Monsters of the deep

I'm sorry, but I think the animal is a bit of a dunce. Sure, it will do 'clever things' and look truly spectacular when alive, but I think it might be a bit repetitive in its actions.

It makes all of us look a little stupid at the same time ... because we have yet to capture the elusive imagery of the world's most stupid squid on film. Maybe it is smarter than we think, or does its thinking in places other than its brain.
Cheers
O
 
:? Thanks a lot... for these disheartening informations.
:idea: When playing backgammon on the net, I use the pseudonym 'Architeuthis'. As long as you won't have located the possible other place for its 'thinking', maybe I will think about taking another pseudo? (... and maybe I will win more often?)
Cheers & beers (learnt the expression through an Australian guy : sounds up-to-date?).
 
Hmm.... interesting discussion here... I'm not sure I understand the definition of "intelligence" in this context.

I think I hear what Steve is saying when he suggests that Archi's might do things that are a bit repetitive (not surprising... really, how much original activity is there to do when you live in an open water column? :smile: )...

I suppose it is romantic to think of Architeuthis as a deep sea genius -- certainly one of the things that is so attractive about all cephalopods is their seemingly remarkable "intelligence" -- certainly the octopuses in this forum have displayed some very clever and what would seem to be "thoughtful" behavior.

There's also emotion to consider -- it seems that some octopuses, at least, at times get angry, afraid, content, playful, and perhaps even bored or depressed.

It would be interesting to compare or rank the perceived "intelligence" of various animals including Architeuthis and, say, bimacs, along with that of a parrot, a hawk, a dog, a cat, a goldfish, a horse, a lizard... etc. etc.

:cyclops:
 
tonmo said:
certainly the octopuses in this forum have displayed some very clever and what would seem to be "thoughtful" behavior.

This is purely my opinion:

I think it is worth remembering that octopuses that tend to be sold as pets come from shallow water habitats, often coral reefs, where in their natural habitat they are surrounded by visual and other sensual stimuli. They need finely tuned senses to detect the presence of predators, their own prey items and their own shelters. In other words, the habitat these animals live in is forever changing and would dictate an elevated awareness of their surroundings that is essential to their survival.

A cephalopod living in the dark mid water columns or the abyssal depths would live in a much more stagnant and repetitive environment lacking diversity. In my opinion, this lack of stimulus would lead to a creature that is so much less aware of environmental stimuli (excluding the environment of its own niche) than its shallow water cousins. Whether or not this means that it is less 'intelligent' is a matter of choice and depends on how one wishes to define the term. Architeuthis, for example, is probably happy to hang there at, say, 600m depth at an angle waiting for prey to drift past. It has poor musculature implying that it does not need to chase after its prey or require the intelligence to know how to do so. With a net spread with its arms, it barely needs to 'think' as prey will drift its way towards it. The fact that the creature exists is enough to prove that.

I think that anyone was fortunate enough to own a deepwater Vulcanoctopus or Grimpoteuthis in a tank at home would be sorely disappointed at the lack of 'intelligence' shown; 'intelligence' could be read as an awareness of the environment. I don't think that the fact that that pet octopi display intelligent behavioral traits should be indicative of coleoids as a whole, indeed, I think that it is purely a response to the environment that the particular species originates from.

I would also wonder how much 'emotive' behaviour exhibited in octopi is an anthropomorphic projection what we wish to see. After all, we all know that when a cat rubs itself against your leg it is not genuinely showing affection, but merely rubbing its scent onto you to display territorial possession. Yet it's hard to recognise this, even if one knows it.

But what do I know? I've never kept a pet goldfish, let alone a cephalopod! :lol:
 
hm i think i saw a tv-documentation on octopusses some time ago where they did some sort of intelligence test. :grad: If i remember correctly the test was supposed to be some adjusted intelligence test for dogs (just underwater) and the octos were beating the dogs in this test:mrgreen:

And regarding brain size...dolphins were always thought to be sooo clever because of their huge brain, but in recent examinations they found out that most of their brain is used up of their swimming/coordination skill, so they are in truth some specialised nerds :bugout:

maybe archi just lacks the brain parts for clever diving stunts but got the necessary brain for really intelligent things in his head instead 8)


feel free to correct me on the facts, it´s all tv-smattering (weird word):jester:
 
Intelligence aside, I'm hearing rather interesting stories about National Geographic (the opposition) similarly embarking on a 'quest' to film the live Architeuthis , in situ , in conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution - the latest in an article in todays paper (link below).

Does anyone know anything about this, or is it simply another bit of media fabrication? I find it rather strange that they'd be doing this and I'd not heard about it.

If there is an element of truth to it then I'm afraid I'll have to remain terribly tight lipped about what it is we are proposing to do.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3516131&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
 
sorry i cant offer anything definite but im pretty sure ive heard a reference or two to that....

Loose lips sink squids :periscop:
 
And we think we're the smart ones!?

Ok well, my thoughts are there is a lot of things going on in the world right now, that if we were being observed from the outside, I'm sure we would be considered unintelligent and rather repetitive. I also think there are a lot of people out there that would not really fit into the intelligent category either (come on we all know someone :wink: ). That being said, I'm sure the same rule applies to most species, as some individuals being more advance then others. As for some of the behavior octopuses exhibit, more understanding is needed before a conclusion is made as to whether or not they are considered intelligent or not! Just my opinion
 
LOL; indeed we would appear rather repetitive in our actions; they'd probably take a look at one of our brains and think it looked like a scrunched-up ball of wet bread, and conclude we lacked the capacity to comprehend (our brains would leak). I wonder whether seepage from one area to another occurs ...

The link I'd posted earlier was to an article in the Herald here where it said (in a separate text box) that Nat. Geo. were similarly chasing the squid; I just checked the aforementioned link and there was no such mention therein. Sorry.

Will do some more digging
Cheers
O
 
Hmmm. I haven't found much of anything either. Could be just one of those cases of a not-terribly-well-researched article? At any rate, if you're worried about having your thunder stolen...well...sigh...though it pains me utterly to admit it...I'd rather be in the dark for a while so you can get the first scoop.

rusty
 
Rusty, I'm thinking the same thing myself, and now wonder whether they're getting their wires crossed with Jean-Michel Cousteau's comment to the effect that he'd like to capture the animal on film.

My experience with Nat Geo is that they promote forthcoming expeditions intensively, and that there'd be a web page somewhere where some overly zealous (not often I get to use a 'z' word; other than 'zoo' that's about my limit in scrabble) investigatorial team promote themselves and their technological superiority.

I've just noticed that my keyboard has 'power off, sleep, and wake up' buttons; I wonder what happens if I depress any of them (will I wake up?). Do you suppose the Nat Geo opposition have the same technology? :heee:

They don't have this :squid: or this :meso: for sure, and they're not going to be the first to find living ones of these :ammonite: . TONMO is technologically superior!
 
Article

I'm not as well known as Dr O'Shea for squids but I have had friends from all over the world telling me about the New Scientist article and have even had a copy of the issue bought for me!

Very nice to see such good photos as well! I keep calling giants squids cute but I'm not sure people believe me.

Congrats on a nice article - squids rule.

KRin
 
I've only just picked up a copy myself. In earlier drafts there were some amusing stories, but much of this seems to have been edited out of the final product.

The squid on the cover actually has 10 arms ... two of which magically transform themselves into tentacles. Reminds me of that National Geographic poster several years ago where the giant squid is painted with 6 arms (an excellent picture it was too).
:meso:
 
Steve,

Did you read Prof. Simon Conway-Morris' article on the origin of vertebrates and recent Cambrian disoveries from China? Any thoughts?

There's two good reasons to buy New Scientist this week!

Phil
 
Re: Monsters of the deep

mikeconstable said:
The New Scientist article has been published. Steve O'Shea is freely quoted so TONMO has already provided much of the information first, but it is good to see an overview of the state of knowledge on giant squid in print.

Kewl.
 

Shop Amazon

Shop Amazon
Shop Amazon; support TONMO!
Shop Amazon
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Back
Top