Slashdot Mirror


Empathy Is For the Birds

grrlscientist writes "Common Ravens have been shown to express empathy towards a 'friend' or relative when they are distressed after an aggressive conflict — just like humans and chimpanzees do. But birds are very distant evolutionary relatives of Great Apes, so what does this similarity imply about the evolution of behavior?"

201 comments

  1. damn by cti · · Score: 5, Funny

    man, i saw the title and was hoping ubuntu ditched empathy and went back to pidgin....

    1. Re:damn by lirel · · Score: 1

      i feel with you.
      and this is what empathy is about.

    2. Re:damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? That would be a step backwards.

    3. Re:damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm glad they moved to Empathy. It wasn't as good as Pidgin when they made the move, but since it became the default in Ubuntu it's improved pretty rapidly. If it wasn't made default, then said improvement probably wouldn't have happened. Pidgin, on the other hand, hasn't improved in the slightest since before it was called Pidgin.

    4. Re:damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The first thing I did after nuking a old version of 8.10 and Installing the latest one was opening up Synaptic.

      I made damn sure anything I'd never need was removed, and promptly Installed back packets I was comfortable with. That's the power of Linux, customization without most major hassles.

    5. Re:damn by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Same here.

      Well, it's a compromise - pigeons *with* empathy. :P

    6. Re:damn by somersault · · Score: 1

      *tries*

      No webcam chat, not even voice - not that I care much.

      No custom animated smilies on MSN! This is the dealbreaker for me..

      I fail to see any improvements since Ubuntu 9.10?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:damn by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They did. Open up USC, select Installed Software, search for and select Empathy and press the remove button.
      Once that's finished, select Get New Software, search for Pidgin, select Pidgin Internet Messenger and press the Install button.

      You're done. Automatically hooks into the MeMenu.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  2. Raven... by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Common" Ravens are among the most intelligent birds around, if you don't count parrots.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:Raven... by toppings · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's a great TED talk on the intelligence of crows.

    2. Re:Raven... by dancingmad · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I'm not scientist, but I do dabble in this, and it's not surprising; a lot of the birds, including crows, ravens, and the parrot show strong cognitive abilities, even though they are "are very distant evolutionary relatives of Great Apes."

      In fact a lot of animals not close to our own species have been shown to have strong cognitive abilities, these birds for example, and cetaceans, especially dolphins.

      --
      "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
    3. Re:Raven... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      To be fair, dolphins are a lot more closely related to us than ravens are, so this is still a pretty interesting and significant finding.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Raven... by jd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, but it means the underlying mechanisms for toolmaking, empathy, etc, were all present no later than the last common ancestor. If a given animal does not have these traits, then the same sections of the brain are presumably used for some other function(s) as well - function(s) more advantageous to those other animals.

      It also means that the underlying mechanisms are truly primitive and cannot involve any part of the brain not common to humans and avians. This means basic skills (such as toolmaking, basic problem solving, empathy, etc) should all be achievable with the Strong AI tools that exist today, which are plenty powerful enough to simulate what are relatively trivial neural circuits - compared to the whole human, or indeed avian, brain, that is.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:Raven... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or it's just a matter of convergent evolution. There's no reason that the "underlying mechanisms" (which, of course, we're a long way from figuring out) couldn't have evolved twice, or more. Empathy seems to me like a survival trait in social animals. Although I hold out hope for AI over the long term, I think it's a dangerous assumption that the mechanisms are so simple we'll be able to simulate them with modern hardware.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    6. Re:Raven... by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Cephelapods are even farther removed and also quite intelligent.

      Some indications show that they could be more intelligent than the average great ape.

      Some have shown the ability to learn "tricks" after a single demonstration and no practice.

    7. Re:Raven... by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      It means the underlying mechanisms for toolmaking, empathy, etc, were all present no later than the last common ancestor.

      Not necessarily. Some or all of them could be cases of convergent evolution. You are also too optimistic about our computing power. From Wikipedia:

      The Artificial Intelligence System project implemented non-real time simulations of a "brain" (with 10^11 neurons) in 2005. It took 50 days on a cluster of 27 processors to simulate 1 second of a model. The Blue Brain project used one of the fastest supercomputer architectures in the world, IBM's Blue Gene platform, to create a real time simulation of a single rat neocortical column consisting of approximately 10,000 neurons and 10^8 synapses in 2006.

      On top of that, in order to simulate these behaviors, we would first need to understand the "signal flow" that creates them within the brain. Brains are nothing like PCBs, and even our most advanced imaging tools don't give us the resolution we'd need to begin to understand at a more than rudimentary level what is going on. There are numerous other reasons why meaningful brain sims are very far in the future, if they are possible at all; some of them are detailed in the Wikipedia article.

    8. Re:Raven... by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      I canary believe that. Ostrich my imagination and I cannot see how ravens are intelligent, but then again I am just crowing on and on about nothing.

      --
      blah blah blah
    9. Re:Raven... by jd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am extremely suspicious of "convergent evolution" in cases where there are multiple ways to perform the same general task. The probability of multiple generations converging rather than diverging should be infinitesimal. Convergent evolution does happen, but even there let's pause for thought. Dolphins and whales are descended from animals that moved back into the oceans. Their methods of controlling depth and pressure are unlike that of any fish. They have flukes, which are analogous to fins but do not operate in the same way and are not used in exactly the same way. It converged to a degree, but since then has run more parallel.

      Do we see parallel evolution in birds and humans? Possibly. It bothers me, though, that the manner of representation is very human-like - so much so that I'm having a hard time calling it a parallel method of doing the same thing. It seems much more like it's the same method of doing the same thing.

      But even if it is parallel, does that matter? OS/X and Linux are parallel lines of evolution in OS', but they both rely on a CPU to provide primitives. Since my argument is that the primitives, the mid-level instruction set necessary to form intelligence, is common, it is immaterial if the implementations were from the same source or evolved wholly independently. They'd still be using the same mid-level instruction set. (In fact, I'm also going to suggest that this is a requirement for "convergent evolution" - that you can't even have parallel implementations if the underlying engines are fundamentally different.)

      Our most advanced imaging tool for the human brain is the 9.4T MRI. Our most advanced imaging tool for animal brains is the 12T MRI. These resolve down to single cells and can be used for both static images and fMRI. There are dozens of ways to perform an MRI to get a static image, too. I counted how many other ways there were to monitor brain activity - I came up with a list of about 30. (I was bored.) It is almost unimaginable that the full range of methods and techniques could not be deployed to produce a complete analysis of just the reptilian portion of the human brain. If I'm correct and intelligence is of common descent, then the most primitive constructs on which all later forms of intelligence rest (convergent or otherwise) MUST be in that part of the brain and nowhere else.

      Again, if I an correct, then only a tiny subset of that brain will be (a) in common across all animals exhibiting high-level intelligence and/or empathy, AND (b) most active when such intelligence/empathy is in use, AND (c) necessary for high-level intelligence to function, AND (d) not be dedicated to autonomous functions required by the rest of the body. This is not the same as a "seat of intelligence/empathy" or a "seat of consciousness", any more than a node in a masterless computer cluster is the seat of all operations, or an ALU is the seat of all computation. It's merely a device that provides the key primitives. The actual "program" lies elsewhere. (And, according to recent studies, probably "everywhere" in the brain.)

      The information from 57 different brain scans (24 MRI + 33 other types of scan) should be plenty of information to seed a Strong AI system, and because we're talking a very tiny number of brain cells (maybe a few thousand to tens of thousands tops) it should be doable on big iron.

      Now we're not going to get HAL 9000 out of this, even if I am right. All we're going to get, at best, is a system that is capable of performing a set of very basic operations that can be called Intelligence-complete (in the same way as a Turing Machine performs a few basic operations that equate to anything any digital computer could ever do, no matter how advanced or how programmed). There should be no mental task performable by humans (or any other animal) that cannot be broken down into an algorithm using solely the Intelligence-complete set of operations.

      If no such set of instructions can be derived, then one or more of the assumptions is incorrect.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    10. Re:Raven... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it means the underlying mechanisms for toolmaking, empathy, etc, were all present no later than the last common ancestor.

      I wonder if a crow could possibly be using the same underlaying mechanisms as a human: would they fit in its head?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    11. Re:Raven... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Lots of distantly related animals show similar physical traits. It's called convergent evolution; form follows function, so animals that do a similar job are often a similar shape.

      I don't see why the brain - it's just another organ - should be any different.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Raven... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Dolphins and whales are descended from animals that moved back into the oceans. Their methods of controlling depth and pressure are unlike that of any fish.

      You're referring to swim bladders? Not all fish have those.

      While there are differences in detail between a shark and a killer whale, overall they're quite similar. Enough that I'd go "OMGWTFHaaalp!" if I was in the water and saw either of them coming towards me.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:Raven... by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      I wonder if a crow could possibly be using the same underlaying mechanisms as a human: would they fit in its head?

      Sure. Human brains also have to have the resources to handle much larger physical bodies, more complex language and behavioral activity, more memory storage (both in quantity and in detail), etc.

    14. Re:Raven... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Why did you put Common in Common Raven in quotes? Because you thought it was intended in a pejorative sense, like "the mere common Raven", when they're anything but "mere", or as a hint to others who may have thought this that it isn't the case?

      In any event, just to clarify, Common Raven is the common (heh) name for the species Corvus corax.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    15. Re:Raven... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      This research is a long, long way from meaning any of the things you said.

      Unless by underlying mechanism you just meant basically a functioning brain that could, with many millions of years of evolution, adapt to have empathy. Essentially in the same way having a working "Hello World" program in C could be considered the "underlying mechanism" for an enterprise database server.

      But beyond that, while it's hypothetically possible that empathy and toolmaking abilities existed in the ancient reptile that is the common ancestor of birds and mammals, much more likely is that the only "common mechanism" is the extremely flexible base design of the brain, and it took both birds and mammals much evolution to develop larger brains abilities that do not appear to be present in modern reptiles, which have much simpler brains.

      More to the point: If empathy and toolmaking are possible in extremely simple brains that we could hypothetically simulate, why do they only appear in species with significantly larger brains? Why do ravens have such large brains if they could get away with simple, tiny ones and perform the same tasks? It seems to me that many of the features you're hoping are simple, like tool making, are actually side effects of a general abstract reasoning ability, and that this ability requires a relatively large and complex brain to achieve.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    16. Re:Raven... by jd · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, which demonstrates that there's plenty of room for divergent evolution. A shark's dorsal fin is triangular, a cetaceans's dorsal fin is curved. However, in the case of Orcas (killer whales), given that they will kill other creatures for amusement (which puts them on the same part of the evolutionary ladder as hare coursers and dog fighters), I'd rather keep my distance anyway.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    17. Re:Raven... by jd · · Score: 1

      Primitives tend to evolve once. There are many, many types of eye, for example, and the "eye" as a concept has evolved independently multiple times, but ALL of them are based on the same photosensitive mechanisms that exist in early unicellular life.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    18. Re:Raven... by jd · · Score: 1

      No, a working implementation of "Hello World" is NOT a primitive. You could never call Hello World in any arrangement to build another arrangement. The C language plus the standard C99 library would be primitives.

      In the case of intelligence or empathy, clearly the primitives being used are complex enough that despite a total lack of any definition of intelligence (or, indeed, empathy), we have analytical tools capable of identifying intelligence and empathy in crows. They should be almost as alien as life on another planet.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    19. Re:Raven... by jd · · Score: 1

      More to the point: If empathy and toolmaking are possible in extremely simple brains that we could hypothetically simulate, why do they only appear in species with significantly larger brains? Why do ravens have such large brains if they could get away with simple, tiny ones and perform the same tasks? It seems to me that many of the features you're hoping are simple, like tool making, are actually side effects of a general abstract reasoning ability, and that this ability requires a relatively large and complex brain to achieve.

      Forgot to deal with this. Simply put, I'm referring to primitives. I don't need to consider more space than is needed to have ALL the building-blocks needed to form intelligence and empathy, of sufficient complexity that intelligence and empathy can be implemented essentially only one way. I do NOT need any of the space needed to cover the actual implementation of either.

      I could put the whole of a Turing-complete microprocessor, C library and even the Linux kernel all on one chip. Slashdot has covered web servers running on smaller systems than a matchbox. You couldn't run a decent Enterprise-scale database on anything that small. But there is absolutely nothing in the larger systems that does not exist in the smaller ones, at the primitives level.

      My argument is that there is a segment of the brain, more substantial than an individual neuron, that performs key operations that are so absolutely fundamental to what we mean by intelligence and empathy that ALL intelligence and empathy built from those operations will be virtually the same across all animals. The variations in animal intelligence we are seeing are small, implying constraints in the system that keep those variations small.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    20. Re:Raven... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      No, a working implementation of "Hello World" is NOT a primitive. You could never call Hello World in any arrangement to build another arrangement. The C language plus the standard C99 library would be primitives.

      Yes, obviously. "Hello World" is the brain of the ancient reptile ancestor of birds and mammals, a working program. It contains the primitives necessary to make "Hello World". You aren't suggesting that you could assemble reptile brains together to create a human brain, you're suggesting it contained the necessary components. Just like "hello world" contains components, "primitives" as you'd call them.

      And it's still an apt analogy. You're basically hypothesizing that because there are two instances of enterprise database servers, both distant descendants of a "Hello World" code base, that the "Hello World" code base contained all the necessary components to create those database servers and the necessary components weren't added separately to the two distinct development trees.

      That hypothesis is utterly unsupported.

      In the case of intelligence or empathy, clearly the primitives being used are complex enough that despite a total lack of any definition of intelligence (or, indeed, empathy), we have analytical tools capable of identifying intelligence and empathy in crows. They should be almost as alien as life on another planet.

      That the end result can be identified as similar between mammals and birds using such ill-defined and general terms as "intelligence" and "empathy" implies nothing about the underlying "primatives" used to achieve them. Even if the basic structures are similar, which is quite possible since they were starting from the same neuron-based brain, that still does not mean that they must have existed in a common ancestor.

      Hell, I'm certain that given sufficient study we could identify intelligence in alien life forms, and probably empathy too, if it existed. That's the whole point -- we're evaluating a high-level behavior, not the mechanism behind it. Many completely different mechanisms can result in the same high-level behavior.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    21. Re:Raven... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Why did you put Common in Common Raven in quotes? Because you thought it was intended in a pejorative sense, like "the mere common Raven", when they're anything but "mere", or as a hint to others who may have thought this that it isn't the case?

      In any event, just to clarify, Common Raven is the common (heh) name for the species Corvus corax.

      You got it :)
      Fascinating birds. Yea, they tend to be nasty (even though that tends to be crows, not ravens) but that's made up for interesting behaviors etc.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    22. Re:Raven... by jd · · Score: 1

      The one thing exobiologists are convinced of is that we would NOT be able to identify alien intelligence. It is on this basis that I am taking it that if we can recognize it, it cannot be truly alien.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    23. Re:Raven... by jd · · Score: 1

      Also, I've said in several posts that the primitives must be Intelligence-complete. Hello World does not involve or include a Turing-Complete set of functions. By introducing "Hello World", you have replaced what I have said with a non-equivalent statement and then merely proved the non-equivalent to be false. This doesn't prove anything other than your inability to choose equivalent statements.

      To be equivalent, you must meet ALL the criteria. In case you have forgotten them, they are as follows:

      • The primitives MUST be Intelligence-complete and Empathy-complete, the corresponding functions in the brain to the requirement of Turing-completeness
      • The primitives ARE NOT the whole system. The whole system will do other things (which may include "Hello World"). They are a strict subset.
      • The primitives MUST be a common denominator between ALL brains possessing directly comparable high-level intelligence and empathy functions, as observed
      • The primitives MUST have changed in ALL brains that do not exhibit ANY high-level intelligence and empathy
      • The primitives ARE NOT the high level functions themselves, they are merely the components that are required, with nothing extra and nothing missing
      • The primitives ARE of high-enough level that ONE AND ONLY ONE implementation of intelligence and empathy can be layered on top of them

      The primitives are assumed, in this argument, to be wired by means of other mechanisms to produce actual intelligence and actual empathy - something you ignore in favor of sneering. I would appreciate it if you could put your ego to one side for a moment, look at what I am saying, and comment on what is said rather than what you would like me to say because it's easier to poke holes in.

      I do not say I'm "right", but I do say that I deserve better than to be walked over.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re:Raven... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Forgot to deal with this. Simply put, I'm referring to primitives. I don't need to consider more space than is needed to have ALL the building-blocks needed to form intelligence and empathy, of sufficient complexity that intelligence and empathy can be implemented essentially only one way. I do NOT need any of the space needed to cover the actual implementation of either.

      But you DO if you actually want to get the result. You said we should be able to achieve basic skills like empathy using current AI tools, by just simulating the "primitives", but in reality you have to actually simulate the aggregation of primitives necessary to implement empathy. And they have to be aggregated correctly. Which is what the problem already is -- simulating enough of the brain's structure, and with the correct organization.

      I could put the whole of a Turing-complete microprocessor, C library and even the Linux kernel all on one chip. Slashdot has covered web servers running on smaller systems than a matchbox. You couldn't run a decent Enterprise-scale database on anything that small. But there is absolutely nothing in the larger systems that does not exist in the smaller ones, at the primitives level.

      The C library and kernel contain no primitives that aren't in the ISA level, so why bring them up? Because you're arguing for a higher-level set of primitives that are shared. Yet a database implemented in C on Linux would look very different under the hood than one implemented in Java on Mach, despite producing similar results.

      And that's without even getting into the fact that there are multiple implementations of the C library from different sources. Assuming two application binaries have a common ancestor because they were both written in C (the ancestor being via the C library) would be silly.

      My argument is that there is a segment of the brain, more substantial than an individual neuron, that performs key operations that are so absolutely fundamental to what we mean by intelligence and empathy that ALL intelligence and empathy built from those operations will be virtually the same across all animals.

      Yes that was clear.

      The variations in animal intelligence we are seeing are small, implying constraints in the system that keep those variations small.

      There is absolutely no way you can justify the first half of that sentence with a sufficiently narrow definition of "small". Our definition of intelligence is extremely general and vague. "Two species are able to solve problems" is not a specific enough observation that you can infer that the mechanisms producing those results are anywhere similar.

      In another post where you argued against convergent evolution, you brought up flukes and fins. They are different, but they both let the animal swim. For observations of swimming as general and abstract as those we have for intelligence, they are indistinguishable. You have no way of knowing that the "primitives" behind human empathy aren't analogous to flukes while the "primitives" behind raven empathy are analogous to fins. Hell, if swimming were as poorly defined as intelligence, then you'd be arguing that whales, tuna, squids, and nuclear submarines must all be using the same mechanism to swim because the result is so similar.

      To summarize, you're claiming that:
      1) Closely similar results must be using the the same mechanisms -- not just the same, but both inherited from the same common ancestor.
      Which is wrong.
      2) The observed similarity in intelligence between animals is close enough that it implies they must be using the same inherited mechanism due to (1).
      Which, even given (1), is laughably wrong in the basic observation.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    25. Re:Raven... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The one thing exobiologists are convinced of is that we would NOT be able to identify alien intelligence. It is on this basis that I am taking it that if we can recognize it, it cannot be truly alien.

      Well first, of course they're not "truly" alien because they use biological neuron-based brains.

      Second, we may not be able to recognize an arbitrary alien intelligence like a Star Trek energy being or something. But if we saw something moving around and consuming things, and then we put one of the things it seems to want to consume into a container which it couldn't easily reach into and grab, and it picked up a piece of wire, bent it, and used it to grab the thing out of the container and consume it, we would say "That looks like intelligence."

      That is basically what we're doing with ravens. It is both something we could in fact identify in (some) aliens, and which it is incredibly premature to say is so close to our intelligence not just in appearance but in underlying implementation that the "primitives" must have been inherited from a common ancestor.

      Hello World does not involve or include a Turing-Complete set of functions.

      I assure you that if you disassembled the dynamic instruction stream for "Hello World", you would find memory reads and writes, logical operations (not strictly necessary), and at least one conditional jump. Bada-bing, bada-boom, all the components of a Turing Complete system.

      Of course I recognize that your suggested primitives are supposed to be more complicated than this. The reason I brought up Hello World was to say your hypothesis could be considered correct if you were talking about much more simple mechanisms, like just neurons. Obviously some parts of brain structure were passed down to mammals and birds by their common ancestor.

      To be equivalent, you must meet ALL the criteria. In case you have forgotten them, they are as follows:

      Well gee, if I crafted an equivalent scenario where the common ancestor of various intelligent species had primitives which are by definition the common denominator of all intelligence, then I would necessarily have to conclude that the descendant species were using the same primitives, which is your hypothesis.

      All that shows is that you can craft a circular argument.

      The primitives are assumed, in this argument, to be wired by means of other mechanisms to produce actual intelligence and actual empathy - something you ignore in favor of sneering.

      Ignore? I accepted it as part of your premise without argument. Obviously you weren't saying a brain is composed only of these elements. It is in the same way that "Hello World" involves the basic Turing Complete elements wired together, and I thought you would understand that.

      And I'm sure not sneering, I'm telling you your hypothesis is completely unsupported. Sorry if that offends you.

      I would appreciate it if you could put your ego to one side for a moment, look at what I am saying, and comment on what is said rather than what you would like me to say because it's easier to poke holes in.

      Same to ya, bucky. I know what you're saying, you're saying raven and human intelligence is so similar they must be derived from mechanisms inherited from a common ancestor. You can describe that hypothetical mechanism as precisely as you want, and I don't care, because that's not where the holes are in your argument.

      The problem is that there is no evidence that such a set of primitives meeting all those criterion exists. Your sole evidence, that both ravens and humans can be described by the same vague term "intelligent", doesn't come close to necessitating the existence of such primitives.

      I do not say I'm "right", but I do say that I deserve better than to be walked over.

      Pretty much, you said that this is what this research "means", without qualification. Try "I think it is interesting to hypothesize that..." or "I imagine it is possible that..." next time. I accepted that it is hypothetically possible in my first reply. I do not accept that it is likely, and definitely not the what this research "means". This research does not imply that.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    26. Re:Raven... by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Sure. Human brains also have to have the resources to handle much larger physical bodies, more complex language and behavioral activity, more memory storage (both in quantity and in detail), etc.

      Does the size of a body actually matter? One would think it's the number of muscles that decides the complexity of controlling it; and in any case, largerl bodies fall slower relative to their size, so you'd think that they'd be easier to control.

      The bit about language is true, however I wonder how much complexity symbolic language truly requires? That's an important question in general, since any being able to handle a fully symbolic language is undeniably sentient in the same sense a human is (since it would be able to take part in this conversation, for example).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    27. Re:Raven... by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      You've obviously thought more about this than I gave you credit for. I'm now wandering off-topic into a pet subject of mine, which is in general the viability of AI and specifically the viability of accurate brain simulation, but it seems like you're into that too and you have a different opinion than I do. I'm wondering if you'd be willing to elaborate on a few things you wrote that appear problematic to me.

      (In fact, I'm also going to suggest that this is a requirement for "convergent evolution" - that you can't even have parallel implementations if the underlying engines are fundamentally different.)

      Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by "underlying engines," but aren't analog meat and digital silicon more significantly different than two versions of analog meat? I realize you were still talking about convergent evolution here, but aren't the properties of brains and CPUs different enough to make you wonder about the feasibility of emulating the former on the latter?

      Again, if I an correct, then only a tiny subset of that brain will be... necessary for high-level intelligence to function...This is not the same as a "seat of intelligence/empathy" or a "seat of consciousness"...It's merely a device that provides the key primitives. The actual "program" lies elsewhere.

      Yet the brain has no concept of a separate "program" and "data." Yes, we can stick inputs into one end of a neural network and get outputs on the other, but in a brain every "computation" is accompanied by a physical change. From the first article I linked:

      Unfortunately, this appealing hardware/software distinction obscures an important fact: the mind emerges directly from the brain, and changes in the mind are always accompanied by changes in the brain. Any abstract information processing account of cognition will always need to specify how neuronal architecture can implement those processes - otherwise, cognitive modeling is grossly underconstrained. Some blame this misunderstanding for the infamous failure of "symbolic AI."

      Doesn't that present some problems for creating an intelligence-complete system? Namely, (a) figuring out what form a "mental task performable by humans" would take, (b) making sense of the output, and (c) accounting for the fact that every "computation" changes the layout of the system, meaning that there is no universal problem-solving configuration, as the neural layout of every brain, or section of brain, is totally unique.

      I think (c) represents the biggest challenge to your particular theory (with (a) and (b) being more problematic for AI in general). In the first article I linked, which lists 11 key differences between brains and computers, the relevant ones are #3 (the brain is parallel while computers are serial and modular), #6 (from which I quoted above), #7 (synapses are far more complex than electrical logic gates, into which the second article delves further), and #9 (the brain is a self-organizing system). I won't copypasta the content at you, but if you're interested that's where the distinctions are made; the headings are naturally simplistic.

      Back on-topic, I suspect that empathy in particular is a learned behavior. There was a study done on baboons, I think, who had begun foraging in a hotel resort's garbage for their food instead of foraging elsewhere, and they had more than they could ever want. As the old ones died out, their social order began to change: no longer was there an alpha male who beat up on everyone under him and so on down the chain. Instead, the females gained more leverage and the hierarchy became more of an anarchy, and everybody got along better. I think they all got hit with some disease and died out, preventing long-term research, but such a dras

    28. Re:Raven... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Cetaceans' dorsal fins can't have diverged from sharks'. They evolved from a land mammal that didn't have a dorsal fin at all.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    29. Re:Raven... by howzit · · Score: 1

      Cephalopods aren't further removed from humans than ravens! Cephalopods are mammals, birds evolved from reptiles, there feathers are developed scales.Also their 'intelligence' is overrated and it seem their large brains are for communication, a dolphin is too stupid to leap over fishing net buoys which seals do with ease.

    30. Re:Raven... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Let's look at the idea of empathy. It has similarity to "I got your back". An animal that expresses empathy, and the animal that accepts it are forming a bond that very likely helps in their survival. So if that trait is heritable, it will likely be passed along. Kinda cool actually.

      --
      Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
    31. Re:Raven... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Heh. Well I salute you for your defense of the noble Common Raven, even if it wasn't really needed. Lots of birds have "Common" in their name to distinguish them from similar species. Sometimes the species called "Common" is even actually more common (as in frequent) than the others! :)

      There are some names I think are unfair, though. Like there's the American Goldfinch, and the Lesser Goldfinch. Lesser?! If I'm generous, I'd assume it's because the Lesser is slightly smaller, but if I'm not, it's because whoever named it was making an unfair judgment on their relative beauty!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    32. Re:Raven... by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Cephalopod = squid/octopus/cuttlefish/etc

      Cetacean = whale/dolphin/etc

  3. Re:Enough observation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You're right. The best way of understanding things is to stop observing them.

  4. Re:Enough observation... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wasn't saying that, I was saying that if you observe something for a long enough time, you will start seeing anything that you want to believe.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  5. Animal Intelligence by morkk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Humans have consistently underestimated the intelligence of higher animals except for one species whose intelligence has been consistently overestimated.

    1. Re:Animal Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dolphins?

    2. Re:Animal Intelligence by pookemon · · Score: 1

      Lemmings? No, wait, giraffes...

      Oh I give up...

      Hamsters?

      --
      dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
    3. Re:Animal Intelligence by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 1

      Dolphins?

      humans.

    4. Re:Animal Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Lawyers?

    5. Re:Animal Intelligence by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One time in Malaysia with my family we stopped our car at a tourist spot and noticed that a monkey had been killed by another vehicle, probably quite recently. Another monkey stood on the road beside the dead body thumping its hands onto the top of its head in an expression of obvious grief.

      We got out of the car and I stepped into a crowd of agitated primates, all about 40cm high. The tension between us was clear and frankly terrifying for me. I walked off slowly, trying not to make sudden movements.

      I had no doubt that there was empathy between all players in that situation.

    6. Re:Animal Intelligence by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      If dolphins are so damned smart, how come they live in igloos? /southpark

    7. Re:Animal Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You idiot! Lawyers aren't mammals, they come from a different phylum altogether - I think it's entoprocta.

    8. Re:Animal Intelligence by djconrad · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sure both dolphins and mice will have the good foresight to leave the planet before Thursday. I've already received my good by note from the dolphins, and the mice have offered to buy my brain.

    9. Re:Animal Intelligence by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Well to be fair, homo sapien is a remarkable species.

      Our bodies are not the most strong, nor do we have fur. Yet, because of our intelligence and endurance, we can survive in the harshest of environments. Also, no other living organism has been able to engineer objects that can destroy life as well as harbor it on such vast scales. We've just about done it all. Everything from questioning our origin, splitting the atom, developing the computer, building space craft, to setting foot on the moon...etc. And while our wisdom is often lacking, we are undeniably intelligent and sentient.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:Animal Intelligence by Radtoo · · Score: 1

      Yep, especially the many animals we eat. Fishes, Cows, Pigs... all sure have got meat on them, but they are all also quite intelligent (apparently a trait that helps if you're a large chunk of calories and out there in nature, surprise surprise). They are simply not nearly as stupid as was believed for centuries.

    11. Re:Animal Intelligence by GSV+Eat+Me+Reality · · Score: 1

      Humans, at this point in time, seem to be much better at destroying life than harboring it. Your last sentence is possibly more accurate than you know.

    12. Re:Animal Intelligence by Psaakyrn · · Score: 1

      Based on your own judgment of intelligent and sentient, of course.

      Judge, jury, executioner.

    13. Re:Animal Intelligence by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      What other multi-cellular species on this planet can dominate homo sapien? None.

      But then again, what other species would put forth the very questions we ask of ourselves? We try so hard to study and understand other animals and the way (and what) they communicate. But for the most part, we end up with a bunch of living organisms that run off genetically scripted instincts.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    14. Re:Animal Intelligence by phantomfive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not to be contrary, but what does empathy have to do with intelligence?

      --
      Qxe4
    15. Re:Animal Intelligence by Psaakyrn · · Score: 1

      1) You base your definition on domination, a variant of "survival of the fittest". Not exactly a good judge of intelligence, though a good judge of power.
      2) You assume that only humans ask themselves these questions.
      3) You assume that other animals don't study us.
      4) You assume that it's genetic, scripted, and instincts.

    16. Re:Animal Intelligence by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Well, yes. Unless I actually know otherwise, is starting off on an assumption a bad thing? At this point, it's all I know until informed otherwise. But my assumptions are based on our actions and from introspection.

