# Frog I.Q.?



## otterblue

I was curious if people consider their dart frogs to be "intelligent" (or intelligent compared to something like an African clawed frog). 

Obviously much of their behavior comes from hard-wired instinct but some of it also involves decision making.

I've had convict cichlids and they seemed "smarter" and more interesting than many other fish due to the way they raised their young(fry) and interacted.


----------



## Groundhog

Why, and I am not trying to be flip, should we assume that "instinctive" means lack of intelligence? Maybe because it implies lack of conscious awareness?

Current thinking in evolutionary psychology holds that animals learn what they are designed to learn: For example, humans naturally learn language--not bee dances or humpback whale songs. We are hard-wired to learn language (and see most colors, prefer salt, sugar, fat, to avoid incest...)

Now, are you framing the question in terms of capacity for decision making? Hmnn... Well, I have kept lizards and cichlids. One thing I noticed early on is that many lizards from different areas have a much superior ability to learn each other's signals. In fact, my lizards and dogs understand each other's signals (Interesting note: When the male lizards bob, the female pits and rotties know to move; the male dogs stand their ground.) 

The noted herpetoculturist Philippe Devosjoli believes that bigger animals with bigger brains seem to manifest much greater capacity for communication and nuanced emotional reaction. Pythons, King cobras, varanids and tegus are plain more complex than corn snakes or bearded dragons. This may betray a human cognitive bias, as the former animals act and react in ways that we interpret as "conscious." (Then again, Philippe thinks that iguanas are smarter than water dragons--no way.)

On to frogs: Have kept Pyxies, and I think they are demonstrably smarter than Ceratophrys. In my experience, several arboreal frogs--Litoria, Polypedates, Rhacophorus, and some larger salamanders--Ambystoma, Salamandra,Tylototriton, definitely seem to behave in ways that one can interpret as responsive. (I have heard the same thing about some big bufonids, but I have not kept these.) Does anyone here play with or hand feed their dart frogs? Ever try to see if they know their names? I can teach a _Polypedates dennysii_ to climb on to my finger, and it don't take that long. Can one do this with a dendrobatid? 

But consider morphology: I once saw on Youtube a freakin' tamandua open a cat food can in front of cats (using its powerful claws). Cats cannot do this--I do not know anyone who thinks tamanduas are smarter than cats (or even close). Tree frogs are adapted to live in three dimensions. Why wouldn't they learn to sit on the being that feeds them? And yes, sometimes I believe they enjoy it... 

Seems to me that Desvojoli may be on to something: While small vertebrates with real small brains (and no real cerebral cortex) may engage in some amazing complex behaviors, we have no way of knowing if the animals are conscious of their actions. 

So to answer your question: I honestly don't know, and I don't know how we can find out!

P. S.

Do NOT test this--but is this shark "intelligent?"

Evidence that great white sharks are peaceful creatures - YouTube


----------



## bradlyb

What sane "intelligent" person would test that! That lady is both crazy and absolutely awe inspiring.

I find this discussion very intriguing. I just came into possession of my first darts, a group of 5 borja ridge vents, who range between 5-8 months. One of the first things I noticed is that they appear to have distinct personalities. One in particular, which has a distinct and easily recognizable throat pattern, is always on the front glass. When I approach the tank the rest of the frogs usually duck for cover, and he (or she) just watches me.

In the last few days I have thought a lot about the different behaviors of our pets, frogs in this case, but also the differences between different animals. Obviously many traits and qualities are hard wired, knowing how to eat, how to breed, how to call, in some cases how to care for young, among many others. Yet each member of a species is somehow unique, displaying slightly different variations of the same types of behavior. Does this show varying degrees of intelligence between these individuals? Or is this just a natural, genetic, variation in their biological hard wiring, allowing natural selection ti take its course?

I'll have more to add when I am not trying to frustratingly type out a semi tipsy rant from my phone....


----------



## Groundhog

bradlyb said:


> What sane "intelligent" person would test that! That lady is both crazy and absolutely awe inspiring.
> 
> Yet each member of a species is somehow unique, displaying slightly different variations of the same types of behavior. Does this show varying degrees of intelligence between these individuals? Or is this just a natural, genetic, variation in their biological hard wiring, allowing natural selection ti take its course?


I agree, this is a fascinating question! 

So Bradley--no pet great white for you? Not into salt water, I take it?

Seriously, what I find most interesting about the video is that "Sharky" really does distinguish between the halibut and halibut-soaked arms...

Does anyone hand feed their PDFs? _P. terribilis_, maybe?


----------



## aspidites73

Groundhog said:


> I agree, this is a fascinating question!


Fascinating, yes. Anthropomorphic, most definitely!


----------



## bradlyb

Groundhog said:


> So Bradley--no pet great white for you? Not into salt water, I take it?


Haha, well I have lived next to the ocean for most of my life, in an area where marine biologists can always find work (Monterey Bay). Don't get me wrong, I love the ocean, but I find myself more interested in riparian and tropical ecology, genetics, and evolution. It took me a long time to want to go back to school, and will be attending UC Santa Cruz for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology this fall.

Sharks? Nah, if I was into any sea creature it would be Sea Horses, those are awesome little buggers. Yet, I would rather keep PDF's 



Groundhog said:


> Seriously, what I find most interesting about the video is that "Sharky" really does distinguish between the halibut and halibut-soaked arms...


That's the part that had me cringing the entire time! It made me think about my pet snakes. I have seen people hand feed them, but they can never truly be tamed. They will put up with you, but you always have a chance of being bitten. All the shark had to do was snap, or decide it wanted a larger meal.


To get back onto topic though, there was a study I recently read about specific genes that were determined in humans that affect intelligence.
This sums it up: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/06/intelligence-is-still-highly-heritable/#.Ug0jipLqmbI

The Webster definition of intelligence:

(1) : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)

I have not had PDF's for anywhere near long enough to have formed an opinion on their average "skilled use of reason."


----------



## bradlyb

aspidites73 said:


> Fascinating, yes. Anthropomorphic, most definitely!


Very true!


----------



## Pubfiction

I think one sign of intelligence is the desire to shape your environment to your liking. I have heard of multiple instances where frogs just didn't like the way someone put a plant or something in their tank and the frogs went and ripped all the leaves off of it or moved it around or stomped on it. 

I have also known that some people have frogs that come to them when feeding, this IMO means the frogs have learned to overcome fears of getting stepped on or anything else that should be a natural instinct. A lot of people say they have feeding stations and when they come in the frogs will come get ready for the food to be dumped in. 


On the other hand I have always said poison dart frogs are the super models of the herp world and even the jungle. With few natural predators, and a life style that means they get to just sit out in the open and graze on easy to find mites their life is quite easy and does not require much thinking. The hardest thing they do is try to find places to deposit. So I think intelligence is partially a product of environment and their environment and life style does not really force them to be smart.


----------



## Groundhog

Okay, I'll bite--why is this in Identification?!?


----------



## Groundhog

Aspidites and Bradley: Please explain why the question is "anthropomorphic." Does any investigation into whether are not non-mammals have consciousness entail anthropomorphizing?
(E.g., "I think the shark and I have an understanding...")

Discuss... 

P. S.

Do (some of) my herps like me? um--no comment


----------



## Groundhog

Interesting, and well said.



Pubfiction said:


> I think one sign of intelligence is the desire to shape your environment to your liking. I have heard of multiple instances where frogs just didn't like the way someone put a plant or something in their tank and the frogs went and ripped all the leaves off of it or moved it around or stomped on it.
> 
> I have also known that some people have frogs that come to them when feeding, this IMO means the frogs have learned to overcome fears of getting stepped on or anything else that should be a natural instinct. A lot of people say they have feeding stations and when they come in the frogs will come get ready for the food to be dumped in.
> 
> 
> On the other hand I have always said poison dart frogs are the super models of the herp world and even the jungle. With few natural predators, and a life style that means they get to just sit out in the open and graze on easy to find mites their life is quite easy and does not require much thinking. The hardest thing they do is try to find places to deposit. So I think intelligence is partially a product of environment and their environment and life style does not really force them to be smart.


----------



## bradlyb

Groundhog said:


> Aspidites and Bradley: Please explain why the question is "anthropomorphic." Does any investigation into whether are not non-mammals have consciousness entail anthropomorphizing?
> (E.g., "I think the shark and I have an understanding...")
> 
> Discuss...


I think any definition of intelligence we try to pass onto animals is naturally going to be "anthropomorphizing". Any sort of intelligence these animals have will be very different from anything we can relate to, but naturally we will try to compare these traits to the only intelligence we think we understand, which is our own. (Eg "A certain breed of dog has the same IQ as a certain age human....)

.... at least that's how I interpreted it.

Days later I am still blown away from the whole shark thing, so I don't really know how to comment on that! 



Groundhog said:


> Do (some of) my herps like me? um--no comment


Or do they just put up with you?


----------



## bradlyb

Groundhog said:


> Okay, I'll bite--why is this in Identification?!?


Looks like it was moved here from the General Discussion forum...


----------



## aspidites73

The question was intelligence, and I don't think you could use a term that is more anthropomorphic than intelligence. Ok, maybe the phrase "animal cruelty", but that is another discussion. Intelligence has absolutely no bearing on anything outside the context of human characteristic. It certainly is NOT a measure of survivability much less does it have any meaning in the natural world. It is us humans; arrogant, grandiose, and selfish, that believe we need terms that seperate us from the natural world. Intelligence, beauty, gratuity, love, sorrow, etc. etc., all rubbish! We like to think of ourselves as above the natural world, even offering a definition of such that we are more intelligent because we modify our environment for our own comfort, forgetting about the biology that died to give us our coal. The environments destroyed to give us our space. And the ecosystems vanquished to give us our "freedom" and status above all things natural. Nature was not put here for us to admire, control, or even rightfully use to advance our "cause". We are the most insignificant twig on the evolutionary tree. We are a parasite. We do not deserve what we have taken, and destroyed. The shark and the woman, they have an understanding? The only understanding that shark has is that it's not hungry enough to require more food. Had it been more human, it would have mounted that ladies head in its den, while burning a Cohiba, sipping a glass of 100 year old scotch, and explaining to its buddies how hard she fought and how much danger he was in. This would make it all okay.

Disclaimer: please do not misconstrue my passion for anger. I'm just another guy sitting in front of my glass boxed interpretation of nature, incarcerating the animals I love. What irony! 

Edit: I truly hope it is one day discovered we are merely an alien ant farm. An extra-terrestrial 6th grade science experiment. That would be swell!



Groundhog said:


> Aspidites and Bradley: Please explain why the question is "anthropomorphic." Does any investigation into whether are not non-mammals have consciousness entail anthropomorphizing?
> (E.g., "I think the shark and I have an understanding...")
> 
> Discuss...
> 
> P. S.
> 
> Do (some of) my herps like me? um--no comment


----------



## aspidites73

bradlyb said:


> Looks like it was moved here from the General Discussion forum...


Ahhhhh, intelligence at its finest. IQ-ID, what's a letter! (Not you bradlyb)


----------



## Pubfiction

I don't know the answer to this but there are 2 more types / signs of intelligence that could probably be easily tested by people here.

The mirror test, mark a frog or put something on it then introduce a mirror. If the frog can figure out that, something is on it and shows signs of that (say trying to remove it, or moving its own body to manipulate the mark or item) then it is capable of figuring out that what it sees in the mirror is its self. Self recognition is a level of intelligence. 

The other one is, say a fruit fly is moving and it goes behind an object or under a leaf, will the frog pursue the fruit fly if it looses track of it? This might be similar to the baby ball trick, where you place a ball under a blanket or something and try to determine if the baby knows the ball is there and attempts to uncover it. This would suggest the animal has the ability to remember something existed in short term and know that it wouldn't just disappear, it must still be there, and know something about the shapes qualities of the environment around it. 

A negative result will not necessarily rule that intelligence out but a positive result would probably be pretty solid. Maybe the baby just doesn't care about the ball and maybe the PDF would rather have an easier meal.


----------



## aspidites73

Pubfiction said:


> I don't know the answer to this but there are 2 more types / signs of intelligence that could probably be easily tested by people here.
> 
> The mirror test, mark a frog or put something on it then introduce a mirror. If the frog can figure out that, something is on it and shows signs of that (say trying to remove it, or moving its own body to manipulate the mark or item) then it is capable of figuring out that what it sees in the mirror is its self. Self recognition is a level of intelligence.
> 
> The other one is, say a fruit fly is moving and it goes behind an object or under a leaf, will the frog pursue the fruit fly if it looses track of it? This might be similar to the baby ball trick, where you place a ball under a blanket or something and try to determine if the baby knows the ball is there and attempts to uncover it. This would suggest the animal has the ability to remember something existed in short term and know that it wouldn't just disappear, it must still be there, and know something about the shapes qualities of the environment around it.
> 
> A negative result will not necessarily rule that intelligence out but a positive result would probably be pretty solid. Maybe the baby just doesn't care about the ball and maybe the PDF would rather have an easier meal.


"Rather" implies a conscious decision. I believe it's a matter of evolution by means of natural selection. Similar, in concept, to the "retreat" factor. A wild animal is feeding, and hears a disturbance. If it retreats too soon, it looses precious meal time. If it retreats too late, it risks predation. The world is populated by animals who properly balance their instinct of retreat.

At some point the energy to chase an insect costs more than the energy received by said insect. The world is populated by those who balance it properly. That is why I like survivability over intelligence. It is much more.....natural.

Edit: in the version of the mirror test I am familiar with, it was used by child psychologist to determine the age of "self awareness" in humans. If my memory serves me correctly, it was < 6 yoa = lack of self awareness. 6 yoa is roughly equal to the age of self awareness. Does that mean <6 yoa is un-intelligent? Of course not.


----------



## Boondoggle

bradlyb said:


> I think any definition of intelligence we try to pass onto animals is naturally going to be "anthropomorphizing". Any sort of intelligence these animals have will be very different from anything we can relate to, but naturally we will try to compare these traits to the only intelligence we think we understand, which is our own.


I remember this subject coming up a few years ago and this is pretty much my take on it as well. I think that a frogs "intelligence" level is something so foreign and alien to human thinking that even broad comparisons are impossible to make. Also, we would need a pretty solid definition of intelligence (does it include learned behavior, conditioning, or are we just talking mental elasticity, or what?). Quick conditioning looks a lot like intelligence. Natural instinct can look a lot like intelligence. When you watch the whole process of a frog transporting tadpoles, it's absolutely mind blowing how deliberate and precise it is. It would be easy to see other natural behaviors like those and credit them to intelligence. Also, visual based tests (like tracking flies that go behind leaves) is tough because that assumes that a frogs senses the world like we do, and they don't.

I look at it this way. We can't really conceive of how baby humans think without language even though we all were in that state once. What chance could we possibly have of understanding what goes on in a frogs head?


----------



## Pubfiction

aspidites73 said:


> "Rather" implies a conscious decision. I believe it's a matter of evolution by means of natural selection. Similar, in concept, to the "retreat" factor. A wild animal is feeding, and hears a disturbance. If it retreats too soon, it looses precious meal time. If it retreats too late, it risks predation. The world is populated by animals who properly balance their instinct of retreat.
> 
> At some point the energy to chase an insect costs more than the energy received by said insect. The world is populated by those who balance it properly. That is why I like survivability over intelligence. It is much more.....natural.
> 
> Edit: in the version of the mirror test I am familiar with, it was used by child psychologist to determine the age of "self awareness" in humans. If my memory serves me correctly, it was < 6 yoa = lack of self awareness. 6 yoa is roughly equal to the age of self awareness. Does that mean <6 yoa is un-intelligent? Of course not.


Plenty of organisms are part of the balance of the world and are very survivable but have zero intelligence. Survivability and Intelligence are not synonymous. Intelligence can be part of what allows you to have higher survivability. Therefore you can evolve the ability to be intelligent or more intelligent in your quest for survival. And I think most people would think of this as you drop some of your natural instinct or the power of your raw emotions in favor of your brains ability to better decipher information than your sensory organs can on their own. 

In your example intelligence is, what if an animal has a hard wired fear of any disturbance because someone might step on them, but they learn to overcome that fear though experience, I have not yet been stepped on nor seen my girlfriend get stepped on, so I will move out despite my fear. Or the opposite would be a lack of intelligence. Every time the worms go out when it rains they get stuck on the side walk and they never learn so we can only wait for evolution to give them some sort of desire to stay near the moist edge of water in an attempt to get back before they dry out. The worms never learn, not in my whole life, they seem to have a missing level of intelligence, deer on the other hand have learned very quickly in less time than it is possible to evolve the trait IMO to stick to certain areas during hunting season. While you may disagree I think deer are more intelligent than earth worms yet both of them are very successful as species. Survivability does not separate them.


----------



## aspidites73

Pubfiction said:


> Plenty of organisms are part of the balance of the world and are very survivable but have zero intelligence. Survivability and Intelligence are not synonymous.
> Intelligence can be part of what allows you to have higher survivability. Therefore you can evolve the ability to be intelligent or more intelligent in your quest for survival. And I think most people would think of this as you drop some of your natural instinct or the power of your raw emotions in favor of your brains ability to better decipher information than your sensory organs can on their own.
> 
> In your example intelligence is, what if an animal has a hard wired fear of any disturbance because someone might step on them, but they learn to overcome that fear though experience, I have not yet been stepped on nor seen my girlfriend get stepped on, so I will move out despite my fear. Or the opposite would be a lack of intelligence. Every time the worms go out when it rains they get stuck on the side walk and they never learn so we can only wait for evolution to give them some sort of desire to stay near the moist edge of water in an attempt to get back before they dry out. The worms never learn, not in my whole life, they seem to have a missing level of intelligence, deer on the other hand have learned very quickly in less time than it is possible to evolve the trait IMO to stick to certain areas during hunting season. While you may disagree I think deer are more intelligent than earth worms yet both of them are very successful as species. Survivability does not separate them.


I completely agree that survivability and intelligence are not synonomous. I prefer survivability OVER intelligence. That was my point. It is more appropriate a measure. 

I do not, however, agree that intelligence equals higher survivability. Sidewalks, in evolutionary terms, are quite new to the earthworm. They continue to dry up, yet their numbers are not decreasing. No matter how many worms we see on the sidewalk, I still expect to find some within a first shovel full of loamy earth. I do not expect to find them in the sandy soil that is the xeric ecosystem of the area of Florida I live. It is too dry. They have been eliminated by natural selection, or simply did not inhabit this area. Yet, my compost pile on top of said ground has plenty of them. I dare say humans, the more intelligent of the two, can not boast nearly as many years on Earth as our annelid example. I also suspect they will be around to decompose the last of us "intelligent" beings.

Your use of the term "hard wired" is misleading, at best. Evolution does not work that way. The behavior leads to the wiring, not the other way around. To suggest that my example implied hard wiring, and groundhog's use of the same term, but applied to human language, is dangerously close to creationism.

The deer. Again, you are invoking anthropomorphism. Intelligence is a human quality, defined and measured by humans for humans to create catagories that would otherwise not exist. Who is to say it is not the odor of the hunters, the availability of seasonal foods, or the warmth of a denser thicket that keeps them in different areas as the hunters? My rhetoric aside, we simply can not know the reason, nor may we imply a reason convenient to our argument, either for, or against. It suffices to say, it appears that less deer are available come hunting season. Why? We can not know.


----------



## aspidites73

And.... where is the 730 sciurid?


----------



## otterblue

I'm really enjoying reading these posts - very interesting.

I would argue that discussing the inteligence of animals is not anthropomorphizing. I consider anthropomorphizing to be comments like: "My dog loves me" (rather than my dog realizes I'm the pack leader, protector and provider of food) or "My dog is bad" (rather than my dog is poorly trained or in the wrong environment).

(That being said, my cat DOES love me.) =)

Saying intelligence is solely a human trait is denying the genesis of our own evolution and suggests that "intelligence" arrived at some point along the "****" line. Our defining factors in creating a gap from other species is a more advanced brain but also the ability to walk upright (so we can use our hands with opposable thumbs), speech and culture; factors which allow learning to progress from one generation to the next. 

We are the smartest animal but a man raised in the wild probably wouldn't seem that much smarter than an ape due to the absence of modelling/culture and he would have no discernible language.

I would also argue that an animal altering it's environment is not necessarily an indicator of intelligence UNLESS it learned to improve it's creation with experience (such as building a better burrough, dam or whatnot).

In my opinion the biggest indication of intelligence would simply be the ability to LEARN.
1. Learning through modelling by parents
2. Learning through error
3. Learning to solve a unique problem

The fact that certain groups of chimps or pods of dolphins have different "cultures" with advanced skills shows evidence of intelligence due to learning (like getting termites with a stick or washing schools of fish up on shore).


Lastly, I think another signifier of intelligence is if there's a discrepancy in behavior between individuals of the same species (for lack of a better example - the rat that learns to press the correct button for food vs. the one that doesn't).

Anyhow, I hope I get to read more posts about this. =)


----------



## Groundhog

Guys, I must say, this is a kickass thread--very good conversation. Big props to Otter for starting it. Before I address the comments on anthropomorphism and hard-wiring, please watch these short videos. I defy anyone to tell me this Tylototriton is not a "pet:"

What s that, Tyloto ? - YouTube

Pyxie:

Holding (Giant) Pixie frog - YouTube

Hyla versicolor:

Tame Tree Frog Chirps In My Hand - YouTube

(Cute and cuddly, boys--keep it cute and cuddly...)


----------



## Groundhog

O-M-G, Dave: You sound just like my big sister (then again, she's a proponent of "voluntary extinction" )



aspidites73 said:


> The question was intelligence, and I don't think you could use a term that is more anthropomorphic than intelligence. Ok, maybe the phrase "animal cruelty", but that is another discussion. Intelligence has absolutely no bearing on anything outside the context of human characteristic. It certainly is NOT a measure of survivability much less does it have any meaning in the natural world. It is us humans; arrogant, grandiose, and selfish, that believe we need terms that seperate us from the natural world. Intelligence, beauty, gratuity, love, sorrow, etc. etc., all rubbish! We like to think of ourselves as above the natural world, even offering a definition of such that we are more intelligent because we modify our environment for our own comfort, forgetting about the biology that died to give us our coal. The environments destroyed to give us our space. And the ecosystems vanquished to give us our "freedom" and status above all things natural. Nature was not put here for us to admire, control, or even rightfully use to advance our "cause". We are the most insignificant twig on the evolutionary tree. We are a parasite. We do not deserve what we have taken, and destroyed. The shark and the woman, they have an understanding? The only understanding that shark has is that it's not hungry enough to require more food. Had it been more human, it would have mounted that ladies head in its den, while burning a Cohiba, sipping a glass of 100 year old scotch, and explaining to its buddies how hard she fought and how much danger he was in. This would make it all okay.
> 
> Disclaimer: please do not misconstrue my passion for anger. I'm just another guy sitting in front of my glass boxed interpretation of nature, incarcerating the animals I love. What irony!
> 
> Edit: I truly hope it is one day discovered we are merely an alien ant farm. An extra-terrestrial 6th grade science experiment. That would be swell!


----------



## aspidites73

Groundhog said:


> O-M-G, Dave: You sound just like my big sister (then again, she's a proponent of "voluntary extinction" )


And the thread dies....

That's all you have, Groundhog? Seriously? Would it help if I said that Tylototriton is not a pet? Don't make me, 'cause I'll do it!


----------



## Groundhog

Sorry brother, but don't blame Joe (all newts are Joe)...

I would suggest:

1) When evolutionary psychology refers to a behavior as "hard-wired" it refers to a genetic predisposition. We, for example, are predisposed to learn a language and to prefer salt, sugar, fat. This is not to suggest that behaviors are not modifiable, but they are not as flexible as Watson/Skinner might have us believe. We are not going to train cats to walk in tandem on leads, and it would be a waste of time to try. Similarly, we are not going to train eagles to imitate human speech;

2) So while the behavior leads to wiring, it does so subject to a history of selection. Lions evolved to live in groups, and do not have to difficult a time teaching social behavior to their cubs. Whereas tigers do not (two animals that are identical under the skin--closer than humans and chimps!) 

Consider again the example of human language: Humans are born with a brain center for verbal skills--to learn language. We many have to be taught to write, but we naturally learn language. So while it true that more verbal exposure leads to more wiring in the relevant brain centers, it happens in a brain pre-adapted to do so. Just a cetaceans are pre-adapted to learn cetacean songs.

3) Try these:
--Many feel that cats are smarter than dogs because they are more independent (one definition of true domestication is that the organism(s) need human involvement to survive). Fine. But watch a kitten climb a bookcase and almost get killed. Replace the books, what will the kitty do? You know--right-back-up-the-bookcase... By contrast, a puppy will not only not do this, but may learn to fear bookcases! 
--I apologize if I already mentioned this: Watched a Youtube video of a tamandua--a%@#! tamandua--opening a cat food in front of cats. Now, I don't knows nobody that thinks tamanduas are smarter than cats. Is this a function of physical ability? Or does the tamandua not also possess a brain center for opening things?!?
--Why is it that several arboreal frogs seem to learn not to fear people? Simply a by-product of not minding being up off the ground?


4) Still, I do not feel it "anthropomorphic" to contemplate the emotional lives of (other) animals. May be quixotic as we all see the world through different senses, and are dealing with animals who do not verbally express what they are thinking. I just don't believe that DesCartes was right about animals have no capacity to reason...


----------



## Groundhog

All right yous guyz:

Cinco's Adventure part 4 - baby tamandua meets cat - YouTube



Savannah monitor lizard Mowgli vs marmite the cat lol - YouTube

Anya & her pet Argentine Tegu, Tonga - YouTube

And how about these:

Wild Dog and Hyena Interaction - Londolozi TV - YouTube

So, she lets him meet her kids:

Wild Dog vs Hyena Pups - Londolozi TV - YouTube

And--this is this lady's porch:

An eagle, a fox and my cat all getting along fine on my porch - YouTube

An eagle visits my cat - YouTube


----------



## epiphytes etc.

> http://youtu.be/NSEd6O0bBFs


Groundhog, using Occam's razor, it's safe to say these are clearly NOT animals, but rather a race of shape shifting aliens, plotting our destruction.


----------



## Groundhog

Full disclosure: I am a great believer in the explanatory power of cute...

Some might, say, "Oh these are misguided or misfired behaviors, possibly due to human interference..."

Well, isn't the fact that we behave civilly and make new friends a result of human "interference", i.e., culture?

I really believe that each video shows a capacity for empathy, for companionship, to make new friends. 

Finally, this video about polar bears and dogs shows we are not the only animals to view certain "others" as off the menu:

Polar bears and dogs playing - YouTube

Like our house; as I write this there are eight dogs, ten cats, a king pigeon and bearded dragon chilling in the living room (tegu not invited with lizard or bird). Believe me, they fully understand there is to be no bullshit...


----------



## Groundhog

Wait, another tame amphibian:

Very sweet and tame Pacman Frog - YouTube

I believe it is called T-L-C...


----------



## Groundhog

And finally: Y'all know the story of the hyenas of Harar, Ethiopia? Seems that a few hundred years ago, the Hararis cut a deal with the hyena clans: We feed you, but kids, pets, livestock, are off limits. It actually works. 

Marcus Baynes-Rock did his thesis where a studied the phenomenon with the strategy that the hyenas are best understood as a human ethnic group: quadrupedal, funny, smelly, friendly people that honor inter-species commitments and make new friends.

Hyenas in Harar | The secret lives of urban hyenas in Harar, Ethiopia 

It does not always keep the clans from feuding with each other. Some of the stories, of humans successfully mediating hyena clan feuds, are mind-boggling.

Here is some footage of "mindless "carnivores:"

The Hyena Man - YouTube

Look at 2:20 --calm with kids.

Feeding The Wild Hyenas of Harar, Ethiopia - YouTube

Notice the people's and dog's very real "concern" (they never attack kids or house pets--never):

Hyena and Dogs in Harar.wmv - YouTube

Anyone can do it:

Feeding Harar hyenas - YouTube

3 Year Old Feeds Harar Hyenas - YouTube

I would like to ask Dr. Baynes-Rock if we are looking at the East Asian wolves, +/- 16,000 yrs ago...


----------



## Groundhog

Jason: Or maybe mandatory tummy rubs? Would you kick the eagles, fox and cats off your porch?!? (Actually, she has a big screen TV; they may just find it entertaining--it is Alaska...)

More I write about this, I miss my _Polypedates dennysii_--they were real pals who would sit next to me, look up at me, hop on me (like the other guys, they were free-roaming). The best pet frogs ever...



epiphytes etc. said:


> Groundhog, using Occam's razor, it's safe to say these are clearly NOT animals, but rather a race of shape shifting aliens, plotting our destruction.


----------



## aspidites73

Disclaimer: I am from Philadelphia, and as such love my sarcasm. Please do not take that as disrespect to your intelligence. I invited you back to this conversation out of much respect for your thoughts and because we disagree on it's content. Two requirements for intellectually stimulating conversation. I would happily take the opposite side of any of your opinions, even if I normally agree, simply for the ability to have a good discussion!




Groundhog said:


> Sorry brother, but don't blame Joe (all newts are Joe)...
> 
> I would suggest:
> 
> 1) When evolutionary psychology refers to a behavior as "hard-wired" it refers to a genetic predisposition. We, for example, are predisposed to learn a language and to prefer salt, sugar, fat. This is not to suggest that behaviors are not modifiable, but they are not as flexible as Watson/Skinner might have us believe. We are not going to train cats to walk in tandem on leads, and it would be a waste of time to try. Similarly, we are not going to train eagles to imitate human speech;
> 
> 2) So while the behavior leads to wiring, it does so subject to a history of selection. Lions evolved to live in groups, and do not have to difficult a time teaching social behavior to their cubs. Whereas tigers do not (two animals that are identical under the skin--closer than humans and chimps!)
> 
> Consider again the example of human language: Humans are born with a brain center for verbal skills--to learn language. We many have to be taught to write, but we naturally learn language. So while it true that more verbal exposure leads to more wiring in the relevant brain centers, it happens in a brain pre-adapted to do so. Just a cetaceans are pre-adapted to learn cetacean songs.


I now understand your point, and do agree



Groundhog said:


> ) Try these:
> --Many feel that cats are smarter than dogs because they are more independent (one definition of true domestication is that the organism(s) need human involvement to survive). Fine. But watch a kitten climb a bookcase and almost get killed. Replace the books, what will the kitty do? You know--right-back-up-the-bookcase... By contrast, a puppy will not only not do this, but may learn to fear bookcases!


More agile, yes. Consider the difference in size of the cerebellum. A cat's is larger than humans, much more so a dog's. Smarter? That is the discussion at hand. I don't believe operant conditioning in lower (read less evolved capacity for thought) animals to be learning. What did they learn? They were conditioned to associate THAT particular bookcase, and maybe those with a resemblance, with pain. Put a tasty snack just out of reach, and I guarantee fido will make several more attempts at playing agile cat. Why? Because they did not learn they were not agile, nor will they learn they can not reach the treat. They may become discouraged by pain, possibly due to lactic acid buildup in their leg muscles, or maybe from falling on their head once too many. Give fido a day or so to rest, he will try for the treat again, because dogs can't learn in the true sense of the word. I bet I could teach fido to walk on shards of glass (no, I would not actually try this) simply for praises from his owner (read fido's alpha). Watson and Skinner for the win!



Groundhog said:


> --I apologize if I already mentioned this: Watched a Youtube video of a tamandua--a%@#! tamandua--opening a cat food in front of cats. Now, I don't knows nobody that thinks tamanduas are smarter than cats. Is this a function of physical ability? Or does the tamandua not also possess a brain center for opening things?!?


Seriously? You're supporting your claims with youtube videos? I know a few B&C college students that would love you as their Professor!



Groundhog said:


> --Why is it that several arboreal frogs seem to learn not to fear people? Simply a by-product of not minding being up off the ground?


I can also attest from experience that arboreal Chondropython viridis will take much less kindly to being held than it's rather close cousin (they used to be the same genus, as are your Panthera examples. Some will still argue they still are, based on the rules of taxonomy) Morelia boeleni, a ground dweller. That would neither support or negate your frog example as neither are scientifically significant. It could just as well be that arboreal frogs associate climbing higher with comfort. Who's to say that same arboreal frog would not, and just as quick, leave said human for a tree of higher stature? It's a rhetorical question. It can not be tested experimentally, at least not with any serious attention from our peers.




Groundhog said:


> Still, I do not feel it "anthropomorphic" to contemplate the emotional lives of (other) animals. May be quixotic as we all see the world through different senses, and are dealing with animals who do not verbally express what they are thinking. I just don't believe that DesCartes was right about animals have no capacity to reason...


Anthropomorphism is defined as attributing emotions to animals. Descartes should have stuck to mathematics. It seems we both agree his philosophy sucked!

Edit: None of my above comments mean that, as a human that likes to be entertained, I do not enjoy the vids you post. Quite to the contrary, I enjoy them quite much.


----------



## Groundhog

The explanatory power of cute!

Now you asked for it:

Hydrosaurus - YouTube

How big is this viv?!?




aspidites73 said:


> Seriously? You're supporting your claims with youtube videos? I know a few B&C college students that would love you as their Professor!


----------



## Groundhog

Aspidites: Actually, this a fascinating question worthy of investigation.
More on this later, but first:

Otter: I sincerely apologize if I shifted this thread from "frog intelligence" to "herp intelligence." Will make a better effort to stay relevant.



aspidites73 said:


> I can also attest from experience that arboreal Chondropython viridis will take much less kindly to being held than it's rather close cousin (they used to be the same genus, as are your Panthera examples. Some will still argue they still are, based on the rules of taxonomy) Morelia boeleni, a ground dweller. That would neither support or negate your frog example as neither are scientifically significant. It could just as well be that arboreal frogs associate climbing higher with comfort. Who's to say that same arboreal frog would not, and just as quick, leave said human for a tree of higher stature? It's a rhetorical question. It can not be tested experimentally, at least not with any serious attention from our peers.


----------



## otterblue

That's more than okay. I find the whole conversation very interesting and I'm just happy the thread is still alive. =)


----------



## Groundhog

I thank you for your patience--and your intellectual curiosity



otterblue said:


> That's more than okay. I find the whole conversation very interesting and I'm just happy the thread is still alive. =)


----------



## Dendro Dave

Groundhog said:


> 4) Still, I do not feel it "anthropomorphic" to contemplate the emotional lives of (other) animals. May be quixotic as we all see the world through different senses, and are dealing with animals who do not verbally express what they are thinking. I just don't believe that DesCartes was right about animals have no capacity to reason...


I agree... Whether someone is anthropomorphizing when contemplating or talking about animal intelligence and/or emotion is highly dependent on the context, and semantics may play a role. If two people aren't reasonably on the same page when it comes to those two things, it is very hard to have a meaningful exchange. 

Here is a pretty smart and odd doberman...





Here is a good nova Ep on animal intel if you haven't seen it...





As for frog intelligence, I would suspect that in some ways more toxic animals may have a broader intelligence then others as they are likely allowed to kinda "explore" and perhaps encounter and be able to focus on more problem solving opportunities and this would likely drive evolution towards a broader more general intelligence (maybe). 

I know my green aurotaenia are some of the boldest and most active frogs I've owned, and seem to be more day gecko like in that they seem to be more inquisitive and appear to have more of an inner life then other frogs... Could be nothing, could be anthropomorphizing a little, but it seems like a valid idea. I don't know how much of an emotional life they have but it wouldn't surprise me to learn they had some very basic if not slightly skewed or alien versions of what we consider to be human like emotions.

P.S. I'm convinced captive Fennec foxes have adapted to use their cuteness to avoid getting in trouble


----------



## Groundhog

From _Wikipedia_:

_"P. terribilis is considered to be one of the most intelligent anurans. Like all poison dart frogs, captives can recognize human caregivers after exposure of a few weeks. They are also extremely successful tongue hunters, using their long, adhesive tongues to catch food, and almost never miss a strike. This success at tongue-hunting implies better brainpower and resolution on eyesight than some other frogs. Golden poison frogs are curious, bold, and seemingly aware of the fact that they are next to invulnerable, making no attempt to conceal themselves and actually flaunting their beautiful colours to intimidate potential predators.[citation needed]

"Golden poison frogs are social animals. Wild specimens typically live in groups of four to seven (average six); captive frogs can be kept in groups of 10 or even 15, although groups that rise past that number are extremely susceptible to aggression and disease.[citation needed] Like all poison dart frogs, they are rarely aggressive towards members of their own species; however, occasional minor squabbles may occur between members of the group.[citation needed] Being immune to their own poison, golden poison frogs interact constantly with each other. They communicate not only with their calls, but also with gestures. Push-up movements are a sign of dominance, while lowered heads seem to signal submission."_

Okay, much of the above is conjectural and speculative-but is it wrong? 

Phyllobates:
--are social;
--do communicate;
--do learn.

I suggest that what we may be asking is whether "intelligence"--defined here as the relative capacity/ability to learn new things or solve novel problems--entails conscious awareness of one's thoughts and actions. I have no idea how we ascertain that in animals that cannot talk. 

Let me add that much speculation on animal intelligence may not be so much anthropomorphic, but anthropocentric--that is, we always seem to attribute greater intelligence to the animal that would behave more like us in a given situation. (This is probably unavoidable; after all, who else's perspective can we employ?!?)

Examples include:
--social hunting;
--complex two-way communication;
--parental care;
--play.

The reasoning being that it takes a degree of brain power to do these things. Simply put, one needs more brains to hunt grass eaters than to eat grass. Yet I do not know anyone who claims that snakes are smarter than rodents, or crocodiles smarter than ungulates. Nor do I--but I thought I'd throw that out. 
*
Let me ask a more focused question*--do any of you dendrobatid keepers notice learning and/or personality differences in your frogs?


----------



## Dendro Dave

aspidites73 said:


> Anthropomorphism is defined as attributing emotions to animals. Descartes should have stuck to mathematics. It seems we both agree his philosophy sucked!
> 
> Edit: None of my above comments mean that, as a human that likes to be entertained, I do not enjoy the vids you post. Quite to the contrary, I enjoy them quite much.


Ok I just scanned some of this thread and maybe I've missed the context but, Anthropomorphism's definition is more general then that. It is the attribution of human characteristics to anything really, not just animals, and also your statement seems to reflect a bias that emotion is strictly human, rather then just one of many capacities we share with animals. Arguably even a semantics issue if when I say running someone automatically assumes a bipedal human like posture, rather then just a more general idea of faster locomotion through faster leg/foot speed.

Is it really anthropomorphism to say a dog is sad if a dog is sad and and has evolved that same or similar capacity as us and other animals? There may be argument on whether a dog actually does have that capacity but, if it does and did then it is not a strictly human trait and therefore arguably not anthropomorphism. You might even go so far as to argue that at least when applied to other life forms the term "anthropomorphism" often contains an inherent bias. 

It is much different then saying that a cup is sad because I didn't like drinking from it. We know or at least can be relatively sure that a cup hasn't now, nor ever has had a capacity for emotion. That is a far harder thing to say and be sure about another life form, especially a higher vertebrate like a Dog. If I said look at that dog, it is running! ...Would that be anthropomorphism? Both humans and dogs have that capacity. Now if I said look at that dog running on 2 legs like a person!, that would probably qualify but there is a possible bias at work and definitely a shift in context between those examples.

Also it seems that at times there is a stigma associated with the term anthropomorphism... Like once something is determined to be an example of it, it is no longer a valid observation/fact. If I saw a dog run on 2 legs like a person and was like.. "OMG look at that dog running on 2 legs like a person!" ...Have I some how invalidated the fact that the dog is running on 2 legs? (Whether or not it is human like or not doesn't negate the fact that it is happening)
Anthropomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

P.S. Maybe I'm a little biased because when I first read Descartes I was like... Damnit!... I came up with a lot of this stuff years ago!  I just didn't flesh it out so much  

But that seemed a pretty harsh indictment for the man that brought us "I think therefore I am".  I don't agree with all the details/parts of his philosophies (like some of the specifics of dualism probably) but especially when it comes to his methodology, I've found many of his ideas/basic premises very valid and useful. I lean more towards eastern stuff often, but having a natural capacity for thinking the way Descartes thought and then taking that further after reading him has proven very useful to me at least  (But then again I'm kinda a W. James school pragmatist so in some part I judge something based on it's practical use...in this case to myself). So perhaps that is another bias


----------



## Groundhog

1) Hey Dave, you posted while I was writing! Good job anticipating my question

2) All "cute" animals do that...

















Dendro Dave said:


> I agree... Whether someone is anthropomorphizing when contemplating or talking about animal intelligence and/or emotion is highly dependent on the context, and semantics may play a role. If two people aren't reasonably on the same page when it comes to those two things, it is very hard to have a meaningful exchange.
> 
> Here is a pretty smart and odd doberman...
> Donny The Dog Genius - YouTube
> 
> Here is a good nova Ep on animal intel if you haven't seen it...
> NOVA scienceNOW w/ Neil deGrasse Tyson: How smart are animals? - YouTube
> 
> As for frog intelligence, I would suspect that in some ways more toxic animals may have a broader intelligence then others as they are likely allowed to kinda "explore" and perhaps encounter and be able to focus on more problem solving opportunities and this would likely drive evolution towards a broader more general intelligence (maybe).
> 
> I know my green aurotaenia are some of the boldest and most active frogs I've owned, and seem to be more day gecko like in that they seem to be more inquisitive and appear to have more of an inner life then other frogs... Could be nothing, could be anthropomorphizing a little, but it seems like a valid idea. I don't know how much of an emotional life they have but it wouldn't surprise me to learn they had some very basic if not slightly skewed or alien versions of what we consider to be human like emotions.
> 
> P.S. I'm convinced captive Fennec foxes have adapted to use their cuteness to avoid getting in trouble


----------



## Dendro Dave

Groundhog said:


> 1) Hey Dave, you posted while I was writing! Good job anticipating my question
> 
> 2) All "cute" animals do that...
> View attachment 64785
> 
> View attachment 64777


LOL it wouldn't surprise me to see a Fennec get charged by some predator in the wild, roll over and do something cute and then see the predator walk off in disgust muttering to itself... "It's just to dang cute, I can't do it! "


----------



## Groundhog

You go, Dave--very well said. 

Interesting take--contrasting DesCartes and James--that might lead us to the difference between Continental metaphysics and American pragmatism--a little beyond the scope of this thread? Although, to be fair to DesCartes, western attitudes towards animal sentience (and dignity) go back to Aristotle (opposing Pythagoras, who thought animals to be like people), and Biblical morality, with the concept of a human "soul."

Maybe this thread is a bit too "philosophical" for the professional zoologists among us? Although they might ask, with good reason, how any of this can be empirically tested (somehow, I don't think Youtube videos of tame great white sharks count as scientific evidence--or so I'm told--hi, Aspidites)



Dendro Dave said:


> Ok I just scanned some of this thread and maybe I've missed the context but, Anthropomorphism's definition is more general then that. It is the attribution of human characteristics to anything really, not just animals, and also your statement seems to reflect a bias that emotion is strictly human, rather then just one of many capacities we share with animals. Arguably even a semantics issue if when I say running someone automatically assumes a bipedal human like posture, rather then just a more general idea of faster locomotion through faster leg/foot speed.
> 
> Is it really anthropomorphism to say a dog is sad if a dog is sad and and has evolved that same or similar capacity as us and other animals? There may be argument on whether a dog actually does have that capacity but, if it does and did then it is not a strictly human trait and therefore arguably not anthropomorphism. You might even go so far as to argue that at least when applied to other life forms the term "anthropomorphism" often contains an inherent bias.
> 
> It is much different then saying that a cup is sad because I didn't like drinking from it. We know or at least can be relatively sure that a cup hasn't now, nor ever has had a capacity for emotion. That is a far harder thing to say and be sure about another life form, especially a higher vertebrate like a Dog. If I said look at that dog, it is running! ...Would that be anthropomorphism? Both humans and dogs have that capacity. Now if I said look at that dog running on 2 legs like a person!, that would probably qualify but there is a possible bias at work and definitely a shift in context between those examples.
> 
> Anthropomorphism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> P.S. Maybe I'm a little biased because when I first read Descartes I was like... Damnit!... I came up with a lot of this stuff years ago!  I just didn't flesh it out so much
> 
> But that seemed a pretty harsh indictment for the man that brought us "I think therefore I am".  I don't agree with all the details/parts of his philosophies (like some of the specifics of dualism probably) but especially when it comes to his methodology, I've found many of his ideas/basic premises very valid and useful. I lean more towards eastern stuff often, but having a natural capacity for thinking the way Descartes thought and then taking that further after reading him has proven very useful to me at least  (But then again I'm kinda a W. James school pragmatist so in some part I judge something based on it's practical use...in this case to myself). So perhaps that is another bias


----------



## Groundhog

Isn't that the deal with polar bears and sled dogs? 

Or the famous footage of the leopardess that killed a baboon--and then rescued the crying baby? The look of "cat" indignation---"I need this like a ________"--was priceless. It as as you say--all the time muttering to herself, "who can be so #@%! dumb to sleep on the ground with a baby?!?" 

For those that have not seen this, the Youtube video is edited--see the documentary, which shows the leopardess gently place her paw over the screaming baby baboon's mouth when she senses approaching hyenas. Fascinating and touching. 

I know there are those who will contend this was a case of misdirected maternal instinct--fine.

Then what, may I ask, is pet keeping?!? 



Dendro Dave said:


> LOL it wouldn't surprise me to see a Fennec get charged by some predator in the wild, roll over and do something cute and then see the predator walk off in disgust muttering to itself... "It's just to dang cute, I can't do it! "


----------



## otterblue

Dendro Dave said:


> As for frog intelligence, I would suspect that in some ways more toxic animals may have a broader intelligence then others as they are likely allowed to kinda "explore" and perhaps encounter and be able to focus on more problem solving opportunities and this would likely drive evolution towards a broader more general intelligence (maybe).



You could also make the claim that dart frogs are likely to be LESS intelligent due to their toxicity because they are less susceptible to predation. They don't have to learn warning signs or potential dangers, weigh risk vs. reward or find effective ways of escaping from predators; a hypothetical example: if a caveman was born coated in armor he wouldn't have to rely as much on his intelligence to survive because his physical defense would make him almost invulnerable.


----------



## Dendro Dave

Groundhog said:


> You go, Dave--very well said.
> 
> Interesting take--contrasting DesCartes and James--that might lead us to the difference between Continental metaphysics and American pragmatism--a little beyond the scope of this thread? Although, to be fair to DesCartes, western attitudes towards animal sentience (and dignity) go back to Aristotle (opposing Pythagoras, who thought animals to be like people), and Biblical morality, with the concept of a human "soul."
> 
> Maybe this thread is a bit too "philosophical" for the professional zoologists among us? Although they might ask, with good reason, how any of this can be empirically tested (somehow, I don't think Youtube videos of tame great white sharks count as scientific evidence--or so I'm told--hi, Aspidites)


LoL ya, might be slightly off topic and we know how hard I try to avoid that! (All Hail Zardoz!!!)... Plus probably a little over my head since I kinda stepped back from the philo reading several years ago after an unhealthy stint of semi obsessive posting about free will on shroomery.org's philo forums 



Groundhog said:


> Isn't that the deal with polar bears and sled dogs?
> 
> Or the famous footage of the leopardess that killed a baboon--and then rescued the crying baby? The look of "cat" indignation---"I need this like a ________"--was priceless. It as as you say--all the time muttering to herself, "who can be so #@%! dumb to sleep on the ground with a baby?!?"
> 
> For those that have not seen this, the Youtube video is edited--see the documentary, which shows the leopardess gently place her paw over the screaming baby baboon's mouth when she senses approaching hyenas. Fascinating and touching.
> 
> I know there are those who will contend this was a case of misdirected maternal instinct--fine.
> 
> Then what, may I ask, is pet keeping?!?


That sounds familiar but I'm not sure I've seen it... I try to stay away from most vids with animal violence, even if it is natural/interesting behavior. I'm getting soft in my old age. I may look that up though, it is fascinating when things like that happen and an animal steps outside it nature, similar to the wolf adopting baby type stories.



otterblue said:


> You could also make the claim that dart frogs are likely to be LESS intelligent due to their toxicity because they are less susceptible to predation. They don't have to learn warning signs or potential dangers, weigh risk vs. reward or find effective ways of escaping from predators; a hypothetical example: if a caveman was born coated in armor he wouldn't have to rely as much on his intelligence to survive because his physical defense would make him almost invulnerable.


Ya it could totally go either way, or it may impact one or a few areas of intelligence positively while having little or even a detrimental effects on others, like you suggest. For instance they might get better at finding food in unusual places because they aren't so skittish, but suck at quickly finding a good hiding spot when they actually feel they need to  ...But sometimes one evolutionary path or a few coincide and open a rare door that allows a species to make a vast leap in some area, like intelligence. For example... us  (Of course that may balance out if we rape the planet to death and kill ourselves)


----------



## Groundhog

Dave: I'm with you on the animal videos, I greatly prefer (and post) the cute ones (anything with Sharky the pit bull 

Otter: I think a way to frame your hypothesis about defense is to investigate whether toxic and/or aposematic animals are better at recognizing other toxic/aposematic animals. 

Two points on aposematism: 

1) For warning coloration to work, it implies learning. Yet what does a small predator learn from a coral snake bite?!? One hypothesis is that both _Micrurus_ and _Lampropeltis_ are actually mimicking an intermediate model, the rear-fanged _Pseudoboa_.

2) Give a toad a bee, you'll never see it think about an insect with stripes ever again. Is this not learning? 

Q: Would Australian predators be having problems with cane toads if the toads were brightly colored? Would some have learned to avoid the toads?


----------



## aspidites73

Groundhog said:


> Dave: I'm with you on the animal videos, I greatly prefer (and post) the cute ones (anything with Sharky the pit bull
> 
> Otter: I think a way to frame your hypothesis about defense is to investigate whether toxic and/or aposematic animals are better at recognizing other toxic/aposematic animals.
> 
> Two points on aposematism:
> 
> 1) For warning coloration to work, it implies learning. Yet what does a small predator learn from a coral snake bite?!? One hypothesis is that both _Micrurus_ and _Lampropeltis_ are actually mimicking an intermediate model, the rear-fanged _Pseudoboa_.
> 
> 2) Give a toad a bee, you'll never see it think about an insect with stripes ever again. Is this not learning?
> 
> Q: Would Australian predators be having problems with cane toads if the toads were brightly colored? Would some have learned to avoid the toads?


If you plant a cutting upside down, it will right itself, and eventually grow the 'right way". Is that learning?


----------



## Groundhog

Since when do we attribute sentience to plants?

Are you suggesting that a toad's avoidance of striped insects or a bird's avoidance of monarch butterflies is a reflex action, or a biochemical reaction? With that mechanistic a view, everything our own brains do becomes just as biochemical as phototropism, no?

I would compare your phototropism example to a human body adjusting to a change in light or diet--but I do not think it unfair to say that the body is not "learning" to adjust in any cognitive sense.

How about animal migration? Is that learned or instinctive? Clearly, there are birds that stop migrating when they realize there's plenty of eats--in line with simple optimal foraging theory. So in some cases learning can override instinct. 


Back at ya



aspidites73 said:


> If you plant a cutting upside down, it will right itself, and eventually grow the 'right way". Is that learning?


----------



## SDRiding

Check out The Secret Life of Plants....



Groundhog said:


> Since when do we attribute sentience to plants?


----------



## aspidites73

Well, Groundhog. You seem to accept youtube videos as evidence....check it!


----------



## aspidites73

Did someone mention something about peer review??? Is the experiment re-creatable???


----------



## Groundhog

Seen it--fair enough--should have said "cognition." 

Still, I know no serious study of plant intelligence or plant cognition.

I repeat, a reflex action or biochemical reaction (phototropism) is not learning, unless one maintains that animal brains are also reducible to reactions and electrical impulses.

As I am not a neurobiologist, I won't even go there. I am only prepared to discuss this in terms of evolutionary psychology or evolutionary ecology. 



SDRiding said:


> Check out The Secret Life of Plants....


----------



## Groundhog

Will watch. 

Fear not, I do not believe that a cutesy video meets the standard of "evidence;" I also realize that even a whole collection of anecdotes does not equal evidence. But any real phenomenon counts as a datum. And what is evidence, if not reproducible data? I am no proponent of petting sharks. Nor do I think that ceratophrys are a good choice for a friendly, responsive pet. But I think it rather silly when we deny that people can form emotional bonds with pets (besides domestic dogs and psittacines). Do our cats, rats, lizards and oscars only tolerate us for food? Well, what do babies do?!? 

As for the original thrust of the OP--I maintain that the hydrosaurus, hyena and ceratophrys videos do show learning--whatever emotions one chooses to attribute to the animals. I believe that the OPs intent was to speculate on the relative intelligence of frogs. As I previously mentioned, we can refine the question by asking if aposematic animals are aware of their aposematism. 

Consider this example. Any keeper of baby snakes can tell you that baby Snookums, a non-venomous _________, used to strike repeatedly. When (s)he realized (learned) that it accomplished nothing, she stopped. Makes sense--the energy costs are too great. Well, why the hell should a baby venomous snake stop striking? I may disapprove of "venomoid" snakes, but hell, many are quite tame. And I suggest that if you were born like Logan or Creed with a natural immunity, your baby viper or cobra would eventually stop striking as well (well, maybe not your baby mamba 

.............


Then again, did have one snake that never stopped biting. Had a young female spotted python--Audrey-- that was determined to eat me. Seriously--she would a pick a body part, constrict, let go and try to swallow. One of few animals I never could tame Five years ago, Allen from Reptile Kingdom let me trade her for a yellow crested gecko--nice pet. Contrast with a _Spilotes pullatus_ I once knew at the local pet shop; after repeated finger wagging, taps on the nose, cooing, neck rubs, this snake adored me. Would wrap around my wrist and calmly take mice or rat pups from my fingers; would place her head on my arm or chest while I stroked her neck. Even taught her a couple of simple stunts (come, stay, okay, no, up, down--okay, I was young)

Yeah, should have taken her home and built her a screen cage with a ficus tree, epiphytes... 



aspidites73 said:


> Well, Groundhog. You seem to accept youtube videos as evidence....check it!
> 
> Plants Can Read Your Mind?? - YouTube


----------



## aspidites73

Groundhog said:


> Will watch.
> 
> Fear not, I do not believe that a cutesy video meets the standard of "evidence;" I also realize that even a whole collection of anecdotes does not equal evidence. But any real phenomenon counts as a datum. And what is evidence, if not reproducible data? I am no proponent of petting sharks. Nor do I think that ceratophrys are a good choice for a friendly, responsive pet. But I think it rather silly when we deny that people can form emotional bonds with pets (besides domestic dogs and psittacines). Do our cats, rats, lizards and oscars only tolerate us for food? Well, what do babies do?!?
> 
> As for the original thrust of the OP--I maintain that the hydrosaurus, hyena and ceratophrys videos do show learning--whatever emotions one chooses to attribute to the animals. I believe that the OPs intent was to speculate on the relative intelligence of frogs. As I previously mentioned, we can refine the question by asking if aposematic animals are aware of their aposematism.
> 
> Consider this example. Any keeper of baby snakes can tell you that baby Snookums, a non-venomous ____, used to strike repeatedly. When (s)he realized (learned) that it accomplished nothing, she stopped. Makes sense--the energy costs are too great. Well, why the hell should a baby venomous snake stop striking? I may disapprove of "venomoid" snakes, but hell, many are quite tame. And I suggest that if you were born like Logan or Creed with a natural immunity, your baby viper or cobra would eventually stop striking as well (well, maybe not your baby mamba
> 
> .............
> 
> 
> Then again, did have one snake that never stopped biting. Had a young female spotted python--Audrey-- that was determined to eat me. Seriously--she would a pick a body part, constrict, let go and try to swallow. One of few animals I never could tame Five years ago, Allen from Reptile Kingdom let me trade her for a yellow crested gecko--nice pet. Contrast with a _Spilotes pullatus_ I once knew at the local pet shop; after repeated finger wagging, taps on the nose, cooing, neck rubs, this snake adored me. Would wrap around my wrist and calmly take mice or rat pups from my fingers; would place her head on my arm or chest while I stroked her neck. Even taught her a couple of simple stunts (come, stay, okay, no, up, down--okay, I was young)
> 
> Yeah, should have taken her home and built her a screen cage with a ficus tree, epiphytes...


We digress. I do admit my plant example is way beyond the intentions of the OP. I was simply using an extreme example of the slipery slope we had gotten into. I do trust, groundhog, that you do not consider youtube a viable source of citation, and agree that almost anything on record (youtube, craigslist, even etsey.....etc...) can have data extracted. The scientific significance of said data is my only debate.

Dave and groundhog: the biggest problem I have with Descartes's work, and the reason for my sig, is that he failed to consider: our thoughts could be illusory, thereby making our existance illusory. "I think, therefore I am" is too superficial. It also discounts Platonic Realism. Quite interestingly, quantum physics does not conflict with Platonic Existance. If you ever have the chance, and interest,"The Infinity Puzzle" by Frank Close is an excellent read. One can ignore the mathematics (as beautiful as they are) and still extract the meaning of the book.

Back to the topic at hand.....intelligence. Anuran, reptilian, amphibian, whichever group you spin it to, continues to omit an important quality of intelligence; the ability to learn from what is learned. Abstract thinking, if you will. I can admit to conditioning as a form of learning, but I do not have to consider it intelligence. A morbidly retarted individual is defined by a gross lack of intelligence (at least as what can be measured by one's Intelligence Quotient) yet they will learn not to touch a hot stove after being burned by one. If conditioning works in an un-intelligent human being, why does one require intelligence to explain similar conditioning of other, less cerebrally evolved animals? Simply put, one does not need intelligence to learn. One does need intelligence to take knowledge of 360 degrees in a circle, and finish a 90 degree turn with two 22.5 degree angles. 

We can not make our arguments via semantics. Intelligence, in the true sense of the word, is a human quality. Giving that quality to animals, IS anthropomorphic!


----------



## aspidites73

I can't edit my above post, but before anyone points out MY apparent geometric error, it was an honest mistake. We all (read: the intelligent humans) know that 2 x 22.5 degrees does not a right angle make. The point, however, should remain clear.


----------



## Dendro Dave

aspidites73 said:


> Back to the topic at hand.....intelligence. Anuran, reptilian, amphibian, whichever group you spin it to, continues to omit an important quality of intelligence; the ability to learn from what is learned. Abstract thinking, if you will. I can admit to conditioning as a form of learning, but I do not have to consider it intelligence. A morbidly retarded individual is defined by a gross lack of intelligence (at least as what can be measured by one's Intelligence Quotient) yet they will learn not to touch a hot stove after being burned by one. If conditioning works in an un-intelligent human being, why does one require intelligence to explain similar conditioning of other, less cerebrally evolved animals? Simply put, one does not need intelligence to learn. One does need intelligence to take knowledge of 360 degrees in a circle, and finish a 90 degree turn with two 22.5 degree angles.
> 
> We can not make our arguments via semantics. Intelligence, in the true sense of the word, is a human quality. Giving that quality to animals, IS anthropomorphic!


*"...Simply put, one does not need intelligence to learn....I can admit to conditioning as a form of learning, but I do not have to consider it intelligence.*"

You've lost me with that logic, and I'd have to say IMO opinion the first statement in that quote just seems wrong. Though the preceding stuff about perhaps neglecting the idea of learning from what is learned is valid. Anyways I personally can't find a way to completely divorce the two without seeming to have a conflict especially whem we get down to conditioning and experiences changing behavior as being learning (backed by Webster). So At least from the webster's definition and you being willing to concede that conditioning could be learning, it looks slightly easier to have intelligence in some for without learning, but not vise versa especially when in the context of a living system with some kinda nervous system... How can you have any form of learning and not admit that as some basic form of intelligence? If we were dealing with shape/memory metal alloys I'd concede based on their inorganic nature (not alive...at least as far as our science is willing to admit so far).

*"We can not make our arguments via semantics."* I think in some cases we are going to have to. We have to develop a common language to communicate effectively, but it seems we have several examples where groundhog's and my ideas/definitions do not completely correspond to yours thus the conversation becomes less meaningful. In this thread and other posts from you, you seem very analytical (a good thing IMO), and quality I think the 3 of us share, but you seem to be running into an issue almost like the uncertainty principle, where the harder you try to peg down one thing, the more you start to loose the other.

It is like in your building of your science/philosophy you are trying to build this great mighty chain with clear and individual links, but groundhog and I are building something more like a thick braided robe of rubberbands. 

You're saying intelligence stops HERE, learning stops Here, anthropomorphizing starts HERE, etc..etc... In the lab and even outside of it this is useful, but in "real life" a fuzzy logic/a flexibility is very useful. Maybe we should go back to our physics examples and suggest something like a state of quantum superposition in our science/beliefs. This holding onto something sorta kinda semi letting it exist but not completely giving in to belief or vise versa (LOL) has at least for myself been a far more useful and resilient methodology. It is a little tricky...especially for people who need a high degree of certainty and precision at all times, but I've personally found it to be the better path to truth and being resilient enough to handle the truth when you get there and it doesn't jive with what you thought, or what you wanted.

The problem with committing to much to a separation point between data sets, or to certain beliefs/opinions to rigidly, is that well...You're committed, and become much less flexible over time. You'll have to destroy/dismantle and rebuild every time instead of flex/bend a little. I see you like a mighty oak (great tree!), but when the ground erodes, and the winds come you're firewood (I don't know you that well so I may be off a bit, but luckily I don't actually believe at least not completely, even what I think is true )...while us lowly reeds bend and pass the storm with less serious discomfort and ready for the next soon enough. Not a perfect example of course but I'd urge a little caution (and don't take this as it is often intended when others say it), but I'm afraid that by your methodology you make it harder to see the forest through the trees. You may be doing yourself a disservice by trying to hard to break everything down to specific points, and doing this often creates perfect conditions for a bias to be injected and cripple your overall progress. Tends to help spawn those "back to the drawing board" moments. 

*Intelligence, in the true sense of the word, is a human quality. Giving that quality to animals, IS anthropomorphic!* I can't roll with this... This clearly demonstrates a bias. Animals developed and had a capacity for some intelligence long before humans ever existed. How do you justify your position here? The logic/reasoning escapes me (not being a D#(K, just honest).

Also this kinda brings back my statements that the word/concept of "anthropomorphism" seems to come with a bias and a stigma. Why? How does that serve truth? 

Also it brings to mind my dog running example... If I say a dog has intelligence, or a dog is running, and a human has intelligence and human is running, there is no anthropomorphising there until I say "that dog is people smart!", or "that dog is running like a person!". You've setup a bias that suggests you believe humans own the rights to "intelligence", "learning", like they are/were ours and now we are having them stolen from us by these damn dogs!!!  

It is also similar to like in Star trek where the human complains that an alien's human rights are being violated...when really if anything it is just their rights  that are being violated. There is an inherent bias in "human rights" vs just "rights"..a subtle but important distinction (IMO at least)

For those who think we've gone way off topic and beyojnd the scope of the original post, let me point out that we are coming together as almost strangers from very different perspectives and sometimes for there just to be a meaningful and civil exchange in topics like this (philo, politics, religion etc..) we have to do some work to make sure we are, "on the same page"... and discuss the topic meaningfully

Just a few other comments...

On vids as evidence: 
Videos may or may not serve as evidence, basically we just offer a visual aid, and what seems to some of us as something that might be a reasonable even blatant example of an animal demonstrating some capacity that some may find it very hard to dismiss strictly as instinct or conditioned behavior.

So visual/experiential aids may not necessarily be proof, but some of the content may serve as evidence. If you see a dog demonstrating what seems to be some capacity for arithmetic, that may make someone question the their previous stance that "dogs can't count", if they haven't had any or at least many good experiences to suggest otherwise. Not all of us even bother to look for evidence contrary to our current position. So exposing people to examples of what led you to your position may aid in discussion/persuasion 

Learning:
I think we may have different ideas/semantic issues at least in some cases here. Like I think an example of operant conditioning was discussed and dismissed as not being "learning" (Yay we won you over here I see, but I'll finish anyways). Well most (if not all) animals with a brain have some degree of neural plasticity. I would submit that any rewiring that results in a change in behavior/capacities could be argued as some form of learning. Even the acquisition/modification of instincts/genetic memory could be regarded as a form of learning. 

In fact... From Webster: 
"*Definition of LEARNING*

1
: the act or experience of one that learns
2
: knowledge or skill acquired by instruction or study
3
: modification of a behavioral tendency by experience (as exposure to conditioning)" 

Plant sentience/learning:
Well I don't know if plant have any emotional capacity, nor do I know if they have a capacity for something akin to neural plasticity or encoding new memories, etc... but we still have the idea of instinct/genetic memory, and experience/conditioning as lower forms of learning. Also there is some new research about plants using fungi and chemical messaging to "communicate" in some basic way between not just themselves but other plants, even animals (Some plants emit signals when threatened, animals like bugs pick up the signals and come to aid the plant or other plants by eating the bugs that are eating the plant, etc..etc..)


----------



## aspidites73

Dendro Dave said:


> *"...Simply put, one does not need intelligence to learn....I can admit to conditioning as a form of learning, but I do not have to consider it intelligence.*"
> 
> You've lost me with that logic, and I'd have to say IMO opinion the first statement in that quote just seems wrong.




Dave, I don't much like quoting a quote because it can lead to confusion. To be mindful of this (for those reading, not necessarily for you) I left the information you quoted from me, in black text. The information I am quoting from you, remains blue text.

Before I can go any further with your points, we need to clear this up. You can not (you can, but you'd be wrong) dismiss my logic by stating "you've lost me with that logic" and then qualify it as your opinion "IMO". We shal use merriam-webster as it is the scholarly thing to do.




Dendro Dave said:


> In fact... From Webster:
> "*Definition of LEARNING*
> 1
> : the act or experience of one that learns
> 2
> : knowledge or skill acquired by instruction or study
> 3
> : modification of a behavioral tendency by experience (as exposure to conditioning)"


May I add to this the following definition from the same source

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of _INTELLIGENCE__a _ _(1)_ : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; _also_ : the skilled use of reason _(2)_ : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests) 

With both defined, we shall avoid semantics. Nowhere within the definition of learning does it indicate, implied or otherwise, that intelligence is required to learn. Also, and within the definition of intelligence, does it state that a capacity for learning as part of the definition. The logic stands to reason. While I admit to the flexibility of modifying my personal belief of conditioning being a form of learning. I still stand firm that learning is NOT intelligence. For fear of sounding redundant I will not redefine intelligence. My statement that intelligence is: the ability to learn from what is learned. Abstract thinking (see above definition), if you will. Is not in conflict with above definition. Yes, it does say "the ability to learn" but you can not simply dismiss the remainder of the sentence. It goes on to say "new or trying situations". My, and Webster say the same thing, but in different ways. Yes, you can condition a dog to come, using a bell. He/She will never figure out that a similar sounding doorbell is NOT the same thing. If we tuned the two together, the dog would salivate (Pavlov's example) every time someone was at your door. He can not learn to deal with this new and trying situation without further intervention from the one conditioning him.He/she is not intelligent! I can remain flexible, as the new growth of a _Quercus, _and not have to assimilate with a reed (i'm not going to pretend to have known the genus you were referring to  )


----------



## Dendro Dave

Sorry for the purple but with all our quotes and color changes this seemed the easiest way to answer without having to copy and paste sub quote tags everywhere. As for quoting or individual replies to sections or subsections, I pretty much have to because I have the short term memory of a gold fish. Once around the bowl and it is all new to me, so just writing a one big reply to your post is extremely difficult for my odd little brain ...



aspidites73 said:


> Dave, I don't much like quoting a quote because it can lead to confusion. To be mindful of this (for those reading, not necessarily for you) I left the information you quoted from me, in black text. The information I am quoting from you, remains blue text.
> 
> Before I can go any further with your points, we need to clear this up. You can not (you can, but you'd be wrong) dismiss my logic by stating "you've lost me with that logic" and then qualify it as your opinion "IMO". We shal use merriam-webster as it is the scholarly thing to do.
> 
> 
> That may be true but neither did you support the claim/belief with any real evidence, and I found the logic problematic at best (more in a minute)
> 
> May I add to this the following definition from the same source
> 
> From Merriam-Webster
> Definition of _INTELLIGENCE__a _ _(1)_ : the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; _also_ : the skilled use of reason _(2)_ : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (as tests)
> 
> Is not reason a capacity founded on learning? Even at the low end of the spectrum where we count conditioning as learning does not it also count as a form of knowledge? What was learned if not some form of knowledge? How is the one thinking abstractly going to have any point of reference or form any perspective without past experience/learning/innate or learned/programmed/conditioned knowledge? If this effects the behavior at all it seems to me it pretty much has to equate to intelligence. I think you may be confusing or exhibiting a bias that human level, or at least near to it self awareness or sentience is needed for intelligence. This would jive with with the seeming viewpoint/bias that Intelligence is inherently human beyond/regardless other life forms (many of which came first and had it first)(If this isn't actually your position, it is how you've seemed to come off a time or 2 in this thread, but I may be misinterpreting)
> 
> With both defined, we shall avoid semantics. ]I think this is impossible if we are to get anywhere, we seem to have fairly divergent understandings of many of these concepts and differing methodology. Hence our points of contention and the in part the fact that I might just only now actually be beginning to realize the perspective you were coming from.
> 
> Nowhere within the definition of learning does it indicate, implied or otherwise, that intelligence is required to learn. I think I may be catching on to what you were getting at, So I will only somewhat disagree for now as outlined by my above statements and questions, and add that while it may not say or imply that; these things are implicitly/logically linked. This may be an example of breaking things down to far and loosing the connections or interdependency IMO.
> 
> Also, and within the definition of intelligence, does it state that a capacity for learning as part of the definition. No but I'd argue it is vague and incomplete in that sense, and that it is pretty much established in epistemology that knowledge/learning are integrally/implicitly/inherently linked in most contexts...but If I'm right I think you've locked on to a subtle and strange one where they may not be in that very specific context.
> 
> The logic stands to reason. Semi Disagree. While I admit to the flexibility of modifying my personal belief of conditioning being a form of learning. I still stand firm that learning is NOT intelligence. *Ok this is where I think I finally understand what you are getting at...* Are you saying that you can exhibit intelligence without learning something new? That I'll grant, and in that sense and specific context yes you are correct, but we seem to have at least come to a consensus that even instinct/conditioning and/or genetic programming count as learning and knowledge, so with past learning and knowledge/experience/instinct... regardless of source, we have what is likely the beginnings of a necessary foundation needed to build any intelligence upon, because for any intelligence you likely need some basic level of awareness and that is at least going to come in part for any living organism (possibly machine intelligence too) from some sort of Input/sense data, thus experience ergo conditioning/learning = knowledge, and together that form the beginnings of intelligence. * Can you give me an example where either can manifest without the other occurring in some form prior or after?* A programmed computer code is the best example I've got, but you could equate that to genetic programming of instinct and whatnot. For fear of sounding redundant I will not redefine intelligence. My statement that intelligence is: [/COLOR]the ability to learn from what is learned. Abstract thinking (see above definition), if you will. Is not in conflict with above definition. Yes, it does say "the ability to learn" but you can not simply dismiss the remainder of the sentence. It goes on to say "new or trying situations". My, and Webster say the same thing, but in different ways. Yes, you can condition a dog to come, using a bell. He/She will never figure out that a similar sounding doorbell is NOT the same thing. but they may learn that similar events happen in similar circumstances just like an animal may know a blue frog is poisonous and assume a bright red one isn't worth trying since in its experience brightly color animals often taste bad.
> 
> If we tuned the two together, the dog would salivate (Pavlov's example) every time someone was at your door. He can not learn to deal with this new and trying situation without further intervention from the one conditioning him. He/she is not intelligent! Disagree because the dog has gained an experience, and knowledge that something is or could happen, so there is learning and knowledge together which will effect at least in minor ways the dog's present and future behavior which = a manifestation of intelligence. How can it not? Granted it is a pretty low form in many respects but still the dog has learned, has experienced, and will react in the present and future to those and exhibit an intelligence that is in part contingent on all of that. If it wasn't then the conditioning probably wouldn't stick. It would be like a truly spontaneously one off event. (not even sure those truly exist in nature/reality) I can remain flexible, as the new growth of a _Quercus, _and not have to assimilate with a reed (i'm not going to pretend to have known the genus you were referring to  )


----------

