Animal and Extraterrestrial Intelligent Design?

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

Peter, please calm down. 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.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.So both hypotheses deserve equal weight?I disagree. Occam's Razor and falsifiability tend to favor the non-intelligence-based hypotheses.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.Occam's Razor is not the same as dogmatic dismissal; placing the burden of proof on support of certain hypotheses is not the same as ruling them out.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.There is no need for such sarcasm.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 ...?Again, there is no need for such sarcasm.I think that the evidence is strong for chimps' reasoning abilities, and possibly those of certain birds. But in most species, such abilities are absent, however useful they might be.

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.

Peter:
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.In science, one gets a hypothesis taken seriously by proposing some serious explanatory value, not by whining about all the orthodox oxen in the world.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.It implies that 'intelligence' behind a behaviour is the
last port of call.Why not? Why not work out a strategy for recognizing it instead of whining about how rejected it is?Let us consider something that may require intelligence. The Escherichia coli bacterium can eat lactose, turning it into smaller sugars, which are then metabolized. These bacteria do so with the help of the enzyme beta-galactosidase, which they produce only when there is lactose to metabolize.Does a tiny little E. coli bacterium have some intelligence? Does an E. coli bacterium think to itself "I see some lactose; I ought to produce beta-galactosidase so I can live off of it"?Not at all. What happens was discovered by Jacques Monod and other molecular biologists some decades ago. Beta-galactosidase and related genes are grouped together in the lac operon. Near it is a site for the lac-repressor protein molecule to bind to the chromosome; this molecule will inhibit the transcription of the lac genes. But when lactose arrives, it binds to the lac repressor, changing its shape, and such a repressor molecule on the chromosome will fall off, allowing the lac genes to be transcribed for consuming the lactose. And when the lactose is gone, the repressor can again bind to the chromosome, inhibiting the production of now-unnecessary proteins.And numerous other such regulatory mechanisms have since been discovered; here is a nice page on gene regulation.Now consider a certain sort of behavior that E. coli has. This bacterium has a flagellum, and will swim toward higher concentrations of its food. Does it do that by intelligence?However, a mechanism has been discovered for this behavior, which can be expressed as pseudocode:At each time:If Concentration >= PreviousConcentration
Run flagellum forward, making straight-line motion
Else
Run flagellum backward, making random change in direction
EndPreviousConcentration gets ConcentrationEndInstinct or intelligence?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 am a computer programmer. And I know from experience that "artificial instincts" are MUCH easier to produce than "artificial intelligence". Essentially all of the software that we use may be called "artificial instinct" software.Human-scale intelligence has been very difficult to produce in software; most software has fallen far short. From the 1950's to the 1970's, there were lots of optimistic predictions about the progress of AI; however, such predictions have failed miserably. The famous Turing Test is whether one can distinguish some chatterbot software from a "normal" human conversant; all chatterbot software to date has fared miserably. My own experience has been that chatterbots are almost unspeakably dumb.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?I don't know if anyone has considered it, but bee behavior is mostly unlearned and stereotyped, so instinct is the most plausible hypothesis here.

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.

quote:

---

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

---

No it doesn't. What you said was that: Well, why not? The behavior, though outwardly complicated can be duplicated with a minimal ruleset, so why can't it be 'instinct'? It appears that you are arguing that 'measurment, lobbying, and a democratic process' are too complicated to be explained by instinct. My response is that they aren't necessarily complicated, so why is it outside the realm of 'instinct'.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

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.

First off, I'd just like to say that my reading of the above exchange sees two very similar lines of argument; I'm not sure theres a lot of disagreement here.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

Phrases like 'human-scale intelligence' are founded in that
same self-superior bias.