      How can it not be biased?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    17. Re:Animal Intelligence by masmullin · · Score: 1

      both are thought to be functions of the brain. humans are thought to have the most refinement of both functions.

      empathy is one of the ways in which humans learn and expand their intelligence.

    18. Re:Animal Intelligence by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      No, marketers!

      --
      Not a sentence!
    19. Re:Animal Intelligence by Psaakyrn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never implied I know the solution, only that there is a problem, which is this bias you mention here. It still remains important that we recognize that we may be wrong due to this bias, that we might not be all that we think we are..

    20. Re:Animal Intelligence by Psaakyrn · · Score: 1

      Addendum: Or in other words, be humble.

    21. Re:Animal Intelligence by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's why our population keeps growing? Anyway we're doing pretty good; while the natural balance in the ecosystem is gone, humans are not killing it. OK maybe some species go extinct, but when was the last time you saw other species imbalance nature and persueing to fix the balance on their own?

      Hell some humans are even trying to figure out how to create(/restore?) a livable ecosystem on Mars!

      --
      Here be signatures
    22. Re:Animal Intelligence by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      As amusing as that is, we can all agree that lawyers are multi-cellular parasites, and therefore more closely related to Hirudinea.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    23. Re:Animal Intelligence by CarpetShark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not to be contrary, but what does empathy have to do with intelligence?

      Can you seriously not answer this by using a little introspection to examine your own thought processes? Most adults are fully capable of it, if they stop and give it some thought. Empathy is not some magical blackbox in your head that makes you feel what others feel; it's a mental model; a recognition that others are like you; a mapping of their emotions to your reaction to those emotions; an ability to recognise or even assess another's situation and apply that mapping. This all requires some intelligence, although perhaps not as much as we'd like to believe.

    24. Re:Animal Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the most intelligent comment ever. You barely sound human :)

    25. Re:Animal Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The total weight of all ants is larger than the total weight of all humans.
      Ants do have the power to dominate humans but they lack the organization.

    26. Re:Animal Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've just about done it all.

      Only if by "all" you mean the set of things humans have done.

    27. Re:Animal Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our bodies are not the most strong, nor do we have fur. Yet, because of our intelligence and endurance, we can survive in the harshest of environments.

      No, we can't. Humans can't survive under the antarctic ice, for example, or at the bottom of the (deep) ocean, say near black smokers, and so on.

      Technically, we could, of course, if we just put enough resources into it: build a station of sorts that'll shield us from the environment, and make sure that all the necessities like food, air and water will be supplied from outside. (OK, water might not have to be supplied.) But that's hardly worth being called "survival".

      Other living organisms, however, have no problem living in these areas.

      Also, no other living organism has been able to engineer objects that can destroy life as well as harbor it on such vast scales

      So, we'e got weapons of mass distraction and overpopulation going in our favor? I'm not impressed. ;)

      We've just about done it all. Everything from questioning our origin, splitting the atom, developing the computer, building space craft, to setting foot on the moon...etc

      An interesting list, for sure, but not "just about done it all" yet. Somebody 500 years ago might've said "we've just about done it all - we've reached the new world, we've invented firearms, we've invented the printing press etc.". Somebody 2000 years ago might've said something similar. And so on. Yeah, we've achieved quite a few things, but we'll achieve more, and it's unclear whether anything we've done will actually mean anything in the long run.

      And while our wisdom is often lacking, we are undeniably intelligent and sentient.

      Many animals are undeniably sentient, and quite a few are undeniably intelligent. For example, most (?) mammals are undeniably both.

    28. Re:Animal Intelligence by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to convey information to you. The expression on your face tells me you're confused, or angry, or distracted. I adapt my form of communication to better suit your current emotional state. End result = we both win.

      Intellectual and emotional prowess go hand in hand. For some shining examples of what happens when there is a significant difference between the two, simply keep reading this website ;-)

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    29. Re:Animal Intelligence by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Too right. They never invented anything like wheels, wars, or New York. They just play around in the water!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    30. Re:Animal Intelligence by Dionysus · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, everybody knows dolphins are just gay sharks

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    31. Re:Animal Intelligence by Nyder · · Score: 1

      One time in Malaysia with my family we stopped our car at a tourist spot and noticed that a monkey had been killed by another vehicle, probably quite recently. Another monkey stood on the road beside the dead body thumping its hands onto the top of its head in an expression of obvious grief.

      We got out of the car and I stepped into a crowd of agitated primates, all about 40cm high. The tension between us was clear and frankly terrifying for me. I walked off slowly, trying not to make sudden movements.

      I had no doubt that there was empathy between all players in that situation.

      Why would you get out of a car, into a crowd of agitated primates, that are agitated because one of their own was killed by a car, not unlike the one you just got out of?

      either your full of shit, or really fucking stupid.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    32. Re:Animal Intelligence by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It was killed by a red Toyota. He was driving a silver Ford. Do you think monkeys are too stupid to tell the difference?

      They probably understand how big 40cm is, too.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    33. Re:Animal Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the answer is simple:

      when you are thinking about something complex, you have already taken in / accepted / assumed many thoughts. you have opened your mind more than usual.

      a thought of a technical subject and a thought of another person are both thoughts and your "open mind" is one that accepts them both in an easier way, albeit temporarily.

      empathy means you are willing to both imagine and accept possible perceptions or observable signals/signs of the state of the other being.

      in empathy too, your mind is opened to more thoughts requiring a little intelligent effort.

      just as in understanding or solving a new problem which your brain and thought-bank has not faced before.

      accpenting new factoids, making new connections, using old connections, comparing with newly forming connections, accepting, rejecting some new and old connections or factoids or beliefs or thoughts.

      that is what is common between intelligence and empathy.

      The problem in society occurs when someone capable of empathy, by virtue of intelligence, instead performs deeds of pyschopathy - MIC / media / mafiAA / Intellectual Property / MNCs / Finance sharks and of course, politicians, legislators and lawyers.

      Off-topic: When you think of the other person and use the knowledge of his suffering or happiness for enhancing his or your own or of others, you're a "Jedi", when you use that insight and knowledge to inflict pain or harm the other or others, you're a "Sith".

    34. Re:Animal Intelligence by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      But all of us live on the achievements of those before us. You and I by ourselves if dropped into a rainforest, a desert, or a beach with no one around would die quickly. I can neither build a fire, catch my food, make a shelter, know what herbs to eat, or stitch clothes. From that perspective I'm a loser who doesn't deserve to survive. I'm a freelance writer. Useless.

      So I'm not sure how exactly I'm such a superior being...

    35. Re:Animal Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was wondering that at first too, but I'm guessing monkeys are not uncommon in Malaysia. It's like if you went to Wal-mart in the US and there were some squirrels by the side of the road. Except these squirrels are a lot bigger and smarter...

    36. Re:Animal Intelligence by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think Monkeys are absolutely smart enough to know that the two vehicles are different versions of the same beast. Color, size, and shape might be different, but I am sure that they are able to realize the connection. Especially in an environment where it is probably very common for members of their social group to be run down by these noisy rubber footed behemoths.

    37. Re:Animal Intelligence by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I've seen the same thing with dogs and cats. I suspect that all mammals (and probably birds as well) have empathy, but we just don't know how to recognize it. And I've seen human beings who have a total and complete lack of empathy; they're called sociopaths.

    38. Re:Animal Intelligence by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Not going to lie, I'm a little surprised to find another Slashdotter that watches Glee.

    39. Re:Animal Intelligence by IICV · · Score: 1

      Empathy without intelligence means that you will never breed (see e.g, Slashdot).

    40. Re:Animal Intelligence by Vasheron · · Score: 1

      Hell, even my dog knows what cars are; he only really gets thrown off by motorcycles.

    41. Re:Animal Intelligence by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      Not to be contrary, but what does empathy have to do with intelligence?

      Well, both belong to that small set of words that are critical to a rational understanding of the Universe but impossible to define.

      [Going for both "funny" AND "insightful" with this one.]

      --
      Will
    42. Re:Animal Intelligence by evilviper · · Score: 1

      it's a mental model; a recognition that others are like you; a mapping of their emotions to your reaction to those emotions; an ability to recognise or even assess another's situation and apply that mapping. This all requires some intelligence, although perhaps not as much as we'd like to believe.

      The simplest of creatures can communicate. Once you have basic communications down, it's not a big step for animals to communicate emotional distress (not just physical danger)... After all, it doesn't really matter (to you) whether rotten food or the loss of a mate causes you to feel bad. The only thing that's different in more intelligent animals is how subtle the clues may be, such as reading small facial expressions, rather than just, eg., a dog/cat vocalizing. Still, just because the clues are less explicit, doesn't mean that information isn't being communicated.

      If you have communications, and know to respond to danger signals, it's also pretty straight forward to develop some response to emotional distress as well. After all, it's pretty much a one-size fits-all situation... It hardly matter what the cause of the distress is, there's generally one response to help with all of them. Again I'll use the example of dogs/cats grooming one-another.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    43. Re:Animal Intelligence by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 1

      I thought this was going to end up with the monkeys looting your car after they get you to stop with the old dead-monkey-in-the-road trick.

      --
      horror vacui
    44. Re:Animal Intelligence by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Thats right. Monkeys are everywhere in Malaysia. It was only after I got out of the car that I realised I should have parked somewhere else.

    45. Re:Animal Intelligence by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't put it past them. Another time at a temple we were sitting on a bench. My wife had a tube of steroid cream for our son's eczema. She put the cream down and a monkey casually walked past a metre or so away, not looking at us. The suddenly, too fast for us to do anything about it, he reached out with his human like hand and grabbed the cream.

      Then he started to eat it, which must have been horrible for his insides. No way we could get it back. No problem for us, we just bought more cream.

    46. Re:Animal Intelligence by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Someday we might find out they mind how we treat them.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  6. I tell you what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Psychology is crap!

  7. Re:So? by Eternauta3k · · Score: 2, Funny

    In the same way a Slashdot comment dissing research is surprising.

    --
    Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
  8. Re:So? by Kenoli · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Perhaps labeling empathy an advanced behavior is erroneous.

  9. Re:Enough observation... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Funny

    I find the more I observe /. the less I understand it. Is that what you meant?

