From: xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters)
Subject: Re: Eating our other world friends & enemies
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 10:49:24 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In <1992Jul29.065223.28918@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:

>In article <+flmw0a.xtifr@netcom.com> xtifr@netcom.com (Chris Waters) writes:

>>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?  

No, I merely pointed out that sound is a component of their intelligence
in much the same way that sight is a component of our intelligence.  I
don't think that there's any question about the fact that dolphins,
dogs, and even bats *are* intelligent.  Though bats are not
*particularly* intelligent.

>I have presented counterexamples.

You presented one specious example:

>>>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.

The holes in this pseudo-scientific "argument" are large enough to drive
a truck through:

1.  We do not know whether or not they have made significant attempts to
communicate with us.  They may well have.

2.  They may not think of these activities as "us killing them".  This
assumes that the individuals identify with the species.  Hardly a
warranted assumption.

3.  It assumes that they think that communication with us is
possible--that they think that *we* are intelligent.

4.  It assumes that they might think that we might respond to such
overtures on their part.  Perhaps they've tried and given up, and they
just assume that it's part of our nature to kill them.

5.  It assumes that they understand causality.

I'm sure that there are many more flaws in this curious piece of
"reasoning", but that ought to do for a start.

>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'm not sure I understand the question.  If you are asking, "do dolphin
researchers tend to feel that these animals are intelligent?", then the
answer is yes.  No, let me correct that.  There is _incontrovertable_
evidence that dolphins are intelligent.  More intelligent than dogs,
perhaps as intelligent as chimps, maybe even more so.

>>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.

Huh?  From my Websters New World Dictionary:

Intelligence n. 1. a) the ability to learn or understand from
experience; ability to acquire and retain knowledge; mental ability.
b) the ability to respond quickly and successfully to a new situation;
use of the faculty of reason in solving problems, directing conduct,
etc. effectively.  c) in /psychology/, measured success in using these
abilities to perform certain tasks. [...]

Dogs and dolphins, chimps and even bats meet this definition of
intelligence to one degree or another.  But, for the sake of argument,
let's take your definition:

rational -- ability to reason.  Dogs certainly have this.

conscious -- having a feeling or knowlege.  Again, dogs have this.

thinking -- Dogs certainly think.

deserving legal protection -- well, this is the whole subject of the
debate.  Just who or what is deserving of legal protection?

The simple fact of the matter is that intelligence is *not* a criteria
for legal protection under the current laws of the United States, or any
other country that I am aware of.  Being human is.  Thus, if our
hypothetical aliens landed in Times Square, someone might well be
legally within their rights to kill and eat them.  Of course, killing
and eating tool-using aliens who are sufficiently advanced to be able to
build and land a spaceship on Earth is probably an incredibly stupid
idea, but, for all their vaunted intelligence, humans can be awfully
stupid at times.  :-)
-- 
Chris Waters    | the insane don't | NOBODY for President!
xtifr@netcom.COM| need disclaimers | Because Nobody's perfect!!
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc