
Just how smart is an octopus? - Petiver
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/just-how-smart-is-an-octopus/2017/01/06/a2f1ed22-acd0-11e6-8b45-f8e493f06fcd_story.html
======
komali2
Total anecdote here, but when I volunteered at our aquarium in Charleston, SC
(amazing aquarium, go check it out), we had a problem where our flounder were
vanishing from their tank. We suspected theft and so put a camera up in the
back room. The next time flounder disappeared we checked the feed - one of our
octopi was escaping from his tank that we thought we had already anti-
octopus'd, climbing over the walls, breaking into the flounder tank, eating a
flounder, and then _breaking back out of the flounder tank and back into his_.

The weird thing isn't that he went to go eat a flounder, it's that he broke
back into his own tank after, leaving us scratching our head for weeks over
where the flounder were going. Obviously if we came in one day to see an
octopus in the flounder tank the mystery would be solved day 1.

Anyway we put carpet on the walls so his little suckers couldn't stick and let
him carouse around the aquarium like some sort of aquatic monkey.

~~~
pacaro
Pedantic mode here: linguistically it should be octopodes (but nobody who
isn't speaking Greek would say that); by usage it should be octopuses; octopi
or octopii are just wrong (it's not a second declension noun, despite the 'us'
ending)

~~~
logfromblammo
Octopus has three acceptable pluralizations in English.

    
    
      Octopuses is correct by English rules.
      Octopodes is correct by strict etymological Greek-origin rules.
      Octopi is correct by English's pseudo-Latin cognate rules.
    

The latter means that any singular noun ending in a consonant and "-us" can be
pluralized by chopping off the "-us" and appending an "-i" or "-ii", like
alumnus, hippopotamus, virus, bacillus, hummus, lotus, oculus, cactus, and
platypus. This has even been abused to facetiously pluralize similar-sounding
endings, like Elvis or Winklevoss.

This is likely due to the many Anglophone schoolchildren subjected to Latin
language lessons over the centuries who simply never cared about proper Latin
grammar rules.

~~~
itp
Except there is no single authority of the English language (as seen in other
language academies). As I mentioned in another comment, you may fall into a
prescriptivist or descriptivist camp, but there's no authority to which one
can appeal for a single answer.

Generally speaking, octopuses is preferred by most if not all well known
dictionaries in modern usage, and the pseudo-Latin cognate has fallen out of
favor. I don't think it's reflective of reality to argue that all three are
equivalently correct.

~~~
logfromblammo
Neither the prescriptivists nor the descriptivists are correct.

There is, in fact, a way to assume greater authority over the English language
than the power wielded by the median speaker. The person who can inject a
memorable phrase into the popular culture--whether by writing a line that is
read by many, or by speaking one that is heard by many--can steer the language
closer to the path they may prefer.

For all our quibbling over technical correctness, if an author or scriptwriter
decides to keep "octopi" alive, all they have to do is write it, with no
explanation or justification necessary.

Stam that in your rassoodock and let it digimmer. It could make you frumious
or mimsy, but you will grok who the lords of language are.

~~~
smhost
The goal of descriptivists is to collect information about how words are being
used currently and to compile a dictionary based on that information, so what
you said about viral memes is compatible with descriptivism.

The best argument for prescriptivism has less to do with authority and more to
do with people who have an interest in being able to communicate clearly. A
better word than "prescriptivism" might be "subscriptivism". Presumably, we
subscribe to the normal rules of the English language so that we mitigate
miscommunication.

Purpose matters. The person who demands that everyone use "octopuses" is just
an elitist asshole. The science institution, which demands that its members
conform to a precise standard of language, is just doing its job.

------
Nexxxeh
I love how completely alien they are compared to us. The sort of decentralized
nature of their nervous system compared to our path of evolution. (I'm no
marine/evolutionary biologist so I'm probably butchering the terminology...)

I loved reading the two pieces Sy Montgomery wrote that are in Orion Magazine.

[https://orionmagazine.org/article/deep-
intellect/](https://orionmagazine.org/article/deep-intellect/)

And the follow-up:

[https://orionmagazine.org/2011/11/interviews-with-an-
octopus...](https://orionmagazine.org/2011/11/interviews-with-an-octopus/)

(Edit: Si -> Sy)

~~~
gcr
If you like reading about minds that are fundamentally different from our own,
you might also enjoy the science fiction novel "Blindsight" by Peter Watts.
Exploring the space of possible minds in the universe is a fundamental theme
of that work.

~~~
eduren
To give a bit more context for others, the novel is a really well done first
contact story. I'd highly recommend it, especially because Watts makes it
available online for free.

[http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm](http://www.rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm)

~~~
__jal
Just to run down this alley, highly seconded. It is a great, if somewhat
depressing, novel. _Echopraxia_ is a continuation of the themes/story, and is
just as good (and also depressing).

I personally put Watts near the top of the list of first-rate, active science
fiction authors.

~~~
eduren
His eye for hard science is very keen. I love that he has notes at the end of
Blindsight that try to dig deeper into the approaches he had taken in the
writing and add background.

I couldn't put Echophraxia down. I might hazard that I like it more than
Blindsight but it'd be hard to put in words.

Which do you enjoy more?

------
platz
Weird pupils let octopuses see their colorful gardens (berkeley.edu)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13084534](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13084534)

------
up_and_up
Smart enough to hunt on BOTH land and sea:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar5WJrQik2o&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar5WJrQik2o&feature=youtu.be&t=15)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFzpC_e44Tg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFzpC_e44Tg)

------
overcast
Way to make me feel worse about eating them.

~~~
virmundi
Why worry? They'd eat you. Realize that all animal ethics are entirely manmade
and foreign to the background of the Universe's amorality.

Edit: Really down voting because you don't agree? The comment was on topic,
provided a view, and contributed to the conversation in some way. If you want
to down vote, please be responsible enough to say why.

~~~
zematis
There's quite a bit of philosophical support behind the view that there are
objective moral truths. See [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-
realism/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/) for a not so
brief overview.

Also related is moral cognitivism and/or noncognitivism (are moral statements
factual statements, or more like expressions of emotion, preference or
command?). [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-
cognitivism/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/)

Here's a drastically simplified argument for moral realism:

1\. I have the intuition that everyone ought to avoid causing unecessary
suffering.

2\. When I mean that everyone ought to avoid causing unecessary suffering, I
am personally making a factual claim.

3\. My intuition of 1. provides at least some evidence that 1 may be true.
Addendum: When dealing with philosophy, often intuitions are the best evidence
we've got.

4\. If I have the intuition described in 1, 1 is a factual claim, and my
intuition of 1 provides at least some evidence for 1, then there is some
evidence of an objective moral fact.

C. Therefore, there is some evidence of an objective moral fact.

Finally, here's a survey of academic philosophers. You can Ctrl-F for "moral
realism" and "cognitivism" to see what proportion of philosophers hold these
views. You'll note that both views have >50% support.

[https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl](https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl)

Of course, a view's popularity doesn't guarantee its truth. But Philosphers
aren't dummies, so it does show that it's at least plausible.

Edit: formatting & philpapers link

~~~
virmundi
I'm a theist. I totally agree that there are absolute truths. You're logic
breaks down at step 2. If I don't agree with 1, your whole argument breaks
down. In my experience debating philosophy throughout my education, seldom is
there a Joker as in Heath Ledger's character. If a person fully believes that
others don't count, at all, then the rule breaks down.

Take a counter example: homosexuals. Most societies, regardless of source,
were anti-homosexual. This is historically accurate (modern times are
uprooting them, but let's say we're in the 1950's).

1\. I have the intuition that everyone ought to avoid homosexuality. 2\. When
I mean that everyone ought to avoid homosexuality, I am personally making a
factual claim. 3\. My intuition of 1 provides at least some evidence that 1
may be true. 4\. If I have the intuition describe in 1, 1 is a factual claim,
and my intuition of 1 provides at least some evidence for 1, then there is
some evidence of an objective moral fact. C. Therefore, there is some evidence
for any objective moral fact.

We've now shown an implication that homosexuality is in fact immoral in a
general sense. Are we ok with this? Why? Why not? Our ethics and morality,
sans a center like an unmoved mover, can vacillate. Sometimes this is "good"
(such as gay or interracial marriage [I am neither]) for me as it brings
improved economic conditions that selfishly improve my lot directly or
possibly, which I arbitrarily deem as good, from an agnostic world view.
Sometimes it's "bad" (for example expelling Jews from the Spain since it took
the engineers and literate people, which limited economic freedom and would
have probably negatively impacted my Spanish life if my present personality
and general thoughtful profession was true then).

