Animal and Extraterrestrial Intelligent Design?

I feel a need to point out that just because a simple
computer program can emulate something (anything) does
not mean that that is the way that the real thing
operates.Spider webs are an interesting example.What prompts a spider to form a web?For me 'design' can only be 'intelligent' as it implies
some planning process in advance of implementation.Even if the 'mental' process is simple, like:Hunger triggers web-building.(for example) it could be 'design'. It depends how/whether
spiders select a site for web-building and only build webs
when they require food etc.A computer model is a model ... it's not the thing. At best
such models suggest that spiders have simple processing
capability (which is intuitive).

The honey-bees behaviour doesn't sound like something that
would normally be put down to 'instinct' does it?It involves measurment, lobbying, and a democratic process ...Likewise, we do not know why a spider builds a web, or whether
they choose to do so or are 'programmed' to do so.The main point I was making, however, was that a computer
model that produces similar results does not prove that that
is how it's done in the real-world system being modelled.One of the major failings (for me) in most animal behaviour
studies is that humans seem to start with the assumption that
only 'we' have 'intelligence', so that option is ruled out
in other creatures rather than investigated properly.'Instinct' covers a lot of bahvaiours in material I have read,
and yet some of the most complex and co-operative behaviours
seem to require communication and action based upon 'new
information.' Even something as seemingly simple as telling
your hive-mates where the good flowers are requires an encoding
of informtion on the one side, and an ability to decode it on
the other ... that sounds like languistic capability to me.

Your opinion on computer modelling (and its underlying
assumptions) are exactly my problem with computer
modelling.What the computer model does is match the input-output mapping
of the real-world activity with some or other degree of
precision. That does not mean the internal computations are
the same.As to the other thing ... thanks for updating me, that's something
that has concerned me about behavioural research, but it's
been a while since I did any reading in that area.

That's my point ... mimiced ... doesn't mean that's
the way it's done in the real system.

I'm not implying that they do, I'm saying that it has
been an untested assumption that they don't.Not sure how you would test for consiouness anyhow.In most other studies such bias would tend to invalidate
the results. i.e. basing conclusions on unsupported assumptions.Back to computer models ... suppose you have two possible
mechanisms for something, neither of which require the supernatural
but one is more complex than the other.Both a complex computer model and a simple computer model can
achieve consistent results.Or suppose that one theoretical mechanism cannot even be modelled
fully with current software technology.Is it justified to say that because the simple answer can be
modelled, that that's what must happen?In the case of physical processes we may get close ... but even
the most complex mathemetical models of physical phenomena are
not 100% accurate ...In the 'not sure what I want..' well basicalyy it is studies that
are untainted by a 'human superiority' assumption, and unbiased
in approach to what is going on to provoke behaviours.If we start from a mechanistic model for ALL animals then studies
are inapproriately biased (the same way as they would be if
we assumed that ALL animals had high-orders of intelligence).Phrases like 'human-scale intelligence' are founded in that
same self-superior bias.If someone designed a program that passed the Turing test would that
mean that human thought is algorthmic?Or would it mean that the program was cleverly designed to
exhibit the same features?The model is not the thing ... it can aid understanding but should
not be consfused with a description of the actual mechanism.Which animals (apart from some humans ) act dumb, and what are
your criteria for this dumnbness?

If I build a soft-nueral network with sufficient
internal connections, and supply it with sufficient
training data I can match pretty much any input-output
relationship.Does that mean that everything operates via a nueral network?

I'm not suggesting that any animals have 'human-scale
intelligence' (and that includes some humans i have met ).I am saying that starting with the assumption that they do not
is as erroneous as starting with the assupmtion that they do,
and this results in biased interpretation of behavioural
observations.To put it another way, assuming that other animals do not have
an intelligence similar in structure/function to humans precludes
a whole set of possible explanations of some behaviours.Precluded not by reasoning or experimentation, but by assuming
that they do not possess intelligence in the first place. It
closes the door on possible scenarios.Chimps aren't the only ones who appear to reason out solutions
either. Some examples exists of birds that appear to reason ..
oh, but I forgot, the assumption that humanity is the only
source of intelligence on the planet has led mainstream
behaviourists to state categorically (and without investigation)
that it's just trial and error at work ... or instinct ... or ...?Example:Let's assume that the entire population of the planet except
a handful of people and a few dozen species of animal were wiped
out by a global flood 4500 years ago.We'll base all our interpretations of data upon that 'fact'.I wonder what wonderful theories/explanations would spring from
that unsupported assumption

Apologies for any offence ... I do tend to get a little
worked up around this issue.The problem for me is not so much that the two hypotheses
need equal weight, but that the 'intelligent' hypotheses
needs at least a passing comment rather than complete
dismissal.

quote:

---

I'm willing to accept evidence of mental modeling, but it has to be something difficult to explain by instinct or conditioning or trial-and-error, like chimp problem solving.

