Crows and ravens are exceptionally intelligent. There can be

Learn how to type you fat slob

>>2473698
"No"

If we make their wings into giant thumbs they would be unstoppable.

>>2473697
>orcas

>>2473862
>There can be little doubt that they have the greatest ingenuity and overall intelligence relative to brain size
>relative to brain size
Crows might still be smarter than orcas, it's arguable. But their brains are like a bajillion times bigger

>>2473697
How can I tame one? I always see a few walking around, or sitting on rooftops around my neighborhood. Sometimes, when they are lucky and find a walnut, they fly high and drop it onto the street below to crack it open. I once saw how one had put a walnut gently on the streets and waited on a rooftop near by, till a car run over it.

I tried putting hazelnuts on the streets to feed them, but no one came. I want them to understand that I mean food. So that they come to me.

>>2473964
feed them some delicious shit like small pieces of meat. make sure they see you placing the food

>>2473964
Maybe they're not sure about you yet. They're scoping out if you're a dick that's trying to trick them

>>2474046
Sounds like a bit of a stretch of thought, don't you think? I can't imagine that they would even think so far, as understanding that I want to trick them.
Always when I get near one they get scared and fly away, but than again I hadn't had any food for them at the time either.

>>2473970
Are you serious about this? What kind of meat would you recommend? I guess uncooked, raw right?

why are crows so intelligent and other birds are not?

>>2474051
>What kind of meat would you recommend?
Human meat, it's their favorite.

>>2474064
Diet and environment. Huge variety of food in an environment that requires a lot of awareness. That's my theory at least

>>2474071
just chopped my little finger off. It seems like they've enjoyed it. However, now that I've lost so much blood, I feel kinda weak desu

That's not how brains work op

File: index.jpg (8KB, 200x166px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 200x166px

>>2473964
I'd like to know too. I've been feeding crows outside my bedroom window for 2 years and they still don't fully trust me. They just know that the place outside my window = food. They'll hang around outside my window, but skeddadle as soon as I appear.

>>2474118
then why are taller people consistently smarter?

>>2474064
>>2473697

Corvids (not just crows) tend to be extremely smart. Crows seem even smarter than ravens. Ravens are just bigger crows. They are close enough they can breed together.

Also parrots, hornbills, and toucans are also very intelligent.

>>2474239
Because height is attractive in humans Attractiveness and intelligence correlate in a statisticly significant manner thanks to intelligent and successful people picking trophy mates.

>>2474254
parrots toucans and hornbills aren't even on the same level.
>>2474318
nonsense. Taller people are smarter even when accounting for all other genetic factors. A tall family member will tend to be smarter than their shorter kin despite the same genepool.

>>2474326
I need a citation on that.

>>2474254
They are not just bigger crows, they are separate species in the same genus

>>2474064
Their niche in nature isn't a specific one, by that I mean, they aren't like hummingbirds or birds of prey, where they only have one way of getting food. Corvids can eat almost anything, therefore they are more adaptable than other birds, adaptability requires intelligence.

>>2474051
Crows and ravens are 100% wise to human shenanigans and will treat you like a serious threat until you prove otherwise over a long period of time. They're way smarter in certain ways than you'd ever believe without experiencing it.

File: THAT NO PICKLE PEE.jpg (194KB, 1000x895px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1000x895px

>>2474120
Mine have taken to tapping on the window if they see me inside and want birb welfare.

>>2474120
What do you offer them as food, if I may ask?
I don't know much about birds in general, but I always thought seeds and nuts of any kind would work, but they certainly weren't interested that much in the hazelnuts I've placed on the streets.

>>2475044
Not that guy, but I've found they really like picking at bones.

>>2473697
Intelligence and brain size aren't closely linked, much more important is brain morphology, also what is pleiotropy

>>2475235
>Intelligence and brain size aren't closely linked
they most certainly are. they might not be the most important factor, but they are a limiting factor

File: raven_crow_hybrid_carob.jpg (247KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 640x480px

>>2474335
>letting some dead taxonomist come between me and my own phylogeny

>>2475235
>species with large brains relative to mass are consistently some of the smartest on earth
>no link

>>2476651
>relative

>>2476763
so? it still means that they needed more mass to be smarter. so more brain mass = more smarter. If a species increased their size while keeping the same relative mass they'd by extension be smarter.

>>2476771
>more brain mass = more smarter
that must be why ostriches are the smartest birds

>>2476778
ostriches have bigger bodies so more is allocated to managing the body. That is some heavy processing. since a raven would keep the same RELATIVE brain size while growing bigger, they'd have more excess brain power, making them smarter.

>>2476785
mice have the same brain to body ratio as humans
brain morphology matters more than brain size, even synapse chemistry is more important

>>2476795
>mice have the same brain to body ratio as humans
yes and they are much dumber, your analogy agrees with my statement. You're also going in circles here, mice are very intelligent relative to other animals their size. The fact is, brain ratio and size are ABSOLUTELY a factor, they're not the only one, they are simply one. That's why, crows, who have an incredibly efficient brain morphology, are most likely limited more by size than anything else. Size matters, there's simply no denying that, thought is processing, processing takes power, you can only do so much with so little, that's just the laws of physics.

>>2476795
let's say ostriches allocate .5% of their brain power to cognitive function. Their brain is 100 grams. they have .5 grams of cognitive function.
The raven has a brain of 10 grams. It has 50% allocated to cognitive function. It has 5 grams of cognitive function.
Let's say the human has a 1 kg brain and the mouse has 10 grams. They both have 50% allocated to cognitive function but vastly different amounts. As such, both relative size and total size is vastly different. Sure, Some animals like the raven might be running super advanced quantum processing that is hyper efficient, but having one tiny chip with that tech won't be as good as a server room filled with it.
And I know it won't work exactly like that, brains are optimized for their natural size, it won't be a direct translation of mass and power, but ultimately, more is simply better

>>2476806
>let's say ostriches allocate .5% of their brain power to cognitive function.
false dichotomy

the parts of the brain used for cognition are the same parts used for other tasks. this is why you can't play chess and a video game at the same time. There is no allocation to specific tasks. When the part of your brain that thinks of peanut butter isn't thinking of peanut butter it's doing other things like thinking of porn or helping you run up the stairs.

there is no strictly "peanut butter" section of the brain just like there's no part allocated solely to cognition.

>>2476840
You're missing my point, it's not about allocation or delegation of ability, it's about total resources. an ostrich has very few resources and a very complex machine to run. It's about total excess resources. It's also not true by the way, there are plenty non essentials that uniquely contribute to cognitive function,

>>2473697
How does birb intelligence manifest itself?

>>2476861
>it's not about allocation
>comment was literally and completely about allocation
ok, thanks for clarifying.

>>2476875
allocation of resources. not allocation of cognition as some concrete part of the brain. Your comment does literally nothing to address my actual point.

File: fractal wrongness.jpg (127KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 750x600px

>>2476882
>Your comment does literally nothing to address my actual point.
except point out that your point is rendered incoherent by your complete lack of understanding how cognition works as a function of brain mass.

in that regard your actual point has been addressed in the only way it can be, by pointing out that it's not only wrong, but is based in wrong ideas.

you denying that that was your point also renders your point moot. If your point is about overall resources then a whale must be smarter than a human.

neither choice shows any real understanding of cognition and brain mass. You're an idiot, trying to spread your uneducated and stupid worldview to others. Which is cute, but don't expect it to work all the time.

>>2476892
You're just wrong, and not understand what I'm saying. the things that calculate eye hand cordination are not simultaneously calculating your homework. it all comes down to calculations. there's only so many the body can do outside of the bare essentials of even staying alive It doesn't matter how the brain manages these functions, the fact is, the processes the brain can do will always be finite. One of the physical factors that enforces this is mass.

>>2475044
Maybe give them shiny things too?

>>2475244
The mighty Croven will dominate.

>>2476892
As a third party reading this reply chain, you're simply ignorant of other anon's argument. You're attacking the paper he drew a house on rather than attacking the architecture of the drawing. It's pretty painful to read.

>>2477003
>you're simply ignorant of other anon's argument.
so when he says a percent of brain mass is allocated to cognition I should be able to read his mind and realize he doesn't mean that at all?

stop samefagging moron.

File: +.png (553B, 101x17px) Image search: [Google]

553B, 101x17px

>>2477006
that not me

>>2477012
>literally just cropped the (You) out
that's so lazy
at least post from a different device

>>2477015
I don't get it, why would posting from a different device prove it's not me?

>>2477018
It wouldn't.

but it would be a better attempt then just cropping a pic of the reply so it doesn't have the (You).

File: 555-come-on-now-1687205.png (133KB, 500x522px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 500x522px

>>2477006
>I have nothing to defend myself, what do I do?
>I know! I'll just call samefag!

>>2477015
Also the ip count wouldn't increase because I already posted itt: >>2474580

>>2477020
I don't understand how it factors in at all. both parties involved have already posted in the thread. It's not me, and no one in this world would go through the effort of cropping the you.

>>2477021
>defeated by logic
>I'll just attack the language
you're still retarded, samefag.

now it's even more obvious since "both of you" are posting at the same time.

what are the fucking odds?

>>2477024
there's nothing you can do to "prove" that you're not the person you're defending.

anything you try could be faked.

and really it doesn't matter because when someone says something completely retarded and another anon defends it we have either one or two retards.

Occam's razor indicates it's one. But who knows?

File: Screenshot_20170909-225616.jpg (431KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 1080x1920px

>>2477026
I'm a stupid phoneposter, retard.
But please, keep calling samefag. This is really amusing.

>>2477045
yes, there's no possible way you could samefag from a phone!

kek.

>>2477025
>defeated by logic
>totally ignores the main point and discusses unrelated semantics(incorrectly)

File: IMG_0675.jpg (145KB, 1111x597px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1111x597px

>>2477048
Yes, I'm not only samefagging to try to win an argument on 4chan, but I'm also editing images to look like they're from the yotsuba desktop theme and the tomorrow clover theme, and removing (your post) highlighting to make it look legit, and I'm doing this all from my phone.

I'm actually dying over here.

>>2477060
>I'm doing this all from my phone.
obviously you'd need 2 phones. Or a phone and a computer.

weird how both of you stopped posting for almost an hour and then both started again at the same time.

File: caw caw caw.jpg (190KB, 1416x1364px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 1416x1364px

>>2473964
It takes a lot of time. I have been feeding crows now for about 5 years. They call out to me when I go outside and I wave to them and say hello.

I like to feed them essentially the "scraps" or the food I don't finish eating. Anything from bread, cheese, lunch meat and for treats I sometimes buy them shredded chicken (they love that). They also bring me a lot of things like coins, money and other things (rings and such).

I also have hummingbirds that let me know when the hummingbird feeder is running low or it needs water on a hot day.

It is nice having those birds around. Sometimes I sit out in the back on the patio and I will have a few crows land and sit around me. I just sit back and enjoy their company. They love to be petted and are very social animals.

On a funny note I have convinced my ex-girlfriend that I am a magic man and the crows listen to me. I told her as long as nothing happens to my car or house she will be ok but if anything happens (so much as a scratch) I will know who did it because my crows tell me everything and she will be punished by them.

So if you are patient and want to get a reputation as someone who is scary that talks with crows and such then do that. Just remember it takes time and crows are a lot smarter then you might imagine and can be very bratty and obnoxious. One last thing you need to know - Crows use their beaks to interact with other crows. They will also use that with you. So prepare for a pinch or two. It is (mostly) not intentional or they are playing a prank (remember they can be obnoxious and bratty)

>>2477064
>Twentysomething minutes is almost an hour
>You whipped out your phone to samefag with, except the IP count didn't increase because [additional mental gymnastics which prove for a fact I'm not retarded]
>You posted at the same time! That PROVES samefag!
Also you never gave a counter argument to >>2476806, which is an analogy, but one based in fact since different parts of the brain do in fact do different things, and different animals balance the volume allocation according to their need.

Basically you're a paranoid idiot.

>>2477067
I see. But I can't really imagine them bringing you stuff? Sounds a bit made up, if you ask me..
However, where are you from? The US? And how did you start with them? Any photos?

>>2476865
Creative problem-solving, communication, social intelligence, pattern recognition, counting ability, learning and teaching.

>>2477071
>Also you never gave a counter argument to >>2476806,
I pointed out that there is not part of the brain used solely for cognition.

you agreed.

there is nothing to argue. The post was retarded and wrong and we both know it.

>>2478655
The post was a 10,000 mile view for purpose of simplicity in demonstration. You're just being autistic about it.

>>2478662
it generalized the concept to the point where it became false, thus defeating the point it was trying to make and instead making a different, wrong point.

>>2478663
It didn't, because regardless of how you measure it, some percentage of the total computational power of a given brain absolutely is dedicatable to "higher" thinking. What you should have attacked was the notion that brain mass is the most important variable, when it really isn't. Equally or more important is brain structure, organization, and density. But you went off on an autistic tirade about the nitty gritty details of a high level argument.

>>2478667
>regardless of how you measure it, some percentage of the total computational power of a given brain absolutely is dedicatable to "higher" thinking.
You're still pretending brains are computers.

brains don't have a measurable computational power, and you thinking they do displays a gross ignorance of biology.

>>2478667
>a high level argument.
you wouldn't pass elementary school biology with that bullshit.

>>2478673
They have a finite amount of computational power, which means it is in fact measurable. We're just not far enough along to directly measure it. Just because you don't have a ruler doesn't mean a bridge has no length.

>>2478676
High level means with extremely coarse granularity. It's meant to illustrate, you fucking brainlet.

>>2478667
>some percentage of the total computational power of a given brain absolutely is dedicatable to "higher" thinking
that's not how brains work, that's not how any of this works

>>2478679
>Just because you don't have a ruler doesn't mean a bridge has no length
If nobody has a ruler then the bridge has no length.

because both the metric and the measure are constructs, and without one the other cannot exist.

> It's meant to illustrate, you fucking brainlet.
I don't think it is. I also don't think it's an analogy.

every time you've tried to describe brain function you've instead described computer functions. I don't think you actually understand the difference. I think you literally believe brains behave like machines. I think you have a sub-average IQ and can't imagine complex systems with overlapping scope and the emergent properties they produce. I think you're fucked in the head and pretending not to be. Desperately hoping someone will validate your childish understanding of the world and your place in it.

>>2478679
>means it is in fact measurable
not meaningfully. every individual, every second of the day, every change in body chemistry in millions of ways, every degree of temperature would give you a different value

>>2478680
Please explain to me how the autonomic nervous system helps me process abstract concepts. Oh, it doesn't? Well then measure the percentage of the brain which isn't that system and you have a more accurate answer than "I don't know".

>>2478684
Length doesn't exist because nobody has a ruler? So before humans existed, the universe occupied zero space then?
>Brains aren't machines
They are as much machines as cells are, as dna is code, as proteins are functions. Just because we don't understand doesn't mean there is no metric. Brains absolutely are subject to the physical laws of the universe, so they are subject to the limits of computation given by thermodynamic bounds for a volume, mass, and energy. Computation here means any physical operation on information, which is what our brains do. Our brains are very sophisticated biological computers. Our senses are the inputs, and our body is the output.
You don't need to be a condescending asshole. I use computing terminology because I'm familiar with it having worked in cs my whole adult life. It works though, because the universe can be described in computation and everything is subject to the physical laws of our universe. As we begin to understand more about brains you'll see a shift from using weak terminology based in a meager understanding, to a strong terminology based in existing information theory. This is already beginning with the current heavy research into AI.

>>2478685
And? Even plus or minus 50% would be of incredible value. At the very (very!) least, we're subject to an upper bound of 1.36x10^50 bits per second of computational drive per kilogram of mass, the Bremermann limit.

>>2478706
>So before humans existed, the universe occupied zero space then?
probably, but that's a different question.

length the measurement is not the same as length the property. You're confusing your understanding of reality with actual reality.

you do that a lot.

just because the brain can be compared to a computer does not make it a computer. Just because a cell can be compared to a machine does not make it a machine.

and the mere fact that no metric exists to measure computing power in a brain should tell you this.

>>2478706
>Please explain to me how the autonomic nervous system helps me process abstract concepts.
by keeping you alive and thinking dumbfuck

>>2478706
>Even plus or minus 50% would be of incredible value
no, it wouldn't and also not going to get that. I'm dumb as shit while I'm asleep and you're dumb as shit all day long.

>>2478709
>>2478710
>>2478712
This is painful. You've been samefagging for the last few posts but I was giving benefit of doubt. However Your inability to grasp abstract thought, your writing style, your post times, and the ip counter all point to it being the case. Please keep in mind I'm still not >>2476806, just an anon who saw an idiot and jumped on it. But I'm getting tired of it now. You aren't really amusing anymore and actually you're pretty annoying. So if you want, I'll give you last say. I won't be replying any more.

>>2478667
I never said mass was the most important variable, but it IS a variable, and it DOES matter

>>2478673
brains ARE computers. At least in the sense that it takes energy and mass to calculate. Brains are very advanced computers that work completely alien to other computers, but they are absolutely computational devices, they're subject to the laws of physics.

>>2478740
brains ARE pulleys. At least in the sense that it takes energy and mass to do work. Brains are very advanced pulleys that work completely alien to other pulleys, but they are absolutely leveraging devices, they're subject to the laws of physics.


just because you understand a thing in a certain way doesn't make it true.

in reality computational devices were invented by brains, not the other way round. And computers don't evolve or exist in nature without a brain to produce them.

so brains aren't computers. computers are very poor copies of brains.

>>2478745
Are you really denying the fact that it takes energy and mass for a brain to calculate, and that it in fact calculates variables to figure things out? cause these are literally the only premise you'd have to accept to realize that a larger brain = more brain power, with all other factors the same.
To deny this is to state that the brain is made of magic, going against all neurological knowledge

>>2478755
>these are literally the only premise you'd have to accept to realize that a larger brain = more brain power, with all other factors the same.
that's why whales and elephants have superior fighter jets I guess.

your conclusion is false so we can assume there might be a flaw with your premise.

>>2478755
>To deny this is to state that the brain is made of magic, going against all neurological knowledge
only if we assume that the brain always or regularly calculates at full speed and is thus limited by mass.

which of course is false. Biology isn't optimized. My brain is very likely smaller than yours but I am orders of magnitude smarter than you are.

>>2478760
>with all other factors the same.
What's with the selective reading buddy? We've been over this many times. No one is saying mass is the most important variable.
And if there's a flaw with my premise you should really point it out to the scientific community, cause you'd break pretty much every core law of science by denying that brains are beholden to things like the speed of light, entropy, energy and so on. Brains are not magic. They can't create something from nothing.

>>2478763
>only if we assume that the brain always or regularly calculates at full speed and is thus limited by mass.
No not at all. I mean, first of all, brains calculate as much as they can without becoming too hot or stressed. And even if they ran sub-optimally, they would still hold to these rules.
I don't know why you think your brain is smaller, that's relatively unlikely.

>>2478735
>ur samefaggin not me because i dont have a refutation
Holy kek

>>2478764
>What's with the selective reading buddy?
the factors you pretend to describe are unknown and potentially don't even exist.

Like I said, my brain is indistinguishable from yours, that doesn't make them equal in ability. In fact we don't know why they differ.

and until we do it might as well be magic for your complete inability to explain it.

>>2478765
>brains calculate as much as they can without becoming too hot or stressed
false.

like most biological organs they have huge safety factors. They perform at a fraction of capacity at best.

>>2478771
It literally doesn't matter how the brain works, it still operates within the laws of physics. There is no theoretical way that it would not have to follow the laws of physics. There's no reason to think brains are magic, they get hot, so they consume energy, they send signals, so there's a physical mechanism for thought. You keep going back to the nebulous nature of a brain, or the diversity of brains(and no one is denying this), but there is no brain that is made of magic.
>>2478772
That's what I said. As much as they can without becoming too hot or stressed, those are safety factors. You're correcting me on something I already pointed out. And you know what's a way to increase intensity without increasing heat or stress? more mass.

>>2478774
>it still operates within the laws of physics.
laws which were formulated by brains. it's possible for those brains to be mistaken or acting on incomplete information. In fact we know they are, that's the founding premise of science.
>you know what's a way to increase intensity without increasing heat or stress?
you're again assuming heat or stress are limiting factors. Evolution causes organs to operate at peak performance well below any potentially limiting factors.

heat and stress don't limit your brain's performance. Nor does size. It is self limiting, there is no selective value in bumping up against physical ceilings on performance.

>>2478776
>In fact we know they are, that's the founding premise of science.
Yeah, and if science discovered any reason to think brains didn't follow the laws of heat and speed of light, that's be something we'd fucking notice, The laws that enforce these premises are so fundamental that you'd be a greater genius than Einstein and Newton combined if you figured out how the brain operated outside them. And of course heat and stress are limiting factors. The brain might never get even close to touching those limits, but those are still the factors that make it limiting itself, it'd still be further from those limits with more mass. That's also a total meme btw, the brain is not that restricted. the "the brain only runs at 10% capacity" meme is a myth, just so we're clear

>>2478783
>The brain might never get even close to touching those limits
then they aren't limits in biology. A limit that's never reached isn't a real biological limit.

in real life nutrition is closer to being a real limit but even then brains operate well below the threshold where they run out of energy.

Nobody has implied that they're magic except you because you substitute magic for things you can't explain. You'd do better substituting some biology texts, but there we are.

>>2478786
Nigga, the brain is limited because it does not want to get too hot, that is why it limits itself. Thus hotness is the limiting factor, even if the treshold is much lower than it needs to be. Heat is also what burns up calories and energy.
And it's you that keep implying the brain can operate outside the laws of physics, which is magic.

>>2478788
>Nigga, the brain is limited because it does not want to get too hot, that is why it limits itself.
whales must be geniuses then. and polar bears. No way some ape from the tropics could beat their performance because that limiting heat!

ah well, dude you're a lost cause. You're uneducated and unwilling to admit it. That's an unbeatable combination, you refuse to learn.

>>2478789
>whales must be geniuses then. and polar bears.
yes, if there are no other factors to consider, which obviously there are, we've been over this.
Also you keep using whales as some kinda refutation, but they've gotta be one of, if not the smartest clade of animals out there.

>>2478791
>if there are no other factors to consider,
what are those factors?
you seem very uncomfortable with the fact that we don't know what they are.

that you can't explain them so in your tiny little head that must imply magic.

>>2478793
>what are those factors?
all kinds of things, like brain morphometry. It really doesn't matter what they are though, it's not relevant to the discussion unless they are outside the laws of physics.

>>2478794
>like brain morphometry
it's been tried. It explains some differences but fails at the individual level.

>it's not relevant to the discussion unless they are outside the laws of physics
impossible since even if they are the laws of physics will be expanded to encompass them. Your error is in believing those laws to be complete.

your other error is in thinking the constraints on intelligence are strictly physical and not mediated by emergent factors of the environment.

>>2478795
>Your error is in believing those laws to be complete
It's not about believing them complete, it's in trusting the most core knowledge of science until proven otherwise. These are the laws of science that are so rock solid that we disprove theories based on their adherence to those laws. And what do you kean the individual level? Brains of individuals are physically distinct

>>2478798
>Brains of individuals are physically distinct
there are morphologies correlated to specific pathologies but no distinct markers associated with nonpathological variations in performance.

biology doesn't defy the laws of physics, it just isn't explained by them. it is too complex. That's why practitioners of hard science look down on it. It's messy, chaotic. But ultimately it's far more complex than physics and its laws as they currently stand.

physics keeps delving smaller, biology is going in the exact opposite direction. Which gives physics 0 explanatory power in biology.

Also the fact that you say I refuse to accept that I don't understand while hinging your theory on the idea that the brain has some hidden mechanism to calculate outside of all known physical law is pretty rich

>>2478801
>the brain has some hidden mechanism to calculate outside of all known physical law is pretty rich
biologists accept this as simple fact.

systems behaviors are constrained by physics but the laws of physics don't describe them.

>>2478800
>there are morphologies correlated to specific pathologies but no distinct markers associated with nonpathological variations in performance.
Brains are incredibly advanced. Just because we havent seen what makes for every characteristic doesn't mean it isn't there. And youre right, physics can't explain biology, but as you said, biology doesn't defy physics. This is a matter of physics.

>>2478803
>This is a matter of physics.
It is literally a matter of biology.

very likely an irreducible one.

>>2478802
>biologists accept this as simple fact.
No one accepts this. It isn't true. I didn't say there was a mechanism that defied description. I said a mechanism that defied physics itself. You seem to wollfully read what I'm writing wrong. You're so focused on "winning" this discussion that you keep dropping part of the picture.

>>2478807
>I said a mechanism that defied physics itself
physics has yet to establish laws for biology, so at the moment it does defy the laws of physics.

as I said, the laws will expand to encompass it eventually. It's not magic, it just isn't physics.

File: 1504031719717.jpg (59KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1000x1000px

>>2478846

File: thinkin.jpg (38KB, 456x495px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 456x495px

>>2478846
Now this is a good post

>>2478846
not equal evidence however.

because one constitutes 1 out of several million possible samples while the other constitutes 34 out of a sample approaching infinity.

one out of millions is a much larger sample than 34 out of nearly infinity.

the problem of induction indicates that neither is particularly strong evidence, and even if the supposition is proven at this time there's no particular reason to think it will remain true in future.

>>2478808
>physics has yet to establish laws for biology
Physics has established laws for energy though. Biology isn't exempt, meaning it's not a matter of biology

>>2478808
>at the moment biology does defy the laws of physics
What the fuck is going on in this thread

Fucking crows.
I've heard in Australia they introduced frogs that are poisonous to birds. So crows learned to eat the safe parts.

>>2478808
Vitalism called and wanted its argument back.

>>2479000
>Biology isn't exempt, meaning it's not a matter of biology
sure, if anon was correct about brains being limited by heat or stress it would be a simple matter of physics.

he's wrong though, so it's not.

to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail.
to a man with physics everything looks reducible.

File: 20120321.gif (289KB, 576x2992px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 576x2992px

>>2479186
One of the most irritating things to physicists is the fact that their laws don't predict the behaviors of biological systems.

because of this insult they have to pretend biologists believe in magic or voodoo.

it's really much simpler than that. Biological systems are too complex for physics alone to model. Too many interactions going on. And physicists' brains aren't up to the task of handling that complexity.

it's not magic, you're just stupid.

>>2479254
>>2479262
Problem here is that you're wrong. This matter is very easily reduced to the physical parameters of the situation, the complexity of the brain is irrelevant to the actual discussion, which is "would a brain theoretically be able to do more with more mass" and "can size be a limitation to the processing power of a brain" both are absolutely known facts, yes, and yes. You for some reason decided you don't want this, and you're clinging to "physicists don't understand biology" as if that somehow changes physical law. Your argument that physics can't predict biology is totally irrelevant, because this isn't about whether physics can predict biology, but about whether physics can predict physics, which it can. You're applying an abstract field rivalry to a specific question because you don't actually have real knowledge of either. Not that the average biologist has deep understanding of the brain anyways, it's a neurology, which is as much, or more, chemistry/endocrinology

>>2479272
not him, but after reading this whole thread I think you're stretching what's been said a bit too far

>>2479272
>"would a brain theoretically be able to do more with more mass" and "can size be a limitation to the processing power of a brain"
strictly speaking neither question has a yes answer though.

larger brains are not necessarily more intelligent. This is also a well-known fact.

so there are other factors limiting the evolution of intelligence. Anon proposes physical limits such as stress and heat, which are also both known to be false.

the simple truth is we don't know why human brains are more intelligent than elephants or crows, and that bothers the reductionist. How can you tell yourself you know everything when there are still unknowns? Cognitive dissonance causes anger and denial. There can't possibly be a thing you can't explain....

>>2479272
>You're applying an abstract field rivalry to a specific question because you don't actually have real knowledge of either
I actually just enjoy watching practitioners of "hard" science lose their minds when they finally realize theirs is actually the simpler, easier pursuit.

biology is beyond the rigorous mathematical mind. That's a funny thing right there.

>>2479272
>both are absolutely known facts, yes, and yes.
I'd love to read your citations for this.

because while brain size has been correlated to intelligence in all humans, that does not imply that individually larger brains are more intelligent or that brain size is limiting intelligence.

I suppose that might be hard for the non-scientist to grasp though.

>>2479254
>>2479262
>>2479272
You dummo's are just talking past each other

>>2479441
Not really.

I understand cs-anon's arguments perfectly. He willfully misunderstands mine.

the actual limit on intelligence is mental, not physical. We already have humans with extremely high intelligence, much higher than normal. They have severely reduced fecundity and survival rates.

they tend to kill themselves. Or engage in self-destructive behaviors. Or refuse to reproduce.

the reasons for these behaviors are mental, and have a solid basis in evolution, but the fact is intelligence is self-limiting and increasing brain size or cooling capacity won't change that. You don't need a particularly large brain to understand that intelligence is at some scope and resolution entirely useless.

File: Henry_(FE13_Artwork).png (589KB, 1000x1284px) Image search: [Google]

589KB, 1000x1284px

>>2477067

File: 4d9.png (124KB, 382x491px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 382x491px

>>2479612
>>>/x/

>>2479622
>how do I google "intelligence and suicide?"
>how do I google "intelligence and birth rate?"
>how do I google "intelligence and depression?"
when you're a moron everything is magic.

File: F64FA991FB5649E48D78F4A7624B0C171741000001B4975A32F7.jpg (62KB, 616x960px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 616x960px

>>2479626
Oh man, you're green texting contextless correlations and calling me names! I'm in some deep shit now! How will I ever recover from all the not evidence you've given me?

>>2479631
why would you expect anyone to give you something you're too stupid to find yourself?

for that matter if you were intelligent enough to understand the problem you'd be suffering from it.

>>2479631
>calling me names!
you don't appreciate the irony of calling extreme intelligence a disease and then saying you're perfectly healthy? That's not an insult. You're remarkably normal. Maybe a little too normal.

File: salty.jpg (35KB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 400x225px

>>2479632
>>2479633
>So salty he had to break it into two posts.
Thanks for the (you)s!

>>2479636
Intelligence is plagued with failures in communication.

if you speak and nobody understands, does speech have meaning? And what is intelligence for if not to find and convey meaning? And what use is an organ that consistently fails to do its assigned task?

I am not angry at you, I'm talking to myself. Ut Latine loqui potest.

I came here for Ravens, but instead I read a thread full of the deranged babbling of a complete autist who has no attachment to reality and can't even comprehend the concept of being grounded. Seek help anon. You're not being enigmatic, you're simply speaking nonsense.

>>2479681
the thread is about EQ and corvid intelligence.

it begins with the false assumption that humans aren't part of the animal kingdom or that corvid intelligence is comparable to human.

it then asks if increasing EQ will also increase IQ, ignoring the fact that even animals of similar EQ's (humans) vary wildly in IQ, and that similar EQ's don't produce similar IQ's when humans are compared to other animals.

For biologists that know humans are animals this presents an interesting problem- that EQ isn't predictive in humans and thus may not be in corvids or any other taxon either. That in fact EQ isn't the deciding factor in IQ.

You are of course free to talk about how you fantasize about crow civilizations or masturbate to images of crowbois or love crow cartoons but honestly you're the one that's off topic. Your failure to understand the topic doesn't make you right or interesting. Just a bit dull and in the wrong thread. Not everyone that's smarter than you is autistic, if you were the magic benchmark of normalcy then over half of the world's population would be autistic simply because they're smarter than you.

>>2479369
>strictly speaking neither question has a yes answer though.
then why don't whales have 1 cm brains and infinite brain power?

>>2479371
hey, dumdum, biology is a hard science.

>>2479722
because they need a brain larger than 1 cm to operate their bodies and they have no use for infinite brain power. There is no selective pressure for them to be smarter. They don't survive by their wits.

a better question is why did humans require such extreme intelligence to survive, and how did they manage to evolve it with such relatively small brains.

File: 1334010540766.jpg (45KB, 496x446px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 496x446px

>>2479723
>hey, dumdum, biology is a hard science.
kek
that was a meme on /sci/
>biology
>a hard science

File: laughing.png (513KB, 485x880px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 485x880px

>>2479724
>they have no use for infinite brainpower
>they have no use for infinite brainpower
>that's why their brains don't have it
>this was said by an adult who thinks he/she is in any way invested in the sciences
Holy shit, all arguments void, you're just insanely misguided

>>2479730
Ah, you believe evolution optimizes outcomes spontaneously.

Of course you're mistaken. Whales have been around for tens of millions of years longer than humans have, so if higher intelligence was just a normal outcome of evolution they'd be far smarter than we are. As would crows, who have also existed far longer than humans.

in real life increased intelligence isn't some magical outcome of evolution. Just like any other trait or behavior it has to pay a larger benefit than its costs. Ravens and whales are both extremely smart for non-human animals, but despite being around dozens of times longer than we have they never reached our level of intelligence and never will.

because there's no pressure pushing them towards that sort of intelligence, and indeed their bodies aren't capable of using it if they had it.

>>2479734
No, but I believe brains have scale for a reason. Why do you think controlling a body requires mass, but thought doesn't?
Why are animals with high brain to body ratio on average smarter?
Yes, intelligence is a product of evolution, but you could have infinite earths going on infinitely, and a 1x1 cm brain will never have more intelligence than a humans. A humans brain doesn't calculate beyond what we know to be its physical limitations, by the way.

>>2479738
>Why do you think controlling a body requires mass, but thought doesn't?
it certainly requires mass.
that doesn't imply that increasing mass will increase thought. As numerous animals with EQ's similar to our own prove.

There has to be a selective pressure driving the animal to dedicate that "excess" mass to thought. Even then the ability for thought varies widely even in brains that are exactly the same mass. There are people with smaller brains than you or me that are also much smarter than either of us. So increasing mass isn't necessary for increasing cognition nor does it cause increased cognition by itself.

>>2479739
>it certainly requires mass.
That's all I need
>that doesn't imply that increasing mass will increase thought.
That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying it's a potential inhibitor. And comparing us to other animals is not an argument, we have different neurology, there's no reason to assume that our neurology upscaled couldn't do more. The brain isn't so complex that every neuron is allocated to specific tasks, they adapt, and if there are more of them, then more of them will be used. Our genetics work in part because they're flexible, if you get a healthy increase in brain mass it won't sit there vacant until some new mutation comes in and finds a use for it.

>>2479741
>I'm saying it's a potential inhibitor.
yes, but it's not a real inhibitor.

the actual limit on human intelligence (and likely any other animal intelligence) is mental. It is the point where the animal becomes intelligent enough to both not need higher thought to survive and realize that higher thought is self-defeating in a very real biological sense. As soon as you understand the meaning and purpose of life you very quickly lose interest in it.

>>2479741
>there's no reason to assume that our neurology upscaled couldn't do more
aside from the fact I've already mentioned-
we already have people with upscaled neurology and they tend to kill themselves or simply not reproduce.

>>2479742
>but it's not a real inhibitor.
how do you know this? We know human brains consume more energy when they are exercised more, even with our "mental blocks". And while some people are immensely more intelligent, often due to some kinda brain abnormality rather than different nurtue, that doesn't mean that other people aren't using their brains to the fullest, they're just taking another, less optimized route to their thought process. While it'd be nice if we all had super optimized brains, it doesn't mean more resources to brute force calculation wouldn't make us smarter. which is why large(relatively, if you mention whales again I'll get really pissy I'm warning you), neuron dense brains are generally the smartest

>>2479744
I never said being smarter would be better. or that people with larger brains would NECESSARILY be better

>>2479746
>how do you know this?
Because people with larger brains aren't necessarily smarter,
and smarter people tend to agree that higher intelligence than normal is more of a curse than a useful tool.

look, what if we evolved the ability to see into the future and then saw that humanity meets a terrible end in a few years? This is similar to intelligence, people that understand things better than normal very quickly realize everything we're doing is pointless. Utterly and completely pointless. So they take up drinking or opiates or they just off themselves.

this is the normal result of much higher intelligence, and no highly intelligent person thinks humans should aim for it. We know what's behind that curtain, and the answer will very likely kill you.

>>2479747
>I never said being smarter would be better
a trait that kills the bearer or reduces fecundity will weed itself out of the gene pool on its own.

so just like life itself is a self-licking ice cream cone, extreme intelligence is a self-destroying adaptation. Adding more brain mass won't change that, at best it would kill off more people.

>>2479750
Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTP_RdWLs4A

>>2479750
I don't think we ever really discussed the evolutionary viability, OP is referring to selective breeding

>>2479778
OP's question is easily answered by both evolution and selective breeding though.

are larger dogs more intelligent? science says no.

are larger wild birds more intelligent? again the answer is no.

even if size were somehow the limiting factor on intelligence in crows, breeding larger ones won't cause higher intelligence by itself because size alone doesn't correlate very well with intelligence. There has to be a selective pressure driving it, and from what we know of domestic animals selective breeding isn't enough.

>>2479779
>are larger dogs more intelligent? science says no.
well yeah according to everything I've said they wouldn't be.
>>2479779
>are larger wild birds more intelligent? again the answer is no.
yeah well according to everything I've said they wouldn't be.

>>2479780
>well yeah according to everything I've said they wouldn't be
then size isn't the limiting factor on intelligence. If you remove a single limit and it doesn't change the outcome, that limit alone wasn't the problem.

>>2479780
In the first case we'd expect the opposite since smaller dogs have larger EQ's due to paedomorphy.

in the second we'd predict larger birds to have the larger EQ due to simple interspecific allometry.

neither prediction is strictly true. The most intelligent birds and dogs both tend to be medium-sized. EQ isn't predictive in dogs but is in birds.

>>2479784
>then size isn't the limiting factor on intelligence.
Not necessarily. The examples you have don't have bigger brains relative to body size.

>>2479790
>The most intelligent birds and dogs both tend to be medium-sized.
Actually the most intelligent birds DO have bigger brains relative to their body on average

Alright OP here.
This thread went nowhere. You have 10 posts to convince me not to start a giant gene modification project to make giantheaded, flightless crows for data entry.

>>2474374
it is plasticity not adaptability

>>2474335

>They are not just bigger crows, they are separate species in the same genus

Just like blacks and whites amrite?

>>2479858
Those are literally synonyms.

>>2479885
>Just like blacks and whites amrite?
no. like humans and neanderthals.

>>2473697
Octopus

>>2479891
octopus are overrated. you could are their entire body is a brain and they're still not smart enough to do maths or poetry

>>2479889
Blacks arent human or neanderthal

>>2479793
>>2479794
all this time and you not only don't know what EQ is but didn't bother to look it up.

what a waste of human flesh you are.