A good interview talking about the way in which dogs are smart. For example:
Dogs are the only species that have been identified to date that learn words in the same way as human children—by using inferences. Show a child a red block and a green block, for example. If you then ask for "the chromium block, not the red block," most children will give you the green block, despite not knowing that "chromium" can refer to a shade of green. The child infers the name of the object. Dogs have been found to learn in the same way.
The second thing is that they make use of human gestures at a similar level of flexibility to young infants. Obviously older infants quickly outstrip what dogs can do, but the fact that there is any overlap at all is remarkable.And this:
There are lots of flavors of intelligence. Researchers have looked at different animals and the contexts in which they are able to make inferences. Corvids, the family of birds that includes crows and ravens, make incredibly complicated inferences when it comes to using tools or outcompeting group members in hiding food, for example. What's special about dogs is that they have the ability to figure out what we want, to use humans as a tool in a way that other animals cannot.
The way that I would love for people to think about intelligence is to think of a tool box. If somebody asks you what's the smartest species or who's the smartest person, it's the equivalent of asking, what's the best tool, a hammer or a screwdriver? Well, what's the problem you're trying to solve? What is it that dogs need to solve to survive? They need to figure out how to use humans effectively.
7 comments:
Try reading "The Age of Empathy" by Frans de Waal. It challenges many conventional notions about animal consciousness.
As for the dogs well they must be at the top of the evolutionary ladder because they have conned the purported smarter hominids into feeding them luxuriant food, housing them, paying incredible vet fees, and even picking up their shit. Dogs now probably number higher than at any other time in their evolution. I mean to say, if that isn't success then what is?
BTW, I've been forever banned from The Cat.
Hi John
Re dogs: I hadn't realised that dogs were very unusual in the animal world in that they look at what you're pointing to. Either this article, or I think perhaps it was another one talking about the same book, said that chimps will just look at your finger.
Re animal intelligence/consciousness generally: you might have seen me mention before here, but I find some innate animal behaviour very hard to understand from an evolutionary view. My favourite example is the land crab that lives on Pacific Islands, that will grab an old coconut on the ground, carry it up a tree, drop it, then go to the ground to find it broken and eat the flesh. How does learning to do that occur to the first land crab?
Re your banning: I've already forgotten what it was exactly that got you banned. It was the plagiarism thread, wasn't it?
I was really surprised at the tribalistic defence of Mk50, and Sinclair's decision to leave his earlier posts with clear plagiarism on the blog without any acknowledgement of it.
Would you like me to mention your banning on an open thread, just so people know?
Re animal intelligence/consciousness generally: you might have seen me mention before here, but I find some innate animal behaviour very hard to understand from an evolutionary view.
A huge amount of behavior cannot be understood from evolutionary perspective. This gets too complex for me, but in a nutshell behavior has its own dynamics and causations that are not reducible to evolutionary theory. Human behavior in parrticular mocks the Selfish Gene or evolutionary psychology stuff. This is a subject area I hope to explore more deeply over the coming year. As a friend of mine would suggest: Life is more synergistic than competitive.
Yes it was the MK50 thread and I consider such plagiarism beyond the pale. It was strange because the prior day I caught out Psychcentral engaging in a very similiar plagiarism. Sincs got upset with my comment because I suggested that he should not communicate such a tolerant attitude towards plagiarism to his students. It was not defamatory and even if it was that blog contains defamatory remarks on an hourly basis. Funny how a libertarian blog likes to ban people. I have banned from blogs twice in my life, both times by so called libertarians. Hypocrites. But I guess my calling them out on double standards had to make them punish me at some point. I would appreciate it if you do mention it because I don't think Sincs announced it.
Dr. Dr. help me please, I know you'll understand
There's a time device inside of me, I'm a self-destructin' man
There's a red, under my bed
And there's a little green man in my head
And he said, "you're not goin' crazy, you're just a bit sad
'Cause there's a man in ya, knawin' ya, tearin' ya into two."
Silly boy ya' self-destroyer.
Paranoia, the destroyer
Steve,
Thanks for that. The ban is a blessing in disguise for me because I had already restricted my blogging time. I used to really enjoy The Cat, especially with respect to Dover Beach(even though we sit on different sides of many fences), DOT, and a few others but the times have changed and so has The Cat. It is no longer a libertarian site, it is a conservative forum first and foremost and as although I was raised in such a household in these days I am more inclined towards seeking out those who are promoting novel political ideas.
Thanks again and good luck at The Cat.
No problem.
Did you notice that it was generally not believed that you are banned?
Do you want me to pass on the message that you definitely are? :)
Nah, let them be. I was definitely banned they can believe what they like.
Post a Comment