <1988Mar4.162334.18184@utzoo.uucp> <4299@blia.BLI.COM> Organization: Mentor Graphics Corporation, Beaverton Oregon Lines: 150 Summary: The latter, not the former In article <4299@blia.BLI.COM>, heather@blia.BLI.COM (Heather Mackinnon) writes: > act intelligently have been deleted> As a disclaimer, I don't believe the controversy here is over whether animals can communicate or act intelligently. Certainly they can. Bees, dogs, whales, birds, bats, apes, etc., have all been shown to be able to communicate in the wild and in some cases in captivity, and all are able to react to their perceived environment and react accordingly. The question seems to be more one of abstraction: do animals *think about* what they are doing, do they reflect on it, do they think about thinking? Except in a very limited sense, the answer, from all available and reliable evidence, seems to be "no". Birds and whales create beautiful music, but not in the methodical, considered way that Mozart or Springsteen do. Bees can do solar navigation better than me, but only for a very narrow and unchanging range of purposes, none of which are to get to Bimini. In short, humans seem to be alone in their consideration of the world, in the way we constantly examine, re-examine, abstract, associate, and formulate our perceptions of the world. The primary reason for this springs from the biological nature of intelligence, which is being understood (by humans) better all the time. I'll talk about this a little below. As a final disclaimer, let me note that discussions like this often seem to have at their unspoken root a concern for the value of animals. The fear seems to be that if Science (note the "S") shows us that these creatures do not think as we think that somehow their intrinsic value has diminished. I do not believe this to be the case. > One of the key points that has returned to me over and over in the study > of biology is that all living things are more similar to all other living > things than they are different. We are more similar, genetically and > at the cell level, than we are different from garbanzo beans. This is quite true, and is a sobering thought. However, it has little if anything to do with intelligence. > Parrots, dolphins and gorillas are all warm blooded animals, much more similar > to us than they are different. Gorillas resemble us very closely, and > dolphins even have a brain structure which is very similar to ours. It is true that any random vertebrate is more similar to us than different, "warm blooded" or not, but this too has little if anything to do with their being intelligent or not. It is NOT true that porpoises (dolphins is easier to type :-) ) have a brain structure similar to ours, or at least, not in some critical ways. This is where the "more similar than different" argument falls apart. Intelligence is not expressed on the cellular or genetic level; it is an epiphenomena arising from the interactions of *many* cells. Thus the similarities between me and a garbanzo bean that are striking on the cellular level do not reveal anything about similarities or differences on the systemic or organismic level. However, when we look at those factors that *do* affect intelligence, namely large scale neural mass, neural structures, and CNS to body mass ratios, we see that there are significant differences between humans and any other species (though the great apes resemble us more closely than the others, followed by dolphins). Humans begin life with a large cerebral cortex, a large portion of which is not dedicated to some specific function (e.g. sensation, motor response, etc.). These undedicated sections of the brain, residing primarily in the prefrontal, superior temporal, and parietal lobes, later become associated with much of what we refer to as hallmarks of uniquely human experience: broad association, abstract abstraction (that is, thinking about the principles behind already abstracted things, rather than just thinking about instances of those things), mathematics, complex language, etc.. Gorillas, chimpanzees, and to a lesser extent dolphins and other cetaceans also have a certain amount of undedicated cortical mass that is doubtless used in life for complex and intelligent types of behavior. In proportion to the human brain, however, these creatures do not have nearly the amount of their brain that is not used for strictly biological functions. It should be noted too that dogs have some brain mass not assigned to a specific function, cats slightly less, and birds and other animals little if any at all. This does not mean that these animals are unintelligent or unable to communicate, but it does mean that they simply do not have the brain mass available to be able to learn mathematics (even counting and negation), non-mimicry language, or other complex, abstracted tasks that most humans take for granted. Koko, Washoe, and other apes have been able to learn a certain amount of language and communicate effectively with it. This does not mean that they have minds or intelligence as it occurs in humans, but does serve to show that intelligence is more of a continuum than a binary yes-no phenomenon. > Why, when it comes to cerebral activity, do we assume that other animals > can't communicate and aren't intelligent? Why do we assume that humans > are the only animals who can think and communicate meaningful concepts? Assuming you mean communication above the level of the mechanistic, predictable, non-abstract modes (e.g. the sun-dance of the bee), the simple answer is that we have no evidence for it. Science tends to be minimalist; if there is no reliable evidence for the existance of something, it is assumed not to exist. There are some things that we still don't know what to think about, for example whale-songs. We don't know if these are mating calls, depth soundings, lures, or conversation. Until we know otherwise, however, it is imprudent to assume the whales are discussing Beauty, or algebra, or God, when all they are *most probably* doing is something much more prosaic. > When a person shows evidence that other animals can communicate intelligently > either to humans or among themselves, that person is often attacked by the > scientific community as being "unscientific" or a "crackpot". Why? If such a person cannot provide testable, refutable evidence that can be used in their absence, then the rest of the scientific community is essentially believing on their word. This is not a robust way of building a stable view of the world. It is rare that someone with a really outrageous claim ("my parrot does negation") is either willing or able to stand up to an unbiased investigation of their claim. Of course, the "unbiased" here is key; someone with a need to prove the first person wrong is no better than they are in making the wild claim. > I remember when pheromone research began that scientists were saying that > only the lower animals were subject to pheromones; that there was no evidence > that humans would be subject to the effects of pheromones. When I heard > that, I snorted with disbelief that scientists would say such a thing with > a total lack of evidence. Now, there IS evidence that humans have pheromones > in much the same way other animals do. Should this surprise us? There is (to my knowledge) little evidence that human behavior is affected by pheromones (can you provide sources, please?). Thus, a neuropharmacologist might say "we have no evidence that humans are affected by pheromones" or even "I don't see any reason to believe that humans are affected by pheromones." It is something of a mis-translation for someone else to then say "there you have it: humans are not affected by pheromones." New evidence could always come in and change things. On the other hand, in terms of your "snorting with disbelief", why should scientists say anything ELSE if there was no evidence for it (note that "no evidence for x" DOES NOT equate to "a total lack of evidence")? > Should we be surprised to discover that we are very similar to all of the > other animals who have evolved along with us; that we share their "bestial" > traits and that they share our "human" ones? > > Heather Mackinnon We are similar to apes, and lions, and lizards. Great. This is not a surprise. We share some "bestial" traits -- eating, defecating, and reproducing, as well as hormonal changes that produce changes in behavior. The *behavior* is not the commonality however; the biochemical base for it is. This is a very significant difference. There is little evidence, beyond that provided by Koko, Washoe, et al, that they share what we consider to be "human" traits. If you or anyone else can, without gross anthropomorphism, show evidence that some animals do show unexpectedly human traits, please do so. Otherwise, there is no *reason* to believe that such behavior exists. -- Mike Sellers ...!tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!msellers Mentor Graphics Corp., EPAD msellers@mntgfx.MENTOR.COM "Passion breeds hyperbole" -- The AI Business