Slashdot Mirror
Crows Complete Basic Aesop's Fable Task
jones_supa writes: "New Caledonian crows — already known to be smart — may also understand how to displace water to receive a reward, with the causal understanding level of a 5-7 year-old child, according to results published in the open access journal PLOS ONE by Sarah Jelbert from University of Auckland and colleagues. As demonstrated in the included video, 'Scientists used the Aesop's fable riddle — in which subjects drop stones into water to raise the water level and obtain an out-of reach-reward — to assess New Caledonian crows' causal understanding of water displacement. ... Crows completed 4 of 6 water displacement tasks, including preferentially dropping stones into a water-filled tube instead of a sand-filled tube, dropping sinking objects rather than floating objects, using solid objects rather than hollow objects, and dropping objects into a tube with a high water level rather than a low one. However, they failed two more challenging tasks, one that required understanding of the width of the tube, and one that required understanding of counterintuitive cues for a U-shaped displacement task.' The authors note that these tasks did not test insightful problem solving, but were directed at the birds' understanding of volume displacement."
The fact that the average crow can means they're likely a lot smarter than even these researchers give them credit for.
...or they will quickly learn to stone you?
Ezekiel 23:20
before crows figure out how to use youtube. Next step world domination.
This explains why I've always preferred the company of crows, jackdaws and magpies over that of human beings.
Perhaps those who cannot tell the difference between "fair" and "fare", and use the proper one in the right context, should not be the first to demean others.
William George
I put out random old food I'd otherwise throw away for the crows (and an occasional opossum that takes what they leave behind). They are interesting to watch. They will take hard dried food like pretzels and old bread and drop them in a puddle or the bird batch to soften them up. They also take food fly away and hide it and come back for more. Another interesting thing is how they interact with a Hawks. Occasionally a hawk will land and investigate the food or the commotion. The crows initially back off but eventually one or two of them will cautiously walk up behind it and pester it and pull at it's tail feathers until he finally gets frustrated and leaves. They do other things that others birds don't.
It would be nice to see if such laws of volume displacement could be understood by this country's fast food connoisseurs.
Of course it is. Why else do you think that they fill your beverage container nearly to the brim with ice before dispensing already chilled soda pop into it?
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Reminds me somewhat of this project, which trains crows to trade objects (coins, in this implementation) for food. I've been meaning to build something similar at some point. :-)
I haven't decided what to get them to do for the food. Cash isn't used much here, so they'll have a hard time finding quarters. I was thinking pop or beer bottle lids, or something similar to that, would be good. That way they trade an abundant trash source for food, and clean up at the same time.
Though I suppose it could lead to the unintended effect of them getting into dumpsters to cheat the system, if they're smart enough...
I think ravens are supposed to be even more intelligent?
Sent from my PDP-11
Perhaps those who cannot tell the difference between "fair" and "fare", and use the proper one in the right context, should not be the first to demean others.
Exactly. For example, the MPAA and the RIAA are all about fare use.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
>It would be nice to see if such laws of volume displacement could be understood by this country's fast food connoisseurs.
...or air crash experts:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli...
Crows don't "understand" water displacement.
How do you know they don't?
Crows see cause/effect.
Why did any of the crows drop a stone into the water in the first place? Why did they go for water over sand?
On the other side of the argument, what did their "brief training period" comprise?
The problem here is that we're working with four paragraphs. That's precious little to come up with any definitive statement - let alone ones which contradict the - by their own admission, cautious (the article is peppered with "may"s)- conclusion of the study.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
...but it's too orangey for crows.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
There is no evidence of "understanding". They simply learned a behavior.
I dont have the burden of proof, b/c it's not my research. The scientists are claiming they **DO**...that means the definition and concept of "understanding" certainly comes into play.
They had free choice to drop in any of them. They dropped stones in multiple containters.
When they dropped and saw they thing get closer they repeated!
It's simple cause/effect and memory...why is this a controversial statement?
Oh yeah, b/c these researchers used the Artificial Intelligence definitions of "understanding"...
Thank you Dave Raggett
heavy objects sink in water
I will say an aircraft carrier is very heavy - but floats on water, what the authors meant to say was Dense objects sink in water, as even light grains of sand sink to the bottom.
You can thank the college of Phycology for the misunderstanding - when you read something like that in the first paragraph of the paper, makes me doubt anything else they have to say.
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
I remember in grad school, there was a crow that was often on a branch above the path to the computer science building. After walking past it, he would fly down next to me and screech loudly right when he was next to me, then circle back and cackle after landing on his branch. He apparently enjoyed the reactions he got by startling people.
Birds are very smart. Another reason to be afraid of dinosaurs, I suppose.
the MPAA and the RIAA are all about fare use
Specifically, they think fare use is for the birds: Three fowl plays and you're bunted out!
Whooooosh!
There goes your Internet.
is it complex innate behavior that evolved or "understanding"?
what is the difference?
Look at the elaborate nests of the Bowerbird: http://ngm.nationalgeographic....
Does that bird "understand" structural physics & bird mating behavior and "choose" based on its "understanding"?
