Animal Intelligence

[goku]

Originally Posted by freeztar

The dog can adapt while the car cannot. Also, the car is just an extension of our own intelligence. We program it, it does not exist on its own.

the dog also knows german, spanish? and the car?

so the dog is born knowing what sit or fetch means?

also people are evil

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by goku

the dog also knows german, spanish? and the car?

I'm not sure about the car, but dogs can learn any language. My friend has an ex-rescue dog (german shepard) that was trained in German. He'll sit with the command "sit" or the German equivalent.

so the dog is born knowing what sit or fetch means?

That's a very valid point. I assume your question is making the point that we programmed the dog as well.

We do program the dogs/birds/whatever, but their capacity to be programmed speaks of intelligence to me. A computer is intelligent because we made it that way, it's an extension of our own intellect imho. A dog is born with the "OS and compilers" built in.

also people are evil

Ok, that's out of left field. Although on some days I would tend to agree with you, it's not relevant to this discussion.

[Jay-qu]

YouTube - smart cheetah

This is one smart cat

[goku]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

This is one smart cat

knowing where to put your sssssstuff, proof of intelligence?
but i wrecon it was scientiffic, because there was a scientist there.

[goku]

Originally Posted by freeztar

A computer is intelligent because we made it that way, it's an extension of our own intellect imho. A dog is born with the "OS and compilers" built in.

why did who build it into the dog?

knowing the existance of good and evil is intelligence.
animals don't know right from wrong, they are bio-chemical computers.
man, that sounded fancy. yea computers. they don't think they process.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by goku

why did who build it into the dog?

I could use Java, or I could use C++. It doesn't really matter what code I use, as long as there is an OS, or something, to interpret it. As far as animals are concerned, they seem to have this "OS" built-in.

knowing the existance of good and evil is intelligence.

That's pushing the subjective even further.
Good and evil are relative terms that mean different things to different people. I suggest that we continue talking about Animal Intelligence and leave other subjetive conjectures for a Theology thread perhaps.

animals don't know right from wrong, they are bio-chemical computers.
man, that sounded fancy. yea computers. they don't think they process.

So we agree that computers process. Animals do not?

[mynah]

The problem may not be so much in what animals can or cannot do, but in what terms we choose to describe it. Historically there has been a tendency to label any behaviour by an animal as either instinctive or learned, mainly due to the fact that many of the proponents spent their lives in laboratories, when anyone who has coexisted with a spaniel could have told them otherwise.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

1. Animals can and do use tools

2. Animals express emotion

3. Animals seek to entertain themselves on occasion therefore must get bored
boredom comes from monotony...a lack of inteligence to me would never lead to boredom as the monotonous events would perpetualy seem new...as part of intelligence is the ability to learn and remember.

4. Animals seek to please their masters and thus gain meaningfull companionship and tasty treats while avoiding angry voices and the occasional smack on the bottom.

I'm fairly sure the average Lab is more intelligent than the average bloke

i think intelligence resides only in the realm of humans.
our thoughts, our comunication, our feelings, our building capibillities, our lack of contentment.

Why is the lack of contentment a sign of intelligence? It would seem to me that the opposite would be true.

[Turtle]

I watched the PBS program Monkey In The Mirror sometime last week and as I recall one difference from human intelligence revealed in monkey (bonobos & chimps I think?) experiments was the the inability to know what another individual is thinking. I can't find a good synopsis of the show to pin it down any better, but here's a lead: >> NATURE: Monkey in the Mirror - Recognizing Ourselves

The search wasn't completely fruitless however, as I ran across this gem:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/03/1....12pagelt.html

...The whole issue of whether or not language is the defining difference between the other animals and us is complex and highly controversial. Hauser does not sidestep this issue, but he does question its relevance. ''Several authors claim that animal thought is limited or nonexistent because animals lack language,'' he writes. ''In light of recent findings in the study of animal cognition, I argue that language is not necessary for certain kinds of thought, and that the most profitable comparison among species is between animals and human infants.'' We are reminded of Darwin, who wrote in ''The Descent of Man'' (1871) that the difference between human and animal cognition is ''certainly a matter of degree and not one of kind.'' ...

Stupid freakin' New Dork Times! Visit a link of theirs you get from Google more than a couple times and your access to the article gets blocked by a page demanding you join! Behind the times is what they are. Anyway, I can't properly credit that quote now to either a book title or the author. Talk about stupid animal behavior; it's every monkey for themself! Copy & paste everything on the first visit is my new credo!