---

I'm not so sure about that. I'm very supportive of arguments to non-human intelligence; I do not think that human intelligence is special in any particular way.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. In that case it would not be unreasonable to see ourselves as being unusually intelligent. All that it might mean is that some other animals with big brains, or good proportions of brain:body mass, might also be intelligent on our terms.I think the great apes are pretty smart. (probably) Not as smart as us, but smart enough that Jane Goodall and other Gorilla researchers have reported a profound sense of recognition passing betweem human and ape (or between ape and ape, we might say).I privately suspect that some species of cetacean are (at least) as intelligent as we are. I am aware this is still a controversial claim, but I expect that further research will bear it out eventually.Anyway, the point being that seeing intelligence as being fundamentally mechanical (which I do) and not a special property of humanity (which I don't) still allows us to claim quantitative distinctions without, IMO, massive injections of hubris. We do know that we don't live the same way as most animals, even those who are our closest relatives.

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

If you are refering to the work of John Lorber with hydrocephalics, showcased in a TV documentary entitled 'Is your brain really neccessary'. Then the reduction was described as being 'in the wall of the cerebrum' where the normally 4-5 mm thick cerebral cortex had been compacted to only 1mm in thickness, it was not clear if there was an actual reduction in cell number or just a compression of the normal volume. There is clearly a large reduction in the volume of grey matter however.Some other sites refering to this research misinterpret such as From the website alternative scienceThe difference between 4-5mm and 1 mm is substantial, but certainly not as dramatic as that between 4-5cm and 1mm.Sadly even No webpage found at provided URL: New Scientist quotes the normal thickness as 45 mm. This article in PNAS however clearly shows that the thickness of the grey matter varies between 1 and 4.5 mm.Somehow the 45 mm figure crept in and has become the more prevalent one in pages which refer to Lorber's study.[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-27-2003][This message has been edited by Wounded King, 06-27-2003]

I have no problem with the notion of animal intelligence. So many of the long-held myths about humans being the only organisms who use tools or language have turned out to be exaggerations or outright lies. It's time for humans to develop a little respect for the other organisms on our planet.The 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. The ravings of some of our fellow correspondents here should be enough to make us realize that the basis of speech is conditioned behavior. However, language is much more than that.I don't mean to steer this discussion into linguistics. It's been firmly established that humans have a language system hard-wired into our brains (the legacy of eons of evolution), and that a human's linguistic sophistication cannot be the result of a few years of stimulus-response exercises.Incidentally, I was indeed a big 'Planet of the Apes' fan, and can't help but be reminded of that fine Charlton Heston performance every time I get shot in the neck.

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]

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 too have kids, and heard plenty of lines like 'we goed outside' when they were young. If language were just mimicry, this would never happen: kids don't hear adults say that. Language is an internal grammatical structure that a kid is applying to what he hears, and he has yet to learn the exceptions to the rules. When he processes information he's filtering it through that instinctive language framework.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.Before we bemoan the species-centric arrogance that humans display, let's at least admit that there's a less insidious effect to this condescension: we don't ascribe moral significance to animal behavior. If we don't give animals sufficient credit for their intelligence and capabilities, neither do we condemn them for acts we may otherwise consider reprehensible.

quote:

---

If we don't give animals sufficient credit for their intelligence and capabilities, neither do we condemn them for acts we may otherwise consider reprehensible.

---

Ah, but we have tried horses for murder and so forth in the late middle ages.Peter: Just to clarify that I was addressing the proportion of brain:body mass, not only the quantity of brain mass. My private thoughts on the brain see it as a computer - the question then is how much computational capacity is driving the meat, and how much is driving the mind. But this is not strongly supported; its just stuff I've seen discussed and which makes prima facie sense to me.It is also established that the brain can signidicantly re-wire... not entirely unlike internet packet routing. So in same cases significant brain iompariment might not produce a mechnistically predictable reduction in capacity. Hard to say.Many cetaceans, and elephants, have "unique identifiers" for individuals which, as above, we still rather hubristically IMO choose not to describe as names. Elepehants are also, of course, famously able to recognises people. Now I say if it has a name and identity, and can recognises other specific identities, we are talking about a consciousness that is substantially similar to ours. Just a few weeks ago, a herd of African elephants broke into a holding pen where some antelope were being held for disease research. The researchers expected the elephants would be after the silage, but instead the opened the gate and held it open till the antelope left the corral.
So maybe thats just an accidenthat RESEMBLES deliberate intervention... thats possible. But its not the only possibility. I'll not go so far as to defend non-humam sentience in the world here and now... just to support more research in that direction.