---

Not intentionally, I'm sure, but the above comment is the
kind of subconscious bias that I am referring to.It implies that 'intelligence' behind a behaviour is the
last port of call.Occam's razor is all about the simplest explanations being the
most likely correct ones, but I fail to see how 'instinct'
is any easier to explain than 'intelligence'. Assuming that they
are on some kind of continuum, they are just facets of the
same mental 'feature'.I concede that the thought of honey bees having any form
of reasoning ability is not one that springs readily to
the mind ... but does that mean it is impossible? Have people
studied the possibility?We don't really understand where our own intelligence comes from,
or how that is related to the brain (I'm not suggesting any
Descartian separation between brain and mind here).Hope that was calmer In essence all I am saying is that an unsupported assumption
biases any investigation ... it at least bears a quick glance,
surely.

What you have described for E.Coli is, in effect, the proposal
of a 'mechanism' which is then tested. The experimentation
bears out the proposal ... therefore that is a likely
explanation.What I am whining about is the use of untested assumptions as
the basis for other research.It has been such a widespread belief that no other animals have
'intelligence' that it's rarely looked at unless the possibility
is slapped in a researcher's face.Re: Honey Bees ... if the issue has not been looked out to your
knowledge, then your conclusion is based upon an assumption
rather than on any direct knowledge or evaluation process.The objection I have is not about animal intelligence ... it's
about founding thoery on unsupported assumption .. exactly the
way creationists do.

I'm not saying that it isn't.I'm saying that just because we can mimic it simply
doesn't mean that's how it actually happens.Building something that does the same thing doesn't mean
we are doing it the same way.

quote:

---

What we can do is, take the sophisticated model and figure out how to break it in a manner that
would not apply to the simple model. Then we can implement a similar scenario on the real thing,
and see if it breaks that way. In so doing we can determine which model is more accurate.

---

Without being able to delve inside the 'real thing' (which one
would assume otherwise why need to model) the above is not
possible practically.We only have control over the 'inputs' and can observe the
'ouput' ... i.e. black-box analysis.We can devise several models that all match the I/O
properties so how do we choose between them?

quote:

---

That said, we have a very high proportion of brain mass to body mass by comparison to many other organisms. This seems to suggest to me that we can at least consider sapience to be as
mechanical property occurring in brain matter.

---

But brain mass isn't directly related to intelligence. There
are children in the UK (some now in late teens) that have something
like 10% (I think ...I'll check but it's significantly
reduced in any case) of the normal brain mass ... but operate normally and some with higher than average 'intelligence' in an
analytic sense.My main gripe is the apparent lack of consideration of intelligence
at all. For example, critics of 'sign language' learning apes
have actually come out and said 'Yes, but they aren't using
langauge they are just mimicing'This tends to be after limited exposure.I think there are a proportion of people who feel threatened
by the idea that other animals have intelligence ... maybe
they ODed on 'Planet of the Apes' as kids or something

Oh ... I'll have to check that out ... thanks.Maybe not as significant then to the point at hand
... although at least it suggests that brain mass
is not necessarily relevent to intelligence level.

quote:

---

he matter is one of degree and not of the 'essence' of intelligence, but I still believe the matter is one of great degree. True, vervet monkeys have been shown to have a vocabulary of defined screeches to convey different messages, and apes have been taught to use sign language. [..] However, language is much more than that. [..]
human's linguistic sophistication cannot be the result of a few years of stimulus-response exercises.

---

It's not just vervet monkeys ... mere cats have a vocab. too
(at least 'snake!!!' and 'eagle!!!" anyhow ), and don't dolphins
have a 'unique sound which identifies individuals' ... like we
cannot bring ourselves to suggest that this is a name.Bird song is smoething of a mystery too ... and I have seen
video of a parrot that has been taught to speak ... that is
it will answer questions about shapes and colours ... but
for me more tellingly .. after a short time of doing this
turned it's back on the experimentor saying 'no' every time
it was asked a question.Reminded me of my two-year-old Maybe it is a matter of degree (I don't know), but I think
until it starts to be acepted as a possibility no-one is
going to look hard enough.[Added by edit ... I'm a big Planet of the Apes fan too
(not Tim Burton's one, although it was OK) wasn't intending
to suggest it was bad ][This message has been edited by Peter, 06-30-2003]

quote:

---

Too have kids, and heard plenty of lines like 'we goed outside' when they were young

---

If I remember my development reading correctly (and I might not)
children typically start making those mistakes once they start
to learn that there are rules. Prior to that they operate on a
'copying mom and dad' basis and tend to get the grammar as
right as their parents do.

quote:

---

What I'm saying is that there's no magic line that separates us from other animals in terms of intelligence or speech faculty. Millions of years of evolution have given us the cerebral hardware to
communicate on a language basis, and it shouldn't surprise us that experiments with gorillas (for example) hit a threshold beyond which the animals are not equipped to communicate.

---

I agree with the first part, but invoke my 'anti-bias' bias
by saying that if we are not suprised by an experimental
result we may just be biased

quote:

---

Do animals do the same thing? Not to nearly the same extent, it would seem. We can teach animals large vocabularies, but the framework humans have for language hasn't developed in them yet.

---

They can (gorillas at least) relate past events though. Coco (sp?)
who was taught sign language, had been captured from the wild
as a youngster (possibly infant) and once able to use sign
language related the story of this happening. She referred to
the hunters as 'feet' also. (I don't know where/if this is reported
formally by I saw documentary about Coco some years ago).My main grumble, however, seems to be one that you agree with ...
that is we should not discount intelligence out-right in
animal behaviour ... just accept that it is different to our own
rather than non-existent.