= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
mwengler comments on The Octopus, the Dolphin and Us: a Great Filter tale - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (233)
With at least three intelligent-ish species on earth, while there is only one technological species, intelligence would not seem to be a great filter.
The things that allow us to be technological seems to me to be at least these four things occurring in parallel: 1) intelligence, 2) complex language, 3) dexterity, 4) an "instinct" to trade. Ridley suggested in Rational Optimist that other apes lack the instinct to trade even when we teach them language. I have no idea how this hypothesis fares in the wider world.
The great filter could conceivably be something like the chances of these 4 things occurring together are very low, in a p^4 kind of way. It appears there is only one species on earth that got there (or if the Neanderthals or other homo got there, it is a cluster of very closely related species, plus we don't know where neanderthal got to in all four of these characteristics.)
But we definitely beat the metaphorical pants off dolphins and octopi in communication, dexterity, and prevalence of trading behavior.
He is just plain wrong
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3933343/Orangutans-learn-to-trade-favours-at-a-price.html
http://www.eva.mpg.de/psycho/pdf/Publications_2009_PDF/Pele_Call_2009.pdf
|He is just plain wrong
That might be overstating it. In both the articles you cite, some Apes are able to do some exchanges when the situation is set up for them by experimenters. Neither article reports exchanges occurring outside of highly artificial laboratory situations set up by humans, and the 2nd article states right in its abstract that
Could you perhaps elaborate on the apes part? Or rather how the difference between the "instinct to trade" and "language" ended up being distinguished as such? I somehow think of the two as being extremely inter-related, language (in its rudimentary form, not the advanced language of humans that humans such as Orson Scott Card use) would probably be used in all ways to obtain a sort of 'comparative advantage', as opposed to a species that doesn't use language. It is in essence a tool used to obtain/give aid, and I cant think of another purpose why it would evolve suo moto.
Therefore, I may want to take issue with Ridley's claim that apes were "taught Language"(it sounds to me like they were thought words and corresponding actions or the rough equivalent of that). Nevertheless, it is an interesting theory and I would like to know more.
Some references in a review of Ridley's Rational Optimist describing claims about Apes not being able to barter and exchange the way humans do.
Not quite on the apes but this [wsj article by Matt Ridley[(http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703691804575254533386933138) talks about how exchange was the unique innovation of humans that caused our achievements and that evidence is that Neanderthals didn't have exchange the we did.