NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/rec/arts/sf/misc/2249

Text File | 1992-07-27 | 3.8 KB | 72 lines

Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!iWarp.intel.com|ichips!intelhf!hutch!hutch
From: hutch@hutch (Stephen Hutchison)
Subject: Re: Eating our other world friends & enemies
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News User)
Nntp-Posting-Host: hutch.intel.com
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 16:52:11 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Chris Waters) writes:
>>In <[e-mail]> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail]. (Gregory McColm) writes:
>>>Gregory, what are these "other ways" in which dolphins may be more
>>>developed than us?  You imply that they are components of
>>>intelligence.  Persoanlly, I think that's bullshit.  Put up or shut
>>>up.
>>Hmm, I'm not Gregory, but I think I can field this one.  Dolphins are
>>more developed than humans in the area of 3D "auralization" (a word I
>>just coined by analogy with "visualization").  IOW, they can hear in 3D
>>*much* better than we can.  Yes, I suspect that this is a component of
>>their intelligence (whatever the level of that intelligence may be).
>
>Why do you think this is a compnent of intelligence?  Is the analagous
>process with sight a component of intelligence?  I hardly think so.
>Also, what about bats?

Oh boy.  Flaming about something which hasn't ever been adequately defined.
The best sort of net.garbage!

Michael.  Try finding a copy of the book "Frames of Mind" and read it.
It gives a very different view of "intelligence" from the vague and very
convenient one that most people hold.

Specifically, it says that humans have about 12 or 13 distinct, identifiable,
"intelligences" - and that these are identifiable because they can be shown
to have correlations to the structure and/or organization of the brain.
There are two physical criteria which were used to identify these.  The
first, the existance of "savants" - people who are unusually GOOD (or BAD)
at the tasks associated with a given intelligence.  Second, the existance of
people whose ability to use a given intelligence has been impaired by brain
injury.

For instance, there are people who are musical savants, who have unusually
good musical skills, doing amazing tricks with it.  Then there are people
who are not just tone-deaf, but who CANNOT comprehend music.  But most humans
can and do comprehend and use music.

It's clear that the dolphins in particular, but in fact, all the cetaceans,
have a tremendously well developed sense of spatial organization.  They also
have a similarly amazing sense of smell - they can taste minor chemical
differences in the water, to an incredible extent.  They have a very strongly
developed social intelligence - they have even been known to sicken and die
for lack of interaction with a group of compatible "peers".

The fact is, since we cannot "talk" to them, we cannot tell if they do or do
not have minds comparable to our own.

This is less true when examining the case of gorillas and chimps who have been
taught to use sign language.  They aren't as "mature" as adult humans, and they
have a number of "animal" behaviours, including some tied to their sexual
cycles, which have caused people to think of them as merely animals.  However,
they DO express new ideas, they have been known to change and adapt the meaning
of words, to express emotional likes and dislikes, to spontaneously communicate
their desires, including asking questions, and they teach their sign language to
their offspring and to other chimps and gorillas.

Hutch