  10. mhm ravens by meow27 · · Score: 0, Troll

    So mammals evolved from these special birds? these birds are in the group that is known for their intelligence. Other birds do not share these characteristics apparently.

    by applying this logic i should assume that all creatures with mammalian-like eyes originates from octopuses, because their kind is more archeic and their eye-structure is very similar (though it is accepted that the eyes developed separately with no relation mammals)

    1. Re:mhm ravens by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Um no, nobody is claiming that humans evolved from ravens, or vice versa. What they're saying is that empathy is a trait which apparently involved in both species, and this is an interesting finding. That's all.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:mhm ravens by Sam36 · · Score: 0, Interesting

      No not really because evolution is fake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBwXFBBXcS0

    3. Re:mhm ravens by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      True humans didn't evolve from birds but birds and humans do have a common ancestor (amphibians?). There are two possibilities here, either mammals and birds evolved the behaviour seperately or they both inherited it from a common ancestor.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:mhm ravens by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Given that our last common ancestor was probably asocial and kind of dumb (like most modern amphibians and reptiles) it seems a lot more likely to be a case of convergent evolution than common inheritance.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  11. Re:Enough observation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, so it's a lack of objectivity that you're talking about?

  12. Re:Enough observation... by rolfwind · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's strange. I can observe cats as much as I want and still see them not being like dogs.

    Humans are social animals. So are dogs. Both are generally geared towards working in groups (even cats can be group animals - a lot of the big cats in Africa cooperate although they also can go solo). Not sure about ravens.

    To me, it seems logical that empathy is a social behavior. Perhaps it's game theory, where helping out a fellow costs you relatively little at that moment but can net you help when you need it. Aesop's fable about the Lion and the Mouse nicely illustrates and exaggerates the point.

  13. Argh, I need to use Preview (Re:mhm ravens) by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

    "... which apparently evolved in both species ..." was what I meant to type, of course.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  14. Elephants. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    I hear they mourn their dead. Watch Animal Planet and you can even sometimes see them getting eviscerated in HD - EPIC.

  15. Not sure about evolution... by Anachragnome · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not sure about evolution as far as ravens are concerned, but I do know nature throws us some curve balls every once in a while, and ravens are most definitely one of them.

    There was some researcher visiting Fairbanks, AK when I lived there. He was trying to catch ravens for some study he was doing and needed 20 birds. After a few weeks of not catching a single one, the local newspaper caught wind of what he was doing and ran a story on him. The first paragraph explained his lack of success. He had been using cheese puffs as bait in the parking lot of the local supermarket. He had a firing net to cover the birds when they came to investigate...only they never came, even when the lot usually had ravens all over the place.

    A reader finally figured it out. There was a McDonald's right next to the lot. He should have been using French Fries. The ravens knew something wasn't right and refused to touch his bait.

    I've seen them open zipped containers to steal food (the cargo compartments on snow machines are easy prey)...and then CLOSE THEM.

    I watched my cat carry on a 10 minute conversation with one. Obviously some sort of speech between the two...never seen anything like it before, or since.

    I've heard one make the sound of dripping water, then fly down and drink from my rain barrel.

    After 10 years in Alaska, I've only seen one dead raven. It had been fried on the power line above my friends truck while he was sitting in it eating his lunch. Plonk!...in the back of the truck it fell. It is so rare to find a dead raven that the Dept. of Fish and Game wanted the corpse for study.

    Even with a 160F annual temperature variation, they never seem to be affected by the weather. I watched one trying how to figure out how to eat a rock-solid, 1-pound package of hamburger meat at -45F in a Sam's Club parking lot. He eventually dragged under the tail pipe of an idling car to thaw it out(people leave their cars idling while they shop when it is that cold). I know people that would never have figured that out.

    I can completely understand the high reverence native cultures afford the creature.

    1. Re:Not sure about evolution... by GigaHurtsMyRobot · · Score: 1

      +1, thanks for the story.

    2. Re:Not sure about evolution... by Psaakyrn · · Score: 4, Funny

      "After 10 years in Alaska, I've only seen one dead raven. It had been fried on the power line above my friends truck while he was sitting in it eating his lunch. Plonk!...in the back of the truck it fell. It is so rare to find a dead raven that the Dept. of Fish and Game wanted the corpse for study."

      So that's the raven's equivalent to joining the Darwin Awards?

    3. Re:Not sure about evolution... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reminds me of one great TED talk:
      http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/joshua_klein_on_the_intelligence_of_crows.html

    4. Re:Not sure about evolution... by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      yes! After years of pecking at seeds in the park, I have gained their trust. As a member of their inner circle, I am privy to their secret agenda. They took me to their secret lair, and I saw all of their evil plans. There in it with the squirrels, I'll tell you. Just watch your back!

      --
      blah blah blah
    5. Re:Not sure about evolution... by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I watched my cat carry on a 10 minute conversation with one. Obviously some sort of speech between the two...never seen anything like it before, or since.

      Yeah, but you don't know what was being said.

      Cat: I am so gonna eat you.
      Crow: Yeah, whatever.
      Cat: No, for sure.
      Crow: Yeah, whatever.
      Cat: I am totally gonna eat you. Om nom, dude.
      Crow: You and all your genius, verb-conjugation-challenged LOLCAT friends, I'm sure. I'm quaking in my down.

      I often see my friend's cat chatter while staring, intrigued, at birds. I'm guessing it might be some kind of way to keep nearby cats informed of possible prey.

      But, yeah, crows are brilliant.

    6. Re:Not sure about evolution... by incubbus13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I wrote a report about this for an Anthro class once. The advantage of "modern" humans, over homo erectus was "organization". Homo Erectus had a (20%) bigger brain (for whatever that means), massed ~20kg more than the average modern human, and was generally better established in the area.

      Cro-Magnon man gathered resources and brought them to a central location, while Neanderthal went to the resources and used them there. Whether Erectus was wiped out, assimilated, or whatever, obviously organization requires communication, and it provided enough of an evolutionary advantage that Neanderthal lost.

      K.

    7. Re:Not sure about evolution... by incubbus13 · · Score: 1

      Crap, that shoulda gone under the post for communication, not evolution.

      K.

    8. Re:Not sure about evolution... by tibman · · Score: 1

      Good vid, thanks.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  16. What does this tell us? by DriedClexler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    what does this similarity imply about the evolution of behavior?

    It tells us that the optimality of the tit for tat strategy is not limited to ape communities, but can arise in other species, leading to the related phenomenon of empathy.

    Some of the requirements for tit-for-tat to be optimal probably include the ability to recognize individuals and remember them, keen ability to identify (generalized) "defection", and a willingness to suffer a (short-term) loss to punish defectors, which requires some long-term historical memory. Which is to say, characteristics that persist in apes and probably ravens.

    --
    Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
  17. Because we all love THGTTG by Psaakyrn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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."

  18. intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    what elevates humankind over other animals is not grey matter, it's our vocal dexterity

    take any of us, and remove our ability to talk or write, and we're pretty much a little smarter than your average raven or dolphin: we're isolated islands of thought. so we may get glimmers of brilliance now and then, but it fades, and is trapped in our skulls, and dies with us

    or, give ravens and dolphins the ability to take the more complicated ideas in their heads, and share it with others with language, and this launches them to levels comparable with humanity in terms of what they can think. because now they build on each other's ideas, and nothing is forgotten: its passed and shared around, and babies are born in this sea of wisdom and thought, to build upon even more

    thoughts don't matter. the ability to COMMUNICATE thoughts matters. that's what puts humanity in a genuine level orders of magnitude over other creatures on this planet

    and when mankind developed writing? forget about it, game over, humanity vaults into the stratosphere (literally, around 1950, because of what writing makes possible). now, in fact, these silly biological shells hardly matter anymore. memetic evolution, the retention and sharing of ideas over generations, becomes the real story of change on this planet, and genetic evolution takes a back seat in terms of importance

    eventually, the memes will shed these silly biological shells entirely, and shape the world and other worlds completely of its own volition. but it was us silly apes that gave birth to it, whatever it will be, memetically driven idea machine. and don't forget who your father is! you damn future godlike machine thingy

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by GigaHurtsMyRobot · · Score: 1

      +1 for this brilliant post.

    2. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      For obvious ethical reasons, the study would never happen. But, I've often wondered how a feral human being would act throughout its lifetime from child to adult (recorded and such). Would he or she come up with some advanced methods to trap animals? Would it understand the concept on its own of sharpening a stick to make spear? Just how innovative would a feral human be over that of any other primate or bird?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by Psaakyrn · · Score: 1

      The tricky part is how to define a feral human to begin with. A human, completely isolated from birth, has as much change of survival as almost any other animal isolated from birth. (not quite true, there are plenty of creatures that manage to survive based on instincts alone, but those still have obscene death rates. But the general thought still applies). It would still need some form of care at birth.. but since humans learn from their parents, even during their subconscious states before their consciousness really forms, how can you raise the child without breaking the experiment, to let them learn 'feral' methods of food gathering and survival? And even then, you still need a community to make it a proper experiment, since primates and birds often live in communities too, which implies several generations...

    4. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I disagree. The human brain is far more complex than the average raven or dolphin, even without the ability to communicate effectively (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain).

      Speech and the written word are extremely important for the advancement of civillisation, certainly, but just slapping a voice box into a raven wouldn't make their brains advanced enough to comprehend language.

    5. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by masmullin · · Score: 2, Funny

      I agree on the ability to communicate, I disagree that vocalization is key. I think we may have come up with some sort of sign-language or language based on snaps/claps & rhythm if we lacked vocal chords.

      If we lacked ear drums we would have been a dead species a very long time ago. "did you hear that, it sounded like a tiger coming to eat us" "no frank, i dont hear a god damn thing because I dont have ears, neither do you AAAAHHHHGGG Im being eaten!!!"

    6. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While the ravens are more limited than we are for communication (they cannot build libraries for example), they DO pass ideas to each other (as do other animals), probably by watching and then imitating.

      Overall, I don't disagree since just watching and doing can only convey the concrete and our greatest accomplishments require the abstract as well.

      I find your sig to be quite apt in this thread. Through IP laws, we are willfully limiting the very thing that makes us what we are. If taken to the extremes the corporations want, we would probably devolve.

    7. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      So then why aren't parrots building space shuttles?

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    8. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +5 !

      But it's only at +4 so mod it up.

    9. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by jandersen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What you express so boldly (and rather floridly as well) is perhaps what you learn from the more popular part of the scientific press; it is, however, not entirely correct.

      what elevates humankind over other animals is not grey matter, it's our vocal dexterity

      No, on two counts: Humans are not "elevated" over other animals, or "more highly evolved" or anything like that; and there is no single capability that sets us apart. The idea that we are somehow "the crown of creation" is simply a superstition from the past - we are animals, simply, and what sets us apart is that we have a set of traits that favour abstract intelligence, tool use and verbal communication. It is not that our voices are particularly flexible - most birds are able to generate a far wider range of sounds than humans (but our ears are not able follow them); in many ways, the difference is more a matter of "degrees" or "dimensions", since we don't have any trait that is unique.

      thoughts don't matter. the ability to COMMUNICATE thoughts matters. that's what puts humanity in a genuine level orders of magnitude over other creatures on this planet

      This is a rather naive assumption - and don't most TV shows prove on a daily basis, that communication is not what matters, since it is perfectly possible to communicate excessively without ever expressing a single, worthwhile thought?

      Apart from that - do we know for certain that other animals don't communicate? Of course not - all living organisms communicate (even bacteria, by producing and reacting to chemical clues), and many communicate a good deal more than most would imagine. It is perfectly possible that some communicate thoughts of comparable complexity to ours, but that just haven't learnt their language.

      As for writing, yeah, that was of major importance, since it allowed us to store verbal communications in a more durable and reliable form. We have yet to discover another animal that employs writing, although one can speculate that when animals leave marks in the landscape - eg to mark their territory or or the best route to food - this could be what later lead to painting pictures in a cave and evetually writing.

      eventually, the memes will shed these silly biological shells entirely

      Really? I suspect not; there is a very close connection between what you think of as "me" and the physical body. There has been many psychological experiments that show this - one of the more interesting IMO was one where they used VR to give people another body; eg. a man got the body of a young girl - when he lifted his arm, it would be the arm of a girl etc. It had a surprisingly strong effect on people's identity. Even if it became possible to record a human personality and imprint it on some other autonomous entity, it I don't think it would be the same person any more.

    10. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by White+Flame · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The best example of this that I've heard is in the story of Helen Keller. Since she didn't learn to communicate until age 7 or so, she could remember what life was like beforehand, describing her early mind as a chaotic mess of strange sensations. It was only after she learned language that she was able to have actual organized thoughts and think conceptually.

    11. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The study has been done, but not intentionally. feral children

    12. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      take any of us, and remove our ability to talk or write, and we're pretty much a little smarter than your average raven or dolphin: we're isolated islands of thought. so we may get glimmers of brilliance now and then, but it fades, and is trapped in our skulls, and dies with us

      We'd just reinvent language. Deaf kids have done this in orphanages - without being taught.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    13. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, I've often wondered how a feral human being would act throughout its lifetime

      Just visit Africa. Or Detroit.

    14. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      take any of us, and remove our ability to talk or write, and we're pretty much a little smarter than your average raven or dolphin: we're isolated islands of thought. so we may get glimmers of brilliance now and then, but it fades, and is trapped in our skulls, and dies with us

      And nobody considers that animals do communicate to some extent; everyone knows what the doberman is saying when he says "get the fock off my lawn or I'll eat you!"

      It's not so clear what the birds or dolphins are saying to each other.

      However, writing does in fact seem to give us quite an advantage.

    15. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I think we may have come up with some sort of sign-language or language based on snaps/claps & rhythm if we lacked vocal chords.

      Some human cultures have used sign language, as well as clicks and snaps.

    16. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by howzit · · Score: 1

      Ravens communicate. They can even mimic humans. No-one is saying that they are close to, or compare with, human intelligence, but AS FAR AS BIRDS ARE they're incredible. They can even fashion tools, something not even monkeys do (chimps are apes NOT monkeys). Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtmLVP0HvDg

    17. Re:intelligence doesn't matter, communication does by vaporland · · Score: 1

      If taken to the extremes the corporations want, we would probably devolve.

      news flash: we are DEVO

      --
      Ask Me About... The 80's!
  19. What it means.. by ignavus · · Score: 1

    so what does this similarity imply about the evolution of behavior?

    It means that if we are very good, we come back as ravens.

    Hmmm. Flight. Cool.

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
    1. Re:What it means.. by Psaakyrn · · Score: 1

      But you'd have no /.!

    2. Re:What it means.. by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      Wow, they are more evolved.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    3. Re:What it means.. by kirill.s · · Score: 1

      On the Internet, nobody knows you're a crow. KARRRR! KARRR!

    4. Re:What it means.. by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but for a bird flight is hard work. It'd be like having to walk everywhere.

  20. Easy peasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so what does this similarity imply about the evolution of behavior?

    It implies that, even after 140,000,000 years, meat eating dinosaurs are still the coolest things ever.

  21. Not just Ravens and Crows by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    A few weeks back I was driving down the road and a flock of birds flew under my truck. One of them must have hit the bottom and got hurt as it was laying and moving on the ground. As I looked in the rear view I saw another bird flying out of the grass when they flew into and it was flying around the hurt bird. There was no where to pull over as the road was tight but driving back later that day I saw the bird dead and moved towards the edge of the asphalt. But the bird that flew outlooked like is was trying to help out the other bird or maybe it was its mate.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  22. Re:Enough observation... by jhoegl · · Score: 1

    mmmmmm understood mint

  23. Re:Enough observation... by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2, Funny

    And, as a bonus, Schrödinger's cat gets to LIVE!
    Well, maybe...
    ...I'd better go check...

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  24. Re:So? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Birds show a lot of advanced mental cognitive behavior in relation to socialization that isn't commonly seen throughout the rest of the animal kingdom.

    Here's a behavior that isn't commonly seen! Were you surprised?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  25. Existential realism in metaethics? by Push+Latency · · Score: 1

    Schopenhauer wrote about compassion as the real primary/genuine moral incentive ("Foundation of Ethics", p.173, EFJP). If ravens do this too, is this fodder for (moral) Realism - even in an existentialist or materialist context?

    1. Re:Existential realism in metaethics? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      I think of it as further evidence of the Gaia theory. For G.T. to work on a daily basis, there has to be communication between neighbors in each ecosystem that would involve all the behavioral attributes that can be conveniently lumped under the broad concept of "empathy". Such empathy between individuals in any of the social species should be easily observable. And apparently is, for anyone who chooses to look for it.

      Not saying that the demonstration of empathy in non human species is part of a proof of G.T., just that it is consistent with G.T.

      I am also asserting that it is less of a mental jump to accept G.T. as a working hypothesis and develop an ethical system on its postulates than it is to develop ethics from existential or materialistic philosophies. But I offer this as a bald assertion with nothing to back it up (except my gut feeling).

      --
      Will
  26. well yeah by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    our vocal and manual dexterity evolved hand-in-hand with our brain

    but i will assert that if we didn't have the vocal/ manual dexderity, there wouldn't be anything for evolution to "work with":

    1. a few of us were able to say a little, so this gave those few an evolutionary advantage
    2. then a few of those who were able to say a little were able to think a little deeper, which gave those few an evolutionary advantage
    3. then subset of those saying a little, with a little deeper thought, in turn got able to enunciate a little more complicated thoughts
    4. repeat ad nauseum: you have a feedback loop, a runaway train fo communication building on intelligence building on communication building on, etc

    communication is the something that ravens, dolphins etc don't have evolutionarily (yet)

    what i'm saying is, we wouldn't be so smart if communication never came into play (and likewise, we wouldn't communicate very much if we weren't so smart). we owe our advantage to our grey matter AND our vocal dexderity. so human beings are smart, sure, but just looking at the grey matter is not the real story, because obviously plenty of other creatures: ravens, dolphins, parrots, kea, etc., are shown to have significant grey matter heft. but its tragic. they're all trapped wit their thoughts in their skulls to their deaths

    so what's the big deal with homo sapiens? the big deal, as i said before, is our ability communicate vocally. throw in the ability to write, and forget about it: we are far, far beyond our fellow creatures. mostly because of commmunication, the shared intelligence, the whole of our societies with their shared memory being more than the sum of its parts. that makes us truly special and light years beyond ravens and dolphins

    until we kill ourselves off, hopefully not, and evolution bumps the communication/ intelligence evolutionary feedback loop into hyperdrive in one of our animal friends. assuming we don't destroy the planet we share with them and dney them the chance

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:well yeah by masmullin · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Thought is language, language is thought" is what your trying to say. It's why a large vocabulary is an important measure of intelligence; because if you lack the words to think with, you lack the very thought.

    2. Re:well yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...because if you lack the words to think with, you lack the very thought.

      And that would definitely be double-plus-ungood.

    3. Re:well yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      communication is the something that ravens, dolphins etc don't have evolutionarily (yet)

      They certainly do! All of them are social animals and there is no social animal without communication. What makes difference between them and us that while they are all very well naturally adapted to their respective environments, our natural handicap forces us to compensate by creating and keeping for prolonged periods of time artificial extensions to our bodies (and later, brains) and that gave us our great flexibility and universality. Our specific way of survival also forced us to develop our communication much further to cover everything we do (or might do).

    4. Re:well yeah by chichilalescu · · Score: 1

      It's very rewarding to see someone say the same things you're thinking. Thank you for that.

      Food for thought: doesn't this mean that we would have a lot to gain by trying to teach a few animals to talk? There are already hundreds of videos on youtube with cats and dogs making sounds very similar to human speach, and their enthusiastic owners will probably turn that into an evolutionary advantage ("hey, let's mate our dog with the one down the street, he can talk"). Beyond the cuteness factor, there is however the fact that we would have the possibility to converse with nonhuman intelligences.
      This in itself might lead to a much better understanding of humanity.

      In the Star Trek universe, they thought of the prime directive. In Orson Scott Card's "Speaker for the Dead", they killed any notion of nonintervention.

      --
      new sig
    5. Re:well yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Thought is language, language is thought" is what your trying to say. It's why a large vocabulary is an important measure of intelligence; because if you lack the words to think with, you lack the very thought.

      Is what my trying to say? You meant to write "you're", the contraction of "you" and "are", not "your" as in "belonging to you".

    6. Re:well yeah by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      you're talking about reality

      That's a bad thing?

      i'm asking you to imagine us, humans, without the capacity for language.

