[2013-Jan-25] Chimps

Blame Quintushalls for this.

Moderator: Kimra

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby DonRetrasado » Fri Feb 01, 2013 5:03 pm

ReasonablyDoubtful wrote:It's nice how you don't even have to see the research to know that it must be crap.

I'm not going to go track down the research this late at night. If you want to disprove it so badly, just look for it yourself. I mean, seriously? Are you really so lazy? I already did this several times because of bias-filled idiots that don't know how to use any sort of search engine insist that i provide them with a portion of the heaps of research. Heck, you'd probably be able to find some of the research through Google if you spent just a few minutes bothering with it.

I'm not going to bother with this anymore. You're clearly psychic to be able to discern the quality of the research without even seeing it, and I don't argue with psychics. They clearly know all.

Are you a child?
Astrogirl wrote:Lethal, nobody wants to know about your herpes.

Lethal Interjection wrote:That's good to know. I can avoid a few awkward phone calls now.
User avatar
DonRetrasado
los más retrasadadados
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am
Location: ¡Canada!

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby Kaharz » Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:58 pm

ReasonablyDoubtful wrote:It's nice how you don't even have to see the research to know that it must be crap.

I'm not going to go track down the research this late at night. If you want to disprove it so badly, just look for it yourself. I mean, seriously? Are you really so lazy? I already did this several times because of bias-filled idiots that don't know how to use any sort of search engine insist that i provide them with a portion of the heaps of research. Heck, you'd probably be able to find some of the research through Google if you spent just a few minutes bothering with it.

I'm not going to bother with this anymore. You're clearly psychic to be able to discern the quality of the research without even seeing it, and I don't argue with psychics. They clearly know all.


You are aware that you are readily presenting your own bias as well as pissing people off with personal insults and evasiveness instead of 'logic and facts?' You're also over-reacting to an obvious joke. Chill.
Kaharz wrote:I don't need a title. I have no avatar or tagline either. I am unique in my lack of personal identifiers.
User avatar
Kaharz
This Intentionally Left Blank
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:17 pm

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby Lethal Interjection » Sat Feb 02, 2013 5:04 pm

I think someone has painted themselves into a corner, and they don't want to get their feet all paint-y.
User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
 
Posts: 8059
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby ReasonablyDoubtful » Sat Feb 02, 2013 6:32 pm

Kaharz wrote:You are aware that you are readily presenting your own bias as well as pissing people off with personal insults and evasiveness instead of 'logic and facts?' You're also over-reacting to an obvious joke. Chill.


My own bias is to avoid getting into debates with people that dismiss evidence before they even see it. Sure. Makes sense.

But fine. Here's a lecture on plant intelligence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIfwFLDXFyQ#!

There was a documentary a while back that seems to have been inspired by that TEDTalk and an interesting story about acacia trees communicating with each other to kill kudu.

And where's the research? Like I said, actually searching for it provides plenty of papers on the subject. And it's not just Stefano Mancuso that's publishing papers on it. In fact, there's a society for it, with a list of some of the research into the issue.

But if you don't feel like going through all that research, there's a very nice overview on the subject.

All of these except for the last were just from a quick search, because I didn't feel like digging through my (very) disorganized favorites. The last one was something I remembered citing about two years ago in another argument.
Time to piss off people with logic and facts!
ReasonablyDoubtful
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:57 am

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby GUTCHUCKER » Sun Feb 03, 2013 6:43 am

Well, that's very eye-opening. Thank you.
Datanazush wrote:I ship Mohammed and Jehova.
User avatar
GUTCHUCKER
Gotchucker's less handsome twin
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:26 am
Location: Paradise City?

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby Lethal Interjection » Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:01 am

I'm glad to see you took the high road.

Honestly, when you are in the situation you were in, you can provide the proof, or you can stand alone in your smugness. Taking the request for proof (even if in jest) was a good play.
I'm glad I don't have to disrespect you. Not that I tally my internet correspondence in respect or anything, ultimately.
User avatar
Lethal Interjection
Death by Elocution
 
Posts: 8059
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:17 pm
Location: Behind your ear. It's magic!

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby GUTCHUCKER » Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:24 am

That's the most backhanded compliment I've ever read!
Datanazush wrote:I ship Mohammed and Jehova.
User avatar
GUTCHUCKER
Gotchucker's less handsome twin
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:26 am
Location: Paradise City?

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby Kaharz » Mon Feb 04, 2013 3:59 pm

ReasonablyDoubtful wrote:
Kaharz wrote:You are aware that you are readily presenting your own bias as well as pissing people off with personal insults and evasiveness instead of 'logic and facts?' You're also over-reacting to an obvious joke. Chill.


My own bias is to avoid getting into debates with people that dismiss evidence before they even see it. Sure. Makes sense.


No, the bias you exhibited was to dismiss people who did not agree with you.
Actually, ethical vegetarians make their decision based on ignorance of that research, much like you made that post based on ignorance of that research.

Not all vegetarians are ethical vegetarians. Some make their choice based on ignorance of nutritional research. Others based on ignorance about how farming affects the environment.


These statements all assume that vegetarians are ignorant of the 'truth.' You also seem to be assuming anyone who doesn't agree with your position must not have seen the research. I don't know if you are actually assuming that, but that is how it appears. While I'm sure many vegetarians are ignorant of the research into plant intelligence, nutrition, and the environmental effects of various forms of farming, I doubt all of them are. Your statements imply the assumption that the research you support is true and any contradictory research or hypotheses are are not true. This attitude implies that there is no room for skepticism or debate on these issues. This dismissiveness is what I meant above by you showing your bias.

Technically, all research and theories should be open to debate and skepticism. Although in practice, some are more debatable than others. There aren't many people with a basic physics education who are going to debate the three laws of thermodynamics, but a lot of other theories are more open to debate. So let's have a debate. I'd also like to say upfront, I'll probably be playing devil's advocate some and I may not actually agree with all my arguments. I'll also note that I have no moral, ethical, religious or other self-imposed diet restrictions. I eat anything that I find tasty.

Big fucking wall of text follows.

I wasn't able to access everything you linked, but I am already familiar with some of it. Although probably not as familiar as you. I also looked up another source in the case of the kudu-acacia article since I wasn't paying for a subscription to the site you linked. My sources were a bit more recent, but appeared to only reference the article you linked.

So the big problem, which we will probably have to more or less ignore, is the definition of intelligence. If you just use the idea of the ability of an individual or group of organisms to adapt to changing environmental stimulus, then you can define almost any living thing as intelligent. Slime molds have been demonstrated to be able to use an external spatial 'memory' to track where they have been before as well as to anticipate impending unfavorable enviormental conditions. At least that is the interpretation of the researchers. If you set a more complex standard for intelligence, less and less organisms exhibit 'intelligence' until you make the definition so restrictive or complex that only humans could be considered intelligent. You could even make the definition exclude humans if you wanted to. Not having a consensus definition intelligence of course drastically limits the debate since it is the core issue. If I had to agree on one, I'd probably say the ability of an individual to successfully adapt to wholly new conditions in real time, not by evolution. In other words, the ability to innovate. It might not be particularly good definition, but I think innovation requires the ability to learn from past experience and apply that knowledge to develop solutions to new conditions. This implies an ability to remember the past and more importantly, anticipate the future. It is a fairly restrictive definition. I would also add the condition that the lack of individual success excludes this as nothing is omniscient and so nothing can successfully innovate every time.

So first the kudu-acacia research. It turns out, that poisoning large grazers actually harms the tree in the long run. The acacia tree has a cooperative relationship with ant populations. The ants feed on the plant nectar and nest in the thorns. In return the ants defend the tree by swarming grazers and other insects. But when the trees are not grazed on, they reduce the resources that go towards the ants. This leads to a decrease in the ant population on the trees which makes the tree more vulnerable to boring beetles which damage the plant. The ants incidentally will also use the abandoned beetle tunnels as homes. So while the plants act collectively to disrupt grazing by warning each other and producing high levels of a toxin, they also inadvertently open themselves to harm. This makes it fairly easy to argue that is a non-intelligent evolutionary adaptation dependent on chance and genetic selection.

