Chimps make weapons for hunting. - Page 3

**WhiskeySix** · 02-23-2007, 06:47 PM

I, for one, welcome our new humanzee overlords.

Boot · 02-23-2007, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

I, for one, welcome our new humanzee overlords.

Our superior intellects are no match for your primitive weapons!

Wulfyn · 02-23-2007, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jepzilla

This isn't 'out of the box' thinking in human terms. It's some very basic abilities that chimps seem to lack when it comes to tools.

This is called intelligence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Gringo

Take that child and have it raised by chimps. What do you think will happen then? Don't really know but there is some evidence that says they may not do much better. There have been a few cases of children isolated from other humans from a very early age and they seem to have lost many "human" abilities. Such as speech. This is important because many believe speech is a inherent trait of humans.

The more interesting point is not speech but language. Really language is just the ability to make certain controlled noises that correspond to a certain meaning. The skill is in the manipulation of these meanings. It is thought that language is an inherent ability to humans, and for feral children this is harder to judge. There is a strong indication that animals have a "use it or lose it" strategy to development, so the lack of ability in a poorly educated individual does not necessarily prescribe the lack of innateness about the skill.

On the note of the same post, Gringo, there is a nice experiment that tends to perform better on less intelligent creatures. Imagine a grid of squares 5 across by 7 high. You are shown an image of the grid with some squares filled in. They are always filled from the bottom (so a filled grid will have all grids below it filled in) but the top is not flat. Take X as a filled square and _ as an unfilled square.

_____
_____
_X___
XX_X_
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

Each picture of the grid then corresponds to an answer of either LEFT or RIGHT. After you see the image some time is given for you to predict the answer, and then it is given. The reason why the answer is left or right is because this experiment is conducted upon chickens, with the result indicating which hole some food will be in. After about 7 exposures the chickens are usually getting it right. After 14 most humans still are not.

The reason for this is that the experiment is too simple. We naturally assume that the "interesting" area is the patterened top, so we make judgement calls based upon a few of a large number of combinations of possibility. For example: highest peak to lowest trough, whether the peak appears on one column or more, wheter the missing gaps between the peak and trough is an even or odd number, etc etc. The real annoyance for humans is that these criteria are usually fuzzy enough that no induction can be applied, so we just have to have another stab at a guess.

Chickens however see that it is either mostly filled, or mostly empty.

It goes to show that not all problems require intelligence to work out, and in fact may be misleading. A lot of very intelligent people spend a lot of time thinking up problems that trick other intelligent people. In the above example the framing of the problem is important. We believe that we are going to be challenged so try to look into a depth that may not exist (a phenomenon that many scientists believe occurs in conspiracy theorists).

Back on topic the use of weapons is a significant leap forward in tool use. It requires an extra level of forethought that is very rarely seen. The commonly referenced "twig in a termite nest" involves twigs that lie near to the nest. Thus the chimp sees the nest, realises it needs a twig, looks for something suitable, optimises it, and then uses it. However this is all present-tense thinking.

We know that chimps are capable of foreward planning to a degree. They organise and undertake patrols of their territory (often killing other chimps on their travels). This is more complicated than (for example) what wolves do.

Now if the chimps were to make the tool and then go hunting I think I would be far more impressed. That would show an indication of forethought, which is the key point of an advancement in intelligence (the ability to predict what you might need, and to put yourself into the future). It is this sort of pre-planning that eventually leads to agriculture - at which point food no longer becomes such a huge survival need, and you have time to sit around wondering what the world is like.

I actually wonder if it is correct to term this as a weapon, in the sense that it's intention may not be to harm or kill the prey, rather just to get it out. If a chimp catches a monkey it will tear it apart and eat it alive, so i doubt that it is particularly fussy about needing to kill the bush baby first. Then again maybe humans learned how to create weapons from the inadvertent experience of a tool killing prey, and it developing from there.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 02-24-2007, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wulfyn

The more interesting point is not speech but language. Really language is just the ability to make certain controlled noises that correspond to a certain meaning. The skill is in the manipulation of these meanings. It is thought that language is an inherent ability to humans, and for feral children this is harder to judge. There is a strong indication that animals have a "use it or lose it" strategy to development, so the lack of ability in a poorly educated individual does not necessarily prescribe the lack of innateness about the skill.

Yes. Language is a knowledge network that aids in memory. It seems to help in thinking through complex problems. Much like graphs or diagrams do. It abstacts out the problem into it's component parts allowing us to grasp the whole.

This also goes along with the point you make about "use it or loose it". Children, some theorize, have a hard time making long term memories because their language skills are still relatively primitive. They cannot really connect the dots but are very aware of the dots and can act upon the relation of said dots in real time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wulfyn

On the note of the same post, Gringo, there is a nice experiment that tends to perform better on less intelligent creatures. Imagine a grid of squares 5 across by 7 high. You are shown an image of the grid with some squares filled in. They are always filled from the bottom (so a filled grid will have all grids below it filled in) but the top is not flat. Take X as a filled square and _ as an unfilled square.

_____
_____
_X___
XX_X_
XXXXX
XXXXX
XXXXX

Each picture of the grid then corresponds to an answer of either LEFT or RIGHT. After you see the image some time is given for you to predict the answer, and then it is given. The reason why the answer is left or right is because this experiment is conducted upon chickens, with the result indicating which hole some food will be in. After about 7 exposures the chickens are usually getting it right. After 14 most humans still are not.

The reason for this is that the experiment is too simple. We naturally assume that the "interesting" area is the patterened top, so we make judgement calls based upon a few of a large number of combinations of possibility. For example: highest peak to lowest trough, whether the peak appears on one column or more, wheter the missing gaps between the peak and trough is an even or odd number, etc etc. The real annoyance for humans is that these criteria are usually fuzzy enough that no induction can be applied, so we just have to have another stab at a guess.

Chickens however see that it is either mostly filled, or mostly empty.

It goes to show that not all problems require intelligence to work out, and in fact may be misleading. A lot of very intelligent people spend a lot of time thinking up problems that trick other intelligent people. In the above example the framing of the problem is important. We believe that we are going to be challenged so try to look into a depth that may not exist (a phenomenon that many scientists believe occurs in conspiracy theorists).

I remember one something like that but with pigeons. It was by Skinner or one of his protégés I believe. (But again 9 years ago...) Even knowing what the pattern was didn't give humans an edge over the birds. We do tend to get distracted by complexity. We have to train ourselves to ignore the noise and some animals do not because they don't even recognize the noise.

I do wonder, however, if the pattern was changed to something like a square. Would the heaviness be seen then? Or if you added a dimension to the experiment? The physical layout of the eyes plays a critical role in vision and perception. Are we observing pattern recognition or eye placement with regard to brain interpretation?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wulfyn

Back on topic the use of weapons is a significant leap forward in tool use. It requires an extra level of forethought that is very rarely seen. The commonly referenced "twig in a termite nest" involves twigs that lie near to the nest. Thus the chimp sees the nest, realises it needs a twig, looks for something suitable, optimises it, and then uses it. However this is all present-tense thinking.

We know that chimps are capable of foreward planning to a degree. They organise and undertake patrols of their territory (often killing other chimps on their travels). This is more complicated than (for example) what wolves do.

Now if the chimps were to make the tool and then go hunting I think I would be far more impressed. That would show an indication of forethought, which is the key point of an advancement in intelligence (the ability to predict what you might need, and to put yourself into the future). It is this sort of pre-planning that eventually leads to agriculture - at which point food no longer becomes such a huge survival need, and you have time to sit around wondering what the world is like.

I actually wonder if it is correct to term this as a weapon, in the sense that it's intention may not be to harm or kill the prey, rather just to get it out. If a chimp catches a monkey it will tear it apart and eat it alive, so i doubt that it is particularly fussy about needing to kill the bush baby first. Then again maybe humans learned how to create weapons from the inadvertent experience of a tool killing prey, and it developing from there.

I agree in that there is not much projection displayed in these observations. They do not find a "good bush baby getting" stick and keep it with them. Nor do they seem to seek out certain types of wood or shapes that would increase efficiency.

My main point is that some humans also do not display these traits. Unless you want to label them as "sub-human" then you have to conclude that the chimps do not appear to be that different from humans.

ednos · 02-24-2007, 01:48 AM

omg bill nye
he has a new show you know

**CingularDuality** · 02-24-2007, 04:15 AM

Bill Nye? Who's he?

This guy is the man, though:

Wulfyn · 02-24-2007, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gringo

My main point is that some humans also do not display these traits. Unless you want to label them as "sub-human" then you have to conclude that the chimps do not appear to be that different from humans.

Totally so - and ethically a very very tricky area.

Atomic Dog · 02-24-2007, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Bill Nye? Who's he?

This guy is the man, though:

http://www.mrwizardstudios.com/video...0Long_full.wmv

Nobody ever made baking soda so cool while maitaining "creepy old man" status like Mr. Wizard! I loved that guy.

Atomic Dog · 02-24-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ednos

omg bill nye
he has a new show you know

Last I saw of Bill he was riding off into the sunset on his steed with a trail of severed pirate heads tailing behind and a bare breasted wench on his saddle.

Before that I saw him debating Global Warming on CNN a couple weeks ago. Seemed like he's trying to be a little more serious of a scientist these days...either that or CNN just drew him out of a hat of "smart people that other people love to see on tv."

jepzilla · 02-24-2007, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

The child may not develop that capacity. And that is the point so it is relevant.

And there is, in all likelihood, a chimp that could "figure out" the better way of doing the task. And that is also the point. Just as there are probably only a few chimps that would have figured out that stripping the leaves and sharpening the stick would increase the likely hood of getting that bush baby. Most other probably just mimic the "smart ones". But the "smart ones" do exist.

But there are those that can find the better solution. So the chimp has the same basic "talents" as humans but are far less developed.

Now I agree with you that there is no primate that could figure out the candle puzzle. That is not important. What is important is the "blocking" that occurs by learning a previous solution is seen in both primates and humans. And it is seen in virtually all humans regardless of intelligence or education levels.

It basically says that we pretty much learn the same but there is something that allows most humans to look for "more". It could simply be that the chimps do not experience the lack of efficiency the same as humans.

So when you say that the chimp will never develop this it may be because they don't need to develop it. There are some cultures that are barely past the stone age. I guess you could say that they are inferior humans but that is simply wrong. Most in those cultures can integrate and grasp the concepts of advanced cultures without much work.

And it very well could be that there is something basically different between the two species. I remember some really interesting papers on learning that showed why learning is so difficult and gets more difficult as we get older. Many reasons but one that struck me was that we never really "un-learn" anything outside of brain damage. All that happens is one learned thing becomes stronger than the old thing.

Children, especially in the four to 12 year age, are very good learners because the brain is so plastic. There are millions of nerves that simply are not connected to anything. They take up new information very fast but also loose that same information quickly unless it is reinforced soon and often.

Again, I am not saying that there is no difference between chimps and humans. Obviously there is. I am saying that the difference is not as absolute as most would think.

-edit
I think I am wrong about the "There are millions of nerves that simply are not connected to anything". I believe it is there are millions of random connections in the brain but they are not really used. After 9 years and things start getting fuzzy.

Huh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

And there is, in all likelihood, a chimp that could "figure out" the better way of doing the task.

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

Now I agree with you that there is no primate that could figure out the candle puzzle.

The point is that in all of chimp research, no chimp has ever been found to be able to do any real problem solving at all. While they can faithfully reproduce tools that they've seen other chimps used, or have discovered by accident, the act of examining a problem and then inventing a tool specifically to solve that problem is behaviour that's only been observed in humans, and now a few rare examples of crows.

I suppose it's possible that chimps do have the ability, but simply don't care enough, although Ockham's razor leads me to dismiss that as a likely reason.

On the other hand, I don't see this discussion going anywhere further unless we start citing actual published research.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 02-24-2007, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jepzilla

Huh?

Oh come on. There are definitely differences in problem complexity. We are talking about cognitive ability with regard to problem solving.

I can confidently say there is no human that can figure out how to travel faster than the speed of light. And there are many other "problems" that humans can not solve. (Cancer, Hunger, Political Instability). That doesn't mean that humans can't problem solve.

Just because a chimp couldn't figure out the candle puzzle doesn't mean they can't problem solve.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jepzilla

The point is that in all of chimp research, no chimp has ever been found to be able to do any real problem solving at all. While they can faithfully reproduce tools that they've seen other chimps used, or have discovered by accident, the act of examining a problem and then inventing a tool specifically to solve that problem is behaviour that's only been observed in humans, and now a few rare examples of crows.

I suppose it's possible that chimps do have the ability, but simply don't care enough, although Ockham's razor leads me to dismiss that as a likely reason.

On the other hand, I don't see this discussion going anywhere further unless we start citing actual published research.

Think there has been experiments to show this.

http://bowland-files.lancs.ac.uk/chi...URE4/4prob.htm

I remember a couple of other that suggested that it MAY be happening. And you cite the crows and I remember Grey parrots and squirles.

And how do we know that this "stabbing" stick was not a solution to a problem of a genius chimp? Yes, many others may have simply copied it. But this behavior is observed in humans as well.

But I do admit that I focused on chimps. This was not my intention. What I was trying to show is that there doesn't seem to be any traits that are only seen in humans. There is nothing that actually makes humans special. It is all a matter of degree.

But here is the thing. There is no definition of problem solving. It is like most, if not all, psychological studies. Definitions tend to be fuzzy. It is not a "hard" science such as Physics or Cosmology. And the science is relatively young. For gods sake, Freud is considered the father of psychology and he died 70 years ago! And what I consider to be actual science started, what, 40 years ago? Cosmology started thousands of years ago. Physics also is a very old area of study going back centuries.

And yet there are those that claim to be scientists that want to put humans on a pedestal above all other forms of life. They claim to have proof but time and again this proof is discredited. Not only this but they completely ignore the vast range of human abilities.

This is a horrible thing and keeps psychology in the dark ages, if you ask me.

I do not say this to avoid the problems you pose. But to bring those problems into the fold.

On the razor and will thing....

Remember, Occam's razor is useful but not infallible*. I have know people that refuse to seek out more efficient means of completing a task. I have also known people that refuse to use more efficient means even when shown the means. There are a many reasons for this including self preservation, mental laziness and even simple hard headedness.

And another problem with any animal study. There is no way to get a representative sample. If any study involving humans only used humans captured and detained it would be thrown out of any respectable journal.

Of course this does not prove that chimps are fabulous problem solvers in their native environment. But it does say we cannot dismiss that possibility either. It remains an open question. And only those in the field (like the story) can actually provide the observations that can answer this, and the many other, questions.

But to simply dismiss it as you do shows a very limiting attitude with regards to the psychological sciences. This attitude is common so you can be forgiven. But it does limit the ability to actually understand what is going on.

And that is sad.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 02-24-2007, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wulfyn

Totally so - and ethically a very very tricky area.

This statement confuses me.

Are you saying that they should be regarded as sub-human for scientific purposes but for ethical reasons cannot?

**Tonk** · 02-25-2007, 02:25 PM

stick in termite mound = spoon/fork/knife..... sharpened spear = gun or bow

**CingularDuality** · 02-25-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tonk

stick in termite mound = spoon/fork/knife..... sharpened spear = gun or bow

No way. Both tools are used to try to get food that is out of sight, out of an object. They're not used as projectiles to kill at range, like a gun or bow. They were simply used to poke/impale, like a fork.

Now, if the chimps start chucking spears at distant targets, THEN I'll agree and say that this is more than just simple tool use.

02-23-2007, 06:47 PM	#31 (permalink)
WhiskeySix Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Gillette Stadium, Section 309, Row 12, Seat 24 Age: 33 Posts: 7,950	Re: Chimps make weapons for hunting. I, for one, welcome our new humanzee overlords. __________________

02-24-2007, 01:48 AM	#35 (permalink)
ednos Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 3,757	Re: Chimps make weapons for hunting. omg bill nye he has a new show you know __________________ The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~ Bertrand Russell I have a tendency to key out three or four things and then let them battle for supremacy while I key, so there's a lot of backspacing as potential statements are slaughtered and eaten by the victors. ~ Magna Centipede

02-24-2007, 04:15 AM	#36 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 16,594	Re: Chimps make weapons for hunting. Bill Nye? Who's he? This guy is the man, though: __________________ Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

02-25-2007, 02:25 PM	#43 (permalink)
Tonk Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Luck, WI USA Age: 22 Posts: 2,802	Re: Chimps make weapons for hunting. stick in termite mound = spoon/fork/knife..... sharpened spear = gun or bow __________________ -Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in an attractive and well preserved body; but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, a beer in the other, body totally worn out screaming "YEEEHAW, WHAT A RIDE!!!" - my grandpa -My New Rig: cpu: AMD 6400+ 3.2ghz dual core mobo: Asus Crosshair ram: 8gb (4x2gb) geil exotera 4-4-4-12 video card MSI 8800GTS 512mb (g92) Vista:x64 Laptop: Dell i9300 2.16ghz-2gb ram-6800-17" 1920x1200 -Toasty/Tonk/Chair http://tgtonk.notlong.com

02-25-2007, 05:18 PM	#45 (permalink)
Wulfyn Join Date: May 2005 Location: Norwich, UK Age: 28 Posts: 4,235	Re: Chimps make weapons for hunting.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links