[extropy-chat] FWD [Skeptic] Re: Crows Invent Machine

[Ian Goddard]

Anton Mates (forwarded by Terry) wrote:

> > Regarding this most amazing report:
> > http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/brain/
> > let me propose this
> >
> > ARGUMENT: the example above constitutes the use
> > and *invention* of a machine by crows. The 
> > machine is a function M that accepts the input 
> > of a properly placed nut n that is then processed 
> > by the weight of rolling automobile tires into 
> > the target output M(n) of a cracked-open nut. 
> > Crows not only use this machine but they invented 
> > it assuming that the invention of machine X need 
> > only constitute its original conception and 
> > comprehension followed by physical proof that
> > input y does in fact yield the target output X(y).
> > I believe the crows have satisfied those criteria 
> > of machine invention.
> 
> It seems to me like most instances of associative
> learning and/or operant conditioning would satisfy 
> the same criteria.  Pigeon inputs a peck to the 
> correctly-colored key, output is a food reward.  


 But clearly, Skinner's pigeons did not have the
"original conception and comprehension" of the
food-peck machine. It was invented by humans who
specified its input, processing, and output
parameters. I can't see how one could argue that the
responses of the pigeons constituted their invention
of the machine. 

 On the other hand, no human conceived of a roadway
and traffic as a nut-cracking machine. The "original
conception and comprehension" of this machine appears
to have arisen the corvid mind.



>  There's a research group website with lots of info
> at:  
> http://users.ox.ac.uk/~kgroup/tools/tools_main.shtml


 A few days ago I posted that same link here. Thanks
for the other examples of corvid intelligence. There
are so many! I find this video most impressive:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/av/crow_080802.ram

It's hard to see on the first run, but at first the
crow tries to fish out a bottle of food down in a
narrow tube with a straight wire. Quickly she realizes
the problem: the straight wire can't get under the
handle atop the food bottle. So she quits trying;
takes out the wire (if you freeze frame at that point
you'll see that the wire is straight); jams its end
into some crevice, then walks around with the other
end of the wire held in her beak so that the wire gets
bent into a hook as she walks. Then she rapidly
surmises that the necessary tool has been manufactured
and that it should accomplish the task she must have
already envisioned. Reinserting her self-made tool
into the tube, she swiftly hooks it around the food
bottle's handle and pulls it out. Both problems ((1)
can't reach food, (2) have the wrong tool) solved! 

 Now, a tool is considered to be a machine, [1] so
that hook example also constitutes machine use and
invention. By using a hammer one creates a machine
where the input is calories, the work is hammering,
and the output is driven nails. However, the
nut-cracking machine seems more advanced in that it
externalizes the mechanical work to the actions of the
cars, which looks higher-order than self-powered
processing. [2] If you can get a machine to do all the
work for you, that's a big advantage! ~Ian

_____________________________________________________
[1] "A tool is a machine which transforms energy from
the muscles, bones, or teeth directly into useful
work." http://www.see.org/e-ct-2.htm

[2] "A tool is a machine.  The distinction between a
machine tool and a hand tool is that the hand tool is
powered by your hand such as is the case with a manual
screwdriver, whereas a machine tool does pretty much
everything you can do by hand but is also power driven
by some outside force other than human energy."
http://www.stanford.edu/~jchong/articles/quals/Econ%20Soc%20-%20Empirical.doc




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com