jackson@utzoo.uucp (Don Jackson) (03/04/88)
Patricia Simpson writes (9051@princeton.Princeton.EDU): >Crows are intelligent, it seems to me. And if I were to post observations ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >about the diversity of sounds which crows communicate, I am certain that >no long, vilifying harangues would follow. You are absolutely correct that if you post observations about the diversity of sounds which crows communicate, that you would not evoke a response from me. However, if you state that wild crows are more intelligent than any other animal, then you might find a posting from me to consider. I repeat what I stressed in my original posting. What someone *subjectively* evaluates as intelligence does not imply that given a different set of criteria for intelligence, the animal would still be regarded as intelligent. You have pointed out the flaw in the original posting about parrots being more intelligent than a 3+ year old human child. Specifically, you state that "Crows are intelligent" with the qualifying statement "it seems to me". You feel that the ability to make and respond to sounds indicates intelligence. I believe that your set of criteria are rather narrow and anthropocentric. Many animals communicate with means other than by sound, but I do not feel that this makes them any more or less intelligent than those communicating by sound. >Say what you mean. There are serious issues for discussion here, regarding >the morality/immorality/causes/effects/joys/sorrows of capturing and >raising birds. If this is what the argument is about, argue it! Patricia, I really don't care if you or anyone else want to keep pet birds. I do not have pet birds but do have fish. If you wish to keep a pet, keep it but do not jump to the conclusion that I feel all birds or any other animal must be free. You have "read between the lines" in an unbelievable fashion and concluded that I don't like some people or that I don't like pet birds. Please try to refrain from such extrapolations in future. Tracy Larrabee (308@bacchus.DEC.COM) writes about another *intelligent* parrot at Purdue: >He has also plucked all the feathers off his body that he can reach. Great! A definite sign of intelligence. It seems to me that this is about as intelligent as mankind building more nuclear weapons. Slightly self-destructive in both cases, isn't it? Again, Tracy seems to have missed the point. The measure of intelligence is very subjective and biased by the framework of the study. Everyone excited about their intelligent parrot has been concentrating on their communication by sound. This is purely subjective. I admit that parrots may be *intelligent* but more intelligent than a 3+ year old child simply because the parrot talks? I think you folks are stretching things a little thin! -- Name: Don Jackson Mail: Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 UUCP: {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!jackson