Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Does this add up??
(11-27-2017, 09:17 PM)President Bush Wrote:  Sorry stanks, no wit there... mind-reading lower beings is a drag IMO. 

Already complicated enough, that things can be misinterpreted isn't illuminating.

not sure to which link you were referring.
sorry, this one...

Krauss tries to explain effects only by describing them, with no insight apparent in being acquainted at all with them. Such things can be transformative, meaning you know/experience it from the inside.

Being changed by insight is what counts. Described strictly from the outside... like map vs territory stuff, talking school vs practicing school, very reductionist IMO, like an imperfect translation.

Rather than identifying this process, he reifies it. Potentially so interesting, frustrating to me only the low-hanging fruit presented as what's fundamental.
Paranoids have all the facts.
well, that's science nerds for ya'.

Their discipline prevents them from describing how they feel.

In the 70's, I spent some time at a research facility for cetaceans in the Florida Keys.
The focus of the research was on the vocalizations of bottlenose dolphins. Everyone that worked there was a scientist.
I asked them all, publicly, what they thought about dolphin intelligence, based on their research.

There were parameters in place then that allowed scientists to rate animal intelligence, and according to the tests, designed to fit those parameters, it looked like dolphins fall between dog and chimpanzee.

In private conversations, all of them told me, individually, that they thought dolphins were on a whole other level....beyond us.
Professionally, they couldn't go there. It would have invoked emotional and intuitive realms of thought....realms which they in fact inhabited.

It can get awkward at that interface.
John Lily was a good example.
(11-29-2017, 08:44 PM)stanky Wrote:  In private conversations, all of them told me, individually, that they thought dolphins were on a whole other level....beyond us.

You'll never beat Douglas Adams:

Quote:For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
That's where people's habit of separating smart and intelligent from cunning comes into play perhaps?

Cunning as a fox, or rat, is deemed perfectly okay but nobody says as smart or intelligent as a fox or rat do they?

Doesn't cunning only apply to a well thought out series of planned actions?   Or at least a well grounded understanding of what reactions will ensue from a series of actions?

Why isn't Einstein described as cunning?  I think it's a shame that it's applied to mean actions derived from devious and dubious principles.  
The same as difference between intelligent and 'street smart'?  Who is the most intelligent when it come surviving on skid row?  The nerd or the street smart guys?

Are all dolphins smart?  How would you know that?  Only the average could be 'proved'.
Like dogs.  Jesus, some of them are dumb as rocks.  Others have something going on behind their eyes that you can almost hear.  You can see them working it out.  So how intelligent are dogs?  Or humans? Confused

There is a reason that people like Sparky and TA insist on "just stick to the facts ma'am". 
What if 20 scientists got 20 dolphins to study and all came up with different ratings of their intelligence based only on what they believed to have observed, that in their personal opinion, indicated intelligent reasoning beyond that proven?

What if one was studying the dolphin Einstein and another Kim Kardashian? 
How many dolphins are murderous physchos? One scientist might be studying Charlie Manson but how would he know that?  Charlie incited others to do his killing for him, so how would you psyche out a dolphin to understand that level, and type, of "intelligence"? If the scientist never saw it inflict violence he would think it was a gentle soul that just vocalised a lot wouldn't he?

I'm just a dumb amateur so it doesn't matter what I think, but I tend to judge a species' intelligence by the range that it differs within groups.  
It may be just anthropomorhising, and a range of discernible personalities within a species tends to make us see it as more like us and so presume it's more intelligent than it needs to be? 

20 skinks sunning themselves on a rock react to our approach instinctively and individually. 
But 20 birds on the rock will issue  warning calls to alert fellow birds who might not have noticed us.
Birds with individual different calls for different events impress us even more.
Animals which devise specific hunting techniques according to the abilities of individual members of the pack show yet more reasoning power.
So are wolves smarter than Gray Parrots?  Not according to scientific research.
Some packs have smarter leaders than others. Just as we do. Rolleyes

  It just gets more complicated when research gets into individual behaviours as part of overall species behaviour.

I can see why scientists steer off "gut feelings' and "hunches".  "There be (career) dragons." Confused

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)