On to the video lecture. While I think he does a good job about debunking over generalizations about plants, it could be argued he also falls short or over-anthropomorphizes in some cases. Describing the sunflower shoots as 'playing' could be seen as a particular large stretch, especially if the plants are already 'pre-programmed' to respond to light stimulus. There is no need for them to play to train. Hibernating animals don't need to train at hibernating, unless you consider sleeping to be play hibernation. The circadian rhythm in humans is affected by changes in light levels, duration and timing. It can also be argued that a lot of what he attributes to intelligence is just the result of selective evolution. You wouldn't present the opposable thumbs or upright bipedal motion as evidence of intelligence in humans. In the same manner, the various ways plants manipulate insects to facilitate fertilization could be argued as a selective evolution. Intelligence implies the plants to decided on that behavior or development unless you use a very low-threshold of intelligence.

His statements about root growth can also be explained by other mechanisms other than intelligence. He even says that they 'evolved to survive predation.' Just because something appears to be purposeful, does not mean it is. Just because there is more oxygen consumption and signalling in the root tip, does make it a tiny brain of any sort. The roots could simply be responding to external stimulus. I didn't seem him present any evidence of root growth adapting to unexpected conditions or newly encountered conditions.

Obviously, the argument basically boils down to how to define intelligence. The same issue is present in almost aspects of the research. Is it proper to say a plant that corrects for a variable environment or non-optimum growth is "learning?" Or is it just responding in the way it is "programmed" to? I personally don't really see any way to resolve the argument. The definition of intelligence (and consciousness) has changed repeatedly throughout history and will continue to. The debate of whether plants, animals, and even humans are intelligent or not has always been a social and cultural debate. That is the big problem with any theory that claims organism X is intelligent or not. Those arguments are attempting to apply a rigorous scientific definition to a non-scientific, changeable, and value-based social construct. That is also my one huge problem with a lot of the research presented. By trying to decide whether plants are "intelligent" or not, they are basically making a value judgement. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it is not scientific. At that point you are drifting into the realm of philosophy. Instead they should just present their observations and evidence. When you start to try to define whether a behavior meets the criteria for a social construct, you open the door to bias fairly wide. Bias might not get in the door, but it is unnecessary risk.
Kaharz wrote:I don't need a title. I have no avatar or tagline either. I am unique in my lack of personal identifiers.
User avatar
Kaharz
This Intentionally Left Blank
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:17 pm

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby GUTCHUCKER » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:33 pm

I have to wonder how it affects plants who have had their roots cut off, then regrow them.
Datanazush wrote:I ship Mohammed and Jehova.
User avatar
GUTCHUCKER
Gotchucker's less handsome twin
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:26 am
Location: Paradise City?

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby Peon » Mon Feb 04, 2013 4:37 pm

We should place the goalposts for intelligence past what humanity has attained. That way we have something to strive toward with machines.
Ask the next question.
User avatar
Peon
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:12 pm

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby DonRetrasado » Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:36 pm

I think you're going to see more and more psychopaths taking salads to lunch in the future, personally.
Astrogirl wrote:Lethal, nobody wants to know about your herpes.

Lethal Interjection wrote:That's good to know. I can avoid a few awkward phone calls now.
User avatar
DonRetrasado
los más retrasadadados
 
Posts: 2845
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:27 am
Location: ¡Canada!

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby ReasonablyDoubtful » Mon Feb 04, 2013 6:51 pm

GUTCHUCKER wrote:I have to wonder how it affects plants who have had their roots cut off, then regrow them.


Well, I can't point you to specific studies about root loss and regrowth, or even grafting, but I am reminded of a video of what happens when you cut off the root cap. The plant loses a lot of its ability to move its root efficiently.

Unfortunately, the video isn't available online, as near as I can tell, but the paper, while a little dry and not quite as good at describing just how much change occured in the growth of the root, is still rather interesting.