      That wouldn't be us, so it's pointless. You might as well ask me to imagine eagles that don't fly or unicorns that aren't pink.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:well yeah by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      "Thought is language, language is thought" is what your trying to say. It's why a large vocabulary is an important measure of intelligence; because if you lack the words to think with, you lack the very thought.

      I had that argument in philosophy class. I do not think exclusively in language: I also think in shapes, and images, and directions, and sequences, without any verbal context.
      When I think about where my house is, I don't think "south by southwest" or "three streets west, two blocks south", I think 'thataway', and then translate that thought in language if I need to share it.

      Babies have no words, but they have have thoughts. They want to see the flashing lights even if they have no words for lights, for flashing, or for "stop turning me around to make faces at me and point to the flashing lights". They'll squirm ad cry to compensate for the lack of words, because nonverbal communication is the only power they have.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    8. Re:well yeah by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      communication is the something that ravens, dolphins etc don't have evolutionarily (yet)

      We don't know that. Obviously dolphins and ravens DO communicate; why else would birds and dolphins "sing"? The unknown is how well they communicate, and at what level of sophistication. Until we are able to decipher the whale songs and bird chirpings, we just can't know.

      Remember, it took the Rosetta Stone to decipher an ancient human language. A little offtopic, but if we can't even understand humans, let alone other earth species, how is it that we have the hubris to think we can decipher an extraterrestrial intelligence?

    9. Re:well yeah by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "Thought is language, language is thought" is what your trying to say... if you lack the words to think with, you lack the very thought.

      Can't be true.

      If it were, we'd never have any new ideas. Even if you have a new thought, there's no word for it, so you can't think it. If you have a new word, you can't know what it means, because the word is the thought itself, and you don't know what it is!

      Thoughts must be other than language. If not, dictionaries would not exist, because no definitions would be possible.

      If it were true that language was thought, there would be no need for dictionaries, because I could just tell you a word, and you would have the thought. Say you had never heard the word 'hallitus' before. I need only utter the word to you, and now you have the thought. No need for definition, because thought is language, and language is thought right?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    10. Re:well yeah by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Thought is language, language is thought"

      Untrue. Language is in fact thought, but thought is not necessarily language. I have thoughts that I am completely unable to communicate, and my brain is more visual than auditory; I often think in pictures, even though I do in fact posess a large vocabulary. Some things I think of I couldn't even draw, let alone describe.

      You can only communicate a shared concept; I can think of no way of describing the color red to a person blind from birth. There is no way to discuss a psychedilic experience (e.g. psilocybin) with someone who hasn't experienced it.

    11. Re:well yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's very rewarding to see someone say the same things you're thinking. Thank you for that.

      Food for thought: doesn't this mean that we would have a lot to gain by trying to teach a few animals to talk? There are already hundreds of videos on youtube with cats and dogs making sounds very similar to human speach, and their enthusiastic owners will probably turn that into an evolutionary advantage ("hey, let's mate our dog with the one down the street, he can talk"). Beyond the cuteness factor, there is however the fact that we would have the possibility to converse with nonhuman intelligences. This in itself might lead to a much better understanding of humanity.

      In the Star Trek universe, they thought of the prime directive. In Orson Scott Card's "Speaker for the Dead", they killed any notion of nonintervention.

      We should at least teach them how to start a fire, the easy way and the hard way, and fire a taser to protect themselves to help them become leaders.

  27. Societies of animals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe in higher animals, forming societies is the norm and in fact higher thought is common to all animals but in that particular animals perspective. I recall seeing a bird society in Australia and it reminded me of human feudal societies.

  28. Re:Enough observation... by masmullin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    after careful analysis of your statement over a period of 3 hours, I understand that you are telling me next weeks lottery numbers.

  29. It shows Evolution beats creationism, again by JavaBear · · Score: 1

    So technically the score would still be: Evolution: inf. Creationism: 0

    What this really shows is that empathy and as a result morality really are evolutionary constructs, that creationists are WRONG when they claim that it takes an invisible sky daddy to be moral.

    It also shows that either empathy have been a desirable genetic trait for a VERY long time (at least back to the common ancestor for dinosaurs and mammals), or that the trait developed independently in multiple branches of the evolutionary process, suggesting that it's a very desirable, and natural trait indeed.

    1. Re:It shows Evolution beats creationism, again by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Well, that should be enough to convince the creationists....surely.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    2. Re:It shows Evolution beats creationism, again by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      What this really shows is that empathy and as a result morality really are evolutionary constructs, that creationists are WRONG when they claim that it takes an invisible sky daddy to be moral.

      In reality, the truth is far worse. Creationists have looked deep inside their soul and realized that without their sky daddy, they'd be out there right now stealing your food, raping your houses and burning your daughters.

      So please, stop trying to prove them wrong, it'll be better for all of us in the long run. Just keep them far, far away from any institutes of learning...

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  30. implication by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    what does this similarity imply about the evolution of behavior?

    Empathy contributes to population fitness?

    1. Re:implication by mrclevesque · · Score: 1

      Yeah, as far back as we can see

  31. Re:Enough observation... by steelfood · · Score: 1

    Only because you're participating.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  32. Why should that be a surprise? by dakodar · · Score: 1

    It should not surprise much that ravens are able to communicate. Nor that they have some kind of empathy, or social live, or...

    What most uni-dimensional scientists forget is that science is more about communicating ideas than it is only about facts. Let me briefly explain: Currently there is a discipline called 'ontology design' that tries to standardize concepts within science (biology, neuropsych.. . ). Concepts are used to communicate ideas. The concept of 'empathy' is then one of those vague concepts. Give me a standardized (recognized by both biology/psych/phil of science...) definition of empathy and I will shut up. There is no standardized definition of empathy.

    So do ravens display 'empathy'? Sure, depends on your definition.

    In neuroscience, empathy is tighly connected with emotions (ehem the so-called amygdala), rewards (prefrontal, caudate, bit V1 even...), attention.... In biology: behaviour In chemistry: bit of dopamine?

    Science is a limited system, nifty, but limited. It is not standardized at all, let alone that it supports interoperable data. Why is it so hard to see that ravens collaborate, why would 'empathy' (in its limited sense) be restricted to humans? No (decent) scientist would have claimed that.

    Science can explain a lot, but those higher-order processes are far from explained. So empathy? Choose your definition and dependent on that it will be 'yes' or 'no'.

  33. Birds by Windwraith · · Score: 1

    Birds are the most underestimated creatures you can find around.
    Most people just thinks birds are poop factories (actually, their "dive bombs" are necessary, since they must remove weight from their bodies as soon as possible. By the way you can actually train birds to do that in a corner you want, much like dogs and cats, but most people just lets their birds rot inside a cage without interacting with them). Or just look at the depiction of birds in popular culture, it's either poop jokes or "birds are stupid/evil/pests" jokes. The only positive trait remembered is their singing or their colorfulness.

    I always noticed that in those cartoons or anime where animals can walk and talk, birds are often depicted as regular birds instead of intelligent creatures wearing clothes and stuff. Sure there are exceptions like Falco in Starfox but they are far rarer than silly talking dogs and stuff.

    If you take a bit of time to read about birds, you'll see they are worth more than just something you put inside a cage. Take a look at ravens, magpies (the pica pica species AKA European magpie), most curved-beak birds, etc...they can be trained to do many "intelligent" things. Even "not so smart" birds like sparrows (you can actually teach a little sparrow to talk like a parrot). And if you actually let a pet bird be comfortable (as opposed to being inside a tiny cage all day long), getting out of the cage and fly around, have toys and stuff, they won't run away from you even if you keep your windows open all day.

    The way you train them and the company they give, I find it more fitting for a nerd than cats (which seem to be a popular nerd choice). I had dogs and cats (and a hamster) to compare.

  34. Re:So? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    I think the point is that it IS commonly seen throughout the animal kingdom.

    Really, I don't get this willingness to pretend that animals have no emotions. Anyone with a horse, dog, cat, or even a relatively unintelligent pet like a ferret has seen playfulness, companionship, affection, and many other "human" traits.

  35. Poe knew this years ago by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

    Nevermore

  36. This is no surprise to me at all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Researchers have long since established that animals are much smarter than any human being. For instance, a bird poking a stick in narrow tube to retrieve a nut placed there by a human being is obviously far and away smarter than the person who designed the rocket which sent men to the moon. That's a fact.

    A cow mooing and waving its head from side to side at the site of a fellow cow which has collapsed and died is complete proof that cows experience far more empathy than a human who writes a two hundred page essay which describes in subtle detail the suffering heart of the author at the loss of a loved one.

    In truth, what all this actually proves is the desperation on the part of some people to 'prove' that cute animals really (no, really) are as smart as us. Sadly, they're not. Yes they're smarter than lumps of rock, they don't like pain and have some sense of common feeling with their fellow animals, but it is far from what humans are capable of.

    Now can we get on to something more interesting.

    Disclaimer: I had pet gerbils when I was a kid, and like dogs and cats. I just don't like pretending they're great philosophers or technical wizards when they aren't

  37. Emesene by cciRRus · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm using Emesene now on Lucid and so far, I'm happy with it.

    --
    w00t
    1. Re:Emesene by somersault · · Score: 1

      Yeah I've used that before, can't remember why I didn't stick with it. Probably lack of animated emotes, or inconsistency with them displaying on other people's machines. I use aMSN at the moment. The main interface is pretty strange (click a menu then mouse-over another and the original menu stays open), but it's got lots of good features and plugins.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  38. Ravens by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    In Baden Baden there are plenty of crows, there are a couple that from time to time sit on a house across from ours and they kiss. Seriously, they sit there and then do what looks like kissing with their beaks.

  39. Re:Enough observation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Empathy is also a very beneficial trait for hunters. The ability to get a hunch on what your prey will try to do means that you can do what is necessary to corner it.