As a quick aside for the postulate of cultural issues with homosexuality,
[http://news.trust.org//item/20140516162146-jipm9/](http://news.trust.org//item/20140516162146-jipm9/)
and
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome)
which shows that Rome did not really have a great view of homosexual
relationship. You didn't want to be the receiver. If you were, you were
property.

~~~
zematis
You might be interested in experimental philosophy. It's where philosophers
quiz people to probe at how common a given intuition is. There's ongoing
debate regarding whether the results pose a problem for certain meta-ethical
positions (e.g. moral-realism).
[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/experimental-
moral/#MorJu...](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/experimental-
moral/#MorJudInt)

Also of note is Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that we ought
to maximize the amount of happiness in the world/universe/multiverse while
minimizing the amount of suffering. And that the morality of an action just
relates to its consequences. So it's ok to lie/cheat/steal for the greater
good.

Often, objections to Utilitarianism come in the form of "consider situation X.
In X, maximizing utility requires us to do something horrible. Our intuitions
scream not to do it, so utilitarianism is wrong". However, if these intuitions
are unreliable, then so are the objections. Utilitarians can then come out and
say 'the intuitions required for our theory are much more
obvious/reliable/<other positive adjectives>, so our theory is better
supported'.

But I don't want to say that Utilitarianism is the be all end all. For
instance, there's Kant, who built his moral theory on abstract first
principles rather than situational intuitions. I, unfortunately, am not well
versed in him, so that's all the detail that I'll go into.

Now, there are a couple of points that you made which I'd like to respond to.

> If I don't agree with 1, your whole argument breaks down.

As an addendum, this is a good thing! It means that this premise, if true,
directly supports the conclusion. Arguments with unnecessary premises get
confusing. They're bad practice - just like dead code is bad. It's expected
that you need to accept all of the premises in order to get to the conclusion.

Oh, and I think that your points above are really a rebuttal of (3.), not
(1.). Even if other people have other intuitions, hopefully you still believe
that (1.) I have the intuition that everyone ought to avoid causing unecessary
suffering? It's just not clear that (3.) my intuition of 1. provides at least
some evidence that 1 may be true.

> <virmundi's examples of questionable intuitions>

Your examples are all great, but I disagree with the point you're trying to
make. 100% consensus on moral intuitions isn't necessary. They're clearly a
flawed sense that is prone to error. The important question is, rather, do
they lead to truth more often than they lead to falsehood? I don't know the
answer to that question, but it's the vital one.

> seldom is there a Joker as in Heath Ledger's character. If a person fully
> believes that others don't count, at all, then the rule breaks down.

I want to take a hit at this one separately too. The existence of s/a
hypothetical Joker/very real sociopaths/ is not necessarily proof against
moral intuitions. These people might just have an impaired ability to sense
moral truths.

And all of this leads us back to whether moral intuitions are generally mostly
sort-of good indicators of truth. Here experimental philosophers could
disprove this by showing great enough variance in moral intuitions. Or close
off this avenue of criticism by showing a high degree of correlation between
many moral views of many people.

Otherwise, questioning whether moral intuitions are evidence go pretty deep
into Epistomology, the study of how we know what we know. That's a giant pile
of worms. Great fun, but I've already created a monster with this post so I'll
leave it.

TL;DR: It's all really a question of whether or not moral intuitions provide
solid evidence for moral claims. Also, I want to see Batman again.

------
andrei_says_
How smart inevitably limits the question by applying a human measure to it.

What I am more interested in, is to know how it is smart, not how much. How
does it perceive? How does it connect and process information? How does it
interract?

Is there a way to approach this subject besides shape shifting into an
octopus?

~~~
asciimo
It's like an octopus dismissing humans as inferior because our appendages lack
suckers.

I don't think humans can ever fully understanding other species. Yet, the more
we observe, cut, and process other animals, the more of ourselves we discover.
Rats dream and laugh! Crows use tools! Dogs understand fairness! Is it really
any surprise that we have so much in common?

~~~
andrei_says_
Exactly.

> We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.

------
donretag
Octopuses are solitary animals, so they have little in terms of learned
behavior. What they accomplish is generated by thoughts originating from
themselves.

~~~
hyperion2010
I used to think that this was the case, however more recent research (popular
news article form of it) [0] seems to suggest that that may not be the case.

0\. [http://www.businessinsider.com/researchers-have-found-an-
oct...](http://www.businessinsider.com/researchers-have-found-an-octopus-
village-off-australia-that-reveals-the-creatures-social-side-2016-1)

~~~
deeth_starr
Wow. Thanks.

------
jwtadvice
I'm reminded of Paul the Octopus in the Sea Life Centre in Germany, who at
least reportedly likes watching soccer. Crowds have taken to watching his
behavior like an aquatic Punxsutawney Phil - looking for signs of Paul feeling
optimistic or depressed - and leading crowds through an exercise to imagine
that Paul is able to predict the outcomes of games.

While not really equipt with fortune-telling capabilities, Paul and most other
octopi (as aquarists will share) have very distinct personalities, have
favorite caretakers they can individually recognize, and in the wild will save
food, trade rocks and have learned to pull diving masks off humans who bother
them.

------
dekhn
Octopi? Pah. Cuttlefish are fucking brilliant.

~~~
ramy_d
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4PWP8uL-1o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4PWP8uL-1o)

~~~
daveguy
Original video posted by merriam-webster:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFyY2mK8pxk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFyY2mK8pxk)

But they weren't arguing about the plural form, but that cuttlefish win in a
battle of intelligence. Also, if you watch the video it says all are correct.

~~~
ramy_d
I never said OP wasn't correct

~~~
dekhn
I didn't know that octopus, unlike most names in science, was Greek-derived,
rather than Latin.

------
JoachimS
Good article up to the end when speculation about the uniqeness of humans are
presented. "Humans, perhaps uniquely, have gained the ability to step outside
ourselves"

AFAIK we have established that quite a few animals for example apes such as
the Orangutan are able to identify and reason about themselves in relation to
the rest of the world. They are capable of deception, cooperation etc. And of
course a range of complex feelings.

The color changing and arms of an octopus would at least allow for complex
information communication.

------
forkandwait
Anybody have a pet octopus and can comment on what that's like?

------
delanceyplace
Also check out Sy Montgomery's book,The Soul of an Octopus, fascinating. Did
you know "Three fifths of octopuses' neurons are not in the brain..." Here is
an excerpt: [http://www.delanceyplace.com/view-
archives.php?p=3054](http://www.delanceyplace.com/view-archives.php?p=3054)

------
nickeleres
TL;DR Not a scientific article and doesnt arrive at many conclusions.

------
rayiner
> And yet . . . could we be missing something here? While they can’t see much
> of their own kaleidoscopic skins, they can clearly sense inside what they
> are doing. Remote cameras on the seabed show octopuses crackling with color
> changes, even when there is no other creature present to observe them.
> Godfrey-Smith believes this is just a byproduct of neural activity, no more
> than an expressive quirk. But maybe it isn’t. Perhaps they are talking to
> themselves.

God I hate science reporting. It's like they can't help but interject
spasmodic blather into an article.

~~~
cecilpl
Isn't Godfrey-Smith's belief in fact also "just a byproduct of neural
activity"?

~~~
cicero
That depends on your philosophical assumptions.

------
brilliantcode
Well I feel slightly bad for wanting to eat it alive.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sannakji](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sannakji)

~~~
Ajedi32
Woah, it's real-life gagh!

~~~
brilliantcode
it tastes better than it looks or so I hear. The only concerning point is that
people have choked on this while drunk as it sticks to whatever it can latch
on to and throat is not the ideal place....need to chew this until it stops
squirming....your life may depend on it, more so when you are drunk and think
this is hangover food.

This will be one of the first things I will try if and when I am in Korea. I'm
not bothered by it since I'm Korean but I can understand the reaction, I'm
sure Hindus aren't too thrilled by our cow consumption either.

------
elastic_church
I just like to imagine Octopus dominance if they banded together and decided
not to die at 3 years old.

Pretty smart for mass produced babies. Humans wouldn't stand a chance.

------
deeth_starr
Hacker news is what reddit should have been [imho]

------
treehau5
Don't tell the Greeks. We are probably the world's largest consumer of octopus
(after cheese, that is)

~~~
daveguy
I am almost certain that cheese does not consume octopus.

------
zoom6628
Smarter than us, obviously!

------
Raphmedia
Saving you a click: "Are they capable of conscious thought? Godfrey-Smith
treks through some rather testing philosophical and psychological terrain to
conclude in the negative. While cephalopods are capable of exceptional
complexity in their signalling, the machinery of interpretation is too
limited. Humans, perhaps uniquely, have gained the ability to step outside
ourselves, to think about our thoughts by means of an unstoppable internal
monologue."

~~~
pcl
The next paragraph:

"And yet... could we be missing something here? While they can’t see much of
their own kaleidoscopic skins, they can clearly sense inside what they are
doing. Remote cameras on the seabed show octopuses crackling with color
changes, even when there is no other creature present to observe them.
Godfrey-Smith believes this is just a byproduct of neural activity, no more
than an expressive quirk. But maybe it isn’t. Perhaps they are talking to
themselves."

------
NotThe1Pct
3x smarter than a managing director

~~~
dang
You've posted plenty of unsubstantive comments to HN. We ban accounts that
keep doing that, so please stop doing that.

------
Koshkin
Animals have always seemed to me smarter than humans in some (important) ways.
Squirrels, for instance, are extremely resourceful and can survive in
conditions few, if any, humans could. If that isn't being "smart", I don't
know what is.

In any case, the smart/brain weight ratio is not in humans' favor here, that
is for sure!

~~~
hellogoodbyeeee
Where do squirrels live that humans don't?

~~~
knodi123
my attic

