Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

What makes you think they aren't?

Perhaps they're better at unobserved observation than we are.

Note, also, that we tend to keep most of our own scientists where most animals are unlikely to observe them. Why should not animal scientists (if they exist) be kept where we are unlikely to observe them?

et. al.

Holy cow! I just noticed, reading back through all the posts on this thread, that one of the posts came from a sentient computer!!! Did you see which one? Or did you miss it?

Oh, the agony! Oh, the irony! Oh, the humanity!

You could ask the same question about some of the current human tribal groups. Where is their science? For the most part they don't have what the average western thinker would consider 'Science,' just a bunch of superstitions. Where are their scientists? Well, since they don't have science, they don't need scientists do that? :>

From memory it wasn't until the greeks managed to free up some time a few thousand years ago that we actually started to consider science as a worthwhile pursuit. It took us most of those few thousand years to come up with something that a modern scientist would recognize as science.

I figure it was mostly the Renaissance that gave us modern science. The ideas were mostly there, they just got organized a little differently.

So... science, in a form we'd consider as such, has been around for a few thousand years, but most of the developments have happened in the last couple of hundred years. If estimates of the age of Homo Sapiens Sapiens (and it's precursor species) are correct, that's a little tiny blip at the end of a lot of nothing.

So where are all the dolphin scientists? Maybe they haven't been invented yet.

Corey Murtagh wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@radsrv1.tranzpeer.net:

Maybe they're too busy building developing space ships to leave the earth before it get's destroyed to be 'communicating' with humans:

i) jumping through hoops in Florida ii) playing beside boats pretty much anywhere nice to be

...and the all time favourite...

iii) suffocating themselves in trawler nets.

Ian Woods

Typically in their "witch doctors" and "medicine (wo)men".

Think about what "science" really is: the observation of the world in which we live and the attempt to *understand* and *codify* those observations.

Mankind has been doing that since it's been intelligent, and the understanding has gotten ever better (largely due, I think, to improved tools and, moreso, on building on previous successes and failures).

The quest for understanding is--to me--one of the hallmarks of humanity. We wonder "why" things happen. We wonder about basic causes of effects we observe. WHY does lightning make a sound? WHY is it hard to breath when you climb a mountain. WHY can birds fly. WHY do women have babies. WHY does the sun rise.

And so on. I see no evidence of this in the animal kingdom.

I think I might use "profession" rather than "pursuit", because I think "scientists" (as I define science) have existed all along. It was the Greeks who began to codify and record, and it was the Greeks who begain to explore the realms of philosphy, thought and rationality.

Sure! By then there were people who make a life profession out of studying, and trying to understand, the world around them.

But I think I see a continuum that stretches very far back into our history. Maybe one way to say it is that it was around this time in our history we *began* to truly understand.

Yes, fascinating isn't it? In my grandfather's lifetime, we went from invention of the automobile to walking on the moon!

It may also be that you need good manipulators (like hands) to truly study your environment. I've also read the suggestion that the invention of fire might be necessary for "civilized society", although I forget the rationale behind the idea.

It may also be that a written language is required for science to progress, because oral history and memory may not suffice for all the details. Further, the invention of symbols and mathematics seems required to pursue science.

starting, i presume, with steve ?

goose,

"No doubt"? So you actually believe this is possible? Do you

*really* believe that a food source of centuries that spends its time in pastures chewing the regurgitated contents of one of its stomachs and walking around in its own feces is doing higher math?

As I said, it seems far fetched (in the extreme) to me, but if you can demonstrate any evidence for this, I'd be fascinated to see it!

As I said. I also don't *know* that Pluto isn't made of brie, but I consider that extremely unlikely, too. Until someone or something demonstrates the intelligence of cows or the cheese of Pluto, I'll select the most *rational* interpretation of the data.

I think it's probably a good bet, though. *Curiousity* seems to be a characteristic of intelligence, and it seems contrary to the desire to know and understand to *choose* to not communicate.

You usually don't defy Occam so much, Richard. (-:

"Possibly catastrophic", "might be able to predict"... And they somehow managed to achieve this better-than-human level of intelligence *without* going through a period of lesser smarts wherein they *would* likely reach out?

My point is, I don't think that's evident at all. I would think a mother cow would have some concerns about her offspring being converted to veal and a *serious* vested interest in speaking up.

Consider also that an intelligence smart enough to understand the value of secrecy should *also* understand that our society DOES attempt to succor the weak and helpless. Thus, I can see no real reason to keep mum and a very compelling reason to speak up.

Irrelevant to the point that if it DID talk, history would be made.