  40. we ARE the crown of creation by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

    we went to the moon. we can nuke cities. we've built the Internet. we can stop someone's heart, root around in his chest cavity, then restart it, repaired

    if the idea of the relentless march of evolution towards man strikes you as ego-driven and selfish and not scientific, fine. let's compare humanity to other creatures in terms of: memes per generation, gross global environmental change capacity, average vocabulary size, number of other species domesticated, or how about: ability to perceive evolutionary processes themselves. pick a metric, whatever you want: humanity ranks slightly higher than chiclids or bees or mammal ruminants, sorry: the crown of creation

    i mean you could pick some metric where mankind lags, where say nematodes, ants, bacteria, or blue whales dominate us. but in terms of metrics that matter and count, mankind is leaving this silly genetic evolutionary game behind. we can keep alive those darwin would kill, like stephen hawking, we live in artifical environments we made: cities. we don't adapt to the environment, we adapt the environment to our needs. we rule dude

    and we're entering a new realm: memetic evolution, the competition and darwinian struggle between ideas. and instead of the nucleus and dna, its simian grey matter and language. sure, natural selection still matters, but its more like: capitalism beats communism in GNP, rather than stink beetle A outstinks stink beetle B

    you get the idea. we ARE the crown of creation. we've started a whole new evolutionary sphere, a sphere where these silly biological shells and these antiquated ecosystems are now nothing more than nostalgia, something we could recreate for an ecosphere zoo theme park. forget where we came from, look where we are going: the rise of metaorganisms: our nations and cultures and religions, competing for dominance in a new sphere of life, where instead of cells and their nuclear dna, WE are the cellular units, our language the gene transfer, our brains the nucleus, and these new meta-organisms living on, immortal, beyond any one man or woman

    resistance is futile. you will be assimilated

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:we ARE the crown of creation by Evtim · · Score: 1

      We can ignore the "silly biological shells and these antiquated ecosystems" at our own peril. I really would like to elaborate on this but have no time. Just think objectively how much of a free will the little voice in your head has over your whole self.

      "resistance is futile. you will be assimilated"

      Sad, but true. Why sad? Because culture behaves similarly to a big organization IMO - at the beginning its all about innovation and progress; at the end its all about preservation and perpetuation of the same old conservative ideas and stamping anything new and different. Which means if we got it wrong from the start (I think we did, on several issues), if the foundations of our civilization turn counterproductive in the long run, we will not be able to change, but will firmly march to catastrophe. The inertia is HUGE.

      So, you see I am not shouting "memetic evolution" from the rooftops. It's a wonderful thing, sure, and it gave us the ultimate trump card over other species, but it is also cumbersome, conservative, backwards. Infective. Destructive. In short - we are both the perpetrators and the slaves of it. Just like the cells of my lungs hate me, because I smoke, but they cannot do anything about it except mutate and kill me. The same for the humans and our culture (extelligence).

  41. well yeah by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    you're talking about reality

    i'm asking you to imagine us, humans, without the capacity for language. and what you get is a raven or a dolphin: inquisitive, observant, intelligent, inventive. but unable to share our thoughts, we get glimmers that fade and die with us, trapped in our skulls

    what i'm trying to say is how communication, not raw intelligence, not grey matter, is what sets us apart from the dolphins and the ravens

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  42. Relations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "But birds are very distant evolutionary relatives of Great Apes" is a rather silly statement - so is seaweed, and most likely all other life on Earth!

  43. speaking of birds and empathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    speaking of birds and empathy - my cock is very empathic with cocks while I watch porn

  44. Its a sham! by ctchristmas · · Score: 1

    No way! Birds are evil. They don't feel empathy. Haven't you ever heard of Yelling Bird

  45. Re:Enough observation... by tibman · · Score: 1

    Check this vid out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JiJzqXxgxo

    A Cat and Crow are friends.. very neat to watch.

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  46. Re:Enough observation... by sckeener · · Score: 1

    normal cats are very social. When wild, female cats form large social groups.

    --
    "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
  47. empathy my **** by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is no empathy!
    since a couple of months i am terrorized by a bird that is constantly hitting my bedroom window from 6 am till when it gets dark!
    it's really disturbing especially in the morning!
    those birds have a nest in my balcony, a little sleep is the least thing i deserve for this!(uh, i feel like a landlord)

  48. noticed this recently.. by red+crab · · Score: 1

    I live in an apartment of a 5th storey building and the locality houses a large number of crows. I recently witnessed an interesting incident from my terrace that reflected how strong the feeling of togetherness in these birds is; just as this experiment has proved.
    In the backyard of a house at ground-floor; a baby crow was confronted by a cat. An adult crow flying across that place noticed this and raised a distress call. It started cawing in a shrill voice to attract others' attention and soon a crowd of nearly 50 crows assembled at the place. Perched on boundary walls and ledges nearby all the crows started cawing at the same time. This collective action was meant to dissuade the cat from attacking the baby. Each single step that the cat took towards the baby crow was met with increased collective cawing of all the crows. Practically they could have done nothing to actually stop attacking the cat the baby. The cat however grew nervous with all that attention and backed off. The baby crow finally managed to hop to a higher place for safety.
    Crows do have a very closely knit society; at least in way that we humans can easily perceive.

  49. New Study Show Scientists Lack Empathy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find this all completely fascinating, though I did find it a bit ironic that in a study on empathy, the researchers kidnapped some fledglings and didn't take the feelings of the parents into consideration.

  50. Re:So? by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ah-ha! Mod parent up; that was insightful.

    The biggest breakthroughs in the history of science were not discoveries of new facts but new interpretations of what everybody already knew (but they had it wrong). Like Galileo and the Sun circling the Earth. Newton and centrifugal force.

    Perhaps today's "popular science" has got it wrong, and many of our highly prized traits of human interaction are very basic things we might find across the board in all animals. That would explain a whole bunch of cross-species bonding activities, like people with pets, horses with non-horse travelling companions, bitches nursing kittens, cats nursing puppies. A gorilla who has learned sign language wanting a cat for a pet.

    Of course it would also decrease the perceived difference between Man and all other life forms, and thus make it harder to preserve concepts like Man having the God-given right of dominion over all the beasts, or Man having some intrinsic right to change ecosystems, etc. There is a lot of economics invested in Man being uniquely able to experience compassion, or the suffering that is the flip side of that. Imagine a world where no one could stomach pate de fois gras, or veal cutlets....

    --
    Will
  51. Several explanations by TheUglyAmerican · · Score: 1

    Well, stock answer "A" is that empathy can impart benefits to individuals of a species thus giving them an edge in natural selection.

    Stock answer "B" says we're anthropomorphizing (a sort of imperialism I suspect) and that birds have no such emotions.

    The fun answer is that life is special - a gift from God and that echos of the creator can be found throughout life.

    --
    "Written on the pages is the answer to the never ending story..."
  52. Re:Enough observation... by canadian_right · · Score: 1

    I wasn't saying that, I was saying that if you observe something for a long enough time, you will start seeing anything that you want to believe.

    If you start with a preconceived notion of what you want to find, yes, this can happen. I doubt you read the article as it states the authors decided to reject one potential finding as "noise" because repeated observations were not more frequent than chance. In general, more observations give you better data.

    --
    Anarchists never rule
  53. Re:Enough observation... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    To me, it seems logical that empathy is a social behavior. Perhaps it's game theory, where helping out a fellow costs you relatively little at that moment but can net you help when you need it. Aesop's fable about the Lion and the Mouse nicely illustrates and exaggerates the point.

    Surely it's a social behavior, but whether social groups will naturally have it or not is I think an open, and interesting, question.

    The game theory advantage is definitely there, though. For example, Chickadees, Titmice, and some other birds will form mixed big species flocks (with the tiny chickadees usually taking the role of leader, kinda amusingly). When one of them finds food, they'll lead the rest of the flock to it. Even in the winter when food is scarce and you might think a bird would horde the food to itself or just a couple members of its own species, they will bring the whole flock to share. Research has shown that such flocks are actually more successful than lone birds, because while the individual bird might lose out by sharing the limited food supply it finds, it (or other members of its species) will benefit from the other flock member's sharing.

    I think it would be interesting to study chickadees and look for indications of empathy. Is it simply an advantageous learned behavior the birds follow by instinct? Or is there an element of "my flock mates are hungry, I should share this food I found with them"?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  54. they ARE building a space shuttle by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    it will be made of wiper blades, tire covers, and window seals. they're gathering the parts now:

    http://www.nztourmaps.com/blog/index.php/2009/09/01/kea-car-attack/

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  55. Re:So? by openfrog · · Score: 1

    For a moment, I was concerned that by "empathy not being and advanced behavior", you meant that it was overrated say, in comparison to aggression; while you merely, and quite sensibly, mean that it is not exclusive to humans.

  56. Re:Enough observation... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    That's because your glasses are the wrong size. See an eye doctor.

  57. Housecats are social enough to display empathy. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Housecats are social to a considerable extent.

    One obvious behavior is sharing surplus food with their social group. Each cat tends to have some specialty in hunting, being particularly good at one or a few types of prey. When they have surplus beyond what they want for themselves, they bring the extra back to the others of their group and present it as a gift. (Thus the gifts of mice, moles, etc. they give to people: As with most domestic animals they behave toward humans as they would toward other cats. We give them our "surplus hunting results", they give us theirs.)

    Another, though less obvious, behavior is "cheering up" - a display of empathy, in TFA's language. They react to extreme depression of one of their "friends" - human or cat - by cuddling, rubbing, vocalizations, showoff acrobatics, etc. It's fascinating to watch.

    (They'll also selectively feed those of their group who are sick or otherwise weak, hunting more than they normally would if necessary.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  58. Re:So? by sisinka · · Score: 1

    Ex-act-ly so.
    1) Animals communicate through emotions even between different species.
    2) The illusion of human superiority is crumbling, hopefully.
    3) I was quite afraid of becoming a vegan finally - after some 10 years of vegetarianism. But... it's really easy :-)

    --
    My parser is a grammar nazi.
  59. Rhetorical question? It's a synapomorphy. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    But birds are very distant evolutionary relatives of Great Apes, so what does this similarity imply about the evolution of behavior?"

    That the behaviour most likely evolved once in a common ancestor of the Apes (Hom.sap. included) and Corvidae. Though it's not impossible that the behaviour evolved twice, once in an ancestor of the Apes and once in an ancestor of the Corvidae.

    I really should check my cladistic nomenclature, because I only wheel it out in alternating Martian years, but the first case is a synapomorphy (shared-derived character) and the latter case is an analogy or a homology (depending on how complex the similarities between the characters are). But I'll be brave and post without checking.

    This is a Cladistics 1.0.1 homework question. Why am I answering it?

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  60. A Gathering of Raven Empathy... by MediaCastleX · · Score: 1

    ...sounds like a Conspiracy to ME!