Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Just how smart is an octopus?

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 329 posts

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#261

Post by sho »

logfromblammo wrote: post #144
pacaro wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pedantic mode here: linguistically it should be octopodes (but nobody who isn't speaking Greek would say that); by usage it should be octopuses; octopi or octopii are just wrong (it's not a second declension noun, despite the 'us' ending)

Octopus has three acceptable pluralizations in English. Octopuses is correct by English rules. Octopodes is correct by strict etymological Greek-origin rules. Octopi is correct by English's pseudo-Latin cognate rules. The latter means that any singular noun ending in a consonant and "-us" can be pluralized by chopping off the "-us" and appending an "-i" or "-ii", like alumnus, hippopotamus, virus, bacillus, hummus, l…

Honestly, as a native english speaker who is usually a nazi in spelling, grammar and pronunciation - octopi sounds most intuitively "correct" to me. Octopuses sounds awkward and inconsistent with idiomatic English, like a non-native speaker might guess at. Octopodes sounds like a scientific term.

As far as I'm concerned octopi is correct. Screw the etymology.

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#262

Post by asciimo »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #234

How smart inevitably limits the question by applying a human measure to it. What I am more interested in, is to know how it is smart, not how much. How does it perceive? How does it connect and process information? How does it interract? Is there a way to approach this subject besides shape shifting into an octopus?

It's like an octopus dismissing humans as inferior because our appendages lack suckers.

I don't think humans can ever fully understanding other species. Yet, the more we observe, cut, and process other animals, the more of ourselves we discover. Rats dream and laugh! Crows use tools! Dogs understand fairness! Is it really any surprise that we have so much in common?

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#263

Post by asciimo »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #228
uhtred wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who thinks animals do not suffer is an idiot. They have nervous system, therefore they feel pain, just like us. They also suffer emotional pain, not just physical. Kill a pig in front of another pig and he/she is going to be terrified.

>They have nervous system, therefore they feel pain, just like us. // The second part doesn't follow from the first. People have largely the same nervous systems and largely the same brain structures (AFAIK), and yet they react quite differently to pain and in the extremes they react exceedingly differently to the suffering of others. Do you think that sows when they crush some of their piglets by lying on them behav…

Similarly, I can look you straight in the eye and tell you that I feel fine, while I am in fact suffering great pain internally. Does this mean that I am not in pain? How could you know? You can't. There is no reason for an animal to dissimulate in this way, so we may as well accept their outward expression of pain or pleasure at face value.

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#264

Post by __s »

actsasbuffoon wrote: post #162
jacobush wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, since we were discussing different forms of suffering... They [the state, the company] effectively eat most of my soul and half of my conscious life. In return I get wages and spend them on police protection, medicine etc.

So you're saying it might be moral to eat the unemployed? They don't pay time or money to anyone, yet they still receive some basic level of access to infrastructure. They take more than they give, and that means killing them and eating them could be a viable way to make up the difference. That's before you get into the fact that we don't give animals a choice in the matter. They can't opt out of our protection and t…

I don't get the beef with cannabilism

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#265

Post by virmundi »

zematis wrote: post #248
virmundi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why worry? They'd eat you. Realize that all animal ethics are entirely manmade and foreign to the background of the Universe's amorality. Edit: Really down voting because you don't agree? The comment was on topic, provided a view, and contributed to the conversation in some way. If you want to down vote, please be responsible enough to say why.

There's quite a bit of philosophical support behind the view that there are objective moral truths. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/ for a not so brief overview. Also related is moral cognitivism and/or noncognitivism (are moral statements factual statements, or more like expressions of emotion, preference or command?). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/ Here's a drastically si…

I'm a theist. I totally agree that there are absolute truths. You're logic breaks down at step 2. If I don't agree with 1, your whole argument breaks down. In my experience debating philosophy throughout my education, seldom is there a Joker as in Heath Ledger's character. If a person fully believes that others don't count, at all, then the rule breaks down.

Take a counter example: homosexuals. Most societies, regardless of source, were anti-homosexual. This is historically accurate (modern times are uprooting them, but let's say we're in the 1950's).

1. I have the intuition that everyone ought to avoid homosexuality. 2. When I mean that everyone ought to avoid homosexuality, I am personally making a factual claim. 3. My intuition of 1 provides at least some evidence that 1 may be true. 4. If I have the intuition describe in 1, 1 is a factual claim, and my intuition of 1 provides at least some evidence for 1, then there is some evidence of an objective moral fact. C. Therefore, there is some evidence for any objective moral fact.

We've now shown an implication that homosexuality is in fact immoral in a general sense. Are we ok with this? Why? Why not? Our ethics and morality, sans a center like an unmoved mover, can vacillate. Sometimes this is "good" (such as gay or interracial marriage [I am neither]) for me as it brings improved economic conditions that selfishly improve my lot directly or possibly, which I arbitrarily deem as good, from an agnostic world view. Sometimes it's "bad" (for example expelling Jews from the Spain since it took the engineers and literate people, which limited economic freedom and would have probably negatively impacted my Spanish life if my present personality and general thoughtful profession was true then).

As a quick aside for the postulate of cultural issues with homosexuality, http://news.trust.org//item/20140516162146-jipm9/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome which shows that Rome did not really have a great view of homosexual relationship. You didn't want to be the receiver. If you were, you were property.

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#266

Post by __s »

azakai wrote: post #227
virmundi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why worry? They'd eat you. Realize that all animal ethics are entirely manmade and foreign to the background of the Universe's amorality. Edit: Really down voting because you don't agree? The comment was on topic, provided a view, and contributed to the conversation in some way. If you want to down vote, please be responsible enough to say why.

> Realize that all animal ethics are entirely manmade and foreign to the background of the Universe's amorality. Alternatively, some scientists and philosophers believe that ethics predate human beings - that they exist in many if not all social animals. In other words, some basic ethical emotions evolved. They then form the basis for our more sophisticated ethical and legal systems. Also, while you can argue that at…

The mathematics of ethics is very much rooted in Game Theory

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#267

Post by asciimo »

virmundi wrote: post #30
overcast wrote: post #2

Way to make me feel worse about eating them.

Why worry? They'd eat you. Realize that all animal ethics are entirely manmade and foreign to the background of the Universe's amorality. Edit: Really down voting because you don't agree? The comment was on topic, provided a view, and contributed to the conversation in some way. If you want to down vote, please be responsible enough to say why.

They would eat us for their own survival. We are now at a technological point that we eat them for our own pleasure. I argue that the latter if frivolous.

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#268

Post by virmundi »

PerfectElement wrote: post #220
virmundi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why worry? They'd eat you. Realize that all animal ethics are entirely manmade and foreign to the background of the Universe's amorality. Edit: Really down voting because you don't agree? The comment was on topic, provided a view, and contributed to the conversation in some way. If you want to down vote, please be responsible enough to say why.

Are you saying that we shouldn't have any moral consideration towards beings that don't have the cognitive capacity to understand ethics? If that's the case, do you think it's okay if a human sets a dog on fire just for fun? How about mentally challenged humans? Should their pain be disregarded? P.S: I didn't down vote.

I'm arguing that any moral consideration you have is arbitrary. If you want to protect dogs, go ahead. If the person lighting them kills you in the process, I can't necessarily say it's wrong, as an agnostic. If you can band together with other pro-life dog watchers, you can probably force your view. You don't have any more hold on the Truth than the Dog Lighters of America. You're not more legitimate in an ultimate sense. It comes down to, who can create a board with the biggest nail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treehouse_of_Horror_II). I just want people to realize that.

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#269

Post by rosser »

signa11 wrote: post #255
gcr wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you like reading about minds that are fundamentally different from our own, you might also enjoy the science fiction novel "Blindsight" by Peter Watts. Exploring the space of possible minds in the universe is a fundamental theme of that work.

> ... reading about minds that are fundamentally different from our own... so is 'a fire upon the deep' by vernor vinge. where you have 'tines', iirc, a race of canids comprising 4-10 (or thereabouts) members sharing a group mind (new members can be added when old ones die etc.)

Tine culture is explored in much greater depth in "Children of the Sky", the sequel to "A Fire upon the Deep".

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#270

Post by Graphon1 »

Pxtl wrote: post #109
enugu wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apart from cognitive skills, an important factor is the capacity of suffering. So even dumb animals might be able to feel intense pain. In humans, while forms of suffering like loneliness, depression can be bad, pure physical pain can itself a terrible thing. For instance severe torture for 10 minutes can be worse than months of depression. Now even if cognitive aspects are diminished in animals, the physical senses…

Great article on eating lobsters by the inimitable, late David Foster Wallace: http://www.gourmet.com/magazine/2000s/2004/08/consider_the_l...

oh, thank you for this. Really good stuff.
Post reply on HN