No. According to this study: http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
That study and many like it examine **instinct** as the mechanism for this behavior...they do not **in any way** examine bird behavior in terms of "understanding"
So until I have a definition of "understanding" that is mutually exclusive of instinct & other well understood animal behaviors...and relates that to the human concept of "understanding" this research is claiming something that is not supported by evidence.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Intelligence means nothing in the face of hatred and prejudice. Even the smartest minds in the world can make dumbass decisions (Manhattan Project).
On a slightly unrelated note, if life can survive in the waters of Lake Hodgeson, or survive the devistating results of the imacto f a meteor six miles across, i doubt Man has the capability to completely wipe out life on this planet
If you gave me a choice between a printer and a giraffe with explosive diarrhoea, i'll get my ladder and my raincoat
is it complex innate behavior that evolved or "understanding"?
what is the difference?
Understanding takes some thought whereas instinctive evolved behaviour does not take thought. The Bowerbird builds an elaborate nest because it feels right and it is easy to understand how that may have evolved, females that are attracted to elaborate nests and males that though small mutations and genetic recombining that make more elaborate nests having more breeding success.
Needing to get something out of reach and having to improvise by bending a wire or studying a situation until understanding a series of steps will get something out of reach seem harder to have simply evolved as pure instincts. Instinct might partially come into it but coming up with novel tools and using them would include some understanding.
People are the same, some instinctive tool usage built into us and then innovating through understanding tools to the point where I'm typing on a computer to communicate with you.
Some people need to feel special in relationship to other animals while the truth is that we are an animal and operate with a mixture of instincts and understanding and other animals can be similar though we do seem to do the understanding part better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
"Whoosh" is the sound made by a joke flying right over someones head. Have you had your hearing checked recently?
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Which is funny, because the sound is more like shhhgrrssheeeoooow.. but that doesn't spell out as well...
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
You must have missed the bit about "Three fowl plays and you're bunted out!"
That's a reference to the "three strikes and you're disconnected/banned at the ISP level" legislation that has popped up in various locales, lobbied for by the media industry folks. As far as I can tell, the source of your whooshing was a joke in a joke, and I must say I found it pretty amusing.
Write failed: Broken pipe
That's a tautology.
**NOW** everything hinges on your definition of "thought"
What is "thought" in your nomenclature?
How does "thought" differ from "understanding"?
Are you the first one to make this distinction?
I don't want/expect an actual answer. I'm asking to point out the ridiculousness of the statement.
Still waiting for some actual discussion.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Crows see cause/effect. Drop stone, thing gets closer. They sense that the thing is closer so just repeat what they did.
What makes you believe that your own "abstract reasoning" actually operates any differently?
welcome our new crow overlords
Manhattan Project
That wasn't a dumbass decision. Sure bits of it were, loke propping apart two bits of a critical mass with a screwdriver, but the project as a whole was not. It basically started the nuclear industry which has saved vast numbers of lives.
The number of people not killed in coal mining exceeds the number killed as a result of nuclear weapons and accidents. The numbers are quite easy to work out: the generating capacity and deaths per kWh are known well for all power generation techniques worldwide.
And that's not getting into any of the nuclear side benefits, things like useful isotopes in things like medical tests, fire alarms etc etc.
And now back to the warlike element. While it would be nice if everyone got along and didn't have weapons, the fact is that if anyone does, everyone does. Bear in mind the Third Reich was working on nuclear weaponary and had unstoppable ballistic missiles.
Ultimately though, nuclear weapons are mid 1940-s level tech that's well understood. Given that any large nation state can develop it, I'm glad that my allies and country had it first/early.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The crow shrieked "Corn! Corn! Corn!" until the researcher, one J. Snow, Wall Cmdr, tossed some corn its way.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
but not THAT smart!
I always knew they could count to three. However other birds may be better at counting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
here we go again
"intelligence"->"thought"->"imagination"->X
same problem, AC...you just inserted a new word into the space
define "imagination" in a way that is consistent and usable for scientific research & comparison!
the problem is, you're trying to use the same words for **human mental processes** as your are for animal behavior
superficially they are similar, but only superficially...this whole thread boils down to that premise: these researchers (and AI researchers) are projecting human behavoir onto significantly less complex behavior
it is only **superficially** similar!
Thank you Dave Raggett
I think his mindset is called 'human chauvinism', humans are special, the only thinking species. Insight and conscious thought separates us from the beasts. According to that world view all non-human animals, generally including primates, operate exclusively by instinct and have no deeper insight into the world around them. It used to be popular among academics in the early and mid-20th century, but as more people with real-world experience (such as people who had grown up as farmers or breeders rather than social elites) entered the upper echelons of science that viewpoint has been eroded by a series of discoveries and experiments that show it as invalid and obsolete thinking. Mostly I still see that among religious people who believe us to be created "in god's image", and so somehow superior to all the other animals. Would be surprised to see him promoting creationist ideas as well, although I didn't bother to check his posting history.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Meant "wouldn't" rather than "would" in that last sentence.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
... Crows don't "understand" water displacement. They only sense and react. "understanding" requires abstraction.
This is great research so I don't want to seem hypercritical but in their contextualization of the mental processes of the Crow they are projecting what ***humans*** would be thinking when they solve the problem.
Crows see cause/effect. Drop stone, thing gets closer. They sense that the thing is closer so just repeat what they did. ...
That might be true, but it also could describe most people, incuding the scientists !