Deep Intellect: Inside the mind of the octopus | Hacker News Reader

Deep Intellect: Inside the mind of the octopus

orionmagazine.org

297 pointsSnail_Commando104 comments

The fact that relatively high intelligence has arisen from many architectures multiple times on this planet bodes well for the frequency of intelligent life on exoplanets.

Even today, there are still biologists who assert the formation of intelligent life is tightly coupled to our specific brand of brain and should hence be considered a huge accident. Yet we see the formation of minds in a lot of places, and they can be almost arbitrarily far removed from the human brain.

The octopus is a great example for a radically different neurological substrate. Given enough time and a little bit of luck, some funghi too might evolve a mind of their own as Fuligo Septica already shows some capacity for problem-solving behavior.

The argument that human-like intelligence is again another unlikely step discards the myriad of social animals with advanced problem solving capabilities, some of which are even tool users, and some of which have actual languages and cultures. A lot of these have come onto the stage very independently from us, having sprung from far removed genetics - and yet they have enough in common with us that should make us recognize the frequency of species with minds might indeed be high wherever life takes hold.

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English (up to fifty words used in correct context) [even higher since Sagan died] no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."

~ Carl Sagan

"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons."

- Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Just ask Eric

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf_BR1StMxQ

I've always wondered how we figure we'd communicate with aliens someday, or decode a future SETI message, if we can't even decode the language of a dolphins.

I think Solaris by Stanisław Lem is right about contact with aliens. Read it if you haven't - it's a great book about impossibility of understanding between real aliens.

Dolphins are not (so far as we know) actively trying to teach us their language. I would be exuberant to be corrected on this, but to my knowledge a dolphin has never put a fish in a human's hands and cried 'kreeeikaaa' to try to teach us the word. Whereas we do that endlessly with the dolphins, which is why they have learned a bit of our language.

I suspect (with no proof) that a human-level intelligence, bent on communicating, would have the intelligence to perform experiments and then structure a learning environment for the other life form to learn its language.

> Dolphins are not (so far as we know) actively trying to teach us their language.

Exactly. Cats actively try to teach us their language and you can ask any cat owner, he or she would be very fluent in their cat's language.

Hey, why the downvote? It wasn't just a witty remark, i was serious. I find it rather fascinating that in the case of pets, both parties mutually form a method of communication. And this method isn't exactly part of either species' natural language. Humans train pets to respond to certain gestures/words and the pet adopts certain behaviors which have the sole purpose of communicating a need or intention or request to the owner. I think it says something abuot the intelligence of BOTH species

There is some interesting behaviour so far as cat communication with humans. Cats will not meow to other cats unless it's a kitten / mother situation. Meowing with humans is pretty unique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_communication#Meow

Wow, good point. Cats usually have this entirely different set of vocal and bodily language when communicating with other cats. Isn't that a sign of higher intelligence? To be able to learn multiple languages. Even if each is fairly small, it's rather fascinating ability to be able to classify your total known language into two distinct sets and knowing which set to use with whom

I'm not sure about dolphins, but I do know people who claim to be able to hear some bird talk and understand what they are talking about (where the predators are, how far away the rain is, etc). Some Native Americans claimed to use this trick to know when other people were approaching, up to a few miles away. As far as I know, this only included listening, not interacting though.

That said, I've tried to find references online to this stuff and haven't been able to. I've only heard from friends who have taken classes/trained under such people.

I seem to recall something like this happening a few years ago. Something about interpret the echolocation sounds as images using the right hardware and software, and being able to synthesize new ones and play them back.

Here's all I could find on Google though. http://www.speakdolphin.com/ResearchItems.cfm?ID=20

I read this comment, and was searching for something unrelated when I found this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028115.400-talk-with...

and decided to report back.

Which mean we are better teachers (and possibly worse students).

I share your optimism and I'm a big believer that it will not be long before Carl Sagan's "Contact" event will happen, not from the stars but here on earth - my inclination is to suspect Grey Whales, but there are a good few candidates for the position of first contact as we begin to unpack the semantics of other species communication protocols.

I'm interested in your opinions from another perspective however, as I believe it's /possible/ that /intelligence/ has emerged elsewhere in the universe (and as you say the more we learn about and redefine our notions of "intelligence" the more /possible/ this becomes, imho) but I am suspect that we occupy a very unique (rare?) niche that allows for the possibility of technology and I don't think this can be understated. But that's just my gut feeling on that one and who is to say that other forms of life require technology to do the type of things we do? It's an interesting question that makes me think of the Arthur C. Clark/Stephen Baxter novels that are very relevant in this discussion: genetically modified hyper-intelligent cephelopods that lack the essential ingredients required for colonising space - as a result of lacking technology.

It's always difficult to judge from a sample size of one. Some take our apparent loneliness itself to draw conclusions about this subject, but that's a difficult proposition as well since there are so many different factors imaginable - any of which could be responsible for the Fermi paradox.

I think science and technology are probably required in all cases where a species is to transcend the confines of its evolutionary heritage. It may well be the case there are many more species out there with vastly greater innate intellects than ours, but at some point they too have to use tools of some kind to grow beyond the limitations all bodies inevitably have. And it's not just about overcoming specific obstacles, it's about acquiring the meta skills necessary for intellectual and mechanical self-extension. The basic argument here being that minds without science and technology are still in a primitive state, regardless of their innate capabilities.

But it's also not difficult to imagine a civilization where tool use doesn't exist or stagnated at an early stage. However, if the opportunities for this type of advancement exist, it's only a matter of statistics over time in order for development in this direction to occur.

Whether we are in a privileged position to enjoy these opportunities is an open question. We are lucky in some respects: our planet has a large land mass, somewhat easily exploitable mineral deposits, easy access to energy, relatively stable weather conditions, and so on. On the other hand it's certainly possible to imagine planets where conditions might be even better. Or worse. All things being equal, it has always been a good bet to assume we're close to the average.

So to address the issue of hyper-intelligent cephelopods without space technology, yes, that's certainly possible. In fact, we're also not a species that colonizes space. We could, but we don't. Hyper-intelligent cephelopods could likewise have a culture or genetic disposition not to develop advanced tech or go to outer space.

You could argue though that in these cases (which includes ours for the moment) low-tech states are likely to be transient. Specifically, since Earth cephelopods are already tool users right now, it's difficult to imagine they'd stay without technology for long.

The point the GP is making, from the books that he mentions, is that being an underwater species precludes the discovery of fire, which is the basis for many technological innovations. It is possible that there are other technological routes around this, but the barrier to entry is much higher.

Yes, this is what I was angling for. I think it's a pre-occupation of many of the species in IMBs Culture series if I remember correctly. Where those species that went the long way round (mostly water dwellers) hold species like us in something like contempt.

Apologies to 'jacquesm: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7721134

I wonder if an advanced aquatic species could/would make use of hydrothermal vents to harness the some of the transformative properties of fire. Hydrothermal vents lack the property of mobility, yet have the properties of persistence and predictability.

If one thinks of fire as a common evolutionary ancestor of all human technology; I wonder if there is, in the same sense of fire on land, a branching point of technological evolution in an aquatic society; a branching point that humans do not comprehend, acknowledge, or notice.

I forget that all organisms are in the evolutionary race with us. We humans may have crossed the "consciousness" line first, but our successors may still be in the running. Maybe it'll be algae in some pond or maybe the buffalo mutates over many generation or maybe a third nuclear world war mutates some bacteria which evolves quickly. Maybe we create it.

The sun only has 2.4 billion years left and it took a little longer than that to go from no life to conscious humans. So whatever evolves to replace us better be alive today and ramp up pretty quickly before the sun dies.

Maybe the future conscious octopus civilization will view the sky how we view the deep ocean.

We were certainly not the first nor the last to cross the consciousness line. There are a lot of animals you can observe who are clearly conscious. In fact, it's not a line at all - it's a multi-dimensional gradient.

But we are the first ones to develop advanced planning, technology, and science.

Not to be glib, but our brain is the only organ, in all living beings on earth,as far as we know, that can wonder about itself and write at lengths about itself.

We may be the only ones who write, but whales, birds, and elephants are constantly jabbering on about something. Maybe some whalesongs are poetry about existence as a whale.

> our brain is the only organ, in all living beings on earth,as far as we know, that can wonder about itself

Obviously dogs won't write about their brains being sentient, but how do you know that they don't think about themselves?

Humans were sentient long before they knew how to write, or which part of the body is responsible for their thoughts. What makes us think we're so special?

I am quite sure dogs can predict future behaviour of simple systems and act on these systems to achieve their goals. Problem solving in dogs is widely documented and I think it suffices to assume at least some sentience.

Humans were sentient long before they knew how to write...

You're so right, and it seems one sees this error constantly in discussions like this. Human beings like us have been around for 200,000 years, and only within the last 10,000 have even some of us written anything down. Yet we assume that civilization, with farming and government and writing, is somehow the default for this species.

While I agree, we can measure human-like intelligence in mammals such as dolphins and whales. So we look for the same attributes in other living creatures.

Dogs do not pass the mirror test, which, hypothetically, indicates they have no concept of "self" - thus they cannot think about themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test - there is a discussion about dogs specifically, noting that vision is not their primary sense, so the mirror test may have less value.

You might be interested in hearing about Washoe, a chimpanzee that was taught American Sign Language[1]. A particular quote from the entry: "When Washoe was shown an image of herself in the mirror, and asked what she was seeing, she replied: 'Me, Washoe.'"

Here's also a video on her, as well as Koko, a gorilla that was also taught ASL[2]

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washoe_(chimpanzee) [2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V_rAY0g9DM

>The sun only has 2.4 billion years left

According to this[1], you're off by a few billions years. The sun has enough hydrogen to burn for another 5 and a half billion years. After that, it has enough helium to burn for another billion years.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#After_core_hydrogen_exhaust...

Yeah but the Earth will be unable to sustain itself during the end of the Sun's life. Maybe I should say the Earth has 2.4 billion years left, not the Sun.

Yes, but the sun is also getting hotter over time. This will push the habitable zone past Earth's orbit in somewhat less than two billion years[1].

[1]http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ast.2012.0938

> The fact that relatively high intelligence has arisen from many architectures multiple times on this planet bodes well for the frequency of intelligent life on exoplanets.

Yes, but if you expect high intelligence to result in spaceships and space exploration, the actual probability falls close to zero. Among all the "intelligent" species on Earth, only humans have been able to build stuff to cross the limits of their own beings. So we may well find out some kind of intelligent animals on remote planets, but it's apparently unlikely we get to see human-like species who have become as advanced as we are. Maybe in that sense we indeed are an accident of Nature.

You could argue that since even we haven't really built actual space ships yet, the probability is unknown. It's still early here on Earth. We're just the first civilization to rise up on this rock and we have barely begun.

> You could argue

You could also argue that we have built weapons of mass destruction faster than spaceships and that the probability of destroying ourselves and make us come back to the stone age in the 100 years is higher than the probability of building spaceships and venturing into space.

only humans have been able to build stuff to cross the limits of their own beings.

Actually, no. There are animals that build tools, we've seen chimpanzees that warn other mates of man-made traps and even teach them to disable these. What's more, we've seen animals that enslave other animals, we've seen animals caring for animals of different kind.

Right. Also crows have been seen to use tools. I found that more surprising than chimpanzees using tools.

Crows will use cars to crack open nuts! I suspect the initial discovery was likely accidental; somewhere a crow dropped a nut and a car ran over it.

Let me come back to my original sentence:

> only humans have been able to build stuff to cross the limits of their own beings.

Maybe you did not get what I was pointing at. I'm not just talking about mere tools, I'm talking about building stuff bigger than us or making it possible for us to live in otherwise unlikely environments. We have planes, rockets, satellites, submarines, boats. Crows don't go under water and chimpanzees don't fly over our heads. There's clearly a difference in the animal realm between what humans and other animals are able to achieve, and this, in the very same evolution time/space.

“It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.”

Freeman Dyson

Depending on how one defines 'intelligence' and 'life', it's quite possible even now to program 'life' that's more intelligent than anything else on the planet, and in some senses even more intelligent than humans. Google's search algorithm, for instance.

So the chance of consciously designed life existing out there seem high, if even one alien civilisation has developed sufficiently to be able to create machines capable of thriving and reproducing in space.

I agree - 'intelligence', defined most broadly as 'ability to sense the environment, build a mental model of it, and use said model to achieve one's goals'^, seems like a very common adaptation.

^ This isn't just my definition, it's a rough approximation of AIXI, "a mathematical formalism for a hypothetical (super)intelligent agent". (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/AIXI)

The difference between the intelligence of different creatures is one of degree, and it's interesting to speculate why some animals did end up so much more intelligent than others.

Another interesting evolutionary tidbit is that it for a while after the Cambrian explosion there was a vast diversity of different animal phyla in the oceans. Supposedly for some time there was an arms race of different invertebrate species (octopodes being one surviving example) evolving competitive strategies and counter-strategies, and thereby growing more intelligent.

But then fish evolved, and it turns out the fish design is highly efficient (think sharks) and fish could dominate the oceans - and later their descendant vertebrates could dominate the land - without needing as much intelligence. Again, it's interesting to speculate whether, in an alternative history where fish did not evolve, advanced invertebrate civilisations could have arisen long before dinosaurs appeared in our timeline.

The fact that relatively high intelligence has arisen from many architectures multiple times on this planet bodes well for the frequency of intelligent life on exoplanets.

As I remember from the book "Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life" [1], the bottleneck may be not the evolution of the intelligence, and not even of life itself, but specifically multicellular life. There are reasons to believe it only happened once, and for about 1bn years before that life already existed in single-cellular form, which gives an idea on how improbable the step from single to multiple cell organisms is. I am vague on specifics though, but can wholeheartedly recommend a book to anyone interested in evolution and origins of life.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Power-Sex-Suicide-Mitochondria-Meaning...

I'm no expert, but in my understanding the transition from unicellular to multicellular can go pretty smoothly via symbiosis.

Actually, I stand corrected - not the multicellular life evolved once, but the eucaryotic cell. According to the book, eucaryotic cell evolved by acquisition of mitochondria. Energy generated by mitochondria allowed the eucaryotic cells to be much bigger than procaryotic ones, and to support multiple different organelles.

Yup! The formation of the first Eukaryotic cell is a mystery. Eukaryotes have features of both bacteria and archea, yet doesn't have a clear origin in either of them. Here's a book that goes into more depth on the important stages of evolution: http://www.amazon.com/Major-Transitions-Evolution-Maynard-Sm...

On a tangent, my dismissiveness of creationists has only increased since reading The Major Transitions in Evolution. There are some really perplexing things in early evolution that we don't understand at all. And yet creationists like to talk about chimps and rocks.

Here's a book that goes into more depth on the important stages of evolution

And the Kindle edition is more expensive than the paper one ... makes me wonder how their pricing process works?

According to an interesting book of a Russian paleontologist Kirill Eskov [1] there were a lot of "evolutionary tries" to create a multicellular life. And as soon as it became "profitable" the regular try conquered the world.

IIRC it was related to increased oxygen level.

[1] "История Земли и жизни на ней" ("History of the Earth and its lifeforms")

Just bought it! Thanks

> Fuligo Septica already shows some capacity for problem-solving behavior.

Someday soon, we might finally realize that intelligence comes in all sorts of forms. Humans may one day become enlightened enough to recognize even the intelligence in common plants. How a living thing experiences the universe, and assigning a value to that based on "how much like a human" seems wrong headed to me.

Not to detract from your larger point, but for the curious, I think Fuligo Septica is technically a slime mold, rather than a fungus. More about its 'behavior' here:

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/071

Slime molds were classified as fungi until quite recently.

This is part of why I love Lovecraft. His brand of science fiction experimented with what we consider to be the nature of science, intelligence, and the universe. He was probing at what could be and what we don't know, rather than just rewording what we know now.

  This is the hour when moonstruck poets know
  What fungi sprout in Yuggoth, and what scents
  And tints of flowers fill Nithon’s continents,
  Such as in no poor earthly garden blow.

> The Outer Beings are perhaps the most marvellous organic things in or beyond all space and time-members of a cosmos-wide race of which all other life-forms are merely degenerate variants. They are more vegetable than animal, if these terms can be applied to the sort of matter composing them, and have a somewhat fungoid structure; though the presence of a chlorophyll-like substance and a very singular nutritive system differentiate them altogether from true cormophytic fungi. Indeed, the type is composed of a form of matter totally alien to our part of space - with electrons having a wholly different vibration-rate. That is why the beings cannot be photographed on the ordinary camera films and plates of our known universe, even though our eyes can see them. With proper knowledge, however, any good chemist could make a photographic emulsion which would record their images.

For the existentially depressing counterpoint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

I once read about a lab that was doing research on various sea creatures, but primarily crabs. The experiment involved having 100s of a certain type of crab. Every day the crabs were counted, and each day there was quite a few completely missing. The head researcher suspected one of the lab assistants was stealing and selling the crabs, so they set up a camera to watch the lab overnight. It turned out that it wasn't one of the assistants, but instead the lab's octopus. Every night it was waiting until everyone went home, then taking the lid off it's tank, crawling several meters across the floor, opening the lid of the crab tank, eating a few crabs and then crawling back, remembering to replace the lids of both tanks.

Fascinating! Is this the video?

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/wd-ep3-octothief

One day we will use computers to bridge the human mental and social worlds with those of even quite alien creatures like the pacific octopus.

That will be the dawning of an age of widespread empathy with our animals brethren, along with a wave of horror and shame at our previous treatment of them.

Long before that, though, we'll enjoy immersive VR recordings from the viewpoint of other creatures. I wouldn't be surprised if Jim Cameron was involved in bringing such things to a wide audience.

But even with today's technology this recording from an eagle's PoV is a great example of how mesmerizing the alien worlds of our animal relatives can be: http://youtu.be/G3QrhdfLCO8

In some of the eagle scenes, one gets the sense that the eagles are taking an interest in the humans below, e.g., following alongside them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YEyzvtMx3s

Check this one out. At about 40 seconds, look at the eyes of the pelican. They move independently, like a chameleon's. Cool! There is some evidence (can't find the journal, sorry) that states mice and rats do this as well.

> That will be the dawning of an age of widespread empathy with our animals brethren, along with a wave of horror and shame at our previous treatment of them.

Because that worked so well with regard to fellow humans.

The world is less violent than ever. The average person's chances of coming to a violent end have been declining for a while:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/22/world-less-violent-...

Much of the common violence and atrocities of the past when portrayed in movies and other forms of entertainment are shocking and far removed from the every day experience. See the most recent US Academy Award "Best Picture" winner for an example.

> Much of the common violence and atrocities of the past when portrayed in movies and other forms of entertainment

To be fair, they are never portrayed in a very realistic way. Or at least not in a way in which you care about the characters dying on screen.

As to the claim of "less violence", let's rather say "violence in number is decreasing", but there are still very violent AND cruel acts being carried as we speak in many parts of the world. And let's not forget there are still many places as well where people are enslaved - the fact that these behaviors are resilient does not say lots of good things about humanity.

> To be fair, they are never portrayed in a very realistic way. Or at least not in a way in which you care about the characters dying on screen.

I'm not sure I agree. Usually they are not, but perhaps you might re-watch Saving Private Ryan. It's not the only gory war movie, but it does a remarkable job of showcasing horrific things we humans do to each other. The knife fight scene is especially disturbing.

"The Tudors" also had some pretty cruel punishments, though often it's not carried off on-screen. Even when the people being tortured are not protagonists, it's hard not to empathize in the "oh god that's just not right" way.

You make a good point though about there still being terrible things going on in other parts of the globe.

There are many reasons to believe that predator/prey dynamics will never be turned into lovey-dovey halcyon days. Something in nature underelies the drive and instinct to prey on the weak--it's not a human issue. Its also prevalent in cannabalistic primates, and more obviously in every (true) carnivore. The cat playing with the mouse, the great white shark tossing a seal, the aligator and the serpent. There are many deeper relationships that are not simple "mis-understandings"--the food chain doesn't work that way. The architecture of Nature's species--nutrition and health-- is logically at odds with the entire scenario. Would the parasite and the host ever have a "healthy" relationship?

It's true that only autotrophs have the luxury of a guilt-free existence.

But if and when our deeper existential problems have been solved, we can imagine constructing robotic simulacra to give those predators satisfying prey to chase.

A deeper quandary might end up being: once we have done it for ourselves, are we obliged to cure death for other creatures, too?

Lets see how peaceful humans are after we've finished burning through the available fossil fuels. It's relatively easy to be peaceful while you have copious wealth.

Sure that'll happen any day now....

The venerable technology of print media has caused many such waves in the past.

The history of slavery provides many examples of how literature was kindling for huge changes in popular opinion that eventually ended slavery in the western world.

And literature is of course a mental bridge between people distant in time and space. More efficient bridges will be invented in the future, and they will become effective across species, too.

I will be happy when people stop referring to intelligence as a binary state. My dog is intelligent, mice are intelligent, nematodes are intelligent. The ability to interact with and adapt to the environment is present in all of these creatures. The degree to which something is intelligent is something we need a much richer vocabulary for. I am sad to say it but this is most clearly put in comic form (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=2867#comic)

> The ability to interact with and adapt to the environment is present in all of these creatures.

Not a very useful definition as it is a basic property of all living creatures, and some non-living ones.

I think it's clear that when we talk about intelligence we mean intelligence of the kind that involves neurons and very-short-feedback-loop problem solving (seconds, not years, like DNA). Of course every animal has that.

Some feel that only the ability to do abstract problem solving qualifies as intelligence. Still, humans are not unique in that. Second, I'm pretty sure every cluster of neurons can do that, most just don't have any use for it (humans, and other species, use it for social bonding).

Here's one kind of classification: http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2006/07/dennetts-creatures.htm...

Excellent article, I liked this part:

> One octopus Mather was watching had just returned home and was cleaning the front of the den with its arms. Then, suddenly, it left the den, crawled a meter away, picked up one particular rock and placed the rock in front of the den. Two minutes later, the octopus ventured forth to select a second rock. Then it chose a third. Attaching suckers to all the rocks, the octopus carried the load home, slid through the den opening, and carefully arranged the three objects in front. Then it went to sleep. What the octopus was thinking seemed obvious: “Three rocks are enough. Good night!”

It seems weird to say, "Well obviously this is what this alien intellect was thinking".

That's the way we perceive things. But the article mentions many times that we probably have no idea what is the consciousness level of the Octopus, since it has more neurons in its arms than in its central brain.

I suspect the author agrees. The tone there seemed a bit facetious to me, especially given the "Good night!" addendum.

"seems" is the operative word... here and in the quote you were talking about.

We are fortunate that octopuses do not live long (hence limiting how much knowledge an individual octopus can accumulate to personal experience) and that they do not raise their young (and hence do not get a chance to pass knowledge to the next generation).

If not for those factors, I suspect that Mankind would only have whatever access to the oceans that the octopuses decided to allow us.

Imagine how different mankind would be today if our ancestors were barred from using boats. Colonialism probably would never have happened.

What a cool image! I wonder if "civilized" octopi would concentrate their war-making on us, or perhaps on each other?

In any case, let's not let them figure out how scuba gear works...

> “Only intelligent animals play—animals like crows and chimps, dogs and humans.”

Err, I'm barely knowledgeable in this field (so maybe someone can point out something that I'm missing), but I have to nitpick that this strikes me as poor reasoning. Off the top of my head, juvenile squirrels are known to play[1], along with many other species which we would consider less intelligent than cephalopods or even dogs. This just seems like an odd assertion to come from an expert biologist.

[1] http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.06.024

Really interesting article, though.

Sometimes 'text only' trumps an article that has pictures and moving video. It is good to have one's imagination work overtime rather than have everything 'spelt out' with imagery.

At one moment I was imagining an octopus bigger than myself, able to drag me into a tank and maybe eat me whole. The next moment I was learning of an octopus able to fit inside a beer bottle (note to self: be careful what one picks up when scuba diving!).

I feel I might actually remember more about the life of the octopus from having read this article and having to engage my imagination than what I might have learned had I sat through some nature programme on TV. Plus it takes less time to read than it does to endure a programme. I also now know things I don't know, such as what it is to make eye contact with an octopus, something that a TV programme could go some way to describe.

Aside from the 'wow, intelligence', why is it that those of us with spines lack any 'computing power' in things like our arms? Are there any common sense reasons?

Our arms are far more limited in movement, and probably don't require as much processing power to operate. Easier to do from a relatively remote location like our brain pan, I guess.

> Aside from the 'wow, intelligence', why is it that those of us with spines lack any 'computing power' in things like our arms? Are there any common sense reasons?

I wonder if the fact that we can't grow them back is a factor. I could imagine that this would make it hard for us to evolve any sort of appendage intelligence that was important to our function.

For any pedants who cringed reading "octopuses" instead of "octopi", here's the wiki section to reassure that this is actually correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octopus#Etymology_and_pluraliza...

Other sources through Google also confirm this.

We should note that this is for the worst kind of pedant only: the wrong kind. It's also important to note that the most correct of all forms (though also more archaic) is octopodes.

I noticed the author used octopodan. First time I think I've seen that word.

> But she was very significant to me, both as an individual and as a representative from her octopodan world.

It's a common adjective formation. Octopoda -> octopodan, compare to Mollusca -> molluscan.

What makes octopodes more correct? All the dictionaries cited preferred octopuses.

I have a friend who says pluralising "octopus" as "octopi" shows ignorance of three languages - English, Latin, and Greek. "Octopus" is of Greek origin and the Greek plural is "octopodes". The Latin plural is "polyporum" (the singular being "polypus"). The English plural is "octopuses" as we add "s" or "es" when pluralising.

'polyporum' would be genitive plural 'of the octopuses'. The more usual nominative plural would 'polypi'

On the other hand, you could say that not accepting "octopi" as a plural of "octopus" shows 'ignorance' of languages in general.

> Biologist have long noted the similarities between the eyes of an octopus and the eyes of a human.

> Scientists are currently debating whether we and octopuses evolved eyes separately, or whether a common ancestor had the makings of the eye.

This is not under debate. This is one of the classical examples of convergent evolution. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution#Eyes

> One of the most well-known examples of convergent evolution is the camera eye of cephalopods (e.g., squid), vertebrates (e.g., mammals) and cnidaria (e.g., box jellies).[22] Their last common ancestor had at most a very simple photoreceptive spot, but a range of processes led to the progressive refinement of this structure to the advanced camera eye — with one subtle difference: The cephalopod eye is "wired" in the opposite direction, with blood and nerve vessels entering from the back of the retina, rather than the front as in vertebrates.[8] The similarity of the structures in other respects, despite the complex nature of the organ, illustrates how there are some biological challenges (e.g. vision) that have an optimal solution.

More info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cephalopod_eye

I took a scuba diving course with an instructor who formerly worked as a diver with a local aquarium, and he related to us that the aquarium had to replace their octopus population every few weeks because they would keep dying of boredom, so to speak. They would put the food in hard-to-open enclosures, but it just wasn't enough. Octopuses need to be challenged and engaged. It gave us food for thought about whether we should be keeping creatures with such a powerful intellect in captivity.

Fascinating. I am particularly intrigued by the separate evolution of their intelligence and neurons in their arms. A different type of consciousness indeed, I wonder if it is even possible to comprehend what their experience of the world might be like.

The independent nervous system in an octopus' arm (which continues to operate after an arm has been severed) reminded me of the independent nervous system in the human gut:

"The enteric nervous system has been described as a 'second brain' for several reasons. The enteric nervous system can operate autonomously. It normally communicates with the central nervous system (CNS) through the parasympathetic (e.g., via the vagus nerve) and sympathetic (e.g., via the prevertebral ganglia) nervous systems. However, vertebrate studies show that when the vagus nerve is severed, the enteric nervous system continues to function."[1]

It's remarkable how two nervous systems that evolved separately share this kind of similarity.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system#Complex...

The idea that octopi evolved their intelligence due to increased mobility after losing their ancestral shell is consistent with findings about the human brain, which are that brains are used for movement.

I highly recommend Daniel Wolpert's talk about this idea:

https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_wolpert_the_real_reason_for...

I've read a ton of Arthur C. Clarke so I'm really interested in intelligence uplift of other species.

How much smarter could octopi be if they didn't die when they mated? Or if they had lifespans 10 times longer than they do now?

What if we could train octopi to hunt with humans? Similar to how thousands of years of hunting with wolves has produced the dog, could we breed octopi that help human marine hunters?

My girlfriend was delighted to learn about how intelligent octopuses are today. She was reading an article about whether they can get concussions -- I'll see if I can get it from her.

What a strange coincidence to find this on the front page of HN a few hours later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon#Frequ...

I have always loved octopuses from hearing stories about their intelligence.

Reading about the antics of some of these octopuses in this article was surprisingly hilarious.

In the great 1957 scifi novel "Niourk" [1], men have (mostly) abandoned Earth, the oceans dried away and octopi became larger, cleverer and are becoming the dominant species. Spoiler alert: don't look at the wikipedia page in case you plan to read the book :)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niourk

I love the comparison of the octopus with a smart alien. We might not completely understand them, but something about them tells us they are intelligent beings.

We should give octopi the gift of technology and let them overtake the underwater world. Just like in 2001.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com