I really think that there are two main issues with understanding plant intelligence: First is that they are just so different from us. It's easy to empathize with a cow or even a lizard. Less so with, say, insects. And even then, they move and what have you. There are similarities we can see and to which we can relate. Plants... not nearly as much. It's harder to empathize with a plant than it is with a clam. The second issue is time. Humans are, by and large, impatient. When it comes to plants, you have to keep in mind that their tortoise (one of the longest living animals, which can live to almost two centuries) is the olive tree (which counts its lifespan in millenia). Their common fruit fly (30 day lifespan) of the plant kingdom is wheat (5-6 months). Really, the only things we have in the plant kingdom to compare in terms of lifespan are surprisingly plant-like in a number of aspects: Sponges and coral.
Time to piss off people with logic and facts!
ReasonablyDoubtful
 
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:57 am

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby Kaharz » Tue Feb 05, 2013 1:53 pm

Peon wrote:We should place the goalposts for intelligence past what humanity has attained. That way we have something to strive toward with machines.


I think if we place the goal posts past what humanity has attained, machines may never meet it. I'm not sure machines will ever equal human 'intelligence.' A lot of what is considered advanced or unique about human 'intelligence' is due to irrational thought. We are able to make intuitive leaps because we don't always think a perfectly logical or rational manner. This allows us to gain knowledge without inference. Of course this also results in sometimes being spectacularly misinformed. I can't see a way to mimic or surpass this in machines. Of course, trying to imagine a greater intelligence is rather difficult.
Kaharz wrote:I don't need a title. I have no avatar or tagline either. I am unique in my lack of personal identifiers.
User avatar
Kaharz
This Intentionally Left Blank
 
Posts: 1572
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 12:17 pm

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby GUTCHUCKER » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:11 pm

Hold on. I'm drunk now, so obviously I can think much good.
I'd have to say that any meaningful intelligence (which anyone would give a fuck about) is something where the organism remembers, considers, uses it, makes mistakes, makes actions which do not benefit or detriment it, and profits from it in some form. Plants have not been observed doing any of that. I know that many plants can survive after their 'brain' (let's call thousands of possible-root-processors a brain, which is also stupid enough to force me to commit suicide) is removed, and regrow it. That makes me not give a shit how much it has suffered, or what kind of thought process (for nonsapients, lit.: complex reactions to sensory input) it uses. I don't think that worms or polychates or echinoderms etc. are sentient either. Why are we talking about it here? If anyone gave enough of a shit bout this topic to make one about plant intelligence, they would make one. Nobody has, therefore shut up. Furthermore, there is little relation between posts, the little being the name of the person being quoted and the parts of their point you have chosen to refute.

You seem to have some strange idea that people think that plants are unintelligent because they don't move. FUCKING NEWS FLASH: LOTS OF ANIMALS DON'T MOVE. FUCKHEAD. Millions of polychaete worms don't move (look up the christmas tree worm for reference). Many oysters do not move. Some algae do not move, they are plants. Adult barnacles do not move. Adult plants do not move. (See seeds for reference. Retard.) WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT MOVEMENT? FUCK YOU THAT'S WHO.
STOP BEING SUCH A Classy Lady.

Also, Kaharz, I get the idea that you think that your thoughts equate perfectly with reality. Machines should not be required to 'surpass' us because they use a different thought process. There are people who are trying to mimic human thought process - there are also people who are making neural nets out of rats, and people who build AIs off of logic. Your outlook is small! I am extremely arrogant and self-assured as a result.
Notice how I didn't quote anyone? That is because I am not as lazy as you. Hahahahahahaha! Fools!
I was gonna put the last comment in size 50, but fuck you, learn something new. Seriously, fuck you and your repetition.
Datanazush wrote:I ship Mohammed and Jehova.
User avatar
GUTCHUCKER
Gotchucker's less handsome twin
 
Posts: 2126
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 2:26 am
Location: Paradise City?

Re: 2013-01-25 Chimps

Postby Sahan » Tue Feb 05, 2013 3:41 pm

DonRetrasado wrote:I think you're going to see more and more psychopaths taking salads to lunch in the future, personally.

Oh no, the waiter asked me if I wanted to have my lunch with salad today, and I said yes! She probably thinks I'm insane now.
Destructicus wrote:Alt text:
"I wonder if chemists feel bad that they're always left out of these sorts of jokes."

Since when is chemistry not a science?
User avatar
Sahan
"I promise you no penis jokes."
 
Posts: 4367
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:20 am
Location: Perth, Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Latest Comic Discussion 3: Revenge of the Son of Latest Comic Discussion 2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests