Comments on: Smarter monkeys http://neoneocon.com/2006/06/17/smarter-monkeys/ Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:16:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2006/06/17/smarter-monkeys/#comment-17299 Ymarsakar Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/06/17/smarter-monkeys/#comment-17299 The study didn't really change anything for us, simply because it was just too sparse. They should have given the monkies the knife and the etc, and then tried and see what they would do after seeing the pictures. The study didn’t really change anything for us, simply because it was just too sparse. They should have given the monkies the knife and the etc, and then tried and see what they would do after seeing the pictures.

]]> By: douglas http://neoneocon.com/2006/06/17/smarter-monkeys/#comment-17300 douglas Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/06/17/smarter-monkeys/#comment-17300 Something about the science in the article bothers me. For instance: <I>"Remember, the monkeys never saw the use of a tool in their lives,..." </I><BR/>Which was preceded by this: <I>"Hauser has been working with a colony of free-ranging rhesus monkeys on an island off Puerto Rico for many years."</I><BR/><BR/>Now, let's assume the island has no resident humans, fine.<BR/>1)There are other animals that use tools. The monkeys could've seen them at work.<BR/>2)The researchers use tools all the time (ropes, seats, hell pencils even). I think it is unlikely the researchers could work without EVER having been seen by the monkeys.<BR/><BR/>The declaritive and definitive statement that the monkeys had NEVER seen a tool used is questionable science at best, it seems to me.<BR/><BR/>Then theres the Speech Recognition test of expectancy. I couldn't open the link from the article, but it seems a pretty thin means of determining disbelief/expectancy. A recoding goes from Dutch to Japanese and they pay attention? Changes in pattern get attention. Silence after prolonged continuous talking likely would've gotten a look too. Was the Dutch and Japanese spoken by the same person/voice? If not, were they just responding to a new individual's 'presence'?<BR/><BR/>This is the kind of science I question (and why one should be wary of making it one's religion). Something about the science in the article bothers me. For instance: “Remember, the monkeys never saw the use of a tool in their lives,…”
Which was preceded by this: “Hauser has been working with a colony of free-ranging rhesus monkeys on an island off Puerto Rico for many years.”

Now, let’s assume the island has no resident humans, fine.
1)There are other animals that use tools. The monkeys could’ve seen them at work.
2)The researchers use tools all the time (ropes, seats, hell pencils even). I think it is unlikely the researchers could work without EVER having been seen by the monkeys.

The declaritive and definitive statement that the monkeys had NEVER seen a tool used is questionable science at best, it seems to me.

Then theres the Speech Recognition test of expectancy. I couldn’t open the link from the article, but it seems a pretty thin means of determining disbelief/expectancy. A recoding goes from Dutch to Japanese and they pay attention? Changes in pattern get attention. Silence after prolonged continuous talking likely would’ve gotten a look too. Was the Dutch and Japanese spoken by the same person/voice? If not, were they just responding to a new individual’s ‘presence’?

This is the kind of science I question (and why one should be wary of making it one’s religion).

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2006/06/17/smarter-monkeys/#comment-17301 Ymarsakar Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/06/17/smarter-monkeys/#comment-17301 Btw, links broken. Some editing gives you this working linke to the monkey.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://news.softpedia.com/news/Monkeys-keep-turning-out-to-be-smarter-than-people-think-they-are-22818.shtml" REL="nofollow">Link</A> Btw, links broken. Some editing gives you this working linke to the monkey.

Link

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2006/06/17/smarter-monkeys/#comment-17302 Ymarsakar Sat, 03 Mar 2007 07:00:00 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2006/06/17/smarter-monkeys/#comment-17302 David Brin wrote some novels about uplifting neo-chimps and neo-dolphins. Dolphins and Chimps have quite a lot of potential for budding self-aware beings. They won't evolve to that point by themselves, either because we fill that slot already or because it would take too much time.<BR/><BR/>If we can't create and teach sentient self-awareness to machines and animals in 500, 5000, 50000 years then we don't deserve the title of "Top Sentient Pack Being" on this planet or any other. David Brin wrote some novels about uplifting neo-chimps and neo-dolphins. Dolphins and Chimps have quite a lot of potential for budding self-aware beings. They won’t evolve to that point by themselves, either because we fill that slot already or because it would take too much time.

If we can’t create and teach sentient self-awareness to machines and animals in 500, 5000, 50000 years then we don’t deserve the title of “Top Sentient Pack Being” on this planet or any other.

]]>