[shrug] All I can say is I disagree completely. I see no real value in keeping mum and definite value of speaking up (consider the lot of women and non-whites until they *demanded* equality in Western society). I also think it's absurd to think all members of all intelligent species all choose to keep mum and have pulled it off for centuries.

If they were as intelligent as you suggest, they would certainly be in a position to demand equality. Your position seems to have a contradiction inherent.

The assumption is *necessarily* implicit in the point of view. To reach that level of intelligence, they must pass through the earlier stages, and surely somewhere along the line speaking, intelligent animals would have been noticed! It would be a most remarkable event.

On what basis are you so sure that would happen? It seems to me quite the opposite: that NOT speaking up places them below us and makes them chattel. ONLY through *demanding* parity will they ever achieve it. ONLY by demonstrating their intelligence will they convince us it exists.

If they are capable of acting in concert such as you suggest, they are equally capable of making a stand and demanding their share.

You are making a great many assumptions, and they are assumptions that defy observations of centuries. You are assuming intelligence could evolve completely undetected. You seem to be assuming this happened to many species (cows & squirrels have been mentioned). You are assuming all members of all these species all decided to keep an incredible secret *despite* our attempts to communicate with them. You are assuming cows would rather die young than speak up. You are assuming a species would *decide* it was in their best interest (what, some form of global meeting?) and act in concert over centuries.

I find this all very hard to credit.

Yes. That is about the only assumption I'm making. That any intelligence would seek out other intelligences. Also that it would very likely speak up to obtain parity.

What about those dolphin, primate and elephant scientists who have a life dream of proving the intelligence of their subjects?

What about my lifelong attempts to communicate with my own pets? (And some simplistic level of communication is achieved, both by the scientists and by me. Which in turn suggests that, if your theory were right, not only are they choosing to keep mum, they are actively *fooling* us despite genuine efforts on our part to reach out.

Consider one of the most intelligent animals: dolphins. Don't you think a truly intelligent species--one smart enough to recognize the *possible* danger of speaking up--would recognize the equally possible benefits of speaking up? In today's world, don't you think *proven* intelligence in dolphins would end gill netting pretty much overnight?

(Equally, if they were as intelligent as suggest, wouldn't they be smart enough to avoid tuna boats altogether?)

That defies logic. All species planetwide have through out the centuries acted in concert to deceive us? Unless you want to postulate some form of planetary communication, we must then believe large numbers of animals came to identical (and I think somewhat fantastic) conclusions AND decided to act identically on them.

"Might" be. What if not? All it takes is *one* slightly less intelligent animal, or one slightly less inclined to adhear to the party line, and the cat's out of the bag. (Heck it could even BE a cat that lets *itself* out of the bag! :-)

THAT is just flat out wrong. Many of us listen desperately. I've often said I'd give part of a lung to know my dog's mind.

Why does my dog communicate with me, but only on crude, simplistic fashion? When she wants a treat, she just stares at where they are kept. She's clearly *trying* to send a message... why not choose a more effective means IF she's capable of it?

No. The whole point here is that that is precisely *not* enough. Your theory requires ALL animals planetwide and throughout history to keep the secret ALL the time.

Do the math. There are billions of animals and thousands of years. Even if a tiny, tiny fraction of them let the secret slip, that's a LOT of talking animals. How could that not be noticed?

If it were a *single* animal, probably. If an entire species chose to speak up? Or several species? A few might become subjects of research, but the bulk would benefit.

By your own theory, there are many intelligent animals out there, and their lot would clearly improve through speaking up. Cows, in particular, would stand to benefit hugely (if you know anything about the meat industry).

100% False. People, highly trained people, are working very hard trying to communicate with those species that have shown the most intelligence.

Or because it's so effective in getting things done. Or because it's a property of ANY intelligence.

I find that hard to believe. Many of their values match ours (security, food, safety), and we have much in common with them (starting with our DNA and working upwards). I cannot imagine they are *that* alien from us.

Any animal that watched a hunter would recognize how silly this statement is. Humans CAN shut up when they want to, and animals are quite vocal in the right circumstances.

Which may be more about the difficulty achieving intelligence than anything else. Some think intelligence is a consequence of our generality as a species (can't run that fast, can't fly, can't stay under water, can't jump that high, no claws, no fangs, no fur,...). Why would an animal that has achieved balance with its environment NEED to develop intelligence? It would almost seem *counter*productive.

But certainly not all. The numbers involved alone suggest the secret could not be kept.

I'm not sure I agree. Many of us are painfully aware of the short- comings of those who govern, but the situation seems to be the least worst of the options available. And many people just don't want to be bothered as long as things go along reasonably smoothly.

You've taken a poll on this? Most of the people I know would be

*delighted* if animals were more intelligent. I know I would!

Even if they were a mere 0.0001% of the population, there would still be plenty to go around. Even if only 0.00000001% of the animals spoke up, there would be plenty of talking critters.

Do we? Not very well. There isn't a whole lot of difference between me and our Greek ancestors. (Consider that Greek comedys are still funny today, and comedy is a subtle thing!) A few things have changed--life span and such--but it's a slow thing and not really a choosen direction so much as a consequence of civilization.

No we don't. We have literally thousands of years and billions of animals... all who haven't said a word. If all you can see is sand, how long before you decide that you are most likely in a desert?

That would be me. There is a small chance (in view of the data) of you're being right. A very, very, very, very, VERY small chance. :-\

I'm not.

A point of view I've *never* suggested nor felt.

Squirrel human-behaviorists and cows doing higher math? Okay.

As have I.

I fully agree with intelligent to some degree and conscious. I'm not sure about self-aware, mostly because I'm not sure how you define it.

How about this: Sam (my dog) had leg surgery last year and had to wear The Cone Of Doom for three weeks. My buddy's dog had surgery recently and also had to wear a cone for three weeks.

In both cases (and in all others I know of), the dogs never, and I mean NEVER, fully adjusted their new morphology. They were CONSTANTLY hanging up the cone on door frames and other vertical and horizonal edges. Walk through the same door twenty times, catch the cone twenty times.

A human--and I would imagine ANY intelligent self-aware mind-- would adjust very quickly, if not instantly. You or I with some form of prostheses would quickly learn to get around.

The dogs *began* slowly to learn adaptive behavior, and if they wore the cone long enough may well come to adapt fully. The neural net would eventually re-train. But there was no evidence whatsoever of a conscious recognition of the device, nor was there any evidence of a deliberate coping strategy.

Also, the cone was clearly causing some level of distress, BECAUSE it was hard to get around it. Surely any intelligent, self-aware being would have done better.

The *universal* apparent lack of process and organization.

Perhaps Pluto is made of brie.

Even the scientists that *study* animals?

Seen any squirrels in white lab coats ducking behind trees lately?

No, in both cases the subjects in question may do whatever they can to achieve communication.

FCOL, yourself.

I expect noone's ever actually told her :-)

If cattle were sentient, it might be interesting to see what metaphysical properties they would associate with the slaughter house truck.

Cheers Bent D.

Yes, I believe it's possible. No, I don't believe it's likely.

Since nobody has ever actually bothered to ask any of them, I have no reason to express an opinion either way.

No, I can't demonstrate any evidence for this, any more than you can demonstrate evidence against it. You see, I've never bothered to ask them either.

There is an easy way to sort out the Pluto question. Find the density of Brie. Find the density of Pluto. Compare. You can't compare the intellectual density of people with the intellectual density of cattle, though. It doesn't work, because we have no way to measure either quantity. Some people think we have a way to measure humans' intelligence, but we don't, really - all we really have is a way to measure humans' ability to pass IQ tests. If we were to write such a test for a cow, it would probably fail the test (or eat it). But would that mean that the cow should be adjudged unintelligent? Or would it just mean that the cow adjudged /us/ to be unintelligent by the mere fact that we'd gone to all the trouble of chopping down a tree, sawing it up, pulping it down, smoothing it out, writing a lot of unintelligible symbols on it, and then waving it in front of the cow's nose, when any fool could see that there was plenty of edible stuff right there on the ground.

We are hamstrung by our inability to see that the way we see intelligence might not be the only way to see intelligence.

Yes, I know. I happen to disagree.

I agree that curiosity seems to us to be characteristic of intelligence, but perhaps curiosity-about-humans is not a survival trait, and so intelligence in the animal kingdom has had to branch out in other areas?

I don't think I'm needlessly multiplying entities. I think I'm reducing the number of assumptions that have to be made when trying to make our model of reality fit the true reality. You seem to be postulating that mankind is necessarily unique in being intelligent. I think /that/ is defying Occam's Razor.

Whoever said "better than human"? Try "different from human" for size.

In the last 20 or 30 years or so, you might have a point, provided the animal chose its human carefully. But it's a heck of a risk, and for most of human history it would have been darn stupid.

I share your pessimism, if not your level of certainty, about the intelligence of the cow. I certainly don't think it's likely that cows are going to learn human speech any time soon. But of course I don't think it's likely that we are even going to discover /whether/ cows have a language of their own.

Most of it doesn't, actually. Most of it is too busy trying to get enough clean water to drink and enough rice to feed the family for another day.

