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

241–250 of 329 posts

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#241

Post by shanusmagnus »

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…

One annoying thing when this conversation comes up is where the burden of proof seems to lie: somehow, despite the fact that animals produce unambiguous behavior that they feel pain very profoundly, we are called upon to 'prove' that they can actually feel it, instead of the pain-deniers being called upon to prove the opposite.

It's so analogous to the days when people debated as to whether black people should be enslaved for their own good, or whether they were too stupid to mind being enslaved [see e.g., 1], that it would be farcical if it wasn't so fucking sad. Who else, one wonders, might not feel pain? Autistics? Mutes? Republicans?

[1] Plous, S., & Williams, T. (1995). Racial Stereotypes From the Days of American Slavery: A Continuing Legacy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(9), 795-817.

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#242

Post by taneq »

logfromblammo wrote: post #193
itp wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except there is no single authority of the English language (as seen in other language academies). As I mentioned in another comment, you may fall into a prescriptivist or descriptivist camp, but there's no authority to which one can appeal for a single answer. Generally speaking, octopuses is preferred by most if not all well known dictionaries in modern usage, and the pseudo-Latin cognate has fallen out of favor. I…

Neither the prescriptivists nor the descriptivists are correct. There is, in fact, a way to assume greater authority over the English language than the power wielded by the median speaker. The person who can inject a memorable phrase into the popular culture--whether by writing a line that is read by many, or by speaking one that is heard by many--can steer the language closer to the path they may prefer. For all our…

A cromulent point indeed!

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#244

Post by booleandilemma »

komali2 wrote: post #64

Total anecdote here, but when I volunteered at our aquarium in Charleston, SC (amazing aquarium, go check it out), we had a problem where our flounder were vanishing from their tank. We suspected theft and so put a camera up in the back room. The next time flounder disappeared we checked the feed - one of our octopi was escaping from his tank that we thought we had already anti-octopus'd, climbing over the walls, bre…

I hope you at least deliver him flounder now, from time to time.

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#245

Post by __jal »

eduren wrote: post #73
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.

To give a bit more context for others, the novel is a really well done first contact story. I'd highly recommend it, especially because Watts makes it available online for free. http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm

Just to run down this alley, highly seconded. It is a great, if somewhat depressing, novel. _Echopraxia_ is a continuation of the themes/story, and is just as good (and also depressing).

I personally put Watts near the top of the list of first-rate, active science fiction authors.

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#246

Post by PerfectElement »

scardine wrote: post #224
PerfectElement wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any other situations where you look up to lions as the compass for your ethical conduct?

Honest question, why not? Are you better than lions? Are you better than sharks? Are you better than the bacteria in your guts? They all are pretty successful. Humans are so arrogant.

Straw man. I never asked who is better, specially because that word doesn't mean anything on its own. Better than lions in which aspect?

Lions are much better than me at hunting, but on making moral judgements that aim to minimize harm, I think I am better.

If you go down the road of basing your morals on what lions do, you will end up trying to justify why infanticide is a good practice when a father dies. Or why might makes right.

I agree that humans are arrogant. That is pretty evident in the way they treat other species.

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#247

Post by notdonspaulding »

jdmichal wrote: post #96
virmundi wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. In the comment above I played it from two world views. The one you espouse is the same (or similar enough) as the Christian view I mentioned. The agnostic view is there since I think, or at least assume, the majority of people on HN are agnostic. From such a view point, there is no tenable, logical reason that one should not eat meat or, in this specific case, a creature of intelligence. Such an argument com…

I'd like to note that agnosticism and theism are not opposing. Agnosticism simply declares that you view the existence and / or properties of one or more deities as unknowable [0]. That is not incompatible with theism. In fact, I argue that such is the definition of faith -- to believe despite not knowing. [0] Or, for weak agnosticism, currently unknown.

I find your lack of [a good definition of] faith disturbing. -- Darth Webster

Seriously though, I think the "blind faith" usage of the term faith is its weakest form. "Trust" and "confidence" are good synonyms. Because as a rule, humans have faith in a great many things, and the vast majority of those faiths are not characterized by a lack of knowledge or evidence. Consider the following statements:

- The astronauts had faith in the laws of physics.

- My husband was unfaithful to me.

- I've lost my faith in humanity because FooBar was elected.

- Have you no faith in me?

- The war started when our allies broke faith with us.

- You should always negotiate in good faith.

- My dog has been my faithful companion for a great many years.

Think about the faith being represented by those phrases. Does the person who had the faith have it without intimate knowledge of the object of the faith? No! The faith existed because of what they knew about the object, not in spite of it.

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#248

Post by zematis »

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.

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 simplified argument for moral realism:

1. I have the intuition that everyone ought to avoid causing unecessary suffering.

2. When I mean that everyone ought to avoid causing unecessary suffering, I am personally making a factual claim.

3. My intuition of 1. provides at least some evidence that 1 may be true. Addendum: When dealing with philosophy, often intuitions are the best evidence we've got.

4. If I have the intuition described 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 of an objective moral fact.

Finally, here's a survey of academic philosophers. You can Ctrl-F for "moral realism" and "cognitivism" to see what proportion of philosophers hold these views. You'll note that both views have >50% support.

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Of course, a view's popularity doesn't guarantee its truth. But Philosphers aren't dummies, so it does show that it's at least plausible.

Edit: formatting & philpapers link

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#249

Post by notdonspaulding »

rybosome wrote: post #207
burkaman wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt most people around here are moral absolutists. I didn't downvote your comment, but it did feel a little irrelevant, in that "ethics are manmade" applies to every situation if you believe it, and no situation if you don't. I'm not sure what you mean by your atheist comment. It is not contradictory to hold strong morals while accepting moral relativism. As long as you accept that there is no objective moral tru…

Well articulated. The entirety of my atheist morality is centered around the recognition that other humans are as acutely conscious as I am, and inflicting suffering on them (or allowing them to suffer through negligence or inaction) is cruel and distasteful. This is a fancy version of "treat others as you want to be treated", and is rooted in basic human empathy which stretches back millions of years - there is evid…

This worldview is fine, so long as you keep it to yourself.

The trouble with this worldview comes when someone who holds it thinks anyone other than themselves ought to behave this way. Once you say people should treat others a certain way, you've crossed the line into moral absolutism. You think other people should live by some standard which you find better than the one they live by. Why should they?

In the morally relativistic worldview, where do the terms "wrong", "bad", and "evil" find their roots?

Put another way, why shouldn't I go around raping people? Isn't that good for the survival of my genes?

Re: Just how smart is an octopus?

#250

Post by taneq »

uhtred wrote: post #205
pacaro wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In her book "Animals make is human" - Temple Grandin makes the argument (among many others, this is not the main thesis of the book) that we can have a symbiotic relationship with animals, wherein we provide secure food supply, protection from predation and the associated stress, etc. and in return we eat the animal. Factory farming, by contrast has more in common with a parasitic relationship.

I always think of factory farming as a horror story written by a cow in a parallel universe where cows are the dominant life form.

I'm always struck by the way that so many horror stories / movies are literally just something else treating us the way we treat animals.
Post reply on HN