5 ms·

And how are crows supposed to defend wounded fellows from coyotes? Or carry them to safety? How about the fact they can apparently build compound tools from pa

by ElFitz 6y ago

And how are crows supposed to defend wounded fellows from coyotes? Or carry them to safety? How about the fact they can apparently build compound tools from parts? Your example isn't just about brains. It requires both proper bodies and arguably complex social behaviors, which are quite separate from intelligence itself.

missedthecue 6y ago
I don't think this rebuttal holds much water. Humans are capable of doing things that our bodies cannot. We domesticated beasts of burden in order to move heavy objects from one place to another for instance. But consider very basic advancements. Communication for instance is something humans mastered from the outset. We are able to store and pass down information beyond the instinctual for generations, something no other animal has done. Imagine if humans needed to rediscover mathematics every generation! There are plenty of examples I could give that would provide crows with an immediate improvement in the quality of life. I think the reason they have not done these things is because they cannot, rather than because they have chosen not to.
- ElFitz 6y ago
  > I don't think this rebuttal holds much water. I don't know if it does. But I surely ain't convinced by gp. > Humans are capable of doing things that our bodies cannot. We domesticated beasts of burden in order to move heavy objects from one place to another for instance. I would be curious as to how a crow is supposed to domesticate an ox. Or even a dog. Birds are extremely fragile. As for communication, well, it's both a matter of intelligence and sociability. And they do seem to be able to communicate information "beyond the instinctual" (such as how to identify specific human individuals [1]) As for "can't vs won't", my point isn't that they don't want to. I don't know. I don't know what they can or cannot do. I don't know how their minds work. And I don't know what are the actual prerequisites for our species accomplishment. And that is exactly my point: assuming anything about such radically different creatures, or the actual prerequisites for our species', solely based on our limited experience and insights, is both vain and presumptuous. [1]: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2011.0957 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2011.095...
glenstein 6y ago
I agree with missedthecue that this response is kind of ridiculous. We know things about anaesthesia, blood clotting, soft tissue, and our physical actions are informed by an amassed body of knowledge and an ability to reason from that knowledge and apply it with a degree of sophiscation that crows don't apply, even within the domains of things that are easy for them physically to do. This is so ridiculous that I'm wondering if I'm missing the point. Is this sarcasm? Is this playing devil's advocate to prove some kind of point?
- mike00632 6y ago
  What you're pointing out is human culture, not the wits of human individuals. For the vast majority of human existence and for most humans alive today there is no such knowledge or practice.
- ElFitz 6y ago
  Edit: TDLR - There are many affirmations, assumptions, and a lot of confidence in those in many of the responses here. And I seriously doubt most of them are supported by anything more than gut feelings and certainties of unknown origins. --- > We know things about anaesthesia, blood clotting, soft tissue, [...] Actually, most of us don't know much, if anything, about any of this. Heck, for all most of us know, it could actually be wizardry powered by small elves running in hamster wheels. > and our physical actions are informed by an amassed body of knowledge and an ability to reason from that knowledge and apply it with a degree of sophiscation [...] That really doesn't match most of human behaviors I can observe around me, online or in the street. Actually, it seems that implementing informed and vaguely rational decision-making is a great way to improve many things. It often feels like we merely are pompous and arrogant monkeys who are lucky some of their ancestors built most of what's around us. > This is so ridiculous that I'm wondering if I'm missing the point. That's my fault. I'll try to make it clear. - Intelligence is hard to measure. - Our biases, as individuals and as a species, are huge. - Our knowledge, as individuals, on other living things' perspectives, is laughable. - Objectives and desired outcomes are relative. - Outcomes' prerequisites are many, diverse, and often unknown. Meaning: -> We really don't know much, --> Unless approaching the subject with a scientific method and an open mind, any opinion could only be founded on pre-conceived notions, gut feelings, limited personal experience, and unfounded "common sense" and "cultural knowledge. Thus: ---> Having and expressing any personal opinion on this subject, based on anything else than scientific experience, is both pointless and presumptuous. And now we can go into the credit we should give to science, the limits of the scientific methods, and probably many other things.

by ElFitz 6y ago

missedthecue 6y ago

I don't think this rebuttal holds much water. Humans are capable of doing things that our bodies cannot. We domesticated beasts of burden in order to move heavy objects from one place to another for instance. But consider very basic advancements. Communication for instance is something humans mastered from the outset. We are able to store and pass down information beyond the instinctual for generations, something no other animal has done. Imagine if humans needed to rediscover mathematics every generation! There are plenty of examples I could give that would provide crows with an immediate improvement in the quality of life. I think the reason they have not done these things is because they cannot, rather than because they have chosen not to.

ElFitz 6y ago
> I don't think this rebuttal holds much water. I don't know if it does. But I surely ain't convinced by gp. > Humans are capable of doing things that our bodies cannot. We domesticated beasts of burden in order to move heavy objects from one place to another for instance. I would be curious as to how a crow is supposed to domesticate an ox. Or even a dog. Birds are extremely fragile. As for communication, well, it's both a matter of intelligence and sociability. And they do seem to be able to communicate information "beyond the instinctual" (such as how to identify specific human individuals [1]) As for "can't vs won't", my point isn't that they don't want to. I don't know. I don't know what they can or cannot do. I don't know how their minds work. And I don't know what are the actual prerequisites for our species accomplishment. And that is exactly my point: assuming anything about such radically different creatures, or the actual prerequisites for our species', solely based on our limited experience and insights, is both vain and presumptuous. [1]: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2011.0957 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2011.095...

glenstein 6y ago

I agree with missedthecue that this response is kind of ridiculous. We know things about anaesthesia, blood clotting, soft tissue, and our physical actions are informed by an amassed body of knowledge and an ability to reason from that knowledge and apply it with a degree of sophiscation that crows don't apply, even within the domains of things that are easy for them physically to do. This is so ridiculous that I'm wondering if I'm missing the point. Is this sarcasm? Is this playing devil's advocate to prove some kind of point?

mike00632 6y ago
What you're pointing out is human culture, not the wits of human individuals. For the vast majority of human existence and for most humans alive today there is no such knowledge or practice.
ElFitz 6y ago
Edit: TDLR - There are many affirmations, assumptions, and a lot of confidence in those in many of the responses here. And I seriously doubt most of them are supported by anything more than gut feelings and certainties of unknown origins. --- > We know things about anaesthesia, blood clotting, soft tissue, [...] Actually, most of us don't know much, if anything, about any of this. Heck, for all most of us know, it could actually be wizardry powered by small elves running in hamster wheels. > and our physical actions are informed by an amassed body of knowledge and an ability to reason from that knowledge and apply it with a degree of sophiscation [...] That really doesn't match most of human behaviors I can observe around me, online or in the street. Actually, it seems that implementing informed and vaguely rational decision-making is a great way to improve many things. It often feels like we merely are pompous and arrogant monkeys who are lucky some of their ancestors built most of what's around us. > This is so ridiculous that I'm wondering if I'm missing the point. That's my fault. I'll try to make it clear. - Intelligence is hard to measure. - Our biases, as individuals and as a species, are huge. - Our knowledge, as individuals, on other living things' perspectives, is laughable. - Objectives and desired outcomes are relative. - Outcomes' prerequisites are many, diverse, and often unknown. Meaning: -> We really don't know much, --> Unless approaching the subject with a scientific method and an open mind, any opinion could only be founded on pre-conceived notions, gut feelings, limited personal experience, and unfounded "common sense" and "cultural knowledge. Thus: ---> Having and expressing any personal opinion on this subject, based on anything else than scientific experience, is both pointless and presumptuous. And now we can go into the credit we should give to science, the limits of the scientific methods, and probably many other things.