Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
From: mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman)
Subject: Re: Eating our other world friends & enemies
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 06:52:23 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <+flmw0a.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:
>In <1992Jul27.035713.24540@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>>In article <m5km1g-.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:

>>>Hmm, I'm not Gregory, but I think I can field this one.  Dolphins are
>>>more developed than humans in the area of 3D "auralization" (a word I
>>>just coined by analogy with "visualization").  IOW, they can hear in 3D
>>>*much* better than we can.  Yes, I suspect that this is a component of
>>>their intelligence (whatever the level of that intelligence may be). 

>>Why do you think this is a compnent of intelligence?  Is the analagous
>>process with sight a component of intelligence?  I hardly think so.
>>Also, what about bats?

>Yes, the analogous process is with sight, which is a _component_ of
>human intelligence.  We tend to visualize things internally when we
>think.  Dogs probably "odorize" some of their thoughts, and I suspect
>that smell is a component of their intelligence.

>Bats, like dolphins, probably do their thinking (such as it is) in
>mostly sonic terms.  However, the evidence of brain complexity and
>behavior studies would indicate that bats are not particularly
>intelligent.

I don't understand your argument.  Earlier you were claiming that the
dolphin ability to use sound like we use sight indicated that they
were intelligent.  Correct?  I have presented counterexamples.  It
seems like you are no longer defending the above position or that you
never held it.  Can you please clarify?

>>>And, in the lack of any real evidence about the level of that
>>>intelligence, I think that *any* assumption about intelligence *or lack*
>>>on the part of dolphins is BS.  

>>So what about house flies?

>So what about 'em?  House flies are probably the only thing you've
>mentioned that actually show *no* evidence of *any* intelligence. Bats
>are pretty stupid by a human (or even dolphin) scale, but they're hardly
>devoid of intelligence.  They can learn, and show vague traces of
>abstract reasoning.  Most higher animals (e.g. mammals, and, to a
>moderate extent, octopi) do.

So let me ask you.  In the lack of any real evidence about the level
of a house fly, bat, or dolphin intelligence don't you think that any
assumption about intelligence of lack is BS?  For which of these
species do you agree with the statement? Given the amount of work done
on dolphins seems to me that we probably know more about their
intelligence level than we know about flies and bats.

>>I would argue that we have conclusive evidence that dolphins are not
>>intelligent.  They have not made a significant attempt to communicate
>>with us despite the large numbers of them that we kill via things like
>>tuna fishing.

>That's hardly scientific evidence.  The fact of the matter is that
>dolphins plainly are intelligent.  How intelligent is the question. 
>More intelligent than dogs? 

Well, here we clearly need a definition of intelligent.  When we talk
about an organism being intelligent we usually mean that its brain
level is such that it is a rational, concious, thinking being
deserving legal protection.  Dogs do not meet this text.

>We don't have many examples of handless, swimming
>intelligent life forms, so we're not that good at measuring the
>intelligence of such creatures.  

Might be a bit easier if we had a definition of intelligence.  I don't
have a good one, but at least its clear - you're intelligent if you
conciously attempt to modify your environment when it threatens you.
Dolphins clearly do not.

>The comment above, however, only proves that they are not human, not
>that they are not intelligent.  It may *suggest* a lack of intelligence
>on their part but it is by *NO MEANS* anything like scientific
>evidence.

I'll only concede this if you give a definition of intelligence that
does not imply that they would try to stop us from klling them.

>For that matter, I could counter-argue that for thousands of years, we
>have been sending our young men off to war, where they are killed in
>huge numbers.  By the reasoning above, this "proves" that humans are not
>intelligent.  :-)

Why?  I would argue that these actions prove that human beings are
intelligent.  You, however, are playing silly word games with the word
'intelligent' by using a different definition than the one we have
been using perviously.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not an official Oracle spokesman.  I speak for myself and no one else.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc