Pond Boss
Posted By: TGW1 Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/21/16 11:31 AM
Oxford University fish study proves we pond owners may have Smart Fish. Did you know fish can recognize you from other people? Yep they can! They can even recognize small changes in human faces 80% of the time. The fish could pick out different faces on computer screen. They have social structure, and can perform complex behaviors. They may even use tools to perform tasks. Maybe they are smarter than we think they are, and that might be why they are not so easy to catch in some ponds. They learn not to bite. If they can recognize faces, they can recognize that artificial bait! Maybe that is why the Florida bass becomes tougher to catch over time. They may just be smarter than we humans think they are smile

Tracy
Posted By: Lovnlivin Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/21/16 12:37 PM
Tracy, that's crazy you bring that up!

Every morning at 7AM the HSB and LMB explode on the fish food which is the best time to catch the elusive HSB. So wanting family and friends to experience the fight, I've had several show up (one at a time) at 7AM to have nary a fish take the bait, let alone eat any food, yet the days before and after is a feeding frenzy.

So it seems I now have an excuse! grin
Posted By: NEDOC Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/21/16 01:06 PM
I have the same problem Keith.
Posted By: Lovnlivin Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/21/16 01:12 PM
I'll go out with a mask on tomorrow morning and see what happens shocked .
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/21/16 03:23 PM
And to think they spent all that time and money to try and prove what most of us already know. They should've just called and asked.

We spend time carefully debating whether a response is conditioned, intuitive, or learned, when in reality they all stem from the same source.....fish learn. Call it what you will, differentiate how you see fit, but fish have a degree or mechanism of intelligence that permits learning.
Posted By: ewest Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/21/16 06:14 PM
Its been a while since this has been discussed.

Much of fish biology is still a mystery - like what do they see , colors or not ; how does their brain work , - learn , condition , genetic response etc ; what makes them tick - do what they do and more.

We just don't know. So here is one we can take a poll on - do fish reason (have the ability for abstract thought)? What say you ?
Posted By: Bill Cody Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/21/16 06:20 PM
TGW1 Do you have a link to that study that showed fish recognize faces on a computer screen?
Posted By: ewest Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/21/16 07:53 PM
Here

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep27523
Posted By: RRWJ Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/21/16 08:15 PM
Like my grandpa used to tell me,you aint holden your mouth right
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/21/16 09:08 PM
Put me down for a "yes".
Posted By: Turtlemtn Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/21/16 11:09 PM
They not only learn, but they communicate to the others. Every fish in the pond doesn't have to learn the hard way. Catch and release a few, and they stop hitting. Sometimes I can catch a bunch the first time I try a new lure, but the next time not nearly as many, and after that few or none. Somehow, they collectively learn.
Posted By: ewest Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 01:00 AM
When subjected to extreme stress ( hooked , stabbed by a bird, chased by an otter , grabbed by a predator etc ) fish release a chemical (fear response ) that other fish detect . I don't think they do like Nemo and talk to each other .
Posted By: poppy65 Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 01:36 AM
No mystery here. Of course they are smart because most of them attend schools. grin
Posted By: RRWJ Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 02:23 AM
How many times you guys catching those fish? I know I have caught the same fish on the same bait year after year several times. And Im not that good? I think its in your head, think positive.
Posted By: anthropic Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 08:24 AM
Originally Posted By: ewest
Its been a while since this has been discussed.

Much of fish biology is still a mystery - like what do they see , colors or not ; how does their brain work , - learn , condition , genetic response etc ; what makes them tick - do what they do and more.

We just don't know. So here is one we can take a poll on - do fish reason (have the ability for abstract thought)? What say you ?


Fish can solve problems involving survival. They learn from experience, too. So in that sense they are intelligent, as are a great many animals. Heck, even brainless bacteria self-mutate to deal with environmental stressors.

But abstract thought is another thing.
Posted By: TGW1 Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 11:01 AM
Originally Posted By: Bill Cody
TGW1 Do you have a link to that study that showed fish recognize faces on a computer screen?


Bill, my thanks goes out to ewest for his quick response as per your request smile He is always on top of the Game !!
ewest, reasoning? I would think the litter sneaker BG is doing that when he waits and watches for the opportunity to rush in and spawn when no one is looking smile I can just see him, like comparing him to a guy "ACTING" like he is just taking a stroll in an area and then when the opportunity arises, BAM !! Or selecting what to eat when she says to herself "Not that one, it looks "artificial". We all have to admit, some baits really look and act real, but still gets no bite because they have seen it before. I read years ago the plastic worm is the only bait the lmb will eat time after time. So maybe not. Anyone else? lol

Tracy
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 11:13 AM
Anyone else ever witness your CC feeding on the surface, scattered over an area, and making simultaneous turns and movements, like a flock of birds? Not implying abstract intelligence with this behavior, just find it fascinating.
Posted By: djstauder Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 02:28 PM
Erik,
If a hooked fish releases chemicals, why is it that you can catch several fish in the same area? Is the impulse to eat stronger than the chemical response?

Dan
Posted By: Bill Cody Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 03:21 PM
Lusk calls it conditioning not learning.
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 03:52 PM
I propose that conditioning is learning. A definition of simple learning, is a change in behavior caused by experience. The native BG population in our ponds had never seen a pellet, or been on a feeding program before, yet now they associate the sound of my voice with supper time and come running.

Not only that, but they show a marked trepidation towards eating when someone is with me, rather than being alone.

Maybe it's just me, but I have always felt a certain reluctance when the whole conditioning/ learning thing has come up in the past? Am I overlooking a possible ramification associated with discovering fish learn?
Posted By: ewest Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 08:54 PM
Lots of good questions guys. Not sure anyone knows the real answers. Fun to guess !

First have to give credit - " poppy65 - No mystery here. Of course they are smart because most of them attend schools. grin "

A classic there - thanks for the humor !!! cool

" anthropic Fish can solve problems involving survival"

Yes that is called evolution - if they don't they end up in the ash ben of history. The purpose (definition) of fitness for fish is to survive long enough to reproduce the next generation. The great majority (my guess 90%)of all hatched do not meet the fitness test as they become lunch or a casualty to the environment.

" djstauder - If a hooked fish releases chemicals, why is it that you can catch several fish in the same area? Is the impulse to eat stronger than the chemical response?"

There are a number of competing forces that effect fish behavior like danger , hunger , reproduction , physical (hot/cold , water quality and other stressors). How they all work in conjunction we just don't know. If a bunch of fish are in an area at the time they will be in different states as these traits (some real hungry , some scared , some stresses by other factors and some doing just right). When one gets stressed and releases a fear signal some will keep eating , some will run off , some will just watch and others may get angry. The more the fear chemical that is released the more they all move to fear status and or run off. Who knows at what point which fish react which way but when the stressors get to high they will react.

" sprkplug - Am I overlooking a possible ramification associated with discovering fish learn?"

Excellent question ! It is a question of definition. Conditioning or learning (intelligence). Where do we draw the line ? That is why I ask ? rational thought/reasoning/abstract thought. Much of life on earth is subject to conditioning , maybe all of it is. Not much is capable of reasoning/abstract thought. The great bulk is in-between being a combination of genetics/survival instinct plus conditioning. The more advanced the animal the more likely some form of learning occurs. The truth is there is a whole lot we don't know or understand and that is why people keep doing studies like trying to get a fish to spit on a screen.

This may help some.

http://www.animalbehavioronline.com/conditioning.html


Conditioning

Much of animal learning is captured by the conditioning paradigm. In its simplest form (probably what actually happens under field conditions) an association is formed between an action and a reward. Associative learning allows birds to efficiently find bugs under rocks and bees to find nectar in specific flowers. This simple type of learning allows animals to behave efficiently, seeking resources where they have been found before, or collecting them in ways that have worked previously.

Learned associations can be built using normal stimulus-response patterns. A normal stimulus, such as the odor of food, elicits salivation in dogs. These are termed the unconditioned stimulus (US) and unconditioned response (UCR). When Pavlov rang the bell at the same time he presented food (a US), the bell became what we can a conditioned stimulus (CS). Though the bell is irrelevant to normal feeding in a dog, the dog associates the bell with the food (the US with the CS) and eventually responds by salivating when the bell is run (CS) even if no food is present.

Taking this one step further, many animals are able to build an association with a reward between seemingly irrelevant actions and stimuli, if the stimulus is given at the time the reward is received. You can teach your dog to "shake" hands when you present your hand, based on the dogs expectation of receiving a food reward after shaking. Once the association between your hand signal and the dogs' extension of its paw is built, then you can stop giving the food reward. Such behavior is built on positive reinforcement--association of the desired action with the receipt of a reward.

Not all animals can learn something as irrelevant to their biology as shaking hands. Ease of conditioned learning is often dictated by the importance of the stimulus and response to the animal species' evolutionary history and ecological conditions.

You might think that negative reinforcement would be effective in the same way as positive reinforcement. Indeed, many animals can be taught boundaries based on painful experiences, such as electric fences or shock collars. Most training using negative reinforcement, though, is less effective than positive reinforcement. This is because when being trained using positive reinforcement, an animal is encouraged to associate an act with the reward because the trainer is planning, in advance, to elicit the desired response. Going back to the example of dog shaking hands, it is likely that you would start the training by showing the dog the food. This would get her interest, and helps to build the association between the desired behavior and subsequent reward.

Negative reinforcement, on the other hand, generally comes after an act which the trainer cannot predict. If your dog urinates on the floor, and you then hit the dog, will it associate the punishment with the bad behavior? Likely not, because it was unaware that punishment was likely before it urinated--and even if the association is made, how does the dog know what alternative behavior will receive a positive reward? Urinary retention is a more common result that learning to go outside to urinate. Moving the urinating dog to an appropriate location, combined with positive reinforcement, is much more likely to achieve the desired result. Understanding this critical difference between positive and negative reinforcement in training is an important step in learning how to train domestic animals.

In studies of conditioning, negative reinforcement can be used in "extinction", or inhibition experiments, to determine if a previously learned association can be masked by later experience.

Operant conditioning is an extension of classical conditioning, in which the animal learns to operate an environmental feature to receive a reward. We most commonly think of rats and pigeons pressing levers in boxes (the "Skinner box") in operant conditioning; the hand-shaking dog has probably been operantly conditioned, as well.

Much insight animal learning and memory has been gained from the study of conditioning. Ethologists and behavioral ecologists often dismiss laboratory tests of conditioning as being so far removed from the animal's biology as to be irrelevant to "natural" biology. Observations of animals in the field, though, suggest that the trial-and-error learning which often is used to gain experience with the environment is, in fact, one and the same as conditioning.





Posted By: Turtlemtn Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 09:19 PM
Conditioning works on an individual basis. How does the whole community become conditioned because of what happens to one or a few? Why is a lure that is very effective the first time or two it's used very ineffective after that? Every fish hasn't been conditioned as a result of the bad effect experienced by a few. How do the rest get it?
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 09:54 PM
http://psych.fullerton.edu/rlippa/Psych101/outline2.htm

Quote Ewest:

Observations of animals in the field, though, suggest that the trial-and-error learning which often is used to gain experience with the environment is, in fact, one and the same as conditioning.

Totally agree.
Posted By: FireIsHot Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 10:31 PM
IMHO, fish are conditioned.

To me, learning is being able to ingest new information, and act on that information with knowledge already gained. So, if larger LMB could learn, why would they lose weight if they're transferred to a different BOW? Water's water, forage's forage, but still they go into decline. Wouldn't learning from the previous pond help them adapt to the new environment?

Conditioning is more about rote and rewards. You walk down the bank shaking a coffee can full of food at the same time every day, your fish will associate that with a reward. Or from my personal experience, you hand feed LMB every day for 6 months, and they get really, really attentive. You stop for a few weeks, and they're gone. Even in the face recognition article posted earlier, the archerfish "learned" via operant conditioning. Rote and rewards.

I guess the bottom line is that whether they learn or are conditioned, fish behavior can be altered. We all do it every time a feeder throws.
Posted By: RAH Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 10:43 PM
In my opinion, and as a hunter and fisherman, I find that some people learn to diminish the intelligence and learning abilities of the animals we hunt or kill for sport. The longer that I live, the narrower the gap I see between humans and the animals we eat. I still love to hunt deer, but I do not pretend they are just dumb animals. This psychological condition also occurs in war as a way to deal with our actions.
Posted By: anthropic Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/22/16 11:52 PM
"people keep doing studies like trying to get a fish to spit on a screen."

Don't know about fish, but I've learned to spit on a screen when certain politicians appear on it...
Posted By: anthropic Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 12:08 AM
"That is why I ask ? rational thought/reasoning/abstract thought."

An interesting take on the question by brain surgeon Michael Egnor:

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/11/the_fundamental_2100661.html

It is important to understand the fundamental difference between humans and nonhuman animals. Nonhuman animals such as apes have material mental powers. By material I mean powers that are instantiated in the brain and wholly depend upon matter for their operation. These powers include sensation, perception, imagination (the ability to form mental images), memory (of perceptions and images), and appetite.

Nonhuman animals have a mental capacity to perceive and respond to particulars, which are specific material objects such as other animals, food, obstacles, and predators.

Human beings have mental powers that include the material mental powers of animals but in addition entail a profoundly different kind of thinking. Human beings think abstractly, and nonhuman animals do not. Human beings have the power to contemplate universals, which are concepts that have no material instantiation. Human beings think about mathematics, literature, art, language, justice, mercy, and an endless library of abstract concepts. Human beings are rational animals.

Human rationality is not merely a highly evolved kind of animal perception. Human rationality is qualitatively different -- ontologically different -- from animal perception. Human rationality is different because it is immaterial. Contemplation of universals cannot have material instantiation, because universals themselves are not material and cannot be instantiated in matter.

I stress here the difference between representation and instantiation. Representation is the map of a thing. Instantiation is the thing itself. Universals can be represented in matter -- the words I am writing in this post are representations of concepts -- but universals cannot be instantiated in matter. I cannot put the concepts themselves on a computer screen or on a piece of paper, nor can the concepts exist physically in my brain. Concepts, which are universals, are immaterial.

Nonhuman animals are purely material beings. They have no concepts. They experience hunger and pain. They don't contemplate the injustice of suffering.

A human being is material and immaterial -- a composite being.
Posted By: Turtlemtn Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 12:46 AM
I've learned a lot from my dogs, then my cats, then my goats, and then my chickens. And they aren't that different from wild animals. Someone recently wrote that our dogs may have taught us to behave better towards other humans. The canines are social animals and get along well in groups and are devoted to their young. They are also our loyal and unwavering friends, provided they're treated halfways fairly. Maybe we've learned more from them than they've learned from us.
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 02:10 AM
I don't for a moment believe a bluegill ponders its place in the universe, any more than it might calculate the volume of water that surrounds it. It's just that for me, the debate between conditioning and learning is immaterial. I consider them to be two sides of the same coin. If an animal/fish can be conditioned, then in other words it has been taught. And if it can be taught, does that not imply some measure of intelligence?
Posted By: Flame Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 12:48 PM
Can someone explain how "pattern fishing" occurs on large bodies of water and why? More specifically on lmb.Is it just a seasonal thing all about the food source that time of year? Why can patterns change in just a day or two? What is actually going on?
Posted By: Lovnlivin Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 01:03 PM
Are you referring to factors such as:
Time of day
Barometric pressure
Direction of wind
Sunny or overcast
fishing pressure
etc....

Or possibly:
Their mood that day, or face recognition? grin
Posted By: anthropic Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 01:43 PM
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
I don't for a moment believe a bluegill ponders its place in the universe,


And a good thing, too. If bluegill did, I think it would be wrong to catch, kill, and eat them. eek
Posted By: Flame Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 02:04 PM
I am referring to Example: Catching fish on rattle traps over the grass in 8 ft water. Maybe catch them like that all up and down a 40 mile long lake. The next day not a fish to be found in those areas!! Why all 40 miles of the lake at the same time?? Next day, might catch them on jigs in the bushes in 5 foot water but doing so all up and down the 40 mile stretch?? What causes so many fish to act the same way at the same time??
Posted By: peachgrower Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 05:30 PM
Since we are talking about behaviors and such, let me throw this one in. I have never seen it before. The fish we are talking about are the 200 BG and 50 RES I stocked two weeks yesterday. I have been feeding them daily..not in one spot yet...probably 10 or so pellets (hydrated 3 to 1 purina catfish 32) since then. In the past few days they have finally been taking it...well hitting it and knocking pieces off I assume. Last night late (around 10) my two daughters and I drove up to get the mail, and as we were driving back I thought we would drive down and shine the light bar in the water just to look for snakes/frogs/etc. As we approached, I told the girls, Hey! look at all the frogs hopping in and out of the water...after a few seconds I realized those aren't frogs...those were my BG and RES! They were hopping in and out of the water...even had to go down and put 3 back in the water. They would jump out a foot or two out of the water and back in. After all the fuss was over they quit. Then as we went around the pond the same thing happened....just on a smaller scale. Where we were was were my shelter is and I do the majority of my feeding. When we went back about 20 minutes later they didn't do it on near the scale..maybe 10 or so...but the first had to be 100 or so. It was unreal! I wonder what crosses their mind when the light comes over them in really shallow water like that??..I guess it simply spooked them. None the less I was able to get my hands on a couple. They had good color and a nice little belly. Wish I would've gotten a pic.

I think not only the learned/conditioned behaviors but you have to account alot for hormones also. Animals are not like us in the way that we can choose certain things and what we will do on a daily basis. Hormones control alot of their actions. Like standing heat in a cow/horse/dog...whatever. No choice, their body locks up. Hormones or lack there of will make all kinds of odd actions happen.


I think most are God given instincts that we will not ever fully understand, but its great conversation!
Posted By: snrub Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 07:29 PM
"Human beings are rational animals."

That one made me chuckle. laugh

Just do a search on youtube for something like "redneck fails" or look at how people spend their time or money. Kind of brings that statement into serious question. laugh

Maybe something along the lines of "Human beings have the capability of sometimes (or maybe occasionally) being rational animals" would be a more correct statement.
Posted By: anthropic Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 07:45 PM
Originally Posted By: snrub
"Human beings are rational animals."

That one made me chuckle. laugh

Just do a search on youtube for something like "redneck fails" or look at how people spend their time or money. Kind of brings that statement into serious question. laugh

Maybe something along the lines of "Human beings have the capability of sometimes (or maybe occasionally) being rational animals" would be a more correct statement.


Maybe a better description is "Human beings are rational-izing animals." whistle
Posted By: ewest Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 07:47 PM
This thread has really taken off !!! So many solid concepts and observations. I can guess at some but they are guesses.

Hormones are chemicals the body makes to respond when the brain says so. Chemicals used in the brain are very powerful stuff and in most cases will overpower "will or thought". I think some people, based on their behavior, have way more of them than any animals.

If I knew how to scientifically pattern fish as mentioned I would get rich selling that system to fisherman !! That is what fishermen have been trying to figure out since the beginning of time !!!

anthropic very good stuff. I think many people believe lots of animals are sentient beings (the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively) and won't eat them (vegans). I wonder what happens to them if they decide that plants are also sentient. Great info on human vs animal brains . I wonder sometimes where the line between human and animal begins. A very few humans (no names here) are a tragic waste and with malice were responsible for the murder of millions of their own kind. No animal has ever done that to its own kind - I wonder which is more advanced. Humans have the ability to do great and marvelous things but also to unleash great evil. When we get to talking about animal vs human and good vs evil we are delving into religion and philosophy. That is above my pay grade nor do I have those answers. A very smart man (scientist) once told me upon discussing the origin of earth , life and humans (evolution and creation)that all things fit together perfectly even though man does not fully understand and while we have a long way to go we became different when we were given a soul. I do hear you about politicians.

RAH the psychological condition is far to complex for me to address. I often find , upon reflection, wondering what I am doing and why.
Posted By: anthropic Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 08:05 PM
Originally Posted By: peachgrower
Since we are talking about behaviors and such, let me throw this one in. I have never seen it before. The fish we are talking about are the 200 BG and 50 RES I stocked two weeks yesterday. I have been feeding them daily..not in one spot yet...probably 10 or so pellets (hydrated 3 to 1 purina catfish 32) since then. In the past few days they have finally been taking it...well hitting it and knocking pieces off I assume. Last night late (around 10) my two daughters and I drove up to get the mail, and as we were driving back I thought we would drive down and shine the light bar in the water just to look for snakes/frogs/etc. As we approached, I told the girls, Hey! look at all the frogs hopping in and out of the water...after a few seconds I realized those aren't frogs...those were my BG and RES! They were hopping in and out of the water...even had to go down and put 3 back in the water. They would jump out a foot or two out of the water and back in. After all the fuss was over they quit. Then as we went around the pond the same thing happened....just on a smaller scale. Where we were was were my shelter is and I do the majority of my feeding. When we went back about 20 minutes later they didn't do it on near the scale..maybe 10 or so...but the first had to be 100 or so. It was unreal! I wonder what crosses their mind when the light comes over them in really shallow water like that??..I guess it simply spooked them. None the less I was able to get my hands on a couple. They had good color and a nice little belly. Wish I would've gotten a pic.

I think not only the learned/conditioned behaviors but you have to account alot for hormones also. Animals are not like us in the way that we can choose certain things and what we will do on a daily basis. Hormones control alot of their actions. Like standing heat in a cow/horse/dog...whatever. No choice, their body locks up. Hormones or lack there of will make all kinds of odd actions happen.


I think most are God given instincts that we will not ever fully understand, but its great conversation!


Never heard of that before. I have seen a big BG come completely out of the water to dive bomb a small topwater lure, but not what you describe. Probably a startle reflex, similar to how an armadillo reacts by jumping several feet straight up.

A week ago, my wife and I actually saw a BG swim halfway up on shore to grab a piece of feed. Yep, the head was completely on land! Reminded me of how orcas will sometimes swim up onto the beach to grab a seal...
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 08:21 PM
Originally Posted By: anthropic
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
I don't for a moment believe a bluegill ponders its place in the universe,


And a good thing, too. If bluegill did, I think it would be wrong to catch, kill, and eat them. eek


Could this be one of those ramifications I spoke of earlier? If we break down and admit that fish have the capacity to learn vs. sticking with conditioning, how does that impact our treatment of them? Or would it? Should it?
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 08:26 PM
Originally Posted By: ewest


anthropic very good stuff. I think many people believe lots of animals are sentient beings (the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively) and won't eat them (vegans). I wonder what happens to them if they decide that plants are also sentient.


Should've read further before I posted above. This is exactly what I'm referring too.

Is there a carefully but artificially constructed division between learning and conditioning??

Ewest, I agree on the thread taking off. Reminds me of the PondBoss of old.
Posted By: anthropic Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 08:36 PM
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
Originally Posted By: ewest


anthropic very good stuff. I think many people believe lots of animals are sentient beings (the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively) and won't eat them (vegans). I wonder what happens to them if they decide that plants are also sentient.


Should've read further before I posted above. This is exactly what I'm referring too.

Is there a carefully but artificially constructed division between learning and conditioning??

Ewest, I agree on the thread taking off. Reminds me of the PondBoss of old.


Maybe this thread should be designated a "Shooter."
Posted By: anthropic Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 09:01 PM
Originally Posted By: ewest
This thread has really taken off !!! So many solid concepts and observations. I can guess at some but they are guesses.

Hormones are chemicals the body makes to respond when the brain says so. Chemicals used in the brain are very powerful stuff and in most cases will overpower "will or thought". I think some people, based on their behavior, have way more of them than any animals.

If I knew how to scientifically pattern fish as mentioned I would get rich selling that system to fisherman !! That is what fishermen have been trying to figure out since the beginning of time !!!

anthropic very good stuff. I think many people believe lots of animals are sentient beings (the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively) and won't eat them (vegans). I wonder what happens to them if they decide that plants are also sentient. Great info on human vs animal brains . I wonder sometimes where the line between human and animal begins. A very few humans (no names here) are a tragic waste and with malice were responsible for the murder of millions of their own kind. No animal has ever done that to its own kind - I wonder which is more advanced. Humans have the ability to do great and marvelous things but also to unleash great evil. When we get to talking about animal vs human and good vs evil we are delving into religion and philosophy. That is above my pay grade nor do I have those answers. A very smart man (scientist) once told me upon discussing the origin of earth , life and humans (evolution and creation)that all things fit together perfectly even though man does not fully understand and while we have a long way to go we became different when we were given a soul. I do hear you about politicians.

RAH the psychological condition is far to complex for me to address. I often find , upon reflection, wondering what I am doing and why.


Good post. One of the burdens of humanity is that we are moral beings, knowing good & evil (that may sound familiar from vacation bible school!). Animals can kill, but they cannot murder, as they are amoral.

On another topic, Dr. Egnor notes that brain surgeons have noticed that when they touch or stimulate brain tissue, they often get a response involving a memory, emotion, or a particular item. What they never get is a response involving abstractions, such as a comment on mathematics, philosophy, justice, or the like. The purely material brain, without consciousness, seems unconcerned with immaterial abstractions.

This is another reason why Egnor distinguishes between the material and immaterial minds.
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 09:40 PM
Originally Posted By: anthropic
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
Originally Posted By: ewest


anthropic very good stuff. I think many people believe lots of animals are sentient beings (the capacity to feel, perceive, or experience subjectively) and won't eat them (vegans). I wonder what happens to them if they decide that plants are also sentient.


Should've read further before I posted above. This is exactly what I'm referring too.

Is there a carefully but artificially constructed division between learning and conditioning??

Ewest, I agree on the thread taking off. Reminds me of the PondBoss of old.


Maybe this thread should be designated a "Shooter."


Unfortunately, it will probably veer off into verboten territory soon enough. I sense theology waiting in the wings, impatiently awaiting its debut. Then we'll have to fall back to the "regulars".... grin wink Groan.

1)Green Sunfish
2)Filamentous Algae
3)Cheap aeration
Posted By: FireIsHot Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/23/16 09:42 PM
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
...Ewest, I agree on the thread taking off. Reminds me of the PondBoss of old.


Tony, I couldn't agree with you more. The lack of testosterone makes conjuring fun again.
Posted By: Turtlemtn Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 12:27 AM
When crows pick things up and carry them into the air to drop them onto pavement and crack them open to get at the food inside, is that conditioning or learning? Is there a reason why we have both words?
Posted By: ewest Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 01:30 AM
Maybe the way to consider the subject is conditioning (or call it learning) whichever vs thinking. Or possibly reaction vs thought. We don't know how a fish brain works and often miss on how a human brain thinks . Thought vs conditioned learning - one is prospective the other is reactive .
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 01:59 AM
I agree with ewest's analysis. However I will throw this out there, just because it lingers on my mind.

What if the use of "conditioning" vs. "learning" is to dehumanize the subject? To remove any notion of intelligence? The reluctance to eat a thinking bluegill has already been mentioned above...what would happen were we to discover (admit?) that fish learned and could be taught?

How many have conditioned their dog to shake hands or roll over? Probably not, but we might've taught him or her to do these things. The use of the word taught implies to me, intelligence. Dogs are companions, loved members of our families, and in most cases at least, not on the dinner menu. Fish on the other hand, do not enjoy this luxury.

How would our perceptions, AND those of several infrastructures dedicated to fish and ponds, change? Maybe I'm chasing a sasquatch in the shadows, or maybe there's something to chasing the money...I just don't know.
Posted By: anthropic Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 02:24 AM
There's a book out about fish intelligence that you may find worthwhile: What a Fish Knows.

From Amazon:

Do fishes think? Do they really have three-second memories? And can they recognize the humans who peer back at them from above the surface of the water? In What a Fish Knows, the myth-busting ethologist Jonathan Balcombe addresses these questions and more, taking us under the sea, through streams and estuaries, and to the other side of the aquarium glass to reveal the surprising capabilities of fishes.

Although there are more than thirty thousand species of fish, more than all mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians combined, we rarely consider how individual fishes think, feel, and behave. Balcombe upends our assumptions about fishes, portraying them not as unfeeling, dead-eyed feeding machines but as sentient, aware, social, and even Machiavellian. In other words, much like us.

What a Fish Knows draws on the latest science to present a fresh look at these remarkable creatures in all their breathtaking diversity and beauty. Fishes conduct elaborate courtship rituals and develop lifelong bonds with shoalmates. They also plan, hunt cooperatively, use tools, curry favor, deceive one another, and punish wrongdoers.

We may imagine that fishes lead simple, fleeting lives;a mode of existence that boils down to a place on the food chain, rote spawning, and lots of aimless swimming. But, as Balcombe demonstrates, the truth is far richer and more complex, worthy of the grandest social novel.
Posted By: Lovnlivin Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 02:26 AM
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
I agree with ewest's analysis. However I will throw this out there, just because it lingers on my mind.

What if the use of "conditioning" vs. "learning" is to dehumanize the subject? To remove any notion of intelligence? The reluctance to eat a thinking bluegill has already been mentioned above...what would happen were we to discover (admit?) that fish learned and could be taught?

How many have conditioned their dog to shake hands or roll over? Probably not, but we might've taught him or her to do these things. The use of the word taught implies to me, intelligence. Dogs are companions, loved members of our families, and in most cases at least, not on the dinner menu. Fish on the other hand, do not enjoy this luxury.

How would our perceptions, AND those of several infrastructures dedicated to fish and ponds, change? Maybe I'm chasing a sasquatch in the shadows, or maybe there's something to chasing the money...I just don't know.


Is there not a lot of wildlife that could be thrown into that equation as well? Consider the "conditioning" or "learning" that goes on in zoo's.

What if it were to be tried/tested/experimented on:
Deer
Elk
Pheasant
Turkey (or not, they're pretty dang dumb)
Hogs
Cows
Al's chickens smile
etc.,,,,,

I can already see the forming of special interest groups demanding the end of consuming these "intelligent" animals!
Posted By: anthropic Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 02:31 AM
Originally Posted By: Lovnlivin
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
I agree with ewest's analysis. However I will throw this out there, just because it lingers on my mind.

What if the use of "conditioning" vs. "learning" is to dehumanize the subject? To remove any notion of intelligence? The reluctance to eat a thinking bluegill has already been mentioned above...what would happen were we to discover (admit?) that fish learned and could be taught?

How many have conditioned their dog to shake hands or roll over? Probably not, but we might've taught him or her to do these things. The use of the word taught implies to me, intelligence. Dogs are companions, loved members of our families, and in most cases at least, not on the dinner menu. Fish on the other hand, do not enjoy this luxury.

How would our perceptions, AND those of several infrastructures dedicated to fish and ponds, change? Maybe I'm chasing a sasquatch in the shadows, or maybe there's something to chasing the money...I just don't know.


Is there not a lot of wildlife that could be thrown into that equation as well? Consider the "conditioning" or "learning" that goes on in zoo's.

What if it were to be tried/tested/experimented on:
Deer
Elk
Pheasant
Turkey (or not, they're pretty dang dumb)
Hogs
Cows
Al's chickens smile
etc.,,,,,

I can already see the forming of special interest groups demanding the end of consuming these "intelligent" animals!


If you think that's bad, wait until we discuss PLANT intelligence! shocked
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 02:41 AM
Lovnlivin.....absolutely. And those groups already exist. Is the continued use of conditioned, rather than learned, an attempt to keep fish away from closer scrutiny?

I have to go now, I can hear my sweet corn threatening my tomatoes over what they are calling a territorial violation. I need to grab a flashlight and get out there before the bell peppers throw in with one side or the other.
Posted By: Lovnlivin Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 03:33 AM
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
Lovnlivin.....absolutely. And those groups already exist. Is the continued use of conditioned, rather than learned, an attempt to keep fish away from closer scrutiny?

I have to go now, I can hear my sweet corn threatening my tomatoes over what they are calling a territorial violation. I need to grab a flashlight and get out there before the bell peppers throw in with one side or the other.

Hilarious, you do have a way with words, Spark! I love it!

I will add one more on the conditioning, learning, etc. As a music lover I have music playing wherever I go and whatever I do, including while fishing. And as I'm a big blues fan I'm also a big fan of classic country (Merle, Willie, Waylon, etc.) so they both get equal playing time while fishing, via Pandora.

By far my fish are most active with the blues playing and I've caught my best fish during songs by Keb Mo and BB King.

Coincidence?
Posted By: snrub Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 04:18 AM
I was diving one day in Bonaire and happened to be taking a video of something I forget what was and along comes a Spanish Hogfish. It smacks its tail pretty hard up against a purple tube sponge then swims off. Did not think much of it as certain fish "flash" against sponges to rid themselves of parasites. Kind of like a scratching post for an old cow.

But later on closer examination of the video and watching it several times the fish was not glancing off the sponge in a manner I would expect for flashing. It really "smacked" this sponge hard with it tail, enough to shake the sponge pretty hard. Then I also noticed the fish turned around enough to look at the opening at the top of the sponge.

Then it dawned on me. Very often in the center opening of these sponges live small goby fish and sometimes small shrimp and even small crabs. The Spanish Hog fish was smacking the sponge then seeing if it shook any critters loose it could gobble up, but seeing none moved on.

I've spent something on the order of 3000 hours under water over the last 45 years. I still see fish doing new stuff and it never ceases to amaze me.
Posted By: TGW1 Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 11:21 AM
I know some here are familiar with the story of a pond in Texas where it was fished till they believed all lmb had been caught and tagged. After tagging what was believed were all the lmb. They were catching only tagged fish. The pond was drained and discovered only half of all the lmb had been caught. So, my understanding was they called these caught fish "stupid fish" because had been caught several times and the other fish were smart fish because they had not been caught. So, were they truly smart fish, I don't know but I am hoping to raise dumb fish @ my pond. smile

Tracy
Posted By: FireIsHot Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 12:59 PM
Originally Posted By: Lovnlivin
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
I agree with ewest's analysis. However I will throw this out there, just because it lingers on my mind.

What if the use of "conditioning" vs. "learning" is to dehumanize the subject? To remove any notion of intelligence? The reluctance to eat a thinking bluegill has already been mentioned above...what would happen were we to discover (admit?) that fish learned and could be taught?

How many have conditioned their dog to shake hands or roll over? Probably not, but we might've taught him or her to do these things. The use of the word taught implies to me, intelligence. Dogs are companions, loved members of our families, and in most cases at least, not on the dinner menu. Fish on the other hand, do not enjoy this luxury.

How would our perceptions, AND those of several infrastructures dedicated to fish and ponds, change? Maybe I'm chasing a sasquatch in the shadows, or maybe there's something to chasing the money...I just don't know.


Is there not a lot of wildlife that could be thrown into that equation as well? Consider the "conditioning" or "learning" that goes on in zoo's.

What if it were to be tried/tested/experimented on:
Deer
Elk
Pheasant
Turkey (or not, they're pretty dang dumb)
Hogs
Cows
Al's chickens smile
etc.,,,,,

I can already see the forming of special interest groups demanding the end of consuming these "intelligent" animals!


Keith, my chickens would probably skew any intelligence bell curve. Entertaining, but not very bright.
Posted By: sprkplug Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 01:15 PM
Al, my neighbor's chickens have figured out that coming next door to our house is a good way to get fed. And one strong willed hen has taken things a step further, and discovered that hopping up into the windowsill and peering through the glass at the occupants inside, is a surefire way to announce her presence.

Kinda' creepy though when you "feel" that beady eye glaring at you.

At last count we were on our 24th bag of feed, still waiting to eat that first egg. Pretty sure they've edged me out so far as intelligence goes. grin
Posted By: Dave Davidson1 Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 01:17 PM
About 20+ years ago I got mad at crows for eating the corn in my demand type deer feeder about 100 yards from the house. They were going through 50 to 75 pounds per week. I bought a varmint calling tape with the sound of young crows with an owl chirping. Then I put an owl decoy on a post at the house and a couple of crows decoys under it. It took about 5 minutes for the flock of pretty raucous crows to show up. They dive bombed the owl decoy. However only 2 lit in the tree above the decoys. I dispatched a couple of them. I tried it later in the year and the crows responded but would come no closer than 100 yards. I tried it yearly for about 10 years with the same results. Same flock of crows? I don't know but I figure the crows must communicate. I really ought to try another location on the property but haven't messed with it.
Posted By: FireIsHot Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 01:47 PM
Originally Posted By: sprkplug
...At last count we were on our 24th bag of feed, still waiting to eat that first egg. Pretty sure they've edged me out so far as intelligence goes. grin

Tony, my wife told me yesterday that I needed to get a swimming pool for the chickens because of the heat. If I break down and do it, my position at the bottom of the Hall homestead ladder is secured.

So, I've been thinking about different experiences relating to both my fish and others, and now I'm not so sure where I stand. Good threads make one think do that.
Posted By: DonoBBD Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 02:00 PM
Originally Posted By: Dave Davidson1
About 20+ years ago I got mad at crows for eating the corn in my demand type deer feeder about 100 yards from the house. They were going through 50 to 75 pounds per week. I bought a varmint calling tape with the sound of young crows with an owl chirping. Then I put an owl decoy on a post at the house and a couple of crows decoys under it. It took about 5 minutes for the flock of pretty raucous crows to show up. They dive bombed the owl decoy. However only 2 lit in the tree above the decoys. I dispatched a couple of them. I tried it later in the year and the crows responded but would come no closer than 100 yards. I tried it yearly for about 10 years with the same results. Same flock of crows? I don't know but I figure the crows must communicate. I really ought to try another location on the property but haven't messed with it.


Funny story on the line of nuisance crows. A local city was having a huge problem with the crows they tried everything to rid the town of crows but couldn't. This old Dutch farmer said he would take care of them if he had some help to round them up and transport them. The town parks rep said Ok lets do this.

They made up a feed of corn soaked for a few days in whisky. The crows ate it up like nothing and in minutes they were drunk, then using fishing nets they caught all the drunk crows, and loaded them into a truck for transport. Took the corws for a long drive and they didn't come back in the numbers they had before. Probably so hammered couldn't find their way back before they found another feeding hole.

Cheers Don.
Posted By: anthropic Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/24/16 07:54 PM
Originally Posted By: DonoBBD
Originally Posted By: Dave Davidson1
About 20+ years ago I got mad at crows for eating the corn in my demand type deer feeder about 100 yards from the house. They were going through 50 to 75 pounds per week. I bought a varmint calling tape with the sound of young crows with an owl chirping. Then I put an owl decoy on a post at the house and a couple of crows decoys under it. It took about 5 minutes for the flock of pretty raucous crows to show up. They dive bombed the owl decoy. However only 2 lit in the tree above the decoys. I dispatched a couple of them. I tried it later in the year and the crows responded but would come no closer than 100 yards. I tried it yearly for about 10 years with the same results. Same flock of crows? I don't know but I figure the crows must communicate. I really ought to try another location on the property but haven't messed with it.


Funny story on the line of nuisance crows. A local city was having a huge problem with the crows they tried everything to rid the town of crows but couldn't. This old Dutch farmer said he would take care of them if he had some help to round them up and transport them. The town parks rep said Ok lets do this.

They made up a feed of corn soaked for a few days in whisky. The crows ate it up like nothing and in minutes they were drunk, then using fishing nets they caught all the drunk crows, and loaded them into a truck for transport. Took the corws for a long drive and they didn't come back in the numbers they had before. Probably so hammered couldn't find their way back before they found another feeding hole.

Cheers Don.


So THAT is how Old Crow Whiskey got started!
Posted By: Turtlemtn Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/26/16 12:25 AM
But how do fish communicate? Some make verbal sounds, but what else do the do. How does a whole BOW know when to start biting and when to stop? How can a whole school of fish, swimming in close formation, turn on a dime with no collisions?
Posted By: RAH Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/26/16 12:28 AM
Pheromones - except the last part which is visual.
Posted By: ewest Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/26/16 02:26 AM
Chemical , audible , visual are the ones I am aware of .

Sometime back we learned through conditioning (fingers bitten off)that Bruce's RES have ESP ! laugh
Posted By: Shorty Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/26/16 01:46 PM
smile

AN EXPERIMENT ON VISUAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE
LARGEMOUTH BASS, MICROPTERUS SALMOIDES
Posted By: ewest Re: Oxford proves fish r smart - 07/26/16 03:44 PM
Nice work Shorty !
© Pond Boss Forum