Desrtopa comments on The Limits of Curiosity - Less Wrong

26 Post author: Elizabeth 10 March 2011 03:20PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (49)

Comments (49)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: komponisto 12 March 2011 10:41:53PM 2 points [-]

Can you show some research on that claim?...Having observed a puppy gleefully searching new stuff found in his territory...I'm uncertain that we could claim they were non-curious.

Number of species according to Wikipedia: at least 7 million, of which:

  • at least 5 million (71%) are bacteria
  • 1,203,375 (17%) are invertebrate animals
  • 297,326 (4%) are plants
  • 59,811 (0.8%) are vertebrate animals, of which 5,416 (0.07%) are mammals (the category that includes humans, chimpanzees, dogs, and every other species to which the emotion of "curiosity" might conceivably be attributed).

"Species" != "things like cute puppies".

Comment author: Desrtopa 13 March 2011 12:34:43AM 1 point [-]

Some invertebrates, such as octopi and mantis shrimp, appear to exhibit curiosity. And some bird species are intelligent enough to be capable with basic communication with humans. Mammals may contain the most intelligent species known, but that doesn't mean they have a monopoly on intelligence or curiosity.

Comment author: komponisto 13 March 2011 05:03:16AM 1 point [-]

The "a few other species may have primitive analogues" disclaimer was supposed to cover things like this.

See above. This is not about human or mammalian chauvinism. This is about the fact that, whatever neat things some species can do, there also exist numerous biological niches that do not in fact involve higher-level cognitive functions such as "curiosity". Most organisms don't even have brains, for goodness' sake.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit