• You are viewing the forum as a Guest, please login (you can use your Facebook, Twitter, Google or Microsoft account to login) or register using this link: Log in or Sign Up
  • You can now follow UKAPS on Instagram.

How intelligent are fish?

zozo

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Messages
8,302
Location
Netherlands
 
Joined
26 Feb 2013
Messages
3,395
Strange that with so many fish keepers a thread about fish intelligence lasted only 3 pages....What do most people keep fish for? Aesthetics? Home decoration? :) There is a disturbing documentary on Netflix called Seaspiracy...It seems everyone feels better not to know anything about fish and what happens to fish in the wild and also in aquariums, mass murder.....But that's not on topic.

I just came across this interesting experiment with archerfish below. ....It provides evidence that some fish are quite capable of recognising faces and remember them, which I somehow already knew :).....My clown loaches splash water at me almost every day....


What if the next time you had to take a test, the teacher asked you to spit at the correct answer?

Don’t laugh. In a recent study, archerfish proved they could identify human faces by squirting a stream of water at the correct image on a screen
.
In the wild, archerfish use their spit cannons to knock insects and other prey into the water so they can gulp them down. But in the lab, researchers used food to train these mangrove-loving fish to apply their sharpshooting abilities to an experiment on animal cognition. (Related: How archerfish squirt water with stunning accuracy.)

Tricks for treats, in other words.

“Fish are often considered to have short memories or have only enough intelligence to be capable of very basic tasks,” says Cait Newport, a marine biologist at the University of Oxford and lead author of the study. “However, even basic tasks like finding food or mates, or escaping from predators, can require memory and considerable intelligence.”

The new study, for instance, revealed that archerfish could be trained to recognize a three-dimensional rendering of one human face compared with another, different face. What’s more, the fish were able to continue to recognize that image even when the face was rotated by 30, 60, and 90 degrees, from a frontal view to a profile.


I love the below quote from the same article.... I wonder how many human beings would survive in the wild?.....I think our understanding of "intelligence" is twisted, while at the same time we kill and destroy and call that part of intelligent existence.
“However, even basic tasks like finding food or mates, or escaping from predators, can require memory and considerable intelligence.”
 

MichaelJ

Member
Joined
9 Feb 2021
Messages
1,690
Location
Minnesota, USA
I love the below quote from the same article.... I wonder how many human beings would survive in the wild?.....I think our understanding of "intelligence" is twisted, while at the same time we kill and destroy and call that part of intelligent existence.
Interesting. It really depends on the definition of intelligence. If you use the metrics of survivability and sustainability for instance... Fish have been around for 500-600 million years... algae for 1.5 - 2 billion years - without destroying the planet. Humans are a mere aberration on those timescales and are not showing a very high degree of intelligence by those metrics so far.

Cheers,
Michael
 

zozo

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Messages
8,302
Location
Netherlands
“However, even basic tasks like finding food or mates, or escaping from predators, can require memory and considerable intelligence.”

We, humans, are rather confused creatures, All we do is babble about consciousness and Intelligence without knowing nor understanding what both actually are.

Even nowadays atheist scientists rather still act like "God created man in his own image. . ."
 

AlecF

Member
Joined
15 Sep 2021
Messages
212
Location
Edinburgh
I am only talking from 70+ years of Fresh and Salt water fishing experience.
Some are completely stupid I have known them to eat, Cigarette buts, lolly papers, and even chicken bones. They will continually eat even when their stomach and mouths are full.

Some are extremely intelligent when fishing for big fish and using a bait 10+kg no matter where you place the hook they will eat up to the hook. Tagged sharks have been tracked up and down the east coast of Aust and go exactly the same location on the way back to where they when going up the coast. They know where the food is and how to get it.

Notice your fish in the tank they will school together at feeding time.

Keith:wave::wave:
I've seen humans smoke cigarette butts.
 

zozo

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Messages
8,302
Location
Netherlands

zozo

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Messages
8,302
Location
Netherlands
Hi Marcel (@zozo)

This is a topic that interests me greatly. I'd love to pursue this further sometime. I may even have your email address somewhere.

JPC

Another Off Topic Chit Chat topic maybe?.... Wouldn't that be more fun?...



But you can PM me anytime, I'll get a notification... :thumbup:
 
Joined
26 Feb 2013
Messages
3,395
Interesting. It really depends on the definition of intelligence. If you use the metrics of survivability and sustainability for instance... Fish have been around for 500-600 million years... algae for 1.5 - 2 billion years - without destroying the planet. Humans are a mere aberration on those timescales and are not showing a very high degree of intelligence by those metrics so far.

Cheers,
Michael

Yes, exactly, depends on the definition of intelligence. One thing to keep in mind is that the human species set the definitions. Yet, we are not "intelligent" enough to do so in my opinion.
 

Wolf6

Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
956
Location
Netherlands
Strange that with so many fish keepers a thread about fish intelligence lasted only 3 pages....What do most people keep fish for? Aesthetics? Home decoration? :) There is a disturbing documentary on Netflix called Seaspiracy...It seems everyone feels better not to know anything about fish and what happens to fish in the wild and also in aquariums, mass murder.....But that's not on topic.

I just came across this interesting experiment with archerfish below. ....It provides evidence that some fish are quite capable of recognising faces and remember them, which I somehow already knew :).....My clown loaches splash water at me almost every day....


What if the next time you had to take a test, the teacher asked you to spit at the correct answer?

Don’t laugh. In a recent study, archerfish proved they could identify human faces by squirting a stream of water at the correct image on a screen
.
In the wild, archerfish use their spit cannons to knock insects and other prey into the water so they can gulp them down. But in the lab, researchers used food to train these mangrove-loving fish to apply their sharpshooting abilities to an experiment on animal cognition. (Related: How archerfish squirt water with stunning accuracy.)

Tricks for treats, in other words.

“Fish are often considered to have short memories or have only enough intelligence to be capable of very basic tasks,” says Cait Newport, a marine biologist at the University of Oxford and lead author of the study. “However, even basic tasks like finding food or mates, or escaping from predators, can require memory and considerable intelligence.”

The new study, for instance, revealed that archerfish could be trained to recognize a three-dimensional rendering of one human face compared with another, different face. What’s more, the fish were able to continue to recognize that image even when the face was rotated by 30, 60, and 90 degrees, from a frontal view to a profile.


I love the below quote from the same article.... I wonder how many human beings would survive in the wild?.....I think our understanding of "intelligence" is twisted, while at the same time we kill and destroy and call that part of intelligent existence.
“However, even basic tasks like finding food or mates, or escaping from predators, can require memory and considerable intelligence.”
This isnt at all surprising, the animal needs to be able to learn to recognise shapes/colour combinations that result in food when squirting. Some insects may prove slightly poisonous or dangerous, others particularly rich in nutrients. I dont know why they used human faces but I suspect them to be able to discern insects with much more smaller differerences too. It wont see the faces as human though, just a combination of shapes and colour that results in food. Complex behaviour can often be explained from much simpler rules then people think. I always worry when I see research drawing all sorts of conclusions, often saying more about the beliefs the scientists hold then the actual research. Interesting topic though. It links closely to AI for me. When is something intelligent. If it has learned a few simple rules really well? Or when It can adapt to a multitude of different scenario's? Or both? This is where narrow ai and general ai come from. The same would we be able to apply to animals. Many will possess a form of amazing narrow intelligence, but lack the general intelligence we usually use when we talk about intelligence. Orcas are clearly more capable of general intelligence, but is that enough... a discussion without a true answer I fear.
 
Last edited:
Joined
26 Feb 2013
Messages
3,395
Orcas are clearly more capable of general intelligence, but is thar enough... a discussion without a true answer I fear.
I will answer your dilemma with another question. Would the world be better off if human intelligence is identical to that of orcas? Would there be less or more fish in the sea?
 

zozo

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Messages
8,302
Location
Netherlands
the beliefs the scientists hold then the actual research

Atheistic scientists are going to hate you for such a statement... Because most if not all of them reject belief and are convinced not to do so, there is no room for it, but only use the rational methodology, named science. Any hypothesis can be disputed and changed at any time if you have solid proof. Without it, there couldn't be any progression... And in this model, they fail to admit that they actually believe in the progression of science. But are we really progressing at any?

Destroy to proclaim progression?

I'm not so sure about the Christian or affiliated religious scientists and what their pursuit in science is. But from what I understand so far these religions basically do not believe in progression, it actually believes in regression/decline. Since all was created in perfection by a God and from the day mankind was rejected from paradise all went downhill. But don't worry, whatever you do you can't change a thing everything is already made perfect. Simply believe and have faith to leave it all in the hands of God and it will be alright? Then why and what do you want to know? To underscore what you already believe?

Destroy to proclaim the faith/decline?

Meanwhile, intellect is the ability to think, reason and understand?

Confusing isn't it? I guess that's what we all are and likely forever will be...
 
Last edited:

Wolf6

Member
Joined
18 Dec 2014
Messages
956
Location
Netherlands
Atheistic scientists are going to hate you for such a statement... Because most if not all of them reject belief and are convinced not to do so, there is no room for it, but only use the rational methodology, named science. Any hypothesis can be disputed and changed at any time if you have solid proof. Without it, there couldn't be any progression... And in this model, they fail to admit that they actually believe in the progression of science. But are we really progressing at any?

Destroy to proclaim progression?

I'm not so sure about the Christian or affiliated religious scientists and what their pursuit in science is. But from what I understand so far these religions basically do not believe in progression, it actually believes in regression/decline. Since all was created in perfection by a God and from the day mankind was rejected from paradise all went downhill. But don't worry, whatever you do you can't change a thing everything is already made perfect. Simply believe and have faith to leave it all in the hands of God and it will be alright? Then why and what do you want to know? To underscore what you already believe?

Destroy to proclaim the faith/decline?

Meanwhile, intellect is the ability to think, reason and understand?

Confusing isn't it? I guess that's what we all are and likely forever will be...
I didn't mean religious beliefs, but personal beliefs. Or a subconscious confirmation bias affecting the attributed reasoning for seeing a particular effect, when there could be alternative explanations. Good scientists recognise their own personal beliefs and will most definitely formulate their hypothesis and research plan in a way that avoids these beliefs affecting the outcome or attributed explanations. However good scientists are seemingly becoming rare, more and more research seems to be done with a desired outcome in mind. The party paying for the research determining the outcome, or social pressure.
 

zozo

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Messages
8,302
Location
Netherlands
I didn't mean religious beliefs, but personal beliefs. Or a subconscious confirmation bias affecting the attributed reasoning for seeing a particular effect, when there could be alternative explanations. Good scientists recognise their own personal beliefs and will most definitely formulate their hypothesis and research plan in a way that avoids these beliefs affecting the outcome or attributed explanations. However good scientists are seemingly becoming rare, more and more research seems to be done with a desired outcome in mind. The party paying for the research determining the outcome, or social pressure.

I know what you mean, and I had quite a few heated discussions with alleged hardcore scientists at other forums and till now they all kinda had an allergic reaction to the word belief in general. Professionally they all claim not to do so because in their general consensus science is a methodology and has no room for believing, it would be against the moral ethics of science.

But in a psychological context, you actually can't relate belief and faith to specific topics. It is deeply rooted in the human psyche and we use it in all we do. You can put belief in a specific context such as religion... Explained as, having confidence and or faith in the correctness of a specific system, which in this case is religion.

Then if you would put belief in a professional, scientific or personal or whatever context it basically comes down to the exact same explanation. :)
 

zozo

Member
Joined
16 Apr 2015
Messages
8,302
Location
Netherlands
Yes, exactly, depends on the definition of intelligence. One thing to keep in mind is that the human species set the definitions. Yet, we are not "intelligent" enough to do so in my opinion.

It's actually rather irrelevant how intelligent they are... All we need to do is give them the benefit of the doubt and start believing that they are conscious, able to relate and have emotions. And then stop being afraid of being accused of making fables and or trying to humanize animal behaviour.

Because the term Humanizing is a fallacy simply because we are animals too... All the babbling and so-called reasoning we do doesn't make us something else.

Recognizing animal behaviour is like looking in a mirror.
 
Last edited:
Top