I've been thinking of how the octopus can learn so quickly, and the only reason they aren't the masterminds of the deep is because they die when their eggs hatch and can't teach their young what they know.
What if you arrange for a surrogate octopus mother that people have already trained?
> smart octopus stays alive because it doesn't have stress of hatching
> babies learn from genius octopus
I personally believe they will start evolving and using/making tools like the humans started
That's the point of this experiment
The octopus that actually hatched the eggs will not be the one trained to raise the young.
The one teaching the young will be the wisest of a pretrained class, not the actual parent
What makes you think the surrogate parent will teach anything to the adopted children? From what you saying it seems this guys don't have parental instincts. So why would they get then all of the sudden?
You shitpost on almost every thread, don't you?
>Why do you get so butt hurt when you see somebody loving something with less emotions than you
I didn't give it any thought. I'm not butt hurt.
I think you're projecting motives on me that I don't actually have.
What I actually do here is read people's thoughts on animals and then sort them out as either valid or mistaken. I don't usually say what I think about that unless someone is honestly curious.
Notice I didn't mention OP's anthropomorphizations until anon specifically asked about them. It's not that I didn't notice it earlier, but nobody asked.
this is interesting to me. just like how you try to interpret my interest in terms of your own relationships with animals. To you animals are there to either love or not love. It doesn't cross your mind that neither may be the correct relationship.
The theory is if we can teach an octopus to open a box, take a picture, and predict the world cup, why could we not teach them to raise babies and teach those babies in turn?
Less talking, more leading by example. Of the trained octopus shows the babies what they should do, I believe learning would rapidly accelerate beyond current octopus limits
>why could we not teach them to raise babies and teach those babies in turn?
first problem is the their babbies are microscopic and planktonic for a significant period of time. It's hard to teach microscopic plankton much of anything.
second problem of course is that big octopus eats little octopus. difficult to teach your dinner anything.
Because parental care is an extremely complicated thing.
I can't believe you don't see what the difference is between teaching a cannibalistic animal complex parental care and how to pass down a lifetime of learning, and how to open a box.
One'd think that being able to mate and produce offspring multiple times would be an evolutionary advantage, no? So why are there animals who only mate once and die?
>being able to mate and produce offspring multiple times would be an evolutionary advantage, no?
what happens then is the world gets clogged up with tons of offspring from the same sets of parents. Inbreeding could become a problem, but the bigger problem is it defeats the advantage of genetic variation that sexual selection provides.
in reality it's often advantageous to have tons of generations as quickly as possible because that maximizes genetic diversity and speeds up adaptation.
I heard about a case when some ecological event caused all the octopusseses in a large area to retreat to a relatively small coral reef and, because the population density was far greater than before, young octoppies were able to observe the older ones and learn by example, and researchers were able to determine that certain techniques and behaviors were essentially being "passed down" through generations.
Doubt it, they're not social animals. Maybe we could make a robot octopus for the babbies to imitate though. Also, since they have fairly fast generations, it might be possible to extend their lifespan or at least their intelligence by selective breeding.
I heard somewhere the only reason the mother octopus dies is because she stays with the eggs and starves to death.
What if you just feed one, so it doesn't starve?
Also, is Rubio a rubactopus?
You probably struck a sore spot. Seems like a few of these sheltered "animal lovers" are completely unable to grasp that some animals have a fundamentally different nervous system structures and behaviors etc.
What if we put two seperate aquariums right next to each other, one with a trained octopus, one with the juveniles. The juveniles could observe the octopus and learn its behavior without the risk of being eaten. They would learn at much faster rates, allowing them to accomplish more than the "teacher" octopus. When the young grow up, they can be teachers for the next generation. In a couple decades, we could have octopods with levels of intellect that could rival dogs, Dolphins, or even primates
What does /an/ think about this?
>mating face-to-face and sucker-to-sucker.
Sex in the missionary position for the sole purpose of procreation.
This is fucking disgusting!
And possible advanced social behaviors? It's over!
Humanity on suicide watch.
The Octopi will never be on par with us here is why
1.The ocean is a horrible place to develop intelligence as you can barely use it.
2.They will need to be on the land which causes a few issues:
a.Their brains are a large weigh so they will have to shrink it if they want to move
b.Their soft bodies are a big no no on land even starfish like movement with their suction cups isnt fast enough to save them from ants so they will need to mutate a tough body covering
c.Those tentacles are complete shit on land there is a reason why no land creature has tentacles for moving around they will need to mutate a skeleton to give their tentacle the support to make a land moving limb
d.Tentacles are complete shit at manipulating objects comnpared to our hands, they would have to mutate digits but need a skeleton to do that so all they could do is grab things but never manipulate them.
e.The beak feeding method only works underwater since everything floats but on land the eating appendage should be on the front of the organism to make ingesting matter easier so they will have to mutate their beak to the front of their body and possible mutate their beak away entirely because land creatures would be impossible for an octopi to digest since it doesnt have the digestive mutations that allow birds to eat things whole then break it down. So the Octopi would need to mutate a jaw basically.
f.The suction cups are a hindrance on land so they would need to be mutated away or simply restricted to the front facing limbs allowing the octopus to grab organism to eat them but for walking they are very problematic.
g.Those big eyes got to get smaller since light is more concentrated on land and that makes a massive anatomical weakness.
h.Air breathing organs will be needed
Long story short the octopi will never become sapient.
This is so fucking stupid, they don't liquefy inside of the pupa because they are the pupa. If you cut open a pupa you are cutting open its body, of course it will be liquid, it's the insides.
It's like saying a pupa is liquid inside of a caterpillar. It's just layer after layer.
Are octupussies actually smarty or is this another case of dumb people thinking complex things are intelligent, like computers.
Actually there is already a cultural transmission of knowledge by the father, as is suggested by recent observations. The observed colonies and experiments have shown that in aquarium, the octopus learn not only by themselves, but also by observing their peers.
Cephlapods are so strange. Octopus in particular are some of the smartest creatures that live in the ocean and have a completely unique look. I remember reading something about how their genetic code is one of the most unique/alien ones on the earth?
Never been proven that this was a giant cephalopod. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence in this case and sadly nothing physical. While I accept the possibility, you can't just go claim truth in something that has no solid evidence.
>b-but I was only talking about recognizing people with their eyes!
>you can't just go claim truth in something that has no solid evidence.
Oh rly, i bet you belive in thousand of things to be true with out having seen a lick of evidence proving it true
'and although they showed a greater response to their owner’s voices than strangers’, they declined to move when called by any of the volunteers'
that means they recognize sound, not that they recognize you.
learn some reading comprehension.
>you can only conclude that the cat recognizes the owner as a familiar person
a cat has no concept of what a 'person' is, it's visual memory lasts a few seconds.
unless you are a sound wave your cat does not recognize YOU.
so a blind dog doesn't recognize it's owner? the voice, the smell, the appearance of me and maybe other things can all identify me not just my appearance. there is more than just your image that gives an impression of you to another living being.
>so a blind dog doesn't recognize it's owner?
a blind dog isn't a cat.
there's no evidence suggesting cats recognize their owners, just that they recognize certain smells and sounds.
which is something even the most basic organisms can do.
well i was mostly telling you that the study doesn't support your interpretation but if the cat reacts differently to the owners voice than to other voices then there is some kind of recognization. and it isn't instinctual but learned.
> that the study doesn't support your interpretation
it doesn't support yours either.
>but if the cat reacts differently to the owners voice than to other voices
and I bet they react differently to cat shit than to dog shit as well, but in the end it still means jack shit because they don't have a concept of what a dog or cat is, they aren't self-aware.
>isn't instinctual but learned.
learning is an instinct in cats.
>they don't have a concept of what a dog or cat is
but do they have to have one to recognize something? if they react differently to different things then they RECOGNIZE them to be different, don't they?
okay, honestly you seem to be beating around the bushes.
>to identify from knowledge of appearance or characteristics:
you were saying that cats do not recognize you but the sound you make and that's why the study is stupid and i told you that the sound you make is a part of you and that's why the cat is recognizing you when it is recognizing your sound. i'll stop now as it is off topic anyways. sorry OP.
Anon trying to produce electricity by artificial means underwater is impossible unless you want to kill yourself.
They arent that smart their intelligence is on par with most lower mammals and they are invertebrates that existed 410 million years before land vertebrates so its kinda pathetic how stupid they are after all this time so the ocean really is a bad place for a simple lifeform to develop intelligence, if you want intelligence live on the land.
Cats dont even recognize their owners as non cats they are so stupid that they think their owners are big silly cats.