Consider: 5% of the world population is responsible for consuming 20% of its resources. That doesn't look to me like an attempt to succour the weak and helpless. It looks more like an attempt to get the last cake.

Alas, I cannot share your optimism about mankind.

Not really. You see, the whole "talking" thing is a blind alley. If dogs /do/ talk, they talk in a language we don't understand. And because we don't recognise it (if it exists), we assume it doesn't exist.

Yet another assumption on your part. You assume that intelligence and "demands" go hand in hand. What if they needn't?

No, it isn't.

So you are assuming that animals gain intelligence only after humans have gained sufficient intelligence to recognise intelligence in animals (which we /still/ can't really do) and to be interested enough in it to study (which, clearly, most people seem not to be).

I, on the other hand, am making no such assumption.

I'm not. You are trying to push my argument from the moderate view I actually expressed ("could easily") to an extreme view that I did not express and do not hold ("so sure"), presumably because an extreme position is easier to defeat.

That's an underhand debating trick. If you care that much about winning this debate that you are prepared to resort to trickery in the hope that I don't notice, then I am no longer interested in continuing it.

In other words, we haven't looked closely enough.

Perhaps, but it's rather unlikely. For example, the mass and volume of Pluto are, presumably, a matter of record, so its density may be readily calculated. It is likely to be different to that of Brie. If you are concerned about this, feel free to perform the necessary research.

In the field, you mean? If so, they could easily be under observation in their turn. Or not. We don't know either way.

Yet another attempt to ridicule a serious debating position. Okay, let me try to respond to this childishness. From the above, it appears that you define a scientist as "an entity wrapped in a white lab coat".

From that simple premise, you have managed to demonstrate that, in the lab in which I had chemistry classes about 25 years ago, the teacher's lab stool was intelligent. Nice one, Chris.

Now, if you like, we can debate this seriously. If you'd rather play silly games, please count me out.

Then you are proving nothing. Two-year-old humans will reply to questions in their native language, using their native language. We know that. We don't know whether infant dolphins do the same, and I don't see that we'll ever know, without first learning how to communicate with dolphins, at which point the whole issue will be moot anyway. But even if they didn't, it would prove precisely nothing, since dolphin culture, if it exists, is likely to be very (and perhaps unfathomably) different to our own.

[grin] True enough. However, in the theory under debate, the cow is smart enough to realize it must not communicate with man for fear of a negative reaction. Recognizing the theft of her offspring seems a much lesser realization.

Something like a Cargo Cult.... (-:

And later you seem to say you agree cows probably aren't smart. I guess I don't understand your point. I've never denied that animal high intelligence is *possible*...

What are we arguing about?

But I have. Thousands of years and millions (if not billions) of cows. No math evident. Maybe you can hand-wave that away, but I find it--at the least--a significant fact.

Your theory will have to account for nearly *every* cow in the history of man failing to demonstrate any math sense whatsoever.

Obviously. You miss the point, though. Right now, we can't do that any more than we can measure intelligence accurately. So, by your own logic, Pluto COULD be made of brie. But everything we know *so* *far* about planets suggests very strongly it isn't.

Likewise animals *could* be smart and deceiving us all these centuries, but *so* *far* everything we do know about them suggests otherwise. Big time otherwise.

I disagree that we are ALL so blind to the possibilities. I also disagree that intelligence would be so different. Some things are universal: numbers, shapes, colors, sounds, etc. After all, we all do live in the same universe and share a lot of the same DNA and a lot of the same brain structure.

You'll need to account for how, with so much similarity, they could so different as to be undetectable.

I find that hard to credit if for no other reason than: Know Your Enemy! (-:

You're not. I listed the assumptions your theory requires. Looks like you snipped them. The big one is how do you explain a planetwide, centuries-(heh, millenmium!)-long, cross-species

*active* deception?

No, no necessarily involved and no requirement. As I pointed out last post, the only assumptions I'm making is that (1) intelligence would be recognizable to another intelligence, and (2) intelligence is (IMO) very likely to want to communicate with other intelligence.

Everything else I've said is supported by observational data.

You did. You said they were smarter than us at least once. It also seems implicit in your theory: they would *have* to be smarter than us to pull off a planetwide, cross-species, centuries- long active deception.

"Cows storm Washington, D.C. Demand end to the slaughter!" Film at 11.

If we agree the time has come that smart animals might finally find their true place as peers, .... why hasn't it happened?

Enough of it does. If such a planetwide, cross-species conspiricy did exist, they would surely be smart enough to choose their moment effectively, wouldn't you think?

(Smart money would be to hit the media first and make sure the message got out *everywhere* fast.)

Let's not get lost in hair-splitting. You originally suggested even if an intelligent animal did convince someone it could communicate that nothing would happen. I'm saying it sure as heck would!

If I walked into an animal research facility with a dog that could clearly communicate IN ANY FASHION, history would be made.

No I don't. I said they would be in a *position* to make a demand. Which they would. If they were as smart as you suggest, they would equally be in a position to make their message undeniable.

Then how did they get there? Instant HIGH intelligence?

No more than you are assuming an alternate and apparently *much* fast intellectual evolutionary path. Which seems the more likely assumption?

First, if they were that smart and wanted parity, studying them would be irrelevant. They'd just speak up. Second, "most people" doesn't cut it. This sort of thing, it only takes a few to change the whole picture, and those few do clearly exist.

Oh, please. First, "could easily" is not a moderate view. Second, I'm just asking you by what mechanism do you propose "could easily". (Aren't you the guy who's always saying amUSENET demands a thick skin? What's going on here??)

Underhanded because I asked you how you could be sure your theories have a basis? Hmmm, didn't you START this debate by asking me how I knew about cows? I'm not sure I see a difference here.

But we have looked *extremely* closely for many decades now.

My point exactly! (-:

ONLY by assuming we know of what it is made. Its mass is clear from its orbit and its volume from observation. But it could be a big hollow ball with a very dense core. Or a big ball of brie with a very dense core.

See, now that sounds like a snide remark, which is funny considering you seem to be getting bent out of shape about what I'm saying in this conversation...

And in the lab.

We do know they aren't making physical recordings of any kind. Most (if not all) human scientists do of necessity. They also don't appear to be concerned about sharing their findings.

Relax, Richard, it was a *joke*.

Which seems to call for another insult from you. Tch.

Consider that the child speaks a foreign language. The point is that two truly intelligent entities can work out ways and means of communicating. Even my dog and I have done so...to a *very* limited degree.

How did infant dolphins come into the picture? This is the first mention of them. I was comparing communication with adult dolphins to a two-year-old human and suggesting there was more intelligence

*evident* in the human.

People are indeed working very hard on this and rather simplistic communication HAS been achieved. A real question is, if they are highly intelligent, why is the progress so simplistic?

The most reasonable answer (I believe) is that the animal mind is (intellectually) simplistic.

Agree with different. Not so sure about unfathomable (although it DOES make a nice pun! :-). I very much suspect that minds capable of exploring quantum weirdness would be able to fathom a carbon-based, earthling, DNA-shared species.

I saw a program on TV showing a gorilla that had been taught sign language. It could construct and communicate ideas at about the level of a two- or three-year old. I was impressed that it could take one idea (like: flower pretty) and create a similar idea about another object (like: trainer pretty) and even form the negation (like: hurt not pretty). Not rocket science, but it tended to make me think the gorilla was rational.

Well, a beaten animal may well whine and try to hide OR attack back. Either could be taken as an "attempt to communicate" but at an animal level through "animal sounds" and body language. I swear a dog I had once used to say "Lemma out" very quietly at night by the side of my bed. If she had simply barked at everything there wouldn't have been different messages in her barking. My current dog has a quick two bark message that means "I need help" (like when her ball rolls over to the heat register that she avoids) and a rapid, multiple bark message that means "someone is at the door."

My wife and I were eating dinner one night with the dog lying at our feet and my wife said something like "Well, even with all our trouble, the Holy Spirit is here with us." to me and the dog got up and ran to the door to see who was here. I swear to it. Clearly the dog associates the sounds "is here" with the pleasure of seeing someone at the door (they all make a fuss and pet the dog). Is this thinking?

Of course, there is the story of a couple who had a cat that started scratching at the chair and the husband said he'd take care of it. He grabbed the cat and threw it outside. For 15 years thereafter, whenever the cat wanted to go outside it started scratching the chair. Who trained whom?

What to make of all this, and stories of dolphin pushing drowning swimmer back to shore (they can kill you by battering you with their snouts, but they don't), and other "Lassie saved me" stories, I don't know. There is SOMETHING going on in those little brains of theirs, at some really low level compared to ours, and conditioned by their physiology and instincts. I just don't know whether to call it "thinking" or not. "Processing" might be a better word.

Animals appear to learn sequences of actions to get what they want, and they seem satisfied to stop at very little in the way of feedback. Perhaps they can't absorb and store enough patterns to make the breakthrough to the level of human thought. Maybe we did, thousands of years ago.

Anyway, do you really want your canary to learn Java? They might get good enough at it to take your job. After all, they work cheep!

It wasn't lately, but I did see a white squirrel. I didn't know that was one their scientists!