CharonY Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 ... yes they do! http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2809%2901455-9 It is interesting that they appear to have much more sophisticated approach than simple try and error in trying to solve the problem. Another snipe at those who, contrary to all evidence, might believe that only humans or very closely related species are tool users. 1
iNow Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 That's super cool. It reminds me of this video below (Synopsis: crows learn to use a vending machine in the wild, and also drop nuts in the street right before a car passes so it breaks the shell and they can get the nut). NhmZBMuZ6vE Another snipe at those who, contrary to all evidence, might believe that only humans or very closely related species are tool users.Yeah, no kidding. I think there are few comments we make which do a better job at illustrating the ignorance of our conceit. 1
Mokele Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Oh, they do more than just use tools, they make tools, modifying them to meet their needs:
StringJunky Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Wow! That is awesome Mokele....I thought only something like an African Grey had that kind of problem-solving ability. Are all the Rooks, Crows, Ravens and Magpies etc of a similar skill level or does one type stand out above the others intelligence wise?
CharonY Posted August 13, 2009 Author Posted August 13, 2009 Yes Mokele, that is a classic. I should have posted that in the OP, too. I only stumbled across that paper and just had to put it up.
Mokele Posted August 13, 2009 Posted August 13, 2009 Honestly, if birds weren't such a pain in the ass to keep, I'd be tempted to get some corvids myself.
jimmydasaint Posted August 14, 2009 Posted August 14, 2009 Superb and humbling find. Do the corvids understand the problem or are they just very able problem solvers?
emcelhannon Posted August 16, 2009 Posted August 16, 2009 That's an interesting distinction, jimmy. How would the crows be able to consistantly exhibit that behavior without understanding? I would imagine that random trial and error could eventually solve some of their problems, without them understanding why. I would be interested in seeing some of their failed attempts before their successes. That's where the answer to your question is. Obviously, they have a good memory, but are their efforts random or are their attempts focused on rational ideas?
CharonY Posted August 16, 2009 Author Posted August 16, 2009 It is described in the paper, actually. They monitored the water level and could assess how many stones are needed to rise the water level to a given height. Also they learned that sawdust does not increase the water levels. In other words they did not just randomly drop things in, but apparently had a good idea what is supposed to happen.
emcelhannon Posted August 16, 2009 Posted August 16, 2009 I guess my next question is: from this information, can we conclude that they hypothosize before they experiment, or do they merely remember the results of "happy accedents?" "Hey this sucks. Let's throw stuff at it. Look it worked!" I would like to believe there is more to it than that, but the birds with the vending machine were trained through a 4 step process.
iNow Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 I guess my next question is: from this information, can we conclude that they hypothosize before they experiment, or do they merely remember the results of "happy accedents?" "Hey this sucks. Let's throw stuff at it. Look it worked!" Could you not ask the same question regarding the approach humans take? I really don't see any difference here between us in them... at least... not in that respect.
cosmaximus Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 i think this is very interesting it juts goes to show how all the animals around us are a lot smarter then we give credit to. who knows what can happen in the future any one of them can evolve to out level animals just seem to keep getting smarter and smarter as do humans ( since we are animals too) so maybe its just a way for them to keep the intellectual ratio even to ours? maybe the animals are actually gaining intelligence at the same rate we are as we evolve so do they
Sisyphus Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 i think this is very interesting it juts goes to show how all the animals around us are a lot smarter then we give credit to. who knows what can happen in the future any one of them can evolve to out level animals just seem to keep getting smarter and smarter as do humans ( since we are animals too) so maybe its just a way for them to keep the intellectual ratio even to ours? maybe the animals are actually gaining intelligence at the same rate we are as we evolve so do they There really wouldn't be any reason for that to happen, I don't think. At least not directly - animals evolve to be smarter only when being smarter helps them survive better, not to "keep pace" with any other species. Although, humans have dramatically changed most environments on Earth, so our presence will definitely push the evolution of many things in rather different directions. However, we've only really just arrived, geologically speaking, so crows' high intelligence almost certainly couldn't have evolved just to help them deal with us.
emcelhannon Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Could you not ask the same question regarding the approach humans take? I really don't see any difference here between us in them... at least... not in that respect. That wasn't exactly my question. I've meet many people, I'm fairly certain are less intellegent than crows. I've beaten the radio a few times and gotten it to work. Now it's my first response to a lot of malfunctioning tech. But I'm also capable of analyzing how a system must work, and developing an experiment to test my thoughts. What I want to know is do they develop an idea, (a hypothosis) before they "experiment?"
Fuzzwood Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 These moments of surprise is what you get if you think men are the only intelligent species on this planet, which ironically shows a lack of intelligence.
iNow Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 What I want to know is do they develop an idea, (a hypothosis) before they "experiment?" My personal conjecture on this is that, yes... They do. I'm not sure though. Think about how you would test this in humans. You'd have to rely on abstract language abilities, whereby they explain their "hypothesis" to you prior to acting on it and demonstrating the hypothesis in action. How would you test that same thing in birds? We are not able to communicate with them effectively enough for them to describe their hypothesis to us without actually performing the task (that is, of course, if they do have a hypothesis). So, we have to rely on how they perform their trial and error experiments, and if it's truly just random, or if they seem to have a specific outcome in mind. I suggest they have the outcome in mind before they begin, and hence so too a remedial hypothesis to test. Part of what makes me suggest they have a hypothesis before experimenting is because much of trial and error learning (and execution of experiment) requires some remedial level basic idea of a system and how it works, as well as a desired outcome motivating the action. Birds seem to demonstrate both of those things.
Sisyphus Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 There's also a lot of middle ground between pre-experiment deduction of how a system works and merely remembering a happy accident. You can figure out how it works by means of deliberate experimentation, generalize to similar situations, modify methods to suit different circumstances, etc.
CharonY Posted August 17, 2009 Author Posted August 17, 2009 Generally you start off with a hypothesis, before you conduct such a trial. Although depending on the complexity of the problem it is likely that the initial hypothesis does not cover everything from the beginning. You will note that the authors have breaking down the behavior into quantifiable elements. For instance, they looked for a correlation between number of stones used before they tried to pick up the worm and the water level. The basic hypothesis here is if they just throw things in and hope that the worm for some reason becomes reachable, there should not be a strong correlation. With human subjects one often tries to conceal the hypothesis so that any preconceptions on their side does not influence the experiment.
emcelhannon Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 (edited) because much of trial and error learning (and execution of experiment) requires some remedial level basic idea of a system and how it works, as well as a desired outcome motivating the action. . Thank you for your response. I have to dissagree. Behavior motivated by one situation can lead to solutions of otherwise unrelated problems. The fact that they are intelligent enough to remember, learn (even from each other) and repeat is amazing. They see that throwing in stones brings the food closer. I think it's clearly established that they remember and learn. Can they think? The first crow to try this: did he think, "If I throw this stone in there, it should raise the water level, and maybe I can reach the worm."? What clues can you glean from the experiment to help you divine the intentions of that first productive act. If you can establish that these crows anticipated the result before the first attempt, that would be truly awesome. Intelligence isn't quantified by what you can do. In Kentucky the cliche goes, "Even a blind pig can find an acorn, once in a while." "Birds seem to demonstrate both of those things" I suspect that they do, but, do you know some specific examples, offhand? Edited August 17, 2009 by emcelhannon incomplete thought
Sisyphus Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 The first crow to try this: did he think, "If I throw this stone in there, it should raise the water level, and maybe I can reach the worm."? That would indeed be amazing, since I've met plenty of humans who I doubt would figure that out. But if it's not, that also doesn't mean it's just rote repetition, like a rodent pushing a lever for food. I'm sure early human tools predated abstract understanding of the physical principles behind them by a long time, but that doesn't mean they were just going through the motions. To make and improve on a spear, for example, you need to know that sharp stuff punctures living stuff, and have the inclination to experiment with manufacturing techniques, but you don't have to have any theoretical understanding of anatomy, aerodynamics, minerology/metallurgy, etc.
emcelhannon Posted August 17, 2009 Posted August 17, 2009 Surly I've met many crows who are a site smarter than some people, but I'm not really interested in human intelligence at the moment. I would be more interested in learning how it's different than a rodent pushing on a lever for food. What do you think is a likely range of reasoning for the crow with the stones, or the bent wire, or the vending machine?
iNow Posted August 21, 2009 Posted August 21, 2009 Maybe this will make you smile as much as it did me. Enjoy. wuVgXJ55G6Y